Author Topic: Re: Klarman worried about political divide  (Read 14595 times)

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2019, 12:36:07 PM »

Riiigghttt.  That's why her policies are much closer to what a consensus of Ivy League economists would suggest relative to Trump (as an example.)  Because she, professional economists and every other Western country (which have way better quality of life metrics) just don't get it!

Yea, that's what we need - more Ivy League economists running the country, that'll work real well..



SharperDingaan

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3335
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2019, 12:42:07 PM »
I love the idea of a 70% income tax.

I think it's insulting when conservatives are like "take from those that earn it and give to those that don't! that's fair!"

What do you call it when a state gives money to a corporation to relocate there? Does Amazon really need billions of dollars to help their business? What do you call when a city builds a stadium for a sporting event and increasing taxes on people? What do you call when the government bails out the economy? Is this not the "havenots" giving to the haves?

Do you really think that a baseball player would stop playing baseball if he were taxed at 50%? Do you think a CEO would not take a job? Do you think a hedge fund manager might be like "well, I'm not going to do that because I don't want to pay 70% taxes". Highly, highly doubtful.

The US operated with a 90% income tax and people still worked.

I love the idea of the 70% marginal tax rate too ....
My company car can become a leased Maserati, as the $2000/month before tax cost is only $600 after tax.
My $2000/month after-tax mortgage, gets traded in for a $6700/month before tax mansion - complete with maid/cleaning service
And if I blow up my firm to get that cash, who cares - my 70% tax 'partner' will take care of it  ;D

Life is great!

SD




« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 12:44:50 PM by SharperDingaan »

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2019, 12:45:47 PM »
I love the idea of a 70% income tax.

I think it's insulting when conservatives are like "take from those that earn it and give to those that don't! that's fair!"

What do you call it when a state gives money to a corporation to relocate there? Does Amazon really need billions of dollars to help their business? What do you call when a city builds a stadium for a sporting event and increasing taxes on people? What do you call when the government bails out the economy? Is this not the "havenots" giving to the haves?

Do you really think that a baseball player would stop playing baseball if he were taxed at 50%? Do you think a CEO would not take a job? Do you think a hedge fund manager might be like "well, I'm not going to do that because I don't want to pay 70% taxes". Highly, highly doubtful.

The US operated with a 90% income tax and people still worked.

I love the idea of the 70% marginal tax rate too ....
My company car can become a leased Maserati, as the $2000/month before tax cost is only $600 after tax.
My $2000/month after-tax mortgage, gets traded in for a $6700/month before tax mansion - complete with maid/cleaning service
And if I blow up my firm to get that cash, who cares - my 70% tax 'partner' will take care of it  ;D

Life is great!

SD

By the way, I don't mean that everyone pays 70%. Just over a certain amount (say $10 million or whatever).

Dang SD, I didn't know you made the kind of money to be at that 70% level! :P
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 12:48:07 PM by stahleyp »
Paul

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2019, 01:05:16 PM »
"By the way, I don't mean that everyone pays 70%. Just over a certain amount (say $10 million or whatever). "

Like I said to that LC: Everybody else problem but, not mine!

Taxing success is dumb. Many people are jealous of professional sport players, CEO's, rich entrepreneurs. Not me. Good for them!

I don't have their talent nor did I make the sacrifices to get to where they are.

And it doesn't matter if they have a lot of money, as some day like all of us, they will pass away and that money will all flow in society if not prior with their spending or giving.

The Leftists are interested to grab that money right away so that in their power drive can redistribute it as they see fit. Wow! How great is that?

Better watchout next success story I am coming for you! Must be how to encourage potential development in a society...

You guys should really look back to what Tim Eriksen said.

These catch phrases such as the one by dishonest Buffett and his secretary have been picked up by the Leftists. Reality is vastly otherwise.

Cardboard

Tim Eriksen

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2019, 01:25:46 PM »
"AOC has a degree in economics and her policies are pretty much the standard in the Western World (sans the USA).  What are you talking about?"

Taxing anything above $10 million at 70% rate is standard?

You are the one who should learn about what you are talking about!

Cardboard

Yes - it is.

I'd have to see what the PF impact of a 70% marginal tax rate above $10mm USD would be, but I can tell you that the US is pretty close to dead last in tax revenue as a percent of GDP relative to other Western nations.  Of course, we all tax sales/incomes/capital gains/etc. differently so you can't just Copy + Paste "70% marginal tax rate" and compare, you'd have to see how much additional revenue that would raise relative to GDP.

You honestly didn't know the US is vastly under-taxed relative to the rest of the Western world?

