Election '08: So, are doctors hosed?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

stickyshift

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
217
Reaction score
22
Well, it's looking like Obama will be our next President.
Are any of you--particularly those of you who are shareholders in your practice--apprehensive about the future?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well, it's looking like Obama will be our next President.
Are any of you--particularly those of you who are shareholders in your practice--apprehensive about the future?

I got the following email from a trusted source today, nothing you couldn't have guessed yourself. Take it for what it's worth (the highlights are mine):

"Election Edge. Y'day hosted several meetings with The Cypress Group, a Washington-based political consultant (thus these are not the views of ML research). Below is their take on the key issues, as well as suggested/relevant stock picks in bold:

The Election: Although Cypress expect Obama to win (McCain would have to win all of the Rep. defending states + a few swing states to overturn), the more important variable from a domestic legislative perspective is Senate. 60 seats is the procedural threshold to prevent one side from filibustering debates, the Dems already have 49 +2 independents; Cypress see 7 more seats going their way & given there are typically 3/4 swing Republicans, there's a potential for the senate to really open up for the Dems.

TARP: Timeline as follows: a) Asset Mngrs will be chosen over next few wks; b) Applications to participate must be submitted by Nov. 14th; c) Pricing mechanism rolled out by Nov. 17th (45 days from when TARP was passed). Next potential steps: More borrower focused interventions (i.e. directly resetting mortgages), bill to extend unempl. benefits (wk. of Nov 17), broader financial mkt restrctng (CDS clearing house, etc.)

Healthcare: Obama doesn't have the political or financial capital for full reform (such as universal health insurance), so likely no real impact on HMOs. Cypress see a -ve for the PBMs from increased gov't negotiation in Part D. More focus for Phase IV style initiatives/increased safety focus is +ve for CROs (PPDI/CVD etc). Companies exposed to SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Program) likely to benefit- ML research analyst ******* sees AGP as the best play here. Generic Biologics also likely to benefit- so TEVA/BRL.

Energy/Utilities: Climate change now becomes a focus policy area w/ potential for significant progress (Obama's version of The Marshall Plan). Post-election nuclear becomes a substantial theme- feel could be very +ve for SGR and EXC. Renewable energy to make up between 10-25% of Ute portfolios in 5/10yrs. Oil & Gas to potentially see a 25% tax on profits north of $85 oil, and the ~$17bn in tax credits for the industry to be phased out. Carbon trading likely to be auction based.

Tobacco: 70-75% probability that Tobacco will get regulated by the FDA. For LO, menthol legislation becomes more likely w/ Dems in office. Excise tax will go up as well (by potentially 60c to $1.00).

Tax: See possible move to 36%/39% on the top 2 tax brackets. Cap gains could go from 15% -> 20%. Dividend tax from 36% -> 39%. Carried interest likely to be treated as ord inc. Cap on social security contributions lifted from $108k -> $250k. "
 
Last edited:
Universeral healthcare might be good for pathologists. 60,000,000 extra people that can pay their lab and path bills couldn't be a bad thing.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Universeral healthcare might be good for pathologists. 60,000,000 extra people that can pay their lab and path bills couldn't be a bad thing.

This was your post# 666...
 
Well, it's looking like Obama will be our next President.
Are any of you--particularly those of you who are shareholders in your practice--apprehensive about the future?

i'm hella scared. i'm gonna be pretty pissed off if me and my hard-earned money get penalized for being >250K. this is simply ridiculous.
 
i'm hella scared. i'm gonna be pretty pissed off if me and my hard-earned money get penalized for being >250K. this is simply ridiculous.

I think people are being overly dramatic. The increase in taxes he is proposing (which is just a proposal and therefore unlikely to ever see daylight in its current form without compromise, which means it's probably a bigger increase than will actually happen) is an extra 3% on income >$250k, thus, $3000 for every $100k (instead of $36k you pay $39k). There are other vaguaries involved, of course, and no doubt billions of loopholes, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I hate taxes too but unfortunately the last 8 years of so-called "conservatives" in control have ballooned the government way too much and now we have to suffer for the excesses.
 
i'm hella scared. i'm gonna be pretty pissed off if me and my hard-earned money get penalized for being >250K. this is simply ridiculous.

It is just going back to the way it was during the roaring 90s under Bill Clinton. Weren't those good times?

