Pack93z
  • Pack93z
  • Select Member Topic Starter
12 years ago
And interesting read.. nothing is really "new" in the thoughts or point, but it is tangibly presented with a figure head that most in the nation may recognize outside of politics.

The last three paragraphs is the main driving point.


Mickelson has a point on taxes 

(CNN) -- Phil Mickelson, aka Lefty, is thinking of leaving California and perhaps America because, according to his own reckoning, he is facing tax rates of 62% or 63%. Mickelson, probably the second-most-famous professional golfer in the world after Tiger Woods, later backed off from his initial comments about making "drastic changes."

Reports suggest that Mickelson earned more than $60 million in 2012. In that sense, he appears to be doing better than the Romneys, and perhaps you are not all that sympathetic to him.

The Romneys (remember them?) paid so little tax. In 2011, Mitt and Ann Romney paid federal taxes of $2 million on reported income of $14 million, for an effective tax rate of 14%, all roughly. The Romneys even had to foreswear taking all of their available charitable deductions to make their tax rate seem so high for appearance's sake.

It does bear noting that Mickelson is doing something to earn his $60 million. Whoever is paying him that much believes that he is worth it. Who are we, really, to argue?

Mickelson's instinctive reactions to high tax rates, even if his math may be a bit muddled, are sound and sensible ones. Tiger Woods certainly agrees with him.

But that is not the problem in the story. Lefty faces such seemingly inescapably high tax rates that he might just pack up his golf bags and leave home. Mitt pays so little tax that he has to ignore the law to pay a higher rate for appearance's sake.

How can this be?
The Mitt-Lefty paradox has a simple explanation: In America, we tax work. And highly. We do not tax capital or wealth much at all. Indeed, if you have wealth already, taxes are essentially optional under what I call tax Planning 101, the simple advice to buy/borrow/die.

In step one, you buy assets that rise in value without producing cash, such as growth stocks or real estate. In step two, you borrow to finance your lifestyle. In step three, you die, and your heirs get your assets, tax free, and with a "stepped up" basis that eliminates all capital gains. That's it.

Romney, with a personal fortune estimated at $250 million (his five kids have another $100 million) has figured this out. When he pays taxes, at all, he does so at the low capital gains rate.
Not so with Lefty.

Not so with Lefty.

He is a wage-earner, albeit a very highly paid one, and he's going to pay over one-half of his income in taxes if he stays in California. We may not be shedding any tears for Lefty any more than we feel for Gerard Depardieu, who recently left France for Russia to escape taxes, or for the Rolling Stones, who many moons ago left England and recorded Exile on Main Street from France.

Yet one fact not making news is that it is still the case that the highest marginal tax rates in America do not fall on the highest incomes, like Lefty, but on certain of the working poor, many of them single parents, who are being taxed at rates approaching 90% as they lose benefits attempting to better themselves.

It's a "poverty trap" that works just like the severe marriage penalties for the lower-income classes. But the working poor do not have the options of going to Canada, Russia or France.
Lefty has a point -- high tax rates create disincentives. If the rates are high enough, people react by moving. This should not surprise us: American companies have been fleeing our shores for years, in droves. Ask Mitt.

But this should worry us, for two reasons.

One, the fact that the high incomers do flee jurisdictions, or flee from the productive activity of working, is a bad thing for the U.S.

Two, the very risk that the rich and famous might leave, aided by the appearance that some do, holds tax reform hostage. We have struggled to raise rates at all on the rich, blocked by the mostly mythical Joe the Plumber as much as by the realities of Mickelson or the Rolling Stones. When we do finally raise rates, as we did at the fiscal cliff, we do so on the wrong rich, in the wrong way. Lefty's taxes went up, Mitt's need not.

The problem -- and it is the same problem as with Mitt's taxes -- is that we are taxing the wrong thing, in the wrong way. In sum, we tax work, not wealth. This is backward.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
I'd rather pay taxes on items/services paid for, than have it deducted from my salary. Currently, 26% of my salary goes straight to taxes. I get about (judging from this years taxes) 2% of that back on my return.
UserPostedImage
Since69
12 years ago
Capital gains tax is currently, I believe, right around HALF what income tax is. Should be the other way around, if you ask me.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
12 years ago

Capital gains tax is currently, I believe, right around HALF what income tax is. Should be the other way around, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by: Since69 



Money one invests is already taxed as income tax, then taxed again as capital gains. If you invest $100 (which was already taxed at your income tax rate), get a 1% return which is taxed at the short term rate (whatever your income tax rate is), you've officially been taxed twice. The long-term capital gains rate is lower but the investment is still taxed twice.
DakotaT
12 years ago
Capital gains taxation is legalized tax evasion put into law by the puppets of wealthy men. I think I've been trying to explain these concepts for about three years. The other change in Federal taxation should be the cap in place on Social Security tax.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
12 years ago

Capital gains taxation is legalized tax evasion put into law by the puppets of wealthy men.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I've read this 4 times and it still makes no sense. Would it be better if capital gains was not taxed? That being said, I'm all for just tying all (short and long-term) capital gains tax to one's income tax rate and calling it a day.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago
For all its popularity, "work v. wealth" is a false dichotomy.

