The rich aren't paying enough tax.
-
They already do.
And the bulk of the investing.
So?
WSS
So how does it not make sense that they would pay a lot of taxes?
I'm not understanding the anger that people who control most of the money also pay a lot of taxes.
It only makes sense.
So how does it not make sense that they would pay a lot of taxes?
I'm not understanding the anger that people who control most of the money also pay a lot of taxes.
It only makes sense.
Again they do.
WSS
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
IF you are "wealthy" (the numerical determining factor depending upon IRS tax rates or social definitions are not the same) for the sake of argument here 500k+/year of REPORTED AGI.
If you "report" that as claimed income their is an awful lot of expensed income and tax deferred investment vehicles that they do use via financial professionals. That income class of people are not worried about paying utilities or health care. They also are not worried about their houses being over run by lower level income mobs.
They have more than likely attained those levels of income because of skill sets and money management skills or professionals.
In all likelihood people who do attain levels of REPORTED income are not going to stop investing and expanding their wealth no matter the income tax levels or capital gains they are hit with. In fact they are strategizing with other financial professionals on other vehicles to move and invest the money with.
Taxing the top 1% is not going to stop their investment strategies, they will just adjust and find other loopholes or take in account the cost to invest and pass on the costs or plan for them in business acquisitions or expansions.
Whats funny is the conservative right has in effect using fear pr tactics mobilized a significant percentage of their voting bloc who are not even affected by these possible raises by political talking points.
the government is invading and taking over.... The government by taxing the top 1%(trickle down economic theory has obviously been proven to be quite useless) will cause growth contraction... BS the socialism monster.... blah blah blah. On one hand you have massive bonuses and ceo salaries and the public hating it and on the other you have the same party talking about how taxing those same people is bad..... sure that makes sense. So you dont want topend wealth concentration and dont want the government to mandate private pay options but you want to say those bonuses are not examples of how trickle down economics does not work anyways.... the more money people have at the top the more they pay themselves, they are at the top because they use their money to make money because they have money in the first place.... they are not going to stop because of potential taxes.
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
IF you are "wealthy" (the numerical determining factor depending upon IRS tax rates or social definitions are not the same) for the sake of argument here 500k+/year of REPORTED AGI.
If you "report" that as claimed income their is an awful lot of expensed income and tax deferred investment vehicles that they do use via financial professionals. That income class of people are not worried about paying utilities or health care. They also are not worried about their houses being over run by lower level income mobs.
They have more than likely attained those levels of income because of skill sets and money management skills or professionals.
In all likelihood people who do attain levels of REPORTED income are not going to stop investing and expanding their wealth no matter the income tax levels or capital gains they are hit with. In fact they are strategizing with other financial professionals on other vehicles to move and invest the money with.
Taxing the top 1% is not going to stop their investment strategies, they will just adjust and find other loopholes or take in account the cost to invest and pass on the costs or plan for them in business acquisitions or expansions.
Whats funny is the conservative right has in effect using fear pr tactics mobilized a significant percentage of their voting bloc who are not even affected by these possible raises by political talking points.
the government is invading and taking over.... The government by taxing the top 1%(trickle down economic theory has obviously been proven to be quite useless) will cause growth contraction... BS the socialism monster.... blah blah blah. On one hand you have massive bonuses and ceo salaries and the public hating it and on the other you have the same party talking about how taxing those same people is bad..... sure that makes sense. So you dont want topend wealth concentration and dont want the government to mandate private pay options but you want to say those bonuses are not examples of how trickle down economics does not work anyways.... the more money people have at the top the more they pay themselves, they are at the top because they use their money to make money because they have money in the first place.... they are not going to stop because of potential taxes.
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Really grammar school arithmatic.... interesting because our tax and financial system is anything but that but since you brought it up....
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
So the top 1% WHO OWN 34.3% OF ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH CONTRIBUTIN 40% is pretty comensurate to what they own in terms of total wealth.....
15% of the total U.S. wealth for the bottom 80% of the entire working population...... Yes I dont have a problem with the top end paying a fair share for fair benefits they do recieve.
thats pretty grammar school arithmatic in my book..... Like I said this right wing PR bs attack about the left and its nefarious taxing stops investments on the top scales is ridiculous just like your grammar school mathematics. When that small population gain massively they also have to pay massively.... you know top end market dynamics that a few consolidated movers can change a given market by just sneezing? IT DOES EXIST.