If you can't handle the extra tax, quit doctoring and go into a profession where you work just as hard and earn 55K. That way you will get a piece of the pie from those of us earning 250K and feel good and happy about wealth redistribution via the tax code instead of pissed and scared.
 
I think people are being overly dramatic. The increase in taxes he is proposing (which is just a proposal and therefore unlikely to ever see daylight in its current form without compromise, which means it's probably a bigger increase than will actually happen) is an extra 3% on income >$250k, thus, $3000 for every $100k (instead of $36k you pay $39k). There are other vaguaries involved, of course, and no doubt billions of loopholes, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I hate taxes too but unfortunately the last 8 years of so-called "conservatives" in control have ballooned the government way too much and now we have to suffer for the excesses.


I would like to repeat what yaah said there to make sure it sinks in...
an extra 3% on income OVER >250k.
You make 251K, that extra 3% is only on the last 1k of your income (aka $30 more).
So to end up paying an extra $3000 dollars you have make $350k.
(and if there is a cut in the rate on the lower tax brackets you gain some small benefit from that).
 
I think people are being overly dramatic. The increase in taxes he is proposing (which is just a proposal and therefore unlikely to ever see daylight in its current form without compromise, which means it's probably a bigger increase than will actually happen) is an extra 3% on income >$250k, thus, $3000 for every $100k (instead of $36k you pay $39k). There are other vaguaries involved, of course, and no doubt billions of loopholes, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I hate taxes too but unfortunately the last 8 years of so-called "conservatives" in control have ballooned the government way too much and now we have to suffer for the excesses.

3% of your GROSS income is HUGE. In the top brackets, that is actually more like 6% of your take home.

I was reading a WSJ article today that says in the near future >50% of the country will pay NO taxes and be able to force their will via the vote on the sub50 who still do pay taxes....formula for..wait for it...EPIC FAIL!


081.jpg
 
Besides the increased payroll taxes and the increased marginal tax rates, Dems are kicking around a plan to end 401k's and move all of the assets into a nationalized pension plan. You would then be required to contribute 5% of your income every year to this plan (essentially an additional payroll tax), which invests in Treasury bills for a guaranteed 3% return. You would be taxed on the capital gains in this account every year.
When you retire, you get an annuity, just like Social Security.
The benefit to the government is obvious: it finally gets its hands on the trillions of dollars squirreled away in 401k's. This is money that the government can then use for its own purposes.
The drawbacks to 401k holders are also obvious: smaller contributions, feeble return on investment, capital gains taxation every year. If the abolition of 401k's occur before the market bounces back, losses will be "locked in."
And one huge drawback: if the retirement payouts are means-tested, high income workers will receive less for their investment than other workers . . . possibly even less than they put in.
The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we became ineligible for benefits if we have any significant assets outside of the pension plan . . .
 
the proposal also suggests that the tax-deductibility of contributions should no longer be allowed.
 
Besides the increased payroll taxes and the increased marginal tax rates, Dems are kicking around a plan to end 401k's and move all of the assets into a nationalized pension plan. .

LMAO...hold it, ARE YOU SERIOUS??

LOLOLOLOLOL...end of America....(catches breath)....LOLOLOLOL...race riots.....LOLOLOLOL....looting

Truck%20of%20Fail.jpg
 
Besides the increased payroll taxes and the increased marginal tax rates, Dems are kicking around a plan to end 401k's and move all of the assets into a nationalized pension plan. You would then be required to contribute 5% of your income every year to this plan (essentially an additional payroll tax), which invests in Treasury bills for a guaranteed 3% return. You would be taxed on the capital gains in this account every year.

Wow scary stuff until you actually READ the news and realize that NO "Dems" are actually kicking it around.

It is an idea proposed by an single economist in a left leaning economic think tank...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York....

It is by no means a certainty that Congress or a President Obama would embrace such a proposal, but this is a direction in which things may move if the Democrats make big gains next month.
The writer merely speculates that thing MIGHT go that way... and it is in an editorial.... by a columnist who has a strong conservative bent...
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
If you can't handle the extra tax, quit doctoring and go into a profession where you work just as hard and earn 55K. That way you will get a piece of the pie from those of us earning 250K and feel good and happy about wealth redistribution via the tax code instead of pissed and scared.

This is a pretty immature comment, and doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense....who the hell would do such a thing?

