No tax zone for Detroit?

[ghettopalmetto]

Next year, assuming no congressional action, the top rate pops up to the 39.2 or 39.6 level that Moses brought down from the top of the mount engraved on stone tablets.

Oh, the HORRORS! Not 39.6 percent! Why, that's lower than the top marginal rate during the First Reign of the St. Ronald the Reaganite!

Our poor billionaires are going to be starving in the gutters.

[Det_ard]

Oh, the HORRORS! Not 39.6 percent! Why, that's lower than the top marginal rate during the First Reign of the St. Ronald the Reaganite!

Our poor billionaires are going to be starving in the gutters.

Then in 2013 Obama's healthcare tax increase will boost it to 40.5%. And capital gains will increase in 2011 from 15% to 20% and then in 2013 up another 3.8% [[thanks Obama healthcare debacle). Dividends get taxed at ordinary income rates instead of capital gains rates and get hit with the 3.8% so they'll be taxed at a max of 43.4% in '13.

If you're self-employed [[we want entreprenuers, right?) tack on another 15.3% for FICA tax.

Ghetto wants us to just keep things the way they are, or raise taxes. Sure, that's working out just fine for Detroit and Michigan. And allegedly people won't respond to significantly lower taxes.

Tell that to the emergent Michigan film industry that's only here due to tax savings. I'd move back into Detroit for a big tax savings before I'd move back for a pretty choo-choo train to nowhere.

[Detroitnerd]

I'd move back into Detroit for a big tax savings before I'd move back for a pretty choo-choo train to nowhere.

I guess that just means you're just totally at odds with the demonstrated tastes of the American public. So we should cater to you? That's rich.

[ghettopalmetto]

Det_ard, am I correct in presuming you're willing to crucify your own economic self-interest to appease your billionaire corporate Masters?

Sorry, my friend. I refuse to believe that people who make over $250,000 a year are at risk of starving. Those people are going to find ways to take care of themselves, no matter what.

It's the success of the little guy--not the wealthiest 1%--that creates wealth.

[bailey]

Then in 2013 Obama's healthcare tax increase will boost it to 40.5%. And capital gains will increase in 2011 from 15% to 20% and then in 2013 up another 3.8% [[thanks Obama healthcare debacle). Dividends get taxed at ordinary income rates instead of capital gains rates and get hit with the 3.8% so they'll be taxed at a max of 43.4% in '13.

If you're self-employed [[we want entreprenuers, right?) tack on another 15.3% for FICA tax.

Ghetto wants us to just keep things the way they are, or raise taxes. Sure, that's working out just fine for Detroit and Michigan. And allegedly people won't respond to significantly lower taxes.

Tell that to the emergent Michigan film industry that's only here due to tax savings. I'd move back into Detroit for a big tax savings before I'd move back for a pretty choo-choo train to nowhere.

I wonder how far we could get toward obviating the need for the tax increases to come by ending the two wars of choice we have going on? It always interests me that so many bemoan tax increases, yet never want to discuss the results of taking in less than we spend...year after year after year after year.

[Detroitnerd]

I wonder how far we could get toward obviating the need for the tax increases to come by ending the two wars of choice we have going on? It always interests me that so many bemoan tax increases, yet never want to discuss the results of taking in less than we spend...year after year after year after year.

Well, there I agree: After the end of the Cold War, we should be enjoying the biggest peace dividend in the history of the world. Instead, the war just seems to keep expanding, from Afghanistan to Iraq and now Pakistan. With talk of drone strikes on Yemen, Somalia and other countries, and ceaseless talk of "regime change" in Iran, we are watching our national treasury and future generations taxes squandered.

And don't let's get started on the banksters ...

[lincoln8740]

Det_ard, am I correct in presuming you're willing to crucify your own economic self-interest to appease your billionaire corporate Masters?

Sorry, my friend. I refuse to believe that people who make over $250,000 a year are at risk of starving. Those people are going to find ways to take care of themselves, no matter what.

It's the success of the little guy--not the wealthiest 1%--that creates wealth.

nice way to change the subject

once again those same [[evil) people who made the 250k that actually employ people would jump at the chance to keep 85,000.00 if they had to live in Detroit

What do you think small businesses make?

are they the "little guy" as you so aptly put it?

[Novine]

"Ghetto wants us to just keep things the way they are, or raise taxes. Sure, that's working out just fine for Detroit and Michigan. And allegedly people won't respond to significantly lower taxes."

Or we can be like you and pretend that people will move to a city with zero expectation to getting services for the tax dollars that they do pay. Where is the money going to come from to provide the services to these new residents?

[lincoln8740]

"Ghetto wants us to just keep things the way they are, or raise taxes. Sure, that's working out just fine for Detroit and Michigan. And allegedly people won't respond to significantly lower taxes."