Without wealth, we could not generate income; without income, we cannot increase wealth. Without an increase in wealth, we'll never increase income. Without an increase in income, we cannot .... etc., etc., etc.

It's that damn labor theory of value again.

It's one of those horrible ironies that intellectual history is full of. Because of the the persuasiveness of his popular writing, Karl Marx, more than any other single person in history, is responsible for the deep seated belief in the idea that all value is produced by human "labor". (He wasn't the originator of the idea -- John Stuart Mill and even Adam Smith got this wrong -- but it was the compelling rhetoric that Marx brought to bear through the Manifesto and his other polemical writings that is responsible for its entrenched status in popular consciousness. If you scratch them deep enough, you'll discover that its a notion shared by both the wealthy that libierals want to tax for everything and the wealthy who don't want themselves to be taxed: value is created by the workingman, the farmer with dirt between his fingernails, the man who hits little white balls and the man who tosses big round balls through a hoop.

But it is so wrong it would be laughable if it weren't agreed to by so many.

The amount of value created by that workingman, that farmer, that golfer and that basketball player? That depends critically on the tools and ideas they can bring to bear in their trade. Without his hammer and his computer, the workingman couldnt do much rooting in the shit like a pig. Without his tractor and his combine and his accounting spreadsheet, the farmer would be rooting in the same shit. Without his 9-iron and the machine that makes dimples, the golfer would be wandering around in the woods tossing pinecones. Without the pneumatic engineering technology that makes a basketball inflatable and bouncy, and the basketball player would be limited to tossing the workingman/farmers' shit at the hole made by the golfer's arms.

Wealth doesn't come from labor alone. Wealth comes from the application of previously accumulated wealth [called "capital"] to, and the use of said wealth by, labor. Wealth without labor is valueless, but we haven't had productive labor without wealth since ... ever. Labor without wealth to put to use is the caveman who hasn't got fire or a sharp stone or a club.

Taxing the worker screws up the incentives to work. That's true as far as it goes. And its true whether you're a ditchdigger being taxed or a pro golfer being taxed.

But taxing wealth screws up the incentives to put labor to work more productively. And it screws up the incentives to look for ways to make labor more productive.

There is no such thing as a tax that does not screw up incentives to produce.

Capital and labor are not substitutes. They are not "one or the other". They are not things we add together in different ways, making A bigger and B smaller in order to change the quality of national prosperity.

Capital are complements. They don't operate by addition and subtraction but by multiplication and power laws.

Income = Labor (L) times Capital (K). If taxes on work (L) increase ("income tax"; "consumption tax"; "sales tax"), income falls. If taxes on wealth increase, income falls. Labor is screwed regardless.

[So are the forces of capital, more often known as "the rich." But no one except the rich cares if the rich get screwed.)

There is, IMO, no such thing as a tax that benefits labor.

Spending of tax receipts may. Maybe if we put the money in the hands of the king, the king will do better with it than the rich barons because the king is an entrepreneurial genius and the baron is a wastrel who does nothing but hang out with whores and gamblers. Maybe the government is a brilliant, entrepreneurial king who only needs capital to get those peasants to be happy, productive people. Maybe the barons are all as useless as the third generation of British aristocracy. That's a different disagreement for a different thread.

But the power of taxes is not to create. It is never to create. It is only to destroy.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
12 years ago

I've read this 4 times and it still makes no sense. Would it be better if capital gains was not taxed? That being said, I'm all for just tying all (short and long-term) capital gains tax to one's income tax rate and calling it a day.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 




I think what he was trying to say was that "lower rates of tax for capital gains is a ....etc."

Of course ALL tax rules are written by wealthy men for wealthy men. Some of them are just better at conning non-wealthy people out of their money.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
DakotaT
12 years ago

I've read this 4 times and it still makes no sense. Would it be better if capital gains was not taxed? That being said, I'm all for just tying all (short and long-term) capital gains tax to one's income tax rate and calling it a day.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



It means capital gains is taxed too low. Yeah, I agree with you, capital gains should be taxed at the 39% rate.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

For all its popularity, "work v. wealth" is a false dichotomy.