Anyhooo...i think LaDoc is right (just this once.....:smuggrin:) "3% of your GROSS income is HUGE. In the top brackets, that is actually more like 6% of your take home." I think people have right to be pissed, scared, or whatever. Just b/c you might be making >350 or whatever as people have noted and that may only account for 3K ("So to end up paying an extra $3000 dollars you have make $350K") doesn't mean folks somehow don't deserve or have not earned this money. They (hopefully we) have an equal right to it as much as someone making <55K and if they had to fork over extra $ for taxes/etc.
 
Well of course no one likes paying an extra 3% (probably even more at even higher incomes, who knows). But no one is ever going to institute a sane tax policy like a flat tax. The whole "it's my money so I deserve it more than you" argument is actually pretty weak. Why do you deserve the money more than someone who works the same hours as you but doesn't get paid as well? Why does a lawyer make more than a teacher? Why does an astronaut make less than a doctor? Why am I going to make more than a general surgeon? Do slack-ass trust fund babies who work 20 hrs/week for some phony "non-profit" deserve their income?

I don't know what the solution is going to be. I get really annoyed with redistribution of wealth too - I also hate to see all the $$$ i pay in taxes get wasted on people with entitlement complexes, bloated corrupt politicians, and inefficient government funded projects. But I am also at the point now where I can see where this country is going and an extra 3% or whatever is a small price to pay to attempt to improve the society we all live in. But I encourage my democrat friends to realize that my feelings are only temporary and as soon as the economy improves, we aren't inserting ourselves into foreign conflicts where we don't belong, and we start eliminating corruption-related spending I am going to want to see that come down (in recognition of my generous "sacrifice" for the good of the nation ;) ) and waste get eliminated. Otherwise I will start voting for republicans again, even if they are still wedded to the christian right.
 
I don't give a crap if it's only 3%...it could be only 1.5%...it's still the principle that, little by little, a larger percentage of Americans are cared for by a smaller percentage for the sole purpose of creating a superficial sense of equality, the whole time feeding the notion that you should ask not what you can do for yourself or your country, but what your country can do for you.

The government was not established to be the arbiter of fairness, regardless of what rationale you use.

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all." —Richard Weaver, 1962
 
READ VERY CAREFULLY

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all
such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to
drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got
a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth
man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
 
READ VERY CAREFULLY

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

That pretty good except you forgot about before they decided on those prices.
At first the ninth payed $22, and the tenth payed $65.
But then their buddies RR and GWB decided that everyone would get more beer if #9 and #10 paid less (it would trickle down)...

So after that they started running up a $6 tab which they keep carrying over...
And nobody got any extra beers...

And now they have a huge bar tab, because they kept paying 6 dollars less than they owed (and the Bar charges interest)
 
...But then their buddies RR and GWB decided that everyone would get more beer if #9 and #10 paid less (it would trickle down)...

And then BO chided in, "C'mon guys, we've got to spread the wealth."

[In 2000, the top 60% of taxpayers paid 100% of all income taxes. The bottom 40% collectively paid no income taxes. It's kinda hard to give the bulk of a tax cut to people who don't PAY income taxes.

From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% dropped from 0% to –4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81% to 85%.]

chart6_lg.gif
 
READ VERY CAREFULLY

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all
such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to
drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got
a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth
man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

Bravo!
 
And then BO chided in, "C'mon guys, we've got to spread the wealth."

[In 2000, the top 60% of taxpayers paid 100% of all income taxes. The bottom 40% collectively paid no income taxes. It's kinda hard to give the bulk of a tax cut to people who don't PAY income taxes.

From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% dropped from 0% to –4%, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81% to 85%.]

I am all for using numbers to explain a point, but what percentage of US income did the top quintile have, and how did that change from 2000 to 2004? I suspect that it changed (i.e. increased) by even more than the 4% increase in tax revenues from this quintile, which would mean these numbers you posted are just invalid massaging of data. Numbers mean very little without context. But this is how the argument always goes - advocates for tax reduction point to the "percentage of tax income" paid by higher income, while advocates for higher taxes point to the stratification of wealth and all the money that those at the top take home. Neither are really great arguments in isolation. But unfortunately voters don't generally care about the truth - they only care about soundbites.

I heard a guy on the radio the other day who couldn't name either of the candidates for president, but was going to vote Republican because he "liked that Sarah Palin" and because "that black guy hung around with suspicious people."
 
