Draginol Draginol

A conversation about taxes

▼

A conversation about taxes

from JoeUser Forums

For most people, discussing politics is like discussing football. Sure, it's interesting but it has very little actual affect on their lives at first glance.

But in reality, people rarely recognize the unintended consequences of their beliefs.

For instance, nearly every conversation with a tax hike supporter inevitably goes something like this:

Me: I'm against raising the taxes on anyone, including the top 5%.

Tax Supporter: Why? You can afford to pay more in taxes. You've got a big house and a fancy car, etc.  You got way more than you need.

Me: Yes, but I'm still one person, one vote. At some point don't you consider the equality there? That is, I use the same services as you do. I'm not suggesting no taxes or equal taxes but if my tax bill this year is >$1 million and your total tax hit is less than $3k how can you seriously argue that your opinion is the opinion of someone who's compassionate or concerned when all you're doing is arguing for me to pay for your beliefs?

Tax Supporter: But the money taken from you helps all of us because that money can then be given to people who need it more. You can live with less.

Me: Are you sure of that? When I pay taxes, it's just another expense. My lifestyle is unaffected. When taxes go up, I hire fewer people or am forced to lay people off.

Tax Supporter: Well then you're just being greedy. You should take a cut before laying people off.

Me: But I'm not the one causing it. It's the government's taxation -- supported by you. Do you live for your job? Is your job the ends unto itself of a means to an end?

Tax Supporter: I work so I can buy food, clothing, shelter.

Me: Same here. Working is a means to an end. I work so that I can have the big house and the fancy car. I don't exist as a public asset to be used by the "body politic".

Tax Supporter: I'm not saying you should.

Me: Sure you are. You support higher taxes on me. You expect me to continue to do what I do best - create jobs and employ people but at a lower salary. You unconsciously see me as something that is expected to work to create jobs as a higher priority than work as a means to an end. You expect my motivation to work to be singularly unique amongst mankind - you work so you can buy stuff, you expect me to work to provide you and yours a job.

Tax Supporter: I just don't think it's fair you should have so much while others have so little

Me: Nothing's stopping someone else from trying to do what I do. I got no special breaks. I worked hard, took calculated risks, stuck to it and built over time a successful business. It's just that not too many people are willing to do that. There's a lot of risk involved in starting a business after all.

Tax Supporter: Yea but now you make more than you need.

Me: Who decides "need"? You? You who has the latest iPod, latest-gen video games and other consumer goods. Putting that aside, concepts like fairness or need are in the realm of philosophy, not reality. The fact is, when you raise taxes, you are having the government take from those who are the best at taking money and creating more money with it that inevitably gets spread out one way or the other. 

In short, your beliefs do have consequences whether you realize it or not.

36,948 views 61 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top

The Clinton increase in the 90s didn't deter productivity; actually it improved immensely
End of quote

and created 24 million jobs in the process !!!!!

all that is ignored and they talk about everything else under the sun and avoid the main argumnets

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

I guess so, but then you look at the truly wealthy and this doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not sure if you're at this stage yet, and really it's none of my business, but eventually you will reach a level of wealth where you don't make much of your money from actually working. You're mostly just reaping the rewards of investments. At that stage - when your work isn't particularly relevant to your ability to trade for things you want - the fascinating thing is that most people still work.
End of quote

Certainly. People want a purpose.

But let's be very careful here on how we define "working".  As ones wealth increases, their ability to hand off unpleasant tasks to others increases as well.  I'm certainly not super rich by any means.  But even with me, I've hired people who take care of a lot of the work I used to do on my own to focus more on things I'm particularly good at / enjoy.  

I don't agree with those who would argue that if we raise taxes that the rich simply won't work.  I do think there's a threshold where that is true but I don't think we're very close to that point.

The problem with raising taxes on the highest income earners (not the richest, Obama doesn't propose to do that, he is merely focusing on the highest income earners) are the unintended consequences.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

The middle classes are the bedrock of a nation and the wealthy its financial heart, sure. But I think it's more a question of how to get money out of people without breeding the creative resentment you argue is the inevitable result
End of quote

I'm not arguing about creative resentment.

Here, look, let's walk through this step by step:

You make $N per week.

What do you do with that money?  Buy groceries, pay the rent, pay utilities, etc.

What do you do with the remainder?

Invest some in a 401K maybe? Purchase some non-essentials?

The problem I'm trying (but failing) to communicate is that to business owners, their equivalent of a 401K and non-essentials are hiring new people (investments) and laying off non-essential personnel (non-essentials).

There's no malice or spite involved.  

Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

anyway ... my argument still stands and so far i have not seen any response, from anyone, to disprove it ...
End of quote

Now you have two false premises.

The first one which you just ignored - that economics is a zero sum game which it's not.