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened. Sure those at the top need the million dollar bonuses when their salaries already exceed millions.... of course it must be wrong to tax those who control 85% of all the income concentration in the u.s.
sure
-
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Really grammar school arithmatic.... interesting because our tax and financial system is anything but that but since you brought it up....
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
So the top 1% WHO OWN 34.3% OF ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH CONTRIBUTIN 40% is pretty comensurate to what they own in terms of total wealth.....
15% of the total U.S. wealth for the bottom 80% of the entire working population...... Yes I dont have a problem with the top end paying a fair share for fair benefits they do recieve.
thats pretty grammar school arithmatic in my book..... Like I said this right wing PR bs attack about the left and its nefarious taxing stops investments on the top scales is ridiculous just like your grammar school mathematics. When that small population gain massively they also have to pay massively.... you know top end market dynamics that a few consolidated movers can change a given market by just sneezing? IT DOES EXIST.
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened. Sure those at the top need the million dollar bonuses when their salaries already exceed millions.... of course it must be wrong to tax those who control 85% of all the income concentration in the u.s.
sure
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened.
And we're still alive.
Amazing. If only we could be always in the shitter like the Russians!!
sure
Heh. Sure.
WSS
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
-
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
Why or why not?
WSS
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
-
But we can't afford to pay for all this.
The information I've repeatedly seen, is that
20 million folks will STILL NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE under
Obamahedoesn'tcare.
How is that solving the problem? And MILLIONS of those Americans would be those
who HAVE FINE HEALTH CARE NOW.
So, it is not going to be a utopian solution to current problems...
but total government control of the entire new system, and over millions and millions and millions and... millions
of Americans.
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
Correct enough.
So I guess it's up to us to decide just how much is a proper amount to be confiscated and will that be better used by the investments of the owners or politicians.
Should that 1% pay 50% of the US bills? 60? 70? They'd still be richer than you or me right?
But I agree it's a false choice though I do think unbridled capitalism will eventuually work a lot better than completely egalitarian sharing of the wealth.
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely.
I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means.
And how much they are aslked to do in return.
WSS
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
Correct enough.
So I guess it's up to us to decide just how much is a proper amount to be confiscated and will that be better used by the investments of the owners or politicians.
Should that 1% pay 50% of the US bills? 60? 70? They'd still be richer than you or me right?
But I agree it's a false choice though I do think unbridled capitalism will eventuually work a lot better than completely egalitarian sharing of the wealth.
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely.
I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means.
And how much they are aslked to do in return.
WSS
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely. I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means. And how much they are aslked to do in return.WSS
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
-
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely. I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means. And how much they are aslked to do in return.WSS
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Excellent qualifier brother John.
WSS
-
Excellent qualifier brother John.
WSS
**************************
Brother John is our Friar Tuck. I just haven't figured out who the Sherrif of Nottingham is...
-
Ok so if you "wealthy" and have CPA's and Financial planners/managers deal with your "wealth" what advantages do you hold?
If you can bury your Health care costs into a LLC or corp, maybe you can also drive a vehicle(s) leased/insurance/maintenence and paid for by the company, That pesky cell phone paid in full by the company, your "business" lunch(s) and golf outings? yup you guessed it paid for and written off by the company, what about clothing allowances? you bet depending upon job types percentages paid for by your company, other related travel and entertainment/dining expenses? Company memberships to gyms and other related social clubs because of network Marketing?
now those are non aggressive costs most CPA's can help you use your corp or llc to pay for... Those are not taxed as income but expensed toward the company, but for a lot of people those costs can easily reach a few thousand dollars a month that dont count toward income that is taxed.
You think that tax deferment for investment gains is not HEAVILY managed by the wealthy? that is only possible because they can afford the professionals who manage the funds and proper methods/paperwork? What about all of the other vehicles financially like all of those off shore investments that have exploded over the last 20 years?
The gulf of difference between the lifestyles and what each group is worried about is vastly different in terms of basic costs to sustain basic necessities.
I do agree the Left demonized the concept of "wealthy" however the also notable left out fact is inflation and value of the dollar...... which VASTLY affects the relationship of how much the "wealthy" are taxed
Ok so if you "wealthy" and have CPA's and Financial planners/managers deal with your "wealth" what advantages do you hold?
