carlfense Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 Depends on your point of view. No, not gas chamber worse. I thought you were referencing the taxes in Nazi Germany not the whole clusterf#@k. That's sort of the reason why a Nazi Germany comparison isn't a great idea when whining about marginal tax rates . . . Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 But you don't agree with antisemitism either; right? I think that might have been part of the tax problem in Nazi Germany. Excessive tax on specific groups. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 But you don't agree with antisemitism either; right? I think that might have been part of the tax problem in Nazi Germany. Excessive tax on specific groups. But this isn't a tax on a specific group. It's a marginal rate. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Actually it is exactly that. It is a tax on higher incomes. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Actually it is exactly that. It is a tax on higher incomes. No . . . it's a marginal rate. You seem to be saying that this is comparable to Jews being singled out for taxation in pre-war Germany (?). That's silly. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Here's a silly article to read: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/venture-capitalist-says-war-on-the-rich-is-like-nazi-germanys-war-on-the-jews/283347/ I just know you'll love it. Is this what you mean by marginal rate?:::: http://www.investorwords.com/2951/marginal_rate.html It seems to be silly to leave out the word "tax" in there. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Here's a silly article to read: http://www.theatlant...he-jews/283347/ I just know you'll love it. Did you read this . . . ? Not sure if you're trolling or if you're just agreeing with me. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Tom Perkins makes the worst historical analogy you will read for a long, long time. Is this what you mean by marginal rate?:::: http://www.investorw...ginal_rate.html It seems to be silly to leave out the word "tax" in there. What else in this context could "marginal rate" refer to? Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I agree with you to a certain extent. but aren't most hedgefund investors leaning toward the greed side?? Again, why do you believe a marginal tax rate doesn't only apply to a specific group? http://www.econlib.o...alTaxRates.html and now back to your previous topic of flood control :E Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 I agree with you to a certain extent. but aren't most hedgefund investors leaning toward the greed side?? I don't know any hedge fund managers. Again, why do you believe a marginal tax rate doesn't only apply to a specific group? Because they apply to annual income only . . . and apply to anyone and everyone who earns a dollar over a certain point. It doesn't matter if you have no assets whatsoever or if you own billions of dollars of property. The same brackets apply to everyone. Someone with $1,000,000 in annual income pays the exact same rate on his first $8,925 as someone who earns $8,925 total. (Leaving out deductions for the sake of clarity.) Same idea with every dollar earned over $400,000. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 You want me to believe the brackets apply to everyone? So how do the brackets apply to someone making 14K the same as someone making 1.5M; other than just the lower bracket because the higher bracket doesn't apply to anyone but those "specific" people. I don't disagree that people making huge amounts can't pay more tax; but some look at it like it's unfair to be successful. Not me, I'm comfortably under the highest bracket Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 You want me to believe the brackets apply to everyone? Somewhat simplified . . . but yes. So how do the brackets apply to someone making 14K the same as someone making 1.5M They apply exactly the same. (Again simplified . . . because there is a good chance that someone making 1.5M has income taxed as capital gains, etc. . . . and to add another factor, the whole idea of taxing capital gains differently than salary income would be a heck of an example of class warfare . . . but one that these Nazi invokers would be eager to defend.) . . . other than just the lower bracket because the higher bracket doesn't apply to anyone but those "specific" people. The brackets don't single out anyone or any group. They're applied to dollars of income. That's it. Link to comment
rawhide Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Isn't anyone making more than 400k a specific group of people??? SEMANTICS teh SUX meh Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Isn't anyone making more than 400k a specific group of people??? I'll take every person (regardless of assets accumulated in previous years, age, sex, religious affiliation, ethnicity, national origin, etc.) who earns a dollar over $400,000 for . . . $400,000, Alex. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Sounds about right. The new "American Way". My hometown (Yankton) is on the last dam (Gavins Point Dam) on the Missouri. I remember visiting the dam during that time (my sister worked there at the time as well) and being blown away. If I remember right, the floodgates were only open maybe a foot or so. They were releasing water at 160,000 cubic feet per second (not including water through the powerhouse that i know of). My sister said that is enough to recycle the entire volume of the lake in 24 hours. For perspective, the floodgates are typically never open to release water and a typical volume through the powerhouse is roughly 30,000 CFS. Here are a couple images I shot during my trip home: (see them large here) http://www.flickr.co...vis/5876873060/ http://www.flickr.co...vis/5879327073/ Unfortunately most of the links I have on my flickr site for perspective are broken. One does work still though with the image below. Notice the ledge in my images above compared to the same point on the far side of the water in the image below. ALso notice the rocky outcropping in between the powerhouse and floodgates. It's the same rock formation in my image above. The water level during flooding was at the level of that red sign. I will see if I can fix those broken links on my flickr page. UPDATE: I had one more image on my flickr. Should be an even better reference for the image above. I grew up in Parker, about 60 miles north and have been to the dam several times and did a tour previously when I was younger. I never saw water like that coming out. Pretty amazing. We had similar events here in Tulsa - the Keystone Lake Dam on the Ark River NW of Tulsa has had its gates open wide many times - result - west Tulsa and parts of other suburbs flood. I think it has been over a decade since the last time and our metro area has done a lot of flood control work since the deadly floods in the 1980s Link to comment
Recommended Posts