I am all for using numbers to explain a point, but what percentage of US income did the top quintile have, and how did that change from 2000 to 2004? I suspect that it changed (i.e. increased) by even more than the 4% increase in tax revenues from this quintile, which would mean these numbers you posted are just invalid massaging of data.

Right on the money there Yaah...

And schrute, you need to stop using Income tax Liabilities and start using Total Federal Tax Liabilities

Liabilities % (by Quartile 2000 data)
Income ...... Total
-1.9 ........... 1.1
1.1 ............ 4.8
5.7 ............ 9.8
13.5 .......... 17.4
81.2 .......... 66.7


There are other kinds of tax, so stop acting like the income tax liability means they are all getting handouts.

And the bottom quartile pays the most (as a % compared to other quartiles) in excise tax. The top 2 quartiles pay very little of % of total earnings in excise tax.
 
READ VERY CAREFULLY

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all
such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to
drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got
a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth
man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.


I nominate this for the "Best Post" award

The first time in my life I can begin to grasp how taxes work, but can't stop to think about that because suddenly I'm very thirsty...
 
The wealthy pay far more than their fair share of the taxes, considering their income:

Consider the CBO data. In 2005, the lowest quintile of income earners paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes but earned 4.8 percent of after-tax income. The second lowest quintile paid 4.1 percent but earned 9.6 percent. The middle quintile paid 9.3 percent but earned 14.4 percent. The fourth quintile paid 16.9 percent but earned 20.6 percent.
Meanwhile, the highest quintile paid 68.7 percent of all federal taxes but earned only 51.6 percent of after-tax income, a difference of 17.1 percentage points. For the top 10 percent of income earners, the difference between percentage of federal taxes paid and percentage of after-tax income earned was 17.3 percentage points. For the top 5 percent, the difference was 16 percentage points. For the top 1 percent, it was 12 percentage points.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/america-has-a-highly-progressive-tax-system
 
The wealthy pay far more than their fair share of the taxes, considering their income:

Consider the CBO data. In 2005, the lowest quintile of income earners paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes but earned 4.8 percent of after-tax income. The second lowest quintile paid 4.1 percent but earned 9.6 percent. The middle quintile paid 9.3 percent but earned 14.4 percent. The fourth quintile paid 16.9 percent but earned 20.6 percent.
Meanwhile, the highest quintile paid 68.7 percent of all federal taxes but earned only 51.6 percent of after-tax income, a difference of 17.1 percentage points. For the top 10 percent of income earners, the difference between percentage of federal taxes paid and percentage of after-tax income earned was 17.3 percentage points. For the top 5 percent, the difference was 16 percentage points. For the top 1 percent, it was 12 percentage points.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/america-has-a-highly-progressive-tax-system

Using these number shows a relative parity (vs the numbers that shrute was using).

A couple points:
1) The use of after tax income % is not correct. It magnifies the difference. If you want to be accurate with this (rather than trying to skew it to support a point of view) use pretax income % vs % of tax share.

2) The number STILL show that the top 5% and top 1% are getting a benifit (despite the use of after tax income %), with a better ratio that the fifth quintile

3) This is just federal tax. States are the ones with the heavier excise tax base, which as I mentioned hits the lower quintiles harder


And lastly,
A rough parity on income is a reasonable goal except that % income =/= % net worth... try looking at net worth number for American households you will see that the top quintile and even more so the top 5% and 1% have grown vastly more wealthy but the rest of the American people have not benefited...

These are differences between Pre-tax % and % of tax burden... first the quintiles and then the top 10% 5% and 1%
1.......2......3......4.......5
3.2 ..4.4 ..4.0 ...2.9 ...13.6


Top 10% 13.8 Top 5% 12.7 and Top 1% 9.5
 
BTW...Obama just lowered the # last night in his commercial to $200,000 (which was taped a week ago).
 
BTW...Obama just lowered the # last night in his commercial to $200,000 (which was taped a week ago).

BTW he didn't.

He has said he would only raise taxes on people over 250k.

Last night he repeated he would lower taxes on people everyone below 200k. (which he has said before)

He didn't lower anything.
 
BTW he didn't.

He has said he would only raise taxes on people over 250k.

Last night he repeated he would lower taxes on people everyone below 200k. (which he has said before)

He didn't lower anything.
My bad...it was Biden and $150,000.

I was just confused when he said last night, "No higher taxes for those under $200,000."
 