If you can bury your Health care costs into a LLC or corp, maybe you can also drive a vehicle(s) leased/insurance/maintenence and paid for by the company, That pesky cell phone paid in full by the company, your "business" lunch(s) and golf outings? yup you guessed it paid for and written off by the company, what about clothing allowances? you bet depending upon job types percentages paid for by your company, other related travel and entertainment/dining expenses? Company memberships to gyms and other related social clubs because of network Marketing?
now those are non aggressive costs most CPA's can help you use your corp or llc to pay for... Those are not taxed as income but expensed toward the company, but for a lot of people those costs can easily reach a few thousand dollars a month that dont count toward income that is taxed.
You think that tax deferment for investment gains is not HEAVILY managed by the wealthy? that is only possible because they can afford the professionals who manage the funds and proper methods/paperwork? What about all of the other vehicles financially like all of those off shore investments that have exploded over the last 20 years?
The gulf of difference between the lifestyles and what each group is worried about is vastly different in terms of basic costs to sustain basic necessities.
I do agree the Left demonized the concept of "wealthy" however the also notable left out fact is inflation and value of the dollar...... which VASTLY affects the relationship of how much the "wealthy" are taxed
OSU, you do a good job of pointing out the 'hidden wealth', but you fail to point out the 'hidden taxes' of owning a corporation:
Unemployment tax
Licensing (state/local)
The corporation itself also pays income tax (unless it is an LLC, sole proprietor or partnership, but then you lose a lot of liability protections)
Permits
I am sure there are more...but those are just to start. I wonder if THAT is part of those numbers...probably not as like I said...they are 'hidden'.
-
WPB hidden corporate costs? I have a few entities and other partners that have many more in some large income scales.
One thing a business does not do is hide cost from itself or lack to portray them to their stock holders.
Those are all costs but certainly not hidden nor not taken into account immediately on any projections.
Also LLC does give the same corporate liability protection but allows pass thru income like a partnership which is why they are so wildly popular.
As for S or C corps paying taxes on the reported incomes.... these entities use loans and money management to defer as much income to pay out on dividends on a quarterly basis massively and can because they can afford to hire full time professionals to do that whereas the rest of the population can not.
No matter how you portray the "wealthy" the scale is still massively tilted in their favor. 85% of the population can not afford to have financial/legal professionals doing these strategies and using all of these mechanisms to manage wealth.
One of the first things people should do to take advantage of LLC and INC financial management tools to not pay taxes is to form one of these in the first place. a w-2 earner is at a massive disadvantage in terms of expensing deductions that they dont pay federal or state income taxes to.
The three top end bush tax cuts MASSIVELY bonuses the top 1% and the level under them. It is impossible to dispute the wealth concentration figures and the benefits/tax base gdp reduction this has cost our system.
Trickle down economics was BS because of the dynamic that investing and wealth management is the exact vehicle the top 1% use anyways and does not take into factor personal human greed IE: corporate bonuses even in the face of crazy losses.
-
WPB hidden corporate costs? I have a few entities and other partners that have many more in some large income scales.
One thing a business does not do is hide cost from itself or lack to portray them to their stock holders.
Those are all costs but certainly not hidden nor not taken into account immediately on any projections.
Also LLC does give the same corporate liability protection but allows pass thru income like a partnership which is why they are so wildly popular.
As for S or C corps paying taxes on the reported incomes.... these entities use loans and money management to defer as much income to pay out on dividends on a quarterly basis massively and can because they can afford to hire full time professionals to do that whereas the rest of the population can not.
No matter how you portray the "wealthy" the scale is still massively tilted in their favor. 85% of the population can not afford to have financial/legal professionals doing these strategies and using all of these mechanisms to manage wealth.
One of the first things people should do to take advantage of LLC and INC financial management tools to not pay taxes is to form one of these in the first place. a w-2 earner is at a massive disadvantage in terms of expensing deductions that they dont pay federal or state income taxes to.
The three top end bush tax cuts MASSIVELY bonuses the top 1% and the level under them. It is impossible to dispute the wealth concentration figures and the benefits/tax base gdp reduction this has cost our system.
Trickle down economics was BS because of the dynamic that investing and wealth management is the exact vehicle the top 1% use anyways and does not take into factor personal human greed IE: corporate bonuses even in the face of crazy losses.
