Celebrity tax

[runyouover]

I can't take it. Max Scherzer gets a $210,000,000
contract to throw a baseball. It is time to either create
a celebrity tax for actors, musicians, athletes, etc or
just blanket raise the tax rate on any earnings over
1 million dollars per year. If the market can not correct
itself, lets give it help.

 

[Duck_walk]

Bahaha. Don't you know Max is one of the job creators we have to protect.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by runyouover:
I can't take it. Max Scherzer gets a $210,000,000
contract to throw a baseball. It is time to either create
a celebrity tax for actors, musicians, athletes, etc or
just blanket raise the tax rate on any earnings over
1 million dollars per year. If the market can not correct
itself, lets give it help.

Not good policy to pick and choose like that. Rates should be consistent for a given level of income across all fields.

 

[vbsideout]

Max make 30 million a year which is about 1 million per start. Not bad money if you can get it. Hell Phil Mickleson threatened to quit playing golf if the government kept taxing him, I say quit if your taxes are too high.

 

[3Rfan]

I assume it was not from the Cardinals or some of you would be happier about it

 

[Bearcat-time]

Would you feel the same way if he was your son?

 

[vbsideout]

I would feel exactly the same way. Taxes are a part of life and until we get a fair tax code the nation will continue to go in the direction of the haves and the have nots which is what will become our downfall.

 

[SadButTrue]

For the life of me I don't know why the every day hard working republican kisses up to that 1%. The only thing about you is they care for your vote for their leader. You know the one they have in their back pocket. Carry on like sheep.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by SadButTrue:
For the life of me I don't know why the every day hard working republican kisses up to that 1%. The only thing about you is they care for your vote for their leader. You know the one they have in their back pocket. Carry on like sheep.

I care about what is best for the American way of life more than I care about being jealous of someone who has achieved more success than me. America is great because it allows you to excell to the point of great riches. If you remove that all the economic foundations fall. I prefer to celebrate his success rather than envy it.

If you want to criticize the system, criticize those who spend their income making him rich.

 

[Bearcat-time]

Well said, sir.

 

[wcowherd]

It's actually not a $210M deal. It's a 7 year deferment after his contract. It's more like a $170M-$180M deal with inflation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by SadButTrue:
For the life of me I don't know why the every day hard working republican kisses up to that 1%. The only thing about you is they care for your vote for their leader. You know the one they have in their back pocket. Carry on like sheep.

At what point do you realize none of them have your back? If you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi give two ***** about you, then I think you need to re-evaluate your stance on who is really the sheep.


What I want is more government programs to drain the middle working classes pockets, so timmy can get a "free" college education or support more people cheating another government system. How about we fix the cluster **** programs we have now?

 

[3Rfan]

Then I guess after inflation I'll only make about $25 dollars a month. It is a $210 million dollar deal over 7 years and I doubt if inflation keeps him from putting groceries on the table. I'd bet he'll pay plenty of taxes on it even with whatever tax deferred investments his accountant can come up with.

 

[oldroundballer]

Huh??

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It's actually not a $210M deal. It's a 7 year deferment after his contract. It's more like a $170M-$180M deal with inflation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

So you're saying he won't be getting $210M total? i could have sworn I read $210 paid at $15M for 14 years. $15M for 14 years calcs to $210M where I went to school.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

Originally posted by SadButTrue:
For the life of me I don't know why the every day hard working republican kisses up to that 1%. The only thing about you is they care for your vote for their leader. You know the one they have in their back pocket. Carry on like sheep.

At what point do you realize none of them have your back? If you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi give two ***** about you, then I think you need to re-evaluate your stance on who is really the sheep.


What I want is more government programs to drain the middle working classes pockets, so timmy can get a "free" college education or support more people cheating another government system. How about we fix the cluster **** programs we have now?

At what point do you realize the economic policies advocated by Republicans provide nearly all of their benefits to the rich?

There are a lot of Dem policies that cost too much, but the core idea of Republican government for the past 30 years has been cutting spending on the poor and middle class to fund lower taxes on "job creators." That's a fantastic deal if you are rich; not so much if you are everyone else.

