What would you do if your tax rate went up by 5%

[Corruptbuddha]

What if it's 20? 30? Shall I continue 'working harder' to satisfy the gaping maw of government spending?

It's only 5% today...then another 5% tomorrow...then another 5% the next....tell me...when does it end?

When I'm working 23 hours a day and dying at 60 just so you can your ilk can give out 'Obama bucks' to scumbags who choose not to 'work harder'?

 

[degsme]

What if it's 20? 30? Shall I continue 'working harder' to satisfy the gaping maw of government spending?

That's a different quesiton - one that I asked here https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?19412-I-would-reduce-the-amount-I-worked-if-my-taxes-went-up-by and would love your response to

It's only 5% today...then another 5% tomorrow...then another 5% the next....tell me...when does it end?

Again that's the question that gets answered in the other poll. But right now the rollbacks of the GWB tax cuts would be 5% for the top marginal rates And the CLAIM made by the GOP and conservatives is that this would make you work less hard. I'm just asking if that is true or not.

When I'm working 23 hours a day and dying at 60 just so you can your ilk can give out 'Obama bucks' to scumbags who choose not to 'work harder'?

Well other than this being a complete strawman - it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION.... that again, I'd love to have your feedback on. So follow this link https://www.politicaljack.com/forums/showthread.php?19412-I-would-reduce-the-amount-I-worked-if-my-taxes-went-up-by and respond

 

[degsme]

i'll see your two bolded words and raise you two more..

NO matter WHOSE COATTAILS we will not see THOSE cuts.

So you think the GOP, if it wins with Romney, will rescind the SuperCommittee law and raise spending? How do you think that would play in 2014? 2016?

Remember how GHWB went down simply because of his promise not to tax Gnus.

 

[PhilFish]

no, I said neither rescind nor raise. but i did say that the cuts as written will not see the light of day...either party..either candidate..

picture Phil with a Yul Brenner pharoh-esque tone..

"so let it be written..."

by the bye..what of these poor Gnus that GHWB taxed so.....? ;-)

 

[degsme]

no, I said neither rescind nor raise. but i did say that the cuts as written will not see the light of day...either party..either candidate..

Well then I don't understand. Those 30% cuts are the law and take effect in Jan 2013

So if Romney is elected and the GOP holds the House - how do they not take effect without being rescinded by legislation? What am I missing?

 

[connieb]

In our case, since DH and I already have demanding careers where we work in excess of 50 hours every week and two small kids, and are already at the top pay levels in our careers, I think we would have no choice but to just cut back. We would really be limited in ways to increase our income due to the hours we already work and our family commitments.

When I was younger though and had more time and worked a less demanding career, I would have probably gone out and tried to get another job/second job. But at this point pretty much being topped out in both the effort we put in and the salaries we make, I don't think we have much room to increase.

connie

 

[degsme]

In our case, since DH and I already have demanding careers where we work in excess of 50 hours every week and two small kids, and are already at the top pay levels in our careers, I think we would have no choice but to just cut back. We would really be limited in ways to increase our income due to the hours we already work and our family commitments.

When I was younger though and had more time and worked a less demanding career, I would have probably gone out and tried to get another job/second job. But at this point pretty much being topped out in both the effort we put in and the salaries we make, I don't think we have much room to increase.

connie

Thanks Connie. You tend to match what I would do.

You do realize that this means that Supply Side predictions about your behaviour are simply and downright wrong. Right?

 

[connieb]

I think that it means that people in different places and economic categories make different decisions.

 

[degsme]

I think that it means that people in different places and economic categories make different decisions.

which does? Again.. look at the polling results. NO one. And I mean NO ONE is saying that they would "work less".

Yet that is what the whole set of "economic solutions" being put forth by the Republicans in Congress, and Romney, Santorum and Gingrich ALL are predicated on.

 

[connieb]

Well, I don't know but I am guessing that none of us are Entreprenuers or inventors, etc.

I got to a job - I make X dollars. I want a certain life so I have to make a certain dollars. If my taxes go up - then I have to cut spending because at this point I just can't make more dollars. There are simply not enough hours in the day.

However, if I were a business owner, or if I were self employed, I may very well make a decision to work less or to not expand the business. But, none of those things are relative to me as an employee who makes a certain salary.

A lot of my clients who are business owners though, do make decisions such as slowing down or closing operations or not expanding operations based on their tax liability as a whole. They will definitely make decisions to take advantage of certain tax deductions. For instance, when they raised the limit of what you could write off in one year and offer "bonus" depreciation as long as the equipment is brand new, people went out and bought brand new equipment instead of 2 or three year old equipment so they could get a bigger write off.

