RX Reven' said:I've noticed that the threshold for "egregious incomes that warrant punishment" are consistently more than how much the person complaining makes.
There are exceptions BTW - Abigail Disney, the Patriotic Millionaires organization just off the top of my head.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
So, you thoroughly dislike the antics wealthy people do to avoid paying taxes, but you are advocating that an "ethical" artist who earned this over a lifetime and wants to cash out should do contortions and find loopholes to avoid paying taxes??
Nope.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Who is the arbitrar of what is egregious??
Oh yeah... that's you.
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
So, you thoroughly dislike the antics wealthy people do to avoid paying taxes, but you are advocating that an "ethical" artist who earned this over a lifetime should do contortions and find loopholes to avoid paying taxes??
Nope.
It's nothing you'd need a professional accounting firm to do, just accept royalties instead of a lump sum - this is by far the most common way artists are currently paid, usually because they're worried that the lump sum could turn out to be a smaller amount. I think the "sudden windfall after a lifetime of work" scenario is a vanishingly uncommon corner case and easy enough to work around.
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Who is the arbitrar of what is egregious??
Oh yeah... that's you.
I think it would be possible to set a reasonable threshold based on objective criteria. Currently you rarely see anyone making over $300k/yr for any kind of actual work even in high cost-of-living areas - I've already mentioned how executive pay, IP incomes and advertising have abnormal incomes, the only other way to surpass that barrier I can think of is high-level commission work such as industrial-scale sales commissions. So we can see that most incomes have some semblance of a relationship to work or productivity and a few clearly defy the rules. I think setting the threshold ~3x over this amount was actually quite generous.
Since we are throwing around looney tax ideas :) here is mine:
1) replace brackets with a simple algebraic equation. You earn X income and have Y dependents, you plug it in and pay the amount specified.
2) There are no deductions. No tax breaks. No non taxable income. no AGI. No long term capital gains. You pay taxes on your income, period.
There, the personal income tax code can now fit on an index card in a giant font.
IRS job gets easier.
Legal and legal-ish Wealthy tax "evasion" goes away.
Your tax dollars don't support anyone else's non-profit causes
H&R block, Turbotax, etc. cease to exist
Are you guys still here?
SV reX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Who is the arbitrar of what is egregious??
Oh yeah... that's you.
Rather like a different poster here feels that land use should be arbited so that it's used they way they think is most beneficial to everyone... and the land owner doesn't seem to get much input into that.
GameboyRMH said:RX Reven' said:
I've noticed that the threshold for "egregious incomes that warrant punishment" are consistently more than how much the person complaining makes.What about the person that has accumulated unrealized value throughout their whole life...maybe they've been building up a business or maybe they've been working on an invention or maybe they've been producing some type of art, say song writing, and they've finally come up with a hit song.
Decades and decades of effort have quietly been put in and now they're cashing out by selling their business or selling their patent or selling the copyright to their song so they've got a one time annual income of one million, five million, whatever.
I guess we're supposed to say berk you, that's too much money, let's confiscate it by charging 100% tax.
Why would anybody bother to work hard in a world like that...where would great businesses and innovations and beautiful art come from?
Should be easy enough to work around with a different pay structure - the inventor or songwriter could receive royalties rather than a one-time lump sum to remain in a more reasonable tax bracket for example. The business owner could pay themselves income over time so that they're not so dependent on the sale of the business - this should also encourage longer-term investments and sustainable business growth rather than spinning up startups to sell into a tech megacorp's killzone for example.
The workarounds you're proposing are essentially maneuvers to conceal success. In my world, success is nothing to be ashamed of and there should be no need to hide it.
In a practical sense, I'd have to pay attorneys and accountants and buy some type of insurance to ensure I'd eventually get my money...I'd also have to pay interest on loans since I can't just get my money up front to buy the stuff I want.
I think it's safe to say we're fairly well separated on the taxation continuum...I'll do my best to listen to you and try to understand your point of view.
Hopefully I'll learn something but I'm never going to think success is bad and should be punished...I want you and I and everyone else to the world to be as successful as possible...that's my target, that's what I'm aiming for.
RX Reven' said:The workarounds you're proposing are essentially maneuvers to conceal success. In my world, success is nothing to be ashamed of and there should be no need to hide it.
I don't think that any arbitrary amount of "success" is always necessarily good because it's possible to be had at the expense of others, and as such I think it's sensible to discourage levels of "success" (meaning income) that a person clearly can't achieve through their own effort. The lump-sum-"success" issue is just an oddball accounting quirk and spreading the income over a few years would not cause an issue if the person isn't actually trying to sneak through an "egregious" amount of "success". Receiving $250k over 4 years is practically just as good as getting $1M in 1 year instead, if that's the total. $125k over 8 years sure isn't bad either.
This reminds me of something that happened in a factory my dad was managing many years ago...one production line was doing far better than the others, with similar equipment. My dad spoke to the production line supervisor about this, he attributed his success with the line to a buzzword bingo of synergies and efficiencies. Then my dad asked a worker on that line about this. He had a much simpler answer, the supervisor was keeping them from taking bathroom breaks! So my dad let the supervisor know that couldn't fly and set a cap on productivity bonuses for supervisors just above the levels the other lines were doing. That supervisor's "success" was coming at the workers' expense.
(I should note that it is unlikely that supervisor went on to work at Amazon...)
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
Still here. When you asked the question, "When will inflation stop?" Core CPE/PCE was at 4.2% YOY (first link). In February 2022 it was at 5.3% YOY and was at 4.7% in May (second link).
