GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Biden Moves To Outlaw Acorns, Limit Squirrel Immigration

npace

Autocross Champion
Location
Netherlands
Now, as far as federal taxes. A VAT tax, really? Maybe we should just go to a federal sales tax (ie "Flat Tax"), right? That way somebody making minimum wage can pay the same Federal Sales Tax on a gallon of milk that Jeff Bezos pays on a gallon of milk. The Flat Tax, the VAT Tax, the National Sales Tax, are just ways to move our progressive federal tax system to a regressive federal tax system that taxes the poor and middle class the same way it taxes the rich. It's a horrible idea. Anyone that's more of an economist and less of a Republican pundit understands this. The middle class spend much of their paychecks. The rich don't. You want to get the economy going, you put more money in the hands of the middle class. This does not mean you punish the rich, but if you keep tilting the tax code more and more to the rich, then there are less and less people with money to support the US economy.

Case in point... why is it that CEOs can get paid in stock options that are only taxed at the top equity rate, which is something like 15%, meanwhile, their earned income rate would be at the top tax bracket of 35-37%? Why does every other "normal" American have to pay on their total income, with most of us only taking the standard deduction, but these CEO making over $10M a year can pay the top rate on their $1M salary, but then only pay maybe a 15% rate on the remainder of their income, because it was paid in stock options? And don't tell me that the CEOs are worth it, because American CEO making many times more than Japanese or German CEOs, and even when they do bad, the company board just "reprices" the options lower so they make about just as much money as before. The CEO always get paid, regardless of how the company performs.
Do you think Billionaires consume less than poor or middle class people? The VAT is based on consumption. You love social programs and talk about how successful European countries are with them. Do you know how those programs are paid for? It's with a VAT. Yes, if a billionaire and a poor person buy a gallon of milk, they both pay the same tax on that gallon. The difference is that the billionaire then goes and pays a VAT on a yacht, or jet fuel for his trip to the swiss alps, or whatever else billionaires buy, that the poor person isn't buying. That makes the billionaire pay a lot more. If you and Bernie want Scandinavian style socialism, should we not adopt a Scandinavian style tax code? Do you get it now, or do I have to go further on this point?

On the capital gains tax, the reason there's a difference in tax rates is the associated risk. If I work for a company and only get paid in stock options, then my salary fluctuates with the valuation of the company, and there's a very real risk that my compensation goes down significantly. If I get paid a set salary, my pay comes in as long as I don't get fired or laid off. Also, if you start taxing capital gains the same as income, it removes the incentive for investment. If I take what's left of my income after it's already been taxed and then invest it, and make money, I get taxed again. But If I lose money, does the government compensate me? Of course not. Your proposal would price the middle class, whom you keep making statements about, out of being able to invest and build upward earning portfolios. These are simple concepts, and it proves why the system is fu**ed up. Doubling down on a stupid system, which seems to be your answer, doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

npace

Autocross Champion
Location
Netherlands
It's extremely misleading to say the Fed is not a govt agency, it is part of the US Govt, most definitely, and the Fed Reserve Bank branches are able to operate independent **of the Fed** on a day to day operations basis, but they are in no way independent banks, like Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, or Bank of America. The Fed Reserve Banks are accountable to the Fed, which is ultimately accountable to the US Govt, the US Congress as elected leaders of the US Govt, and the President (not directly, but indirectly). To be clear, a US President can remove the Fed Chairman for cause... and a US President can simply make up any cause they want, as who is going to stop him? Case in point, Trump constantly harassed the Fed Chairman because he disagreed with the Fed increasing interest rates. Many thought Trump was just going to make up a reason to fire him. If Trump fired him (for "cause") then who would have stopped him... I'll help you, nobody would.
The FED describes itself as an "independent government agency". I explained why it really isn't accountable to anyone in practice. Nothing I said was false... those 12 banks were set up to operate independently from one another, and have a large range of control over what they can do without central control. I'm not interested in the idea that the FED is somehow responsible to taxpayers because of the slight of hand oversight Congress pretends to have over it. Like I said, Congress and the President will cause problems for some of the board members, and maybe the chair for political reasons, but the FED does what it does. Trump "harassed" Janet Yellen because she was an Obama appointee and he constantly did things to control the media news cycle.
 

MagicMK

Drag Racing Champion
Location
PA
Do you think Billionaires consume less than poor or middle class people? The VAT is based on consumption. You love social programs and talk about how successful European countries are with them. Do you know how those programs are paid for? It's with a VAT. Yes, if a billionaire and a poor person buy a gallon of milk, they both pay the same tax on that gallon. The difference is that the billionaire then goes and pays a VAT on a yacht, or jet fuel for his trip to the swiss alps, or whatever else billionaires buy, that the poor person isn't buying. That makes the billionaire pay a lot more. If you and Bernie want Scandinavian style socialism, should we not adopt a Scandinavian style tax code? Do you get it now, or do I have to go further on this point?

On the capital gains tax, the reason there's a difference in tax rates is the associated risk. If I work for a company and only get paid in stock options, then my salary fluctuates with the valuation of the company, and there's a very real risk that my compensation goes down significantly. If I get paid a set salary, my pay comes in as long as I don't get fired or laid off. Also, if you start taxing capital gains the same as income, it removes the incentive for investment. If I take what's left of my income after it's already been taxed and then invest it, and make money, I get taxed again. But If I lose money, does the government compensate me? Of course not. Your proposal would price the middle class, whom you keep making statements about, out of being able to invest and build upward earning portfolios. These are simple concepts, and it proves why the system is fu**ed up. Doubling down on a stupid system, which seems to be your answer, doesn't make a lot of sense.
So, yes, I'm aware that Europeans use a VAT consumption tax, but they *also* have progressive federal income tax systems as well. Of course, each country is a bit different in the EU, but they all tend to have progressive tax systems + a VAT. Republicans want to effectively disband the federal progressive income tax and move the expense of the federal govt more onto the middle class and poor by having taxing them for everything they buy... including food. So, a family of six might actually pay MORE in food related taxes than a much wealthier married couple with no children.

