4 ms·

Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily sa

Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily salary instead of stocks, etc. 120k may seem like a lot, but it isn't in several parts of the US now (e.g SF Bay Area, New York).

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> 120k may seem like a lot, but it isn't in several parts of the US now (e.g SF Bay Area, New York). And national tax policy shouldn't be dictated by ~2 major urban metros. I agree that tax policy needs to encompass more than just the salary of the working class, but let's not joke ourselves. Medicare already taxes your entire wage base, there's no reason Social Security shouldn't. We keep kicking the can down the road, and its time to own up to the liabilities we've created.
- someguydave 11y ago
  >We keep kicking the can down the road, and its time to own up to the liabilities we've created. I'm afraid it's quite impossible to 'own up' to those liabilities. Look at the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ The GAAP liabilities of USG amount to $100 trillion, yet the net assets of the entire US are only $116 trillion. Nearly all of the assets in the entire country would need to be sold to pay for the liability to be incurred. I'm afraid the only solution is to reduce benefits, primarily reducing social security payments (particularly when most of the boomers are drawing on them) and cutting medical spending - probably by instituting controls on what the government will pay for in terms of end-of-life care.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > primarily reducing social security payments (particularly when most of the boomers are drawing on them) Disagree. Removing the payroll cap for social security taxation causes Social Security to become solvent permanently [1]. > and cutting medical spending - probably by instituting controls on what the government will pay for in terms of end-of-life care. Sort of agree. The US needs to go single payer, and institute price controls on health services. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-eliminating/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-e...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily salary instead of stocks, etc. Taxing capital income like other income is another possible solution.
- refurb 11y ago
  So tax capital income twice? Once at the business and once for shareholders? That's the reason why we have low capital gains tax.
  - virmundi 11y ago
    Yes. The shareholders are rent-seeking. They should be taxed as if it was normal income. They don't provide an real value to the company, its output or consumers. For the most part, they are a determent to all outside themselves (specifically their holdings).
    - refurb 11y ago
      Shareholders don't provide value? Then why do companies sell stock? That makes no sense.
      - virmundi 11y ago
        Shareholders do not provide value. They provide a 1 time infusion of cash in exchange for a future return of either increased value of their stock or dividends. They only infuse cash when the stocks are released either at IPO or later offering of new stock. The reason stocks are sold is due to cost of capital. A company can make money in a few ways. First is they make a product or service and receive money from customers. Second, they can IPO or some other form of shareholder investments. Third they could finance their needs either with a direct loan or through bond issuance. Now, most bonds are considered junk if they are from a small company, especially one where people are working out of their garage. This means the debt has a rather high rate (because people think you're going to default). So now you've got to find a buyer (requires middlemen and their costs) that's will to bet on you. Good luck (no seriously I'd prefer this over opening my company to an IPO). Bank financing is hard to get for pretty much the same reason that bonds are junk. Unless you can show positive cash flow for a few years (you know with your just formed startup and a dream), you probably not going to get a loan. It is due to this that often people, including Elon Musk, self-debt finance via credit cards. Again, ridiculously expensive lending terms. Let's say you are making money. That's great, you're in the top 40% of startups. You are now constrained by the amount of money you make. If you make 100k a year, but need 1mil to bring a new product to market, we'll see you in 10 years (probably more like 13 with taxes removed over those years). This brings us to stocks. Find people that are a) suckers, b) chumps or, and good luck o' bearer of dreams, c) actual believers in your product/service. They buy at the IPO price. Your company gets a percentage because the financial house that offered your stock takes a chunk. VCs might cash out after their sale moratorium ends. But after all of this you have a pile of money. That 1mil product is probably doable now. So is an office complex with open floors, and a coffee machine and free lunches and a dog kennel for when your employees just need to feel something that proves they're alive. You also have an asset to back bonds. So you can, after a small period of time, issue bonds. At no point did the shareholders add a penny in value to your product directly. They are just there hoping to the FSM that they can leave your stock at some point with a gain. They DO GET TO BITCH. They can have you legally removed from your own company because you have a long view that says in 10 years doing X, Y, Z will increase this companies value 100 fold, but it won't help (probably will hurt) the next 3 quarters. As a stock holder I can say this about other stock holders. Fuck'em. They get 10-50% return for literally parking their money. As they have more capital related income, they should be taxed as income (outside of reasonably tax-protected vehicles like retirement plans).

