June 03, 2011

Setti Warren for Senate

You got to listen to this:

11 comments:

Nick said...

Is anyone hackish enough to think this is impressive as a "gotcha?" or think our sitting senator would have known the answer?

Also, see Chris Christie's stance on evolution if you get your chuckles from evasive politicians.

Bill Randell said...

Nick

Are you kiddin me??? A person running for US Senate not knowing the current highest marginal tax rate disqualifies him , or her, as a candidate.

Bill

Bill Randell said...

Nick

not trying to pick a fight. if this was a city council or local/state office, I would not consider it a big deal.

Federal position like Rep or US Senate not knowing the highest marginal tax rate. that is a big one.

Bill

Nick said...

ha, maybe I should have clarified that I'm not trying to pick a fight either.

My feeling is that our lawmakers can express a legit preference for raising taxes on high earners over cutting medicare without needing to know if rich people will need to pay 35%, 39.6%, or whatever on their income over $380,000. These differences are pretty small when we consider how high historical rates have been, and seem inconsequential when we find that very general questions about policy preference, e.g., "whose situation should we look to improve/make-less-worse, school children, seniors, or high earners?" are really driving the debate.

Jahn said...

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Setti fails to mention the 50% of filers who pay no income tax.

Folks there aint enuff high income earners to "tax to the max", which add'l tax will come no where near solving our currnet problems.

If, for example, I am the CEO of AT&T and I make $20,000,000 ( thats $20M for u Shrewsbury educated folks) and AT&T has 100,000 employees and the CEO decides to take zero salary which for the sake of discusiion equates to a 100% tax and "give" it to the employees......That's an add'l $200per employee per year. Y'all really think $200 add'l per year will actaully help anyone.

Also do not forget that add'l 200$ per employee now gets taxed at 15% or 25% vs the 40% the CEO would have paid on it........so guess what.........Washington DC gets Less taxes on the $200M and now Obuma & Co will have to raise the middle classes 15% & 25% rates.

WTF is so diffucult about understandign this.

The real problem is the likes of the jail employees retiring with 25 yrs of so called public service with 50, 60 , & 80% pensions.

Setti is a prima facia case for why outsiders call us Mass-Holes. Dittos for Teddy K, Bawwwwnay, Havana Jim, and rest of the Mass DC delegation.

Anonymous said...

So what's a "marginal" tax rate? How is it different from the overall tax rate?

In any case, whatever the top marginal tax rate is, saying that he wants it to be where it was under Clinton is clear enough for me. I can look up the numbers if I care.

Nick said...

Jahnie,

Your hypothetical ceo example seems a little odd here. How much of overall compensation will actually be subject to income taxes, as opposed to (much lower) cap gains taxes. Federal income tax isn't the only tax on the books. Along with your friends in the 47%, I hear a little company named Exxon-Mobil infamously paid $0 last year.

Also, raising federal revenue isn't really an end goal here. I'd definitely want to see $200 in the pockets of 100,000. Can't the government make up the revenue difference by borrowing during these times of historically low interest rates... or maybe by just eliminating some pension abuse!

--
richspk,
Marginal tax rates refer to the % tax people pay on income beyond a certain amount. I.e. even millionaires only pay 10% fed income tax on the first $8,500 they make, but on every dollar more they'll pay a high marginal rate.

For someone making $20M their overall rate will resemble the marginal rate (since last bracket begins around $400K, $19.6M of that would be taxed at 35%), but someone making $500K would have an overall rate noticeably lower than 35%.

Bill Randell said...

Nick:

How would someone making 500,000 have a rate noticeably lower then 35%?

Just the opposite the more you make the more your overall rate would be closer to 35%.

The whole point of this post was a guy running for US Senate did not even know the highest marginal rate was 35%. That, I am sorry, is pathetic.

Bill

Nick said...

Bill,

Enter $500K here: http://www.money-zine.com/Calculators/Investment-Calculators/2010-Tax-Rate-Calculator/

I got a tax rate of 30.5% w/ no AtI or Deds., I'd say 4.5% difference is noticeable... i.e. = 39.6 - 35

I read you about the "point" of the post, and I'll agree it's a bit galling in light of his being mayor of Newton, of all places, but it's nice to get a little education now and then. I had no idea about top brackets prior to FDR, or about fluctuations in early 90s.

Anonymous said...

Is that all you got?
Listen again, Bill.

It sounds like he knows but doesn't want to give a precise figure. If you like candidates that fold in the face of antagonistic reporters, be my guest. I'd rather they can politely and firmly not answer questions that they don't want to answer.

Jahn said...

Nick said: "How much of overall compensation will actually be subject to income taxes, as opposed to (much lower) cap gains taxes"

Jahn says: ALL EARNED COMPENSATION is subject to income taxes. Capital gains taxes are income taxes. Yes they are income taxes at lower rates than otehr earned compensation. The CEO's pay the highest capital gains rates of 15% federal. Oddly enough some middle class folks pay lesser or zero amts of capital gains taxes.

Also, FWIW executive stock options compensation get hit with either the current 35% top rate and/or the lower capital gains rates. Many CEO stock options are way under water nowadays, too.

Nick then said: "Along with your friends in the 47%, I hear a little company named Exxon-Mobil infamously paid $0 last year."

Jahn then said: Not sure what you mean by 47%?

Jahn further says: Exxon Mobil is a corporation subject to completely different fed'l rates. My comments were referencing individual tax rates. You're mixing apples & oranges.

Nick then said: "Also, raising federal revenue isn't really an end goal here."

Jahn then says: Higher marginal tax rates for fat cats isnt a fed'l goal? Nicholas, surely you jest my friend? What would Mr Setti say his his goal in espousing higher fat cat marginal rates? Less income tax revenue for fed'l gov't?

Nich then said: "Marginal tax rates refer to the % tax people pay on income beyond a certain amount"

Jahn then says: Nick I do understand marginal(incremental) tax rates vs. average tax rates, It is good that your post will help oterhs understand the differences. Yes Millionaires do pay only 10% of their 1st 8,500.

Someone making 500K may very well pay less than a 35% marginal rate. Every situation is different.

The maximum 15% capital gains rates save the middle class billions more in taxes than it saves the upper fat cat class

RickSpk, the top marginal rate under Clinton was 39.6%, Under Bush in about 2002 it was dropped to 35%. Please keep in mind Phat Kat Harry Reid and Where's My Obumacare Exemption Pelosi (both Democrats) had the house & senate from 2006 to present and they had all 3 branches from 2009 to present and I have yet to see a vote to raise the top rate back to 39.6%.

Anonymous, you call a reporter antagonistic b/c he wants an answer to his question(s). How about we call Setti a clueless dodger. He'd have gotten alot more respect if he said he dint know the precise answer.
\