But, those things are not relative to me as an employee whose income is "fixed". For people like me - paying more in taxes means I have less money to spend on other things. Since the economy is based on people spending - I can't see it is a good thing for the economy to have me wanting to spend less.

And, while raising taxes may not have an immediate effect of causing people to "work less" doesn't mean you can discount the impact of offering specialty credits and deductions can have on spurring certain behaviours. And, those credits and deductions are nothing more than tax decreases.

I think the issue at hand is that - no an accross the board even tax increase will probably have little to no effect on production. It will have an effect on spending. Which over time could lead to decreased production. However, offering specialty credits and deductions designed to encourage certain behaviors - such as spending on new homes, and buying new pieces of equipment ( which translate into booms for certain industries) does have a pretty immediate impact on behavior. And, since those specialty deductions are nothing more than tax reductions, then they do have a positive impact on the economy because people will then do things particularly to take advantage of those credits.

 

[degsme]

Well, I don't know but I am guessing that none of us are Entreprenuers or inventors, etc.

Actually that's not the case. CorruptBuddha, myself, WooleyBugger, ImReallyPreplexed are those things. And none of the Supply Side predictions apply to any of us. Nor does it apply to my sister (running her second startup, after running a Venture Capital fund) her husband (on his 3rd startup after being part of Excel Partners one of the premier VC funds)...

I got to a job - I make X dollars. I want a certain life so I have to make a certain dollars. If my taxes go up - then I have to cut spending because at this point I just can't make more dollars. There are simply not enough hours in the day.

And that's pretty much how most of us operate. Including the VCs, Entrepreneurs etc.

However, if I were a business owner, or if I were self employed, I may very well make a decision to work less or to not expand the business.

why? Why does a 5% increase in tax rates apply to a business owner's lifestyle decisions any differently than to you?

Sure they take advantag of certain tax deductions, depreciation etc. But what does that have to do with how much they take home and whether they choose to work harder if their takehome goes down by 5%?

And, while raising taxes may not have an immediate effect of causing people to "work less" doesn't mean you can discount the impact of offering specialty credits and deductions can have on spurring certain behaviours. And, those credits and deductions are nothing more than tax decreases.

We aren't talking about tax incentives for growth and startups- which we have always had, including under ALL of Obama's proposals. What we are talking about is the claim made by Romney, et. al. And GWB before him, and Gingrich's/Gramm's GOP Congress before him and Ronald Reagan before that - that if we raise taxes people will simply choose to work LESS.

I think the issue at hand is that - no an accross the board even tax increase will probably have little to no effect on production. It will have an effect on spending.

By the private sector. But we know that spending by The Government is MORE PRODUCTIVE than spending by the upper 20% of income earners. So how would that result in DECREASED production?

 

[lupehernandezdepedajack]

So far Supply Side arguement is headed for the tank.

Yep but fiscal responsibility is doing pretty darn good.. You know like living within your means and silly simpleton stuff like that

 

[degsme]

Yep but fiscal responsibility is doing pretty darn good.. You know like living within your means and silly simpleton stuff like that

Well except that the gotcha there is the definition of "your means". And the "your means" for the Feds is well outside of what most can conceptually reason about.

 

[BrianDamage]

A 5% increase wouldn't really be enough to worry about. I'd save less for a year or two, until raises caught me up.

 

[Patrick]

A 5% increase wouldn't really be enough to worry about. I'd save less for a year or two, until raises caught me up.

Welcome, Brian. Love the name.

 

[BrianDamage]

Welcome, Brian. Love the name.

Thanks. Nice place you guys got here.

 

[Patrick]

Thanks. Nice place you guys got here.

It is a terrific forum at that. Just keep posting. Make your opinions heard.

 

[degsme]

A 5% increase wouldn't really be enough to worry about. I'd save less for a year or two, until raises caught me up.

There's a ski run just out-of-bounds at Crystal Mountain that stole your NIC for its name....




http://icechewing.huddler.com/imgrepo/thumbs/d/d8/Crystal Mountain 016.jpg

 

[Figjam]

...I'd pay it...

 

[connieb]

The point I was trying to make is I am NOT a job creator. I am a worker. So, no I am personally not working any more.

BUT - If I were a job creator and my tax rate went up - I could determine whether or not it was worth it to employ others. BEcause that is what this is really about. Putting money back into the economy in the form of wages and payments to others. So, I have seen many times people make a decision to not increase the productivity in their businesses as a result of tax policies. That may not be via their own work level, but how many employees they have or will hire, or what services they will choose to outsource, etc.

So, will an individual work less - probably not by choice, no. But will individual business owners make choices that will result in having less people work for them - definitely.