Or we can be like you and pretend that people will move to a city with zero expectation to getting services for the tax dollars that they do pay. Where is the money going to come from to provide the services to these new residents?

banging head against wall

We are talking about a zero FEDERAL tax zone. The people that move here will still be responsible for state and CITY taxes. They will be paying into system which did not have them before thus the city tax base will increase especially if these people are EVIL rich people that you and ghetto hate so much

[lincoln8740]

Then in 2013 Obama's healthcare tax increase will boost it to 40.5%. And capital gains will increase in 2011 from 15% to 20% and then in 2013 up another 3.8% [[thanks Obama healthcare debacle). Dividends get taxed at ordinary income rates instead of capital gains rates and get hit with the 3.8% so they'll be taxed at a max of 43.4% in '13.

If you're self-employed [[we want entreprenuers, right?) tack on another 15.3% for FICA tax.

Ghetto wants us to just keep things the way they are, or raise taxes. Sure, that's working out just fine for Detroit and Michigan. And allegedly people won't respond to significantly lower taxes.

Tell that to the emergent Michigan film industry that's only here due to tax savings. I'd move back into Detroit for a big tax savings before I'd move back for a pretty choo-choo train to nowhere.

spot on post especially the choo choo to nowhere remark!

[ghettopalmetto]

nice way to change the subject

once again those same [[evil) people who made the 250k that actually employ people would jump at the chance to keep 85,000.00 if they had to live in Detroit?

And what about the guy who makes 250k a year and doesn't employ anyone? Are you going to suck his dick too?

Not every wealthy person owns a business, you know. Plenty of them make their money for doing absolutely nothing. And plenty of small business owners don't make anywhere close to that figure.

So let's get the idea out of our head that "wealthy" = "small business owner" = "guy who pays me".

It amazes me how many people are more concerned about the well-being of millionaires than they are themselves. You wouldn't have to worry if your boss was able to keep you employed if you had a God damned skill set, initiative, and business acument to fall back on.

"Tax cuts" is the refrain of the lazy. Successful people are worried about making money, not paying less in taxes.

[lincoln8740]

And what about the guy who makes 250k a year and doesn't employ anyone? Are you going to suck his dick too?

Not every wealthy person owns a business, you know. Plenty of them make their money for doing absolutely nothing. And plenty of small business owners don't make anywhere close to that figure.

So let's get the idea out of our head that "wealthy" = "small business owner" = "guy who pays me".

as long as we are clarifying

your position is

person that has a small business makes 250k a year and employs 30 people-- good
guy who has investments makes 250k a year--evil?

"Plenty of small business make nowhere close to 250k?"
250k before taxes?


What planet do you live on?

Me thinks someone has never owned a business and quite possibly works for the government and thus does not have a clue how taxes/profit etc are all intertwined.

[lincoln8740]

"Tax cuts" is the refrain of the lazy. Successful people are worried about making money, not paying less in taxes.

LOL thanks man for that!

awesome just awesome

How about one back at ya

"it ain't how much ya can make, it's how much you can keep!"

Actually people use that one instead of your line where you would be laughed out of a room of business people if you said that in front of them.

[Detroitnerd]

Ah, yes. A good vs. evil reduction. That ought to introduce depth to the discussion, clear up the argument and help us all make friends.

[ghettopalmetto]

as long as we are clarifying

your position is

person that has a small business makes 250k a year and employs 30 people-- good
guy who has investments makes 250k a year--evil?

"Plenty of small business make nowhere close to 250k?"
250k before taxes?


What planet do you live on?

Me thinks someone has never owned a business and quite possibly works for the government and thus does not have a clue how taxes/profit etc are all intertwined.

And methinks you're just guessing and making shit up.

The only person who should be worrying about taxes are the accountants. You should be getting off your lazy ass and trying to make a dollar. Unless, of course, you think that it's strictly taxes that are preventing you from being some kind of super tycoon.

If you have a person who makes $30,000 and you cut his taxes, he still makes $30,000.

If you have a person who makes $30,000 and you invest his tax dollars in education, infrastructure, and regulation of the economy, his income potential is limitless.

[Hermod]

person that has a small business makes 250k a year and employs 30 people-- good
guy who has investments makes 250k a year--evil?

What I like was Dummy Carter's definition:

Earned Income = top tax rate of 50%
Unearned Income = top tax rate of 70%

Sports stars, movie stars, and rock stars making millions = earned income
Small business owner making a hundred thousand dollars a year = unearned income

Reagan inherited this. First thing he did was get through a Democrat controlled Congress a cut to 50% top rate on all income.

Then we had the bi-partisan tax reform of 1986 [[remember the Dem speaker Gephardt?) that traded off loopholes for lower rates.

[ghettopalmetto]

LOL thanks man for that!

awesome just awesome

How about one back at ya

"it ain't how much ya can make, it's how much you can keep!"

Actually people use that one instead of your line where you would be laughed out of a room of business people if you said that in front of them.

I'd be scared to see a roomful of people that you consider "successful".

If the crux of your business plan comes down to your federal marginal income tax rate, your plan was fucked and unprofitable to begin with.