At least the Democrats are honest when they tell you they want the rich to pay for programs which are focused on the poor and middle class.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Re: Huh??

Originally posted by oldroundballer:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
It's actually not a $210M deal. It's a 7 year deferment after his contract. It's more like a $170M-$180M deal with inflation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

So you're saying he won't be getting $210M total? i could have sworn I read $210 paid at $15M for 14 years. $15M for 14 years calcs to $210M where I went to school.

You're both right but cowherd is probably more technically accurate.

If I pay $210 million to you next year, that's more valuable than if I pay you $15 million a year for the next 14 years due to inflation. Spreading out the $210 million across 14 years lowers its purchasing power.

This contract costs the Nationals less on a present value basis than $210 million.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

Originally posted by SadButTrue:
For the life of me I don't know why the every day hard working republican kisses up to that 1%. The only thing about you is they care for your vote for their leader. You know the one they have in their back pocket. Carry on like sheep.

At what point do you realize none of them have your back? If you think Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi give two ***** about you, then I think you need to re-evaluate your stance on who is really the sheep.


What I want is more government programs to drain the middle working classes pockets, so timmy can get a "free" college education or support more people cheating another government system. How about we fix the cluster **** programs we have now?

At what point do you realize the economic policies advocated by Republicans provide nearly all of their benefits to the rich?

There are a lot of Dem policies that cost too much, but the core idea of Republican government for the past 30 years has been cutting spending on the poor and middle class to fund lower taxes on "job creators." That's a fantastic deal if you are rich; not so much if you are everyone else.

At least the Democrats are honest when they tell you they want the rich to pay for programs which are focused on the poor and middle class.

Right, it's easy to be honest on what you want, when it sounds so easy. Free Free Free.

 

[runyouover]

Well thought out response Sarah P.
If your goal in life is to continue giving the
top 1% over 50% of the wealth in this country
keep voting GOP. I don't see that in your
constitution, but whatever

 

[Drop.Tine]

What I want is everybody to pay a flat tax rate and get rid of deductions. How does that sound?

 

[wcowherd]

Sounds like a terrible idea.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[wcowherd]

Exactly NM. This deal is still a great deal, but it doesn't hit the Nats as hard as the sticker price might suggest.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
Sounds like a terrible idea.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Explain since you so strongly disagree. Now that you're entering the real world, it will be a refreshing change of pace to get a real world opinion.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

What I want is everybody to pay a flat tax rate and get rid of deductions. How does that sound?

I'm all for lowering the amount of deductions and credits to lower rates. The marginal rates should be lower than they are both for personal income and for corporations. I think this is fair, and most economists think this would slightly increase GDP and pre-tax incomes. That's a good outcome. The challenge is having the political courage to accept that there are winners and losers, something Congress (whether R or D) is not very good at doing.

I'm not in favor of a flat tax. The income tax should be progressive.

The fundamental problem with a flat tax is it pretends all income is equal in terms of promoting desired societal outcomes or economic growth. That's not true, though. Someone making $40,000 is a going to spend a higher % of their next dollar of income than someone making $400,000. And they are more likely to spend it in a way which helps lower the demand for government services.

If you want to talk about government policies that successfully fight inequality, the progressive tax is near the top of the list.

Most of the rank and file conservative base have no idea how much their taxes would actually change if a true flat tax were instituted. It would be a terrible deal for the average person on this board. A revenue neutral flat tax would increase the tax burden of basically every American who makes under $150k. It would be a great deal for people making hundreds of thousands and a terrible deal for the average American family.

I think this is fundamentally different than corporate income; I think C corps should pay the same rate of taxes.


This post was edited on 1/21 1:23 PM by Neutron Monster

 

[wcowherd]

Because it's a regressive form of taxation. 9% income tax a guy making $40k way worse than a guy making $4M.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:


What I want is everybody to pay a flat tax rate and get rid of deductions. How does that sound?

I'm all for lowering the amount of deductions and credits to lower rates. The marginal rates should be lower than they are both for personal income and for corporations. I think this is fair, and most economists think this would slightly increase GDP and pre-tax incomes. That's a good outcome. The challenge is having the political courage to accept that there are winners and losers, something Congress (whether R or D) is not very good at doing.