And secondly, that anyone, myself especially, cares about "proving" item #1 to you.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem I'm trying (but failing) to communicate is that to business owners, their equivalent of a 401K and non-essentials are hiring new people (investments) and laying off non-essential personnel (non-essentials).

There's no malice or spite involved. 

End of quote

I'm not trying to suggest there is. However I didn't pick up that you were talking about corporate taxes rather than personal taxes.

I thought you were talking personal taxes and the way they affect your willingness to go to work and be a CEO, in which case a prestige-based recognition of your input to the country might be a valid way to encourage further high tax revenue without reducing your dedication to work.

However, if we're talking you as in corporations giving the CEO a title isn't going to make him hire more people. Well, it might, but the company's financial status might not survive that.

Or do you as a business owner and CEO disagree that there is a difference (in practice or in theory) between business and personal incomes? I guess I'm not really seeing your angle, as the conversation seemed to be about personal incomes and work, while your embellishment with the 401k analogy seems to suggest the company's incomes and work can be considered in the same terms re: taxation.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

With the real estate market so bad and real estate agents bailing out at record numbers, Colleens Association has fallen from 15,000 member to about 9, 000; revenues are down and she is 75, 000 over budget, she is now forced to let her office manager go in order to help balance things and she must now add the duties to her own plate. Is this fair to the office manager? no I would think, but a hard decision must be made and she is now considered dead weight. This is what in store for the future if taxes are increased for small businesses more cuts in jobs. After Bushes tax cuts Colleen was able to hire not just the office manager but one more person whos job is the next one to go if the crunch keeps up.

Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top

Now you have two false premises.
The first one which you just ignored - that economics is a zero sum game which it's not.
And secondly, that anyone, myself especially, cares about "proving" item #1 to you.
End of quote

I do not need a proof from anyone ... the argument is for you to believe it or not ... you can dismiss it out of hand as you are doing ... or think about it and see if it is correct or not ... that is the issue .. not me needing a proof.

and by the way, i agree that the economy is not a zero-sum but it is not a game ... it has its natural laws that govern its dynamics and the interdependencies of all its parts regardless of what Ideologies say or predict.

Expanding the market, i.e. customer base, is the main device to create more wealth ... as i explained before, higher taxes on high incomes increase that customer base and help those same high incomes to become even higher.

With the real estate market so bad and real estate agents bailing out at record numbers, Colleens Association has fallen from 15,000 member to about 9, 000; revenues are down and she is 75, 000 over budget, she is now forced to let her office manager go
End of quote

well, the lost job is due to shrinking customer base as you said above .... when that base shrunk, even with the existence of the tax cut, the job disappeared .... the tax cuts did not make the job possible in the first palce, and they were not able to make it last ... 

After Bushes tax cuts Colleen was able to hire not just the office manager but one more person whos job is the next one to go if the crunch keeps up.
End of quote

are you saying those two people were hired just because the business got more money? that is a poor excuse to hire anyone

I am sure they were hired because the business volume increased ... if that increase was due to the tax cut ... why then did it shrink now? the tax cut is still there ... there must be another reason for that busn expansion and contraction.

Real Estate volume expanded, unrealistically, due to the subprime mortgages and it collapsed when those new home owners were not able to pay their monthly payments .... and that tax cut accelarated that collapse by reducing their ability to pay ... (see other comments above for how that happens.).

If that tax cut was directed toward those same home owners it would have helped many, if not most, of them continue their ability to pay and reduce the effect of those toxic mortgages.

 So, if anything, ... i would argue that those tax cut were instrumental in making that job disappear.

Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top

It is very clear that the issue is really complicated for some to grasp the totality of it. It is not as simple as conservatives or liberals claim it to be. It is not just TAX CUTS ... it is how much to cut and where it is directed and what other policies go along with it to make it work for ALL.

Focusing only on High Taxes on the Rich is simple and plays on people's natural hate for taxes .... and it wins elections ...

but it is more involved than that ... unfortunately, most dont have the patience, or the mental capacity, to deal with that.

I guess, McCain was not alone in hating economic policy discussions and debates.

 

 

Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top

are you saying those two people were hired just because the business got more money? that is a poor excuse to hire anyone
End of quote

WOW.  Okay, Sorry Thinkaloud, I'm thinking you're too dumb to participate.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting cactoblasta, reply 30
However I didn't pick up that you were talking about corporate taxes rather than personal taxes.
End of cactoblasta's quote

Most U.S. businesses are sole proprietors 72.6% 1997 . Sole proprietors are taxed through the owner.  So it doesn't really matter if its corporate or personal taxes.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Draginol, reply 9

are you saying those two people were hired just because the business got more money? that is a poor excuse to hire anyone
WOW.  Okay, Sorry Thinkaloud, I'm thinking you're too dumb to participate.
End of Draginol's quote

What's dumb about that comment specifically? If you are only hiring employees because you have lots of money floating around, it might well be a poor decision, because you may not be making the best use of that money. That is, if extra workers would be expected to increase your profits, then it may well be worth hiring them if you have the money. However if they wouldn't, and might even decrease your profits, then putting more money into hiring would be a bad decision, and you'd be better off investing the money elsewhere where you'd expect to get a return.