October 2021 data for core CPE/PCE
February through May data for core CPE/PCE
According CPE/PCE, inflation may have already peaked. It's possible that the Core CPI measurement peaked as well, but we don't have as good a trend line for that yet. Overall inflation, I.E. core CPI plus food and energy, hasn't peaked yet, largely because energy costs went bananas when Russia invaded Ukraine and we cut off Russian gas.
Graph of different inflation measurements: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/consumer-prices-up-8-6-percent-over-year-ended-may-2022.htm
I don't equate taxation with punishment.
A VAT and higher taxes for higher wealth (note I didn't say income as I mean just total monetary generation by any means) provide societal balance.
Swing the pendulum either way too far and things get unstable or over stable.
I understood early in 2020 that current economic situation is an expected volatility as we continue to try to manage a major global pandemic. So inflation/recession/economic boom/depression are all expected for a couple more years.
Very interesting variance of views on this thread.
Looks like the tech industry is getting in on the price gouging too:
https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/07/gartner_vendor_inflation_price_rises/
I'm only aware of a small price increase on one particular service from the company I work for - it had previously been unusually cheap.
In reply to Indy - Guy :
Indy - Guy said:Another record month of inflation. 9.1%
Say what you will, but 9.1 percent is impressive, and is a record that will likely stand the test of time.
Well, at least until next month.
1988RedT2 said:Indy - Guy said:Another record month of inflation. 9.1%
Say what you will, but 9.1 percent is impressive, and is a record that will likely stand the test of time.
Well, at least until next month.
It's actually not a record, it's just the highest since 1981.
(FWIW I'm not optimistic myself, I'm just being pedantic.)
I occasionally drive past a local food pantry during pickup hours. Just an anecdote, but lately the line seems to be getting longer, and the vehicles in that line seem to be getting more expensive.
In reply to STM317 :
Inflation has a disproportionate effect on the low to middle income.
Inflation update! Even though @Indy - Guy gave the topline already
Note: I'm going to track CPI (Consumer Price Index), Core CPI (CPI minus the volatile food and energy categories) and Core PCE/CPE (Personal Consumption Expenditures minus volatile food and energy, which the FED uses for it's 2% target). BLS releases CPI mid-month and PCE/CPE comes out at the end of the month.
June CPI YOY: 9.1% vs. 8.6% in May
June Core CPI YOY: 5.9% vs. 6.0% in May
May PCE/CPE YOY: 4.7% vs 4.9% in April
===========================
CPI/Core CPI data from the BLS: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Some commentary: https://apnews.com/article/inflation-economy-prices-consumer-74e1a5c9bced40460e4079f62e980095
Does anybody know why articles like this one are saying "On a monthly basis, headline CPI rose 1.3% and core CPI was up 0.7%"? I must be missing something.
Inflation will be around for a while. The Fed is soon going to have to move the decimal point over a few places considering the 95+% devaluation of the dollar since the Fed was incorporated in 1913. This is what Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia did in the past when their fiat currency's value was in free fall due to irresponsible printing of unbacked money.
Advan046 said:I don't equate taxation with punishment.
A VAT and higher taxes for higher wealth (note I didn't say
income as I mean just total monetary generation by any means) provide societal balance.
Swing the pendulum either way too far and things get unstable or over stable.
I understood early in 2020 that current economic situation is an expected volatility as we continue to try to manage a major global pandemic. So inflation/recession/economic boom/depression are all expected for a couple more years.
Very interesting variance of views on this thread.
I see a simple VAT to absolutely everything with No exception.
Instead of income tax would be both fair and easily understood.
The rich would pay the most because they would buy the most. They would want to buy the most because they would buy things like stocks, bonds, companies, luxuries.
It would be their choice on how they spend their money.
To make VAT attractive. The rate needs to be minimal. We can do that if there are no exceptions.
Stocks, bonds, etc that are currently exempt would be taxed at acquisition.
So would materials and supplies which are not taxed now. At 2-3%
Tax on purchase at 2-3% instead of income?
Same with the poor who buy only essentials.
What about progressive taxes? I hear people say. Well we've got progressive taxes now and in many cases the poor pay more than the wealthy.
So make it simple. Want anything? Pay taxes. 2-3% It sound crazy. But if everything that previously was tax free has to pay taxes. And it's a small enough amount there should be enough to offset the income tax.
PS. Taxes wouldn't start until 50 cents. And no, you can't break up units bought in bulk to evade taxes.
Not that it helps, but it could we worse:
Turkey: 78%
Romania: 15%
Greece: 12%
Argentina: 60%
Venezuela: 167%
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=america
Print more money and reduce production by any means..... that'll stop inflation. At least that's how the people making decisions think it works.
pointofdeparture said:1988RedT2 said:Indy - Guy said:Another record month of inflation. 9.1%
Say what you will, but 9.1 percent is impressive, and is a record that will likely stand the test of time.
Well, at least until next month.
It's actually not a record, it's just the highest since 1981.
(FWIW I'm not optimistic myself, I'm just being pedantic.)
I think it will start slowing down soon. Raw material futures have been slowly dropping. Gas prices have come down from their peak. Consumer spending has dropped. Cost of shipping has been coming down and supply lines seem to be slowly sorting themselves out. Wal mart and Target have announced they are overstocked (I am sure other stores are with them or will be soon) and I'd expect to see sells to get rid of the overstock. I'd be surprised to see and inflation rate anything like as high as June in July.
I also expect a mild recession this year or next.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