And the bottom quartile pays the most (as a % compared to other quartiles) in excise tax. The top 2 quartiles pay very little of % of total earnings in excise tax.

“According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Census Bureau, 47.5 percent of taxpayers and nonfilers in fiscal year 2001 had adjusted gross incomes of $30,000 or less and paid only 5.4 percent of federal income, payroll and excise taxes...”

Again, you can challenge my numbers with your numbers all day, but it doesn't change the logic you use & the justification for applying it, which is that the ends justify the means. So is it only fair if the top 1% sees a raise of 3% while everyone in my bracket & below gets a 10% cut?

Sure, if you believe in social contract theory (a la Rousseau), moral relativity and the federal government as an egalitarian arbiter of equality. It reeks of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and is the ethos of entitlement over competition.
 
“According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Census Bureau, 47.5 percent of taxpayers and nonfilers in fiscal year 2001 had adjusted gross incomes of $30,000 or less and paid only 5.4 percent of federal income, payroll and excise taxes...”

Again, you can challenge my numbers with your numbers all day, but it doesn't change the logic you use & the justification for applying it, which is that the ends justify the means. So is it only fair if the top 1% sees a raise of 3% while everyone in my bracket & below gets a 10% cut?

Sure, if you believe in social contract theory (a la Rousseau), moral relativity and the federal government as an egalitarian arbiter of equality. It reeks of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and is the ethos of entitlement over competition.

I argue the numbers because the only understanding of equity must come from data... and using skewed data makes the argument skewed..

I agree that in the end it comes down a philosophical underpinning that has nothing to do with numbers...

But lastly pointing out the social contract theory.
That is the very foundation on which republics are built.

To say it "social contract" reeks of socialism, would be like me saying saying Bush and McCain's plans reek of Monarchism.
When at most it has shades of Oligarchy.

Yes, Socialism was developed after the social contract, and has certain aspects of the social contract enhanced in the extreme...

But they are not similar, they are not even on the same path...
 
I argue the numbers because the only understanding of equity must come from data... and using skewed data makes the argument skewed..

I agree that in the end it comes down a philosophical underpinning that has nothing to do with numbers...

But lastly pointing out the social contract theory.
That is the very foundation on which republics are built.

To say it "social contract" reeks of socialism, would be like me saying saying Bush and McCain's plans reek of Monarchism.
When at most it has shades of Oligarchy.

Yes, Socialism was developed after the social contract, and has certain aspects of the social contract enhanced in the extreme...

But they are not similar, they are not even on the same path...

Right, so Rousseau, Robespierre, and the whole Jacobin lot of the French Revolution set the groundwork for the United States?

I’m sorry, I have to flat out disagree with you there. Social contract is not the foundation of our republic (unless you subscribe to “philosophy by Wiki”). Our nation was not founded on the notion that all its citizens must work towards the greater good, putting the “general will” above the “will of the individual”. Under Rousseauian social contract, citizens have no rights that the general will is bound to respect ; no rights that they do not surrender as part of the social contract.
 
That's why I remain skeptical that the poorer majority that LADoc mentioned will ever impose their will on the wealthier minority. Many of the members of the poorer majority either don't realize they are in it or don't realize whose "will" would benefit them.

Don't forget propaganda is a two way street, and ignorance isn't prejudice to political ideology.
 
BTW he didn't.

He has said he would only raise taxes on people over 250k.

Last night he repeated he would lower taxes on people everyone below 200k. (which he has said before)

He didn't lower anything.


So what's McCain's plan on this issue? Is he not going to increase taxes on folks >250k? (hint hint....influencing my vote....keeping the cash where it belongs: in my back pocket, or in my scottrade acount).
 
READ VERY CAREFULLY

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all
such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to
drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got
a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth
man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

ladoc, why have you not referenced this? i've seen this before a million times all over peoples blog spaces.
 
Right, so Rousseau, Robespierre, and the whole Jacobin lot of the French Revolution set the groundwork for the United States?

I’m sorry, I have to flat out disagree with you there. Social contract is not the foundation of our republic (unless you subscribe to “philosophy by Wiki”). Our nation was not founded on the notion that all its citizens must work towards the greater good, putting the “general will” above the “will of the individual”. Under Rousseauian social contract, citizens have no rights that the general will is bound to respect ; no rights that they do not surrender as part of the social contract.

How about some guy name...... John Locke...?

