Why Do Democrat Politicians Prefer To Spend Other Peoples Money?


#107

Also there is no sacrifice or pain on their part. How many politicians deliberately live below their means so that they can give 70% of their income to the poor?


#108

It is on everything in that rate.


#109

Right. But who is arguing how marginal tax rates work? Even if someone does not know how they work, it’s not because they’re stupid, it’s because they never bothered to find out. Same goes for those that know how they work. It’s nothing to be proud of as it is no more complicated than 2nd grade math.


#110

That is what this discussion is about. Marginal tax rate on anything above 10 million.


#111

It also gives lawyers an opportunity to develop ways around those laws so that they can make money off of any new legislation as well. This is the main reason most lawmakers - most of whom were lawyers or have law degrees - like a very complex tax code.


#112

The thing at the professional corporate level all of those salaries are negotiated. I can’t even think of what high incomes are not negotiated? Even athletes negotiate their salaries. Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine anyone negotiating for a salary in which >80-90% is going to be taxed. In other words there is no point in having that as income. So it is very unlikely that tax rate would generate the revenue one would predict.


#113

A company car is taxed as ordinary income. Non-qualified stock options (NSOs) are taxed at ordinary income when exercised. If you hold the stock the for over a year, the gains will be taxed at capital gains rate.

Incentive stock option (ISOs) are not taxed when exercised but the gain is used to calculate the AMT. If you sell the stocks within a year, the gain will be taxed as ordinary income but at cap gains rate if held for more than a year.

Most options are granted as NSO’s. Note: all of this assumes the value of the stock goes up.


#114

At least for the NFL most salaries would be structured differently than they are now. As of right now a player can average 8-10 Mil a year and get a 20 million dollar signing bonus that is prorated over the life of the contract for cap purposes but the player receives it all at once. That would come to an end. They would most definitely not take their bonus all at once.

The NBA and MLB would have to figure out more creative ways because they are paid much more on average. But players in the NFL, even star players, wouldn’t need to see anymore than 10M per year.


#115

I could even see those high earners negotiating for life insurance policies as a means of compensation. Nonetheless, anything and everything to avoid that sort of tax rate.


#116

You would most likely see guaranteed money in the contract even if the player is cut. That way they would drag out the taxes over several years.


#117

Replacing income today for something else has tradeoffs.


#118

We should just take the tippy tippy tops, and stuff.


#119

You know what makes no logical sense? Youre supposed understanding of the tax system.

Educate yourself on marginal tax rates, then come back and start a new thread that maybe doesn’t fail so bigly…


#120

I don’t think that 74 posts in a thread is failing. I’ve seen a lot worse several times.

I think you should start a thread about this subject.
After all, it’s you posting in my thread. Why post in it, if I’m not “Educated”
enough in marginal tax rates, or anything else for that matter on here.


#121

Donald Trump (the Democrat) just proposed he wants to spend the following Taxpayers money: “ … $800 million in urgent humanitarian assistance; $805 million for drug detection technology … $5.7 billion for a strategic deployment of physical barriers, or a wall.”

Why does (Democrat) Donald Trump want to spend this money that is not his aka “other peoples money”?


#122

If I take your logic to its conclusion, we would lower tax rates to 0% and maximize revenue. Do you really think that would result in max revenues?

So if you want to maximize revenue (say to pay debt), there is likely an optimal tax rate for this goal. You have provided no evidence that lowering rates would bring us closer to that optimal rate.