Without wealth, we could not generate income; without income, we cannot increase wealth. Without an increase in wealth, we'll never increase income. Without an increase in income, we cannot .... etc., etc., etc.

It's that damn labor theory of value again.

It's one of those horrible ironies that intellectual history is full of. Because of the the persuasiveness of his popular writing, Karl Marx, more than any other single person in history, is responsible for the deep seated belief in the idea that all value is produced by human "labor". (He wasn't the originator of the idea -- John Stuart Mill and even Adam Smith got this wrong -- but it was the compelling rhetoric that Marx brought to bear through the Manifesto and his other polemical writings that is responsible for its entrenched status in popular consciousness. If you scratch them deep enough, you'll discover that its a notion shared by both the wealthy that libierals want to tax for everything and the wealthy who don't want themselves to be taxed: value is created by the workingman, the farmer with dirt between his fingernails, the man who hits little white balls and the man who tosses big round balls through a hoop.

But it is so wrong it would be laughable if it weren't agreed to by so many.

The amount of value created by that workingman, that farmer, that golfer and that basketball player? That depends critically on the tools and ideas they can bring to bear in their trade. Without his hammer and his computer, the workingman couldnt do much rooting in the shit like a pig. Without his tractor and his combine and his accounting spreadsheet, the farmer would be rooting in the same shit. Without his 9-iron and the machine that makes dimples, the golfer would be wandering around in the woods tossing pinecones. Without the pneumatic engineering technology that makes a basketball inflatable and bouncy, and the basketball player would be limited to tossing the workingman/farmers' shit at the hole made by the golfer's arms.

Wealth doesn't come from labor alone. Wealth comes from the application of previously accumulated wealth [called "capital"] to, and the use of said wealth by, labor. Wealth without labor is valueless, but we haven't had productive labor without wealth since ... ever. Labor without wealth to put to use is the caveman who hasn't got fire or a sharp stone or a club.

Taxing the worker screws up the incentives to work. That's true as far as it goes. And its true whether you're a ditchdigger being taxed or a pro golfer being taxed.

But taxing wealth screws up the incentives to put labor to work more productively. And it screws up the incentives to look for ways to make labor more productive.

There is no such thing as a tax that does not screw up incentives to produce.

Capital and labor are not substitutes. They are not "one or the other". They are not things we add together in different ways, making A bigger and B smaller in order to change the quality of national prosperity.

Capital are complements. They don't operate by addition and subtraction but by multiplication and power laws.

Income = Labor (L) times Capital (K). If taxes on work (L) increase ("income tax"; "consumption tax"; "sales tax"), income falls. If taxes on wealth increase, income falls. Labor is screwed regardless.

[So are the forces of capital, more often known as "the rich." But no one except the rich cares if the rich get screwed.)

There is, IMO, no such thing as a tax that benefits labor.

Spending of tax receipts may. Maybe if we put the money in the hands of the king, the king will do better with it than the rich barons because the king is an entrepreneurial genius and the baron is a wastrel who does nothing but hang out with whores and gamblers. Maybe the government is a brilliant, entrepreneurial king who only needs capital to get those peasants to be happy, productive people. Maybe the barons are all as useless as the third generation of British aristocracy. That's a different disagreement for a different thread.

But the power of taxes is not to create. It is never to create. It is only to destroy.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Wade, my 9th grade English teacher use to say a good piece of writing should be like a girls skirt, long enough to cover the subject but short enough to make it interesting.

Your whole theory of a world without taxes is really interesting in fairytale land - but in the real world civilizations just needs shit paid for by public funds.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (33m) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (1h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (3h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (3h) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (4h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Zero2Cool (4h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
    dfosterf (4h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
    Zero2Cool (4h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
    Zero2Cool (5h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
    Zero2Cool (5h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
    beast (6h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
    beast (6h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
    beast (6h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    beast (6h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    Zero2Cool (6h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
    wpr (6h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
    Zero2Cool (6h) : SSL might be settled now.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Still working through SSL cert issues
    wpr (16h) : Glad to be back
    Zero2Cool (17h) : I think PH original finally working.
    dfosterf (18h) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
    Mucky Tundra (21h) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I had to manually move three posts.
    Mucky Tundra (21h) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
    Mucky Tundra (21h) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Host issues, been crazy day
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : Connect 4?
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Connecting to new database
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
    beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
    Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
    dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
    Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
    Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
    packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
    Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
    Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
    Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
    Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
    Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
    dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    2m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    14-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

    6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.