Oh right, that is the guy you didn't name because he DID influence all of the people you listed above AND our founding fathers...

Two Treatises of Government 1689
that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God.

The relationship between the state and its citizens took the form of a 'contract,' whereby the governed agreed to surrender certain freedoms they enjoyed under the state of nature in exchange for the order and protection provided by a state, exercised according to the rule of law.

Gee that first part sounds similar to something else... I wonder what that is...


Look, stop being so petulant.

I already said this clearly comes down to a philosophical difference.
I said as much and yet you persist in act as if calling people here ignorant is going to win an argument.

I said that I think that Locke's theories form the basis on which the US was founded and at least partly describe the principles of how a society works.

You clearly have some competing philosophical point of view. Badgering and name calling does not change peoples' minds.

Numbers can be argued as they have a factual underpinning.

Philosophical points of view are points of view, they shade everything. Yours is clearly vastly different from mine.

You want to argue that some competing philosophy drove the foundation of this country or how society works? Fine, be my guest.
But don't act like people who have a different point of view are clearly ignorant.
 
LOLOLOLOLOL...conversation devolves into discussion of French revolution, which was crazy bloodthirsty slaughter for the most part and utterly devoid of any intellectual underpinnings for the participants...

The analogy indeed is not mine, it was sent to me secondhand from interestingly enough one of the founders of Intel (long story..) originating from Dr. Kamerschen at UofGeorgia.

Look folks, no one, no politician, gives a crap about us. We have our wits, inherent cunning and if we are lucky, each other to rely on. We are fighting a losing battle against government, greedy payors and often ungrateful patients.

Our halcyon days are gone, like the Elves departing to Gray Havens our best leaders have abandoned us, either in retirement or death. All of those reading and responding on these boards will not be successful, some of you will taste defeat, often for the first time, as you begin this final struggle with your career in medicine.

God help us.

Angele Dei, qui custos es mei, me tibi commissum pietate superna; illumina, custodi, rege, et guberna.
Amen.
 
All Obama would do is reverse the Tax Cuts of Bush, so it really isn't a Tax Increase. It will just go back to how it was before Bush for the top few percent of the wealthy. Everyone is spazzing out for no reason. Bush ruined the country and its economy so don't be mad about Obama reversing his tax cuts. 95% of america will have more money to spend on their path and lab bills. Isn't that a good thing?
 
All Obama would do is reverse the Tax Cuts of Bush, so it really isn't a Tax Increase. It will just go back to how it was before Bush for the top few percent of the wealthy. Everyone is spazzing out for no reason. Bush ruined the country and its economy so don't be mad about Obama reversing his tax cuts. 95% of america will have more money to spend on their path and lab bills. Isn't that a good thing?

I found this on the Obama website:

"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility."

"Give back a portion of the taxes." What an interesting choice of words, since citizens don't receive taxes--governments do. The clear suggestion is that the beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts were wrongfully diverting money headed for the Treasury into their own pockets.

So much for "keeping more of what you earn." It's really true--liberals don't think it's your money--it's government's money, and it just mercifully lets you keep some of it.
 
Ive oft wondered what an LADOC presidency would be like..obviously a far far cry from what we've experienced in this country so far.

America would wake up LADOCprez day+1 to a new world of "infinite justice".

Hundreds of thousands of petty criminals would be released from costly prisons and placed in foriegn legion battalions in American controlled territories. Several thousand still in jail for more heinous crimes would be hung off the prison walls.

The corrupt of Wall Street would be crucified along Manhattan plazas and parks, with armed guards stationed, in a state of perpetual suffering as they begged passerbys for mercy.

High schools would return to teaching useful skills such as plumbing, mechanical repair and the basics of construction. Colleges would be forced to reduce costs by 50%.

All cities and states would be forced to balance budgets or risk complete siezure by Federal forces. All citizens from the age of 18-20 would serve in civil service of some sort, either military, security or public works projects. Failure to comply with this would result in immediate explusion for life from the country.

Borders would be well guarded. On commonly incurred by illegal crossers, large monuments of skulls would be placed.

The IRS would cease to exist as we know it, federal income taxes for individuals would be zero.

All wars would require a vote of the people and not merely the will of a president. All wars would be fought on utterly absolute terms: the entire opposing nation would be annihilated to last man, woman and child. Their cultural records would be ground into the dust, their refugees hunted and their stories stricken from books.
 