[bailey]

What I like was Dummy Carter's definition:

Earned Income = top tax rate of 50%
Unearned Income = top tax rate of 70%

Sports stars, movie stars, and rock stars making millions = earned income
Small business owner making a hundred thousand dollars a year = unearned income

Reagan inherited this. First thing he did was get through a Democrat controlled Congress a cut to 50% top rate on all income.

Then we had the bi-partisan tax reform of 1986 [[remember the Dem speaker Gephardt?) that traded off loopholes for lower rates.

Yeah, and how'd that cut work out? Let's check with history

Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.

-Fobes 2-3-2010

Just for fun...National Review [[hardly a left leaning rag like the hippies at Forbes) October 2003

The gist of Wallison's article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act [[TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion. According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

Seriously teabaggers, run everything you hear through google a few times before posting.
OMG...moderator move this thread to the romper room of non detroit issues...this has jumped the shark.

[ghettopalmetto]

Um before we get to far afield .... isnt this a proposal on business taxes, not personal taxes?

Well, that's just it. That distinction never stopped Republicans from pushing for corporate tax cuts as a way to "help small business owners".

Many small businesses, of course, are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and limited liability companies that pay personal income taxes on Form 1040--NOT the corporate form.

If you want to help small business owners, help small business owners. But don't tell me it's raining while you're pissing giveaways to the wealthy and corporations.

[lincoln8740]

And methinks you're just guessing and making shit up.

uhho maybe I have hit the nail on the head?

let's see:

you work for DPS

that would make perfect sense

no maybe a WSU student

but definitely not anywhere in the private sector

The only person who should be worrying about taxes are the accountants. You should be getting off your lazy ass and trying to make a dollar. Unless, of course, you think that it's strictly taxes that are preventing you from being some kind of super tycoon.

I am doing just fine and running a small business in Detroit at that! I just want to keep more of my money that I earned-- that is all.

If you have a person who makes $30,000 and you cut his taxes, he still makes $30,000.

If you have a person who makes $30,000 and you invest his tax dollars in education, infrastructure, and regulation of the economy, his income potential is limitless.

The logic of that is mind-numbing, you must be messing with everyone right?

If not, I truly feel sorry for you and your family

you probably voluntarily put your kids in Detroit schools because you value diversity over education!

[ghettopalmetto]

I am doing just fine and running a small business in Detroit at that! I just want to keep more of my money that I earned-- that is all.

If you want to make more money, is there something wrong with GROWING your business? If you don't keep it, you didn't earn it. Plain and simple.

The speculative nature of the rest of your post indicates to me that you're quite fond of guesswork and half-assing things. Maybe you should be reworking your business plan instead of whining to people who don't give a shit about your pocketbook.

[Novine]

"We are talking about a zero FEDERAL tax zone. The people that move here will still be responsible for state and CITY taxes. They will be paying into system which did not have them before thus the city tax base will increase especially if these people are EVIL rich people that you and ghetto hate so much"

Glad that you clarified that for everyone here. In case you haven't noticed, Detroit is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Michigan has been slashing money for local communities for the past decade. Neither are in any position to provide services to additional residents. You think your legions of millionaires are going to come to Detroit and expect the current level of services? But since you believe that they will provide the tax revenue that will support the services, why don't you share with us those numbers so we can see how much you know and how little we know.

[Crumbled_pavement]

All this arguing back and forth over an idea that won't get a molecule of support outside of Detroit. No one wants to answer me as to how Detroit will sell the idea that it should be exempt from federal taxes while the rest of the nation still has to pay those taxes. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WILL ANSWER ME THAT. I know why, because it would ruin their little "tax-free Detroit" fantasy.

For what it's worth, I've lived in Detroit for 4 decades so I would love to be exempt from federal taxes. I just don't think my co-workers would be jumping up and down for joy for me while they still have to pay those taxes.

[fryar]

All this arguing back and forth over an idea that won't get a molecule of support outside of Detroit. No one wants to answer me as to how Detroit will sell the idea that it should be exempt from federal taxes while the rest of the nation still has to pay those taxes. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WILL ANSWER ME THAT.

I don't have an answer for that, either. But it's Newt's idea, and that's kind of important. He is not a bleeding heart hand-out giver, and he's not a Detroiter looking for a handout, this being his idea makes a sizeable difference in its ability to get some traction [[not that I'm going to bet on it, mind you). That's what I meant above, not that I do or don't like him and so like or don't like the idea.

Not to be a downer, but the argument that the federal government has for bailing out Detroit at some future time is to avoid having something like a failed state within its borders [[oooh, now that's provocative ). Because what, they're not going to swoop in and take the city over, if it came to that? A bail out is a cheaper alternative, and this is better still because you lose out on a lot less directly traceable revenue than you save by not spending all that money on a bailout.

[Novine]

"But it's Newt's idea, and that's kind of important."

Why? Gingrich isn't in Congress and he's never going to be President. Why should we listen to him over any of the other conservative pundits who have thousand ideas and zero ability to get them enacted? You give him too much credit for being able to push this idea anywhere beyond a piece a paper.