WPB hidden corporate costs? I have a few entities and other partners that have many more in some large income scales.
One thing a business does not do is hide cost from itself or lack to portray them to their stock holders.
Those are all costs but certainly not hidden nor not taken into account immediately on any projections.
Also LLC does give the same corporate liability protection but allows pass thru income like a partnership which is why they are so wildly popular.
As for S or C corps paying taxes on the reported incomes.... these entities use loans and money management to defer as much income to pay out on dividends on a quarterly basis massively and can because they can afford to hire full time professionals to do that whereas the rest of the population can not.
No matter how you portray the "wealthy" the scale is still massively tilted in their favor. 85% of the population can not afford to have financial/legal professionals doing these strategies and using all of these mechanisms to manage wealth.
One of the first things people should do to take advantage of LLC and INC financial management tools to not pay taxes is to form one of these in the first place. a w-2 earner is at a massive disadvantage in terms of expensing deductions that they dont pay federal or state income taxes to.
The three top end bush tax cuts MASSIVELY bonuses the top 1% and the level under them. It is impossible to dispute the wealth concentration figures and the benefits/tax base gdp reduction this has cost our system.
Trickle down economics was BS because of the dynamic that investing and wealth management is the exact vehicle the top 1% use anyways and does not take into factor personal human greed IE: corporate bonuses even in the face of crazy losses.
I don't mean that the companies 'hide' those expenses...I mean that those taxes are not reported in the "INCOME TAX" reports that everyone here was discussing. It is IN ADDITION to the taxes we were talking about.
As for the tax benefits...I had my own S Corp for years....and yes, some of the tax benefits were nice....but if you want to talk about those breaks and doing away with them...you need to remember that many companies that benefit were LIKE ME making just between $100 and $200k...and without them could not possibly compete against the bigs. Do away with those benefits and a large portion of these small corps are closing their doors, plain and simple.
As for 'trickle down' economics not working....I find that laughable.
It is amazing that the 'greed' is acknowledged when we give the breaks to companies (they won't pass the savings down), but it is conveniently forgotten when we TAX THEM (no, they wouldn't think about passing along the additional expense to save their bottom line).
Greed is a constant...and if you give a company a break...only a small portion of that will trickle down. I agree.
But if you cause that same company to take on extra expenses (taxes), they will not only pass it along...but pass it along with a 10% profit for themselves. Bet on it.
So, does trickle down work? Not if you think that every penny will trickle down...but it doesn't RAISE prices like raising taxes (costs) will.
-
Boortz' numbers are pretty misleading. The tax burden on the richest is as low as it's been in many, many years. Highest marginal tax rates, a sampling -- per Wikipedia:
1932-'33 63%
1941 81%
1944-'45 94%
1954-'63 91% (supposedly the great prosperous era everyone wants to return to)
1964 77% (AFTER the Kennedy tax cuts)
1982 50%
1987 33%
1993-'00 39.6%
Currently 35%
The reason the rich are paying more as a total is that the very rich are even richer than before. Income inequality is throwing everything off.
Boortz' numbers are pretty misleading. The tax burden on the richest is as low as it's been in many, many years. Highest marginal tax rates, a sampling -- per Wikipedia:
1932-'33 63%
1941 81%
1944-'45 94%
1954-'63 91% (supposedly the great prosperous era everyone wants to return to)
1964 77% (AFTER the Kennedy tax cuts)
1982 50%
1987 33%
1993-'00 39.6%
Currently 35%
The reason the rich are paying more as a total is that the very rich are even richer than before. Income inequality is throwing everything off.
Not sure where you got your info from, but from 1980 forward can be found here on table 6, and the top 1% has never paid more than 40% in that time...so our data for 1982 is incorrect, as is your data for 1987. Further, from 1993-2000 the rate ranged from 29-37%. Currently, according to the IRS, it is 40.42%...so your numbers are all whacked.
Keep in mind what we are calling rich here people. To qualify as top 5%, you only need to make $160k per year. To make to 10% it is only $113k (these are 2007 numbers). Not exactly rolling in the dough there guys. In fact, it only took an income of $410k to make the top 0.1% of the population.
We are not talking about taxing multi-millionaires here...we are talking about taxing business people.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login