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> 120k may seem like a lot, but it isn't in several parts of the US now (e.g SF Bay Area, New York). And national tax policy shouldn't be dictated by ~2 major urban metros. I agree that tax policy needs to encompass more than just the salary of the working class, but let's not joke ourselves. Medicare already taxes your entire wage base, there's no reason Social Security shouldn't. We keep kicking the can down the road, and its time to own up to the liabilities we've created.

someguydave 11y ago
>We keep kicking the can down the road, and its time to own up to the liabilities we've created. I'm afraid it's quite impossible to 'own up' to those liabilities. Look at the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ http://www.usdebtclock.org/ The GAAP liabilities of USG amount to $100 trillion, yet the net assets of the entire US are only $116 trillion. Nearly all of the assets in the entire country would need to be sold to pay for the liability to be incurred. I'm afraid the only solution is to reduce benefits, primarily reducing social security payments (particularly when most of the boomers are drawing on them) and cutting medical spending - probably by instituting controls on what the government will pay for in terms of end-of-life care.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > primarily reducing social security payments (particularly when most of the boomers are drawing on them) Disagree. Removing the payroll cap for social security taxation causes Social Security to become solvent permanently [1]. > and cutting medical spending - probably by instituting controls on what the government will pay for in terms of end-of-life care. Sort of agree. The US needs to go single payer, and institute price controls on health services. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-eliminating/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-impact-would-e...

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Because taxing those people won't solve the real issue? I pay more in taxes every year on my income than many millionaires do because my income is primarily salary instead of stocks, etc. Taxing capital income like other income is another possible solution.

refurb 11y ago
So tax capital income twice? Once at the business and once for shareholders? That's the reason why we have low capital gains tax.
- virmundi 11y ago
  Yes. The shareholders are rent-seeking. They should be taxed as if it was normal income. They don't provide an real value to the company, its output or consumers. For the most part, they are a determent to all outside themselves (specifically their holdings).
  - refurb 11y ago
    Shareholders don't provide value? Then why do companies sell stock? That makes no sense.
    - virmundi 11y ago
      Shareholders do not provide value. They provide a 1 time infusion of cash in exchange for a future return of either increased value of their stock or dividends. They only infuse cash when the stocks are released either at IPO or later offering of new stock. The reason stocks are sold is due to cost of capital. A company can make money in a few ways. First is they make a product or service and receive money from customers. Second, they can IPO or some other form of shareholder investments. Third they could finance their needs either with a direct loan or through bond issuance. Now, most bonds are considered junk if they are from a small company, especially one where people are working out of their garage. This means the debt has a rather high rate (because people think you're going to default). So now you've got to find a buyer (requires middlemen and their costs) that's will to bet on you. Good luck (no seriously I'd prefer this over opening my company to an IPO). Bank financing is hard to get for pretty much the same reason that bonds are junk. Unless you can show positive cash flow for a few years (you know with your just formed startup and a dream), you probably not going to get a loan. It is due to this that often people, including Elon Musk, self-debt finance via credit cards. Again, ridiculously expensive lending terms. Let's say you are making money. That's great, you're in the top 40% of startups. You are now constrained by the amount of money you make. If you make 100k a year, but need 1mil to bring a new product to market, we'll see you in 10 years (probably more like 13 with taxes removed over those years). This brings us to stocks. Find people that are a) suckers, b) chumps or, and good luck o' bearer of dreams, c) actual believers in your product/service. They buy at the IPO price. Your company gets a percentage because the financial house that offered your stock takes a chunk. VCs might cash out after their sale moratorium ends. But after all of this you have a pile of money. That 1mil product is probably doable now. So is an office complex with open floors, and a coffee machine and free lunches and a dog kennel for when your employees just need to feel something that proves they're alive. You also have an asset to back bonds. So you can, after a small period of time, issue bonds. At no point did the shareholders add a penny in value to your product directly. They are just there hoping to the FSM that they can leave your stock at some point with a gain. They DO GET TO BITCH. They can have you legally removed from your own company because you have a long view that says in 10 years doing X, Y, Z will increase this companies value 100 fold, but it won't help (probably will hurt) the next 3 quarters. As a stock holder I can say this about other stock holders. Fuck'em. They get 10-50% return for literally parking their money. As they have more capital related income, they should be taxed as income (outside of reasonably tax-protected vehicles like retirement plans).