I'm not in favor of a flat tax. The income tax should be progressive.

The fundamental problem with a flat tax is it pretends all income is equal in terms of promoting desired societal outcomes or economic growth. That's not true, though. Someone making $40,000 is a going to spend a higher % of their next dollar of income than someone making $400,000. And they are more likely to spend it in a way which helps lower the demand for government services.

If you want to talk about government policies that successfully fight inequality, the progressive tax is near the top of the list.

Most of the rank and file conservative base have no idea how much their taxes would actually change if a true flat tax were instituted. It would be a terrible deal for the average person on this board. A revenue neutral flat tax would increase the tax burden of basically every American who makes under $150k. It would be a great deal for people making hundreds of thousands and a terrible deal for the average American family.

I think this is fundamentally different than corporate income; I think C corps should pay the same rate of taxes.



This post was edited on 1/21 1:23 PM by Neutron Monster



And how is that the $400k problem that the $40k is spending a higher %? You're making an argument that the rich somehow owe others more than somebody who shovels ditches for a living. They're providing our country as it is with the majority of income tax.

Most of the rank and file democrats have no idea how much their taxes would actually change if a true progressive tax was established. Find it interesting that this wasn't at the top of their list when they had full control?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

And how is that the $400k problem that the $40k is spending a higher %? You're making an argument that the rich somehow owe others more than somebody who shovels ditches for a living. They're providing our country as it is with the majority of income tax.

Most of the rank and file democrats have no idea how much their taxes would actually change if a true progressive tax was established. Find it interesting that this wasn't at the top of their list when they had full control?

With respect to the first paragraph, that's not the logic which justifies a progressive tax. You're attacking a red herring. The logic is people need a certain amount of income to have a basic level of living. Taxing people on that income is generally counterproductive because it just increases their need for government services/support.

The economic rationale is that a progressive system for personal income raises $X dollars of revenue in a more efficient way than a flat tax does. GDP is higher with a progressive tax than a true flat tax because the average dollar it taxes is less productive (in an economic sense) than under a flat tax. Rich people don't spend their money like the poor or the middle class do.

The second paragraph is ridiculous - we have a progressive income tax and we have had one for a very long time. The US tax code is progressive by any rational measure - look at the marginal rates and the average tax burden by level of income. The average person making $50,000 pays a lot less in taxes as a percentage of their income than the average person making $500,000.

 

[ag-man]

I agree NM, we do have a progressive income tax, and as you say "the person making $50,000 pays a lot less as a percentage of their income than the person making $500,000"

Obama seems to think the rich aren't paying their "fair share", so let me ask, since they are already paying more of a percentage, what exactly IS their fair share, and who should decide what their "fair share" is?

 

[wcowherd]

Many aren't paying a higher percentage. I pay a higher percentage than mitt Romney.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by ag-man:

I agree NM, we do have a progressive income tax, and as you say "the person making $50,000 pays a lot less as a percentage of their income than the person making $500,000"

Obama seems to think the rich aren't paying their "fair share", so let me ask, since they are already paying more of a percentage, what exactly IS their fair share, and who should decide what their "fair share" is?

This is the sort of question I alluded to in my response to miller in another thread - in my opinion, there's no perfect answer to this sort of question. There are some answers that are pretty clearly misguided, but there's a range of outcomes that would work just fine in terms of raising enough revenue with rates that are not too confiscatory at the high end or unnecessarily onerous at the low end.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
Many aren't paying a higher percentage. I pay a higher percentage than mitt Romney.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

And a flat tax would eliminate that!

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
Many aren't paying a higher percentage. I pay a higher percentage than mitt Romney.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

And a flat tax would eliminate that!

That really depends upon what the capital gains tax is, not the income tax.

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by millerbleach:

Originally posted by wcowherd:
Many aren't paying a higher percentage. I pay a higher percentage than mitt Romney.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

And a flat tax would eliminate that!

That really depends upon what the capital gains tax is, not the income tax.

That really depends on what you consider capital gains to be.

 

[wcowherd]

Probably the commonly accepted definition of capital gains.
Posted from Rivals Mobile