UK example of why high tax rates on the rich don't work

[GenuineRisk]

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What makes me bananas about how the media paints this fight over the tax rates is how it's depicted- with very, very rare exceptions, any news outlet I've seen has painted it as "middle class tax cuts." No, you f*cking morons, it's tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income. EVERYONE gets this tax cut. And for people who are fortunate enough to make more than $250,000 in income, their rates will go up only on the amount earned over $250,000.

I don't understand why the concept of progressive tax rates is so f*cking hard for six-figure media personalities to understand.

I guess the wealthy don't care about the first $250,000 of their income, because it's just not much money to them. Megan "Gastritis Broke My Calculator" McArdle, one of the dumbest people ever to get an Ivy education and a six-figure media job, wrote a really awful piece about how Wal Mart's business model is superior to Costco's because Wal Mart returns less of its profits in wages to workers. She explained that if Wal Mart lowered its profit margin to Costco's in order to give workers higher wages (as Costco does; it's apparently a pretty good place for people to work), that it would only amount to an extra $2850 per year for each Wal Mart worker, and really, that isn't very much money, so Wal Mart is better off continuing to pay their workers the crap they do.

Only a girl born to privilege could shrug and say "oh, $2850 isn't life changing." For a lot of people, many of whom work at Wal Mart, it is.

to illustrate:

2012 tax rates for a head of household:

• 10% on taxable income from $0 to $12,400, plus
• 15% on taxable income over $12,400 to $47,350, plus
• 25% on taxable income over $47,350 to $122,300, plus
• 28% on taxable income over $122,300 to $198,050, plus
• 33% on taxable income over $198,050 to $388,350, plus
• 35% on taxable income over $388,350.

assuming that no changes are made a mythical taxpayer with $300,000 in taxable income pays $78,271.

apply the prior top rate of 39.6% to the amount over $250,000 and that jumps to a sky high $81,571. The extra $3300 paid amounts to increasing their effective tax rate from 26.09% to 27.19%.

a whopping 1.1% increase.

[Danzig]

yeah, i get blank looks from people when i mention progressive tax rates. they say, but why should you pay more when you make more? they don't get that the higher rates only kick in amounts above each threshold.

also don't get what is so damned difficult to understand about temporary. they should put a sunset date on it at the outset, so it automatically changes back.
actually, it was the height on insanity to make that cut anyway. and now to keep it going....just as dumb. it was a mistake, so now let's compound it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i get blank looks from people when i mention progressive tax rates. they say, but why should you pay more when you make more? they don't get that the higher rates only kick in amounts above each threshold.

also don't get what is so damned difficult to understand about temporary. they should put a sunset date on it at the outset, so it automatically changes back.
actually, it was the height on insanity to make that cut anyway. and now to keep it going....just as dumb. it was a mistake, so now let's compound it.

Same people who piss and moan about entitlements feel that they are preptually entitlted to TEMPORARY tax cuts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Same people who piss and moan about entitlements feel that they are preptually entitlted to TEMPORARY tax cuts.

yeah, let's fight two wars and not raise revenue to do so. let's bemoan the state of social security and then 'temporarily' reduce what's paid into it. stupid. and then when our backs are to the wall, let's try to make those without pay, and those with to keep theirs because they create jobs (when???)

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, let's fight two wars and not raise revenue to do so. let's bemoan the state of social security and then 'temporarily' reduce what's paid into it. stupid. and then when our backs are to the wall, let's try to make those without pay, and those with to keep theirs because they create jobs (when???)

You forgot continually borrow from Social Security and then bemoan it when there isn't enough money left to pay.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

You forgot continually borrow from Social Security and then bemoan it when there isn't enough money left to pay.

i wish i could forget that.