:laugh: I'll vote for you - but this sounds expensive, actually like an expansion of government. where do you get the money to do all of this if you have no taxes?
 
All cities and states would be forced to balance budgets or risk complete siezure by Federal forces.

The IRS would cease to exist as we know it, federal income taxes for individuals would be zero.


I too am curious how infinite justice is achieved with 0 income taxes?

I'm guessing that LADOC administration wouldn't being doing any deficit spending, or is there a double standard for the feds vs everyone else?

American foreign legion, heh...
:smuggrin:
 
I too am curious how infinite justice is achieved with 0 income taxes?

infinite justice is ONLY achieved when income tax is zero. When you correct wages and the value of labor (by means which are far far too complex for description here), you establish the true income meritocracy. You are trapped in a delusional philosophical misunderstanding that economies automatically must unjustly divide income, this is completely false. Under the unmerciful hammer of my leadership, effort WILL be properly rewarded.

My government would not only survive with no individual income taxes, it would prosper as a beacon of capitalist and industrial will. Intellectual wellsprings would develop producing government revenue based on corporate earnings, usage taxes and capital gain (although capital gain tax would be quite small, about 1/2 of what it is now). The tax base would prosper on revenue from advanced natural resource mining/energy policies, intellectual property from massive government research projects and smartly curtailed government spending.
 
Last edited:
infinite justice is ONLY achieved when income tax is zero. When you correct wages and the value of labor (by means which are far far too complex for description here), you establish the true income meritocracy. You are trapped in a delusional philosophical misunderstanding that economies automatically must unjustly divide income, this is completely false. Under the unmerciful hammer of my leadership, effort WILL be properly rewarded.

I wasn't asking about the merit based income concept... I wondered how do you fund the vast foreign legion and the army of 18-20 years guarding our borders and occupying the debt ridden major cities?

Gold farming in WOW? A tax err surcharge on illegal alien skull piles?

Copyright the phrase "infinite justice" and make anyone pay when they use it in internet forums?
 
I wasn't asking about the merit based income concept... I wondered how do you fund the vast foreign legion and the army of 18-20 years guarding our borders and occupying the debt ridden major cities?

Gold farming in WOW? A tax err surcharge on illegal alien skull piles?

Copyright the phrase "infinite justice" and make anyone pay when they use it in internet forums?

Youre asking this because you dont truly understand where our tax dollars go. We could easily eliminate federal income tax today in fact with minimal disruption to our lives (and much increased consumer spending/personal enjoyment). Realize economies are somewhat closed systems, money doesnt get eaten by the dollar goblin if the government doesnt tax it immediately. Crazy I know, there is NO dollar goblin/troll! Tax CONSUMPTION AND USAGE, not income.
 
Ive oft wondered what an LADOC presidency would be like..obviously a far far cry from what we've experienced in this country so far.

America would wake up LADOCprez day+1 to a new world of "infinite justice".

Hundreds of thousands of petty criminals would be released from costly prisons and placed in foriegn legion battalions in American controlled territories. Several thousand still in jail for more heinous crimes would be hung off the prison walls.

The corrupt of Wall Street would be crucified along Manhattan plazas and parks, with armed guards stationed, in a state of perpetual suffering as they begged passerbys for mercy.

High schools would return to teaching useful skills such as plumbing, mechanical repair and the basics of construction. Colleges would be forced to reduce costs by 50%.

All cities and states would be forced to balance budgets or risk complete siezure by Federal forces. All citizens from the age of 18-20 would serve in civil service of some sort, either military, security or public works projects. Failure to comply with this would result in immediate explusion for life from the country.

Borders would be well guarded. On commonly incurred by illegal crossers, large monuments of skulls would be placed.

The IRS would cease to exist as we know it, federal income taxes for individuals would be zero.

All wars would require a vote of the people and not merely the will of a president. All wars would be fought on utterly absolute terms: the entire opposing nation would be annihilated to last man, woman and child. Their cultural records would be ground into the dust, their refugees hunted and their stories stricken from books.

Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant!
 
Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant!

More like this man, perhaps the greatest non-religious leader in human history.

uewb_07_img0461.jpg


1 LADOC gold star to whom can tell me the man I refer to...

Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go.
 
More like this man, perhaps the greatest non-religious leader in human history.

uewb_07_img0461.jpg


1 LADOC gold star to whom can tell me the man I refer to...

Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go.

Looks like Alcibiades.
 
Top