Since I had 2014 data handy it would have been $110 billion of additional revenue assuming no changes, meaning no one incorporated.  Remember in the 1950's the effective rate was still in the mid 30 percent range so it is likely the number would be cut in half to about $55 billion (effective rate of 35% instead of 70%).  Another factor is that cap gains rate would not be 70% it was 25% in the 1950's.  It seems at best it would have generate $60 billion in 2014.   
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 01:50:14 PM by Tim Eriksen »

Tim Eriksen

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 788
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2019, 01:42:01 PM »

With that said, I'm fully aware they were marginal income tax rates. I didn't feel the need to clarify that (I didn't think people thought everyone had a 90% rate). My error I suppose. I am interested in what you say about Republican polices taxes the poor and lower middle class lower though. Would you elaborate?

The "have nots" that I mentioned were basically the middle/upper middle class. I didn't mean the poor (who typically pay little taxes). I think we may be agreement here. Perhaps a better way to put it is the "haves" giving to the "have nots" and "have lots?"

We are probably in agreement.  Average tax (income, payroll, corporate income and excise) rates have declined across the board for every quintile except the top.  I should update to the latest data but
Year     first  second  third  fourth    top
1980   7.5    14.3    18.9     21.8    27.0
2013   3.3     8.4     12.8     17.0    26.3

It is due to income tax rates going negative
1980   0.2    4.4      7.9      10.7    16.7
2013 -7.2   -1.2      2.6        6.1    15.5

The "lost" revenue form the lower and middle class is much bigger than what the "lost" revenue would be if we taxed the super rich.  In 2013 there was only $500 billion of total income for filers with over $10 million of income.   

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2019, 01:44:52 PM »
Ocasio Cortez - she may be cute, but she's not very bright.

If she's an Ivy League economist equivalent, this country is in trouble with someone like her running it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/


stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2019, 02:24:53 PM »

With that said, I'm fully aware they were marginal income tax rates. I didn't feel the need to clarify that (I didn't think people thought everyone had a 90% rate). My error I suppose. I am interested in what you say about Republican polices taxes the poor and lower middle class lower though. Would you elaborate?

The "have nots" that I mentioned were basically the middle/upper middle class. I didn't mean the poor (who typically pay little taxes). I think we may be agreement here. Perhaps a better way to put it is the "haves" giving to the "have nots" and "have lots?"

We are probably in agreement.  Average tax (income, payroll, corporate income and excise) rates have declined across the board for every quintile except the top.  I should update to the latest data but
Year     first  second  third  fourth    top
1980   7.5    14.3    18.9     21.8    27.0
2013   3.3     8.4     12.8     17.0    26.3

It is due to income tax rates going negative
1980   0.2    4.4      7.9      10.7    16.7
2013 -7.2   -1.2      2.6        6.1    15.5

The "lost" revenue form the lower and middle class is much bigger than what the "lost" revenue would be if we taxed the super rich.  In 2013 there was only $500 billion of total income for filers with over $10 million of income.

Do you have the numbers for the top 5% or top 1%?
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3803
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2019, 02:35:27 PM »


And it doesn't matter if they have a lot of money, as some day like all of us, they will pass away and that money will all flow in society if not prior with their spending or giving.

...

These catch phrases such as the one by dishonest Buffett and his secretary have been picked up by the Leftists. Reality is vastly otherwise.
Flow back to society?

“Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise,” Buffett told lawmakers years ago. “Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/31/us-wealthiest-families-dynasties-governed-by-rich

Reality shows increasing income inequality, increasing 'generational' wealth and decreasing social mobility, decreasing real wage growth.



 
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ads | brk.b | irm | mmm | mo | nlsn | pm | pypl | v | wm

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
Re: Klarman worried about political divide
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2019, 02:49:29 PM »
For the folks against a higher marginal tax at the top levels, let's look at it this way.

Do you think that a professional athlete would say "Nah, I'm going to work as a teacher since I'm paying 70% of taxes on my income over $10 million?" or still do the job?

Do you think a person would turn down a CEO job in the same scenario? Have you ever not taken a higher paying jobs due to higher marginal taxes?

Do you really think society will be worse off?

I'm extremely skeptical about how much taxes impact people's work/career decisions.

I'd love a scenario where it would be illegal (or perhaps higher taxes) for the higher ups of a company to be capped at certain amount per median employee salary - let's say 150x.

Further, a lot of their compensation would be tied into company stock they couldn't sell for 5 or 10 years. And guess what, virtually every CEO would start thinking about things more long term because of that.

We could then take those funds and higher more teachers, or build better bridges, etc. Instead we're just getting more and more of a national debt until who knows when.

Do you think society would be better off with these things?

I do agree with Klarman that one day they'll be serious consequences to all of that. That could be another 10 or 20+ years though. who knows?
Paul