PDA

View Full Version : Americans screw the rich



Bob
02-24-2015, 06:00 PM
And enjoy being thieves.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.

What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/12/19/dumbest-moments-2012/3.html?iid=EL)last year.


I understand this is dated, but it still applies.

Safety
02-24-2015, 06:09 PM
They do pay the majority of the taxes here in the States. However, I believe the premise is somewhat misleading, for if they paid percentage wise what the middle class pays percentage wise, it would be a more fair system. Most of your affluent people have an accountant or two, and they are able to maximize their deductions to make sure that "x amount of "charity/donations/farm deductions/business deductions/etc." dollars will let me keep y amount of my money" is achieved.

I believe I read that GE had a team of 900 lawyers employed to make sure they had a zero tax liability. Zero.

Middle class doesn't have access to that resource, so they are forced to cough up every dollar .gov requests, or go to prison.

Howey
02-24-2015, 06:23 PM
Why do you care Bob? You're poor.

Bob
02-24-2015, 06:25 PM
Why do you care @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)? You're poor.


I can't stand thieves. I don't covet the property of the rich. Apparently you do.

Bob
02-24-2015, 06:28 PM
They do pay the majority of the taxes here in the States. However, I believe the premise is somewhat misleading, for if they paid percentage wise what the middle class pays percentage wise, it would be a more fair system. Most of your affluent people have an accountant or two, and they are able to maximize their deductions to make sure that "x amount of "charity/donations/farm deductions/business deductions/etc." dollars will let me keep y amount of my money" is achieved.

I believe I read that GE had a team of 900 lawyers employed to make sure they had a zero tax liability. Zero.

Middle class doesn't have access to that resource, so they are forced to cough up every dollar .gov requests, or go to prison.

Ahem, the Government recognizes not three classes, but 5 classes.

Some of the middle class get off almost tax free. And they don't need accountants since they pay nothing or next to nothing in taxes. But they get full benefits of Government. Even pay for the Obama meddling in Ukraine.

Crepitus
02-24-2015, 09:01 PM
And enjoy being thieves.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.

What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/12/19/dumbest-moments-2012/3.html?iid=EL)last year.



You ever think that they pay most of the taxes because they make most of the money? I know that sounds silly to say on the face of it but think about it. The numbers of people paying don't matter, its based on how much money is made and since everyone else's wages are stagnant then it stands to reason they are paying a larger percentage than last year. That's who made all the money.

Captain Obvious
02-24-2015, 09:04 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png/640px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png

Bob
02-24-2015, 09:08 PM
You ever think that they pay most of the taxes because they make most of the money? I know that sounds silly to say on the face of it but think about it. The numbers of people paying don't matter, its based on how much money is made and since everyone else's wages are stagnant then it stands to reason they are paying a larger percentage than last year. That's who made all the money.

Well, you believe the 47 percent don't deserve to pay for what they get then.

Dr. Who
02-24-2015, 09:54 PM
And enjoy being thieves.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.

What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/12/19/dumbest-moments-2012/3.html?iid=EL)last year.


That only means that half of the population doesn't earn enough to exceed the basic personal exemptions which are based on the the minimal amount of money someone would need to get by at a subsistence level, plus any other deductions to which they are entitled based on the Internal Revenue Code. That doesn't mean that they are not paying consumption taxes and property taxes which are not progressive. A single flat tax that excludes consumption taxes, property taxes and social benefit contributions would actually be more equitable, but it would not favor the wealthy because proportionately under the current system, the poor pay out more of their income in taxes than the rich. For the poor, they are paying out percentages of pre-taxed income which includes deductions for social benefits on consumables and other taxes, thus their net pay, which has already been reduced by significant amounts is ultimately far more reduced than that of the wealthy. That is because while income tax is geared to income, social benefit contributions are subject to maximums and consumption and property taxes are not progressive. So a wage earner making less than $117K per year loses far more of their relative income than the wealthy, before they even get paid.

zelmo1234
02-24-2015, 10:05 PM
thank God for the top 10% they are carrying the weight.

The truth is the left has a robin hood complex when it comes to the rich. And they darn sure would rather have the poor stay on the system, and the government take form the rich to keep them there, that for the poor person get a job and start moving up the ladder

We have reached a point that it is totally unsustainable. There is NO possible way that 53% can pay the bills for all. so we have to get the percentage of people not paying income tax back down to around 30%

texan
02-24-2015, 10:07 PM
I totally agree on the rich weaseling out.......................The problem I have is not enough deductions based on my income. I always have to pay another 10K.......I get the max taken out, donate to charity and still get the screws stuck to me. I wanted to write that to a charity but it just doesn't matter......


This is a scam for us in the middle. It should be reversed and the rich should be complaining about paying but they can come up with the deductions whereas I cannot. Its a catch 22. I should be getting some breaks.......How can I max out and owe thousands? I call BULLSHIT!