You're missing the point on the CEO pay. Don't you realize that the stock options to increase performance is a facade? The CEO pics the members of the board. The company staggers board elections so stockholder can't fire the entire board at one time. The board ALWAYS votes to give the CEO of any Fortune 1000 company a big fat stock option pay check. In theory, this is supposed to make the CEO work harder. As an ex, current stock price is $35, so the board issues the CEO $10M in stock options at a $40 strike price. Well, guess what, the company does not do as well as expected, current stock price is only $36.75... due to "supply chain issues" crimping overall sales. So, does the CEO lose all those stock options, or have to wait for the future to see if he can later get the price up to $40 to exercise them. No! What the board does, is just vote to reprice the options. The board argues that it was "unfair" to judge the CEO's performance based in 2021 due to supply chain issues, so the board reprices the options to $36, which is $0.75 lower than the strike price, and then the CEO, of course, sells all the options at $36.75... so, rather than a $10M bonus, he makes maybe a $8.5M bonus due to the lower stock value. The point is that the prices was supposed to be $40! That was the justification to pay the CEO $10M, but it didn't matter, the board gave it to the CEO, regardless!

Just google "repriced stock options" and read for yourself. It happens ALL the time. Also, again, that same CEO now only has to pay about a 15% marginal tax rate on his stock option pay, rather than the 35-37% rate he would have had to pay if the board just gave him a cash salary. The CEO saved approx 25-27% on $8.5M on taxes. You do the math...
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAP

npace

Autocross Champion
Location
Netherlands
So, yes, I'm aware that Europeans use a VAT consumption tax, but they *also* have progressive federal income tax systems as well. Of course, each country is a bit different in the EU, but they all tend to have progressive tax systems + a VAT. Republicans want to effectively disband the federal progressive income tax and move the expense of the federal govt more onto the middle class and poor by having taxing them for everything they buy... including food. So, a family of six might actually pay MORE in food related taxes than a much wealthier married couple with no children.

You're missing the point on the CEO pay. Don't you realize that the stock options to increase performance is a facade? The CEO pics the members of the board. The company staggers board elections so stockholder can't fire the entire board at one time. The board ALWAYS votes to give the CEO of any Fortune 1000 company a big fat stock option pay check. In theory, this is supposed to make the CEO work harder. As an ex, current stock price is $35, so the board issues the CEO $10M in stock options at a $40 strike price. Well, guess what, the company does not do as well as expected, current stock price is only $36.75... due to "supply chain issues" crimping overall sales. So, does the CEO lose all those stock options, or have to wait for the future to see if he can later get the price up to $40 to exercise them. No! What the board does, is just vote to reprice the options. The board argues that it was "unfair" to judge the CEO's performance based in 2021 due to supply chain issues, so the board reprices the options to $36, which is $0.75 lower than the strike price, and then the CEO, of course, sells all the options at $36.75... so, rather than a $10M bonus, he makes maybe a $8.5M bonus due to the lower stock value. The point is that the prices was supposed to be $40! That was the justification to pay the CEO $10M, but it didn't matter, the board gave it to the CEO, regardless!

Just google "repriced stock options" and read for yourself. It happens ALL the time. Also, again, that same CEO now only has to pay about a 15% marginal tax rate on his stock option pay, rather than the 35-37% rate he would have had to pay if the board just gave him a cash salary. The CEO saved approx 25-27% on $8.5M on taxes. You do the math...
If you can't see that billionaires consume more than an average family, even one with six people, I don't know what to tell you. It isn't about individual items, its overall consumption. You're missing the point on capital gains tax. You want to effectively punish everyone who invests in order to go after some CEOs because of your outrage over them being rich. And with the current Democrat plan to tax unrealized gains, they would force smaller companies out of competition because they would have to sell significant numbers of shares, probably to hedge funds and large firms you so despise, in order to pay their taxes.
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
Speaking of jet fuel, my company is putting us on their private jet flying us to SEMA next week 🙂
66370783.jpg
 

riceburner

Autocross Champion
Location
nice try PPNT
Car(s)
MK5 Best GTI
I concur, Jay should post a pic of shoe on head!
 

brat_burner

Autocross Champion
Location
FL
Car(s)
Mk6
And with the current Democrat plan to tax unrealized gains, they would force smaller companies out of competition because they would have to sell significant numbers of shares, probably to hedge funds and large firms you so despise, in order to pay their taxes.
I thought they were proposing an additional trading tax. Do they not know how stock transactions are already taxed? Also, rules for employees or executives that are issued stock equity are completely different. You can’t just buy or sell whenever you want.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
Location
Hither and thither
Car(s)
Mk7 GTI

It's hard to take the article serioysly after this:

Ten people got infected. The other five fought off the virus, says Lavine, who's now at the biotechnology company Karius but was at Emory University when she spoke to NPR.
 

Escape Hatch

Autocross Champion
Location
USA
Car(s)
Mk7 GTI
I thought they were proposing an additional trading tax. Do they not know how stock transactions are already taxed? Also, rules for employees or executives that are issued stock equity are completely different. You can’t just buy or sell whenever you want.

RSU are a bit different and vesting dates are determined by the employer however we are still held to the same capital gains tax stipulations. All BS TBH.
 
Top