Of course I'm not sure this was what Thinkaloud was thinking, but IMO it's far from certain that it was a "dumb" comment.

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top

Oh I think we both know, based on the context of his other comments, that he's not thinking very straight on the matter.

At best, he's not paying attention to the discussion -- hiring workers is what businesses do with extra money because that's how they invest.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

After Bushes tax cuts Colleen was able to hire not just the office manager but one more person whos job is the next one to go if the crunch keeps up.
End of quote
Too much credit given to tax cuts; it's prosperity that drives economics and that's from well paid workers tax withholding notwithstanding.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Most U.S. businesses are sole proprietors 72.6% 1997 . Sole proprietors are taxed through the owner.  So it doesn't really matter if its corporate or personal taxes.
End of quote

Okay then, I guess that's a key difference between the US and Australian systems then. Any business, no matter the size, is taxed as a corporation in Australia rather than as the proprietor's income. In effect you pay yourself a wage.

I can see where Draginol's coming from now.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Seems fairly simular to me.  But you may have a few more taxes lumped on. Sole Trader
End of quote

Well, you learn something new all the time, or at least I do. Everyone I know with a business is incorporated because it lets them pay less tax. But apparently 75% of Australian businesses have no employees (probably largely sole traders). I'm surprised there's so many very small businesfolk to be honest. I know I can never get a tradie/cabbie/etc when I need one.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

yet you will retaliate spitefully by not hiring or worse laying off.
End of quote

Some people just cant pass Econ 101.

Brad never said anything spiteful.  Indeed, his response was calm, rational and made good business sense.  Your response is UAW 101 - and the reason the big 3 are in trouble. 

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

and created 24 million jobs in the process !!!!!
End of quote

Created?  They created all those DOT COM JObs?  That begs the question.  Why would anyone create paper jobs?

Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 43
and created 24 million jobs in the process !!!!!Created?  They created all those DOT COM JObs?  That begs the question.  Why would anyone create paper jobs?
End of Dr's quote

That's another false premise, Presidents do NOT CREATE jobs, businesses do, DOCG is right.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Brad never said anything spiteful. Indeed, his response was calm, rational and made good business sense. Your response is UAW 101 - and the reason the big 3 are in trouble.
End of quote
How about cutting off the nose to spite the face--known as SMB 101. Small business always counters with the threat of layoffs when taxes are raised or minimum wage is flirted with. If there were no taxes ever; business would not grow any more. Tax is nothing but integrated operation costs as is labor.   

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

How about cutting off the nose to spite the face--known as SMB 101.
End of quote

Actually that's still 'UAW 101' - if unions strike, they're hurting the company, raising costs or allowing competitors to take over market share, meaning the company will then need to cut costs by cutting jobs (or lowering wages).

If there were no taxes ever; business would not grow any more
End of quote

Huh? How would no taxes mean that business would not grow? If you decrease taxes then you'll likely see growth in business.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

If there were no taxes ever; business would not grow any more. Tax is nothing but integrated operation costs as is labor.
End of quote

1. YOur first statement is false.  America had no taxes for 140years, and grew very well, so that is patently false.

2. Yes it is a cost of doing business.  And like all costs, it must be offset.  If you cannot raise prices (inflation), you have to cut costs.  ANd since taxes are not a variable expense (it is forced - you have no control over it as a Business owner) you cut elsewhere.  And where is the biggest variable cost?  usually labor.  You just pretty much proved Brad's point.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

if unions strike, they're hurting the company,
End of quote
I suppose you mean "spiting" the company. Strikes are a last resort if collective bargaining goes nowhere. I trust you're also against collective bargaining and any kind of labor rights. The economy is not the USMC! Semper fi.}:)

Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes it is a cost of doing business. And like all costs, it must be offset.
End of quote
Definitely like Ford selling its five corporate jets for starters.

YOur first statement is false. America had no taxes for 140years, and grew very well, so that is patently false.
End of quote
Income tax was not considered because there was barely any income other than what workers needed to subsist. The Barons were never taxed because they controlled everything. If you want to go back to those days good luck. :beer:

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

Income tax was not considered because there was barely any income other than what workers needed to subsist.
End of quote

No, income tax was not considered because it was unconstitutional (remember the 16th?).  America already had a middle class, and was doing quite well.

Income is relative.  If a house cost you a thousand dollars, an annual income of 200 is more than enough to live comfortably.  And as government has shown, you dont have to have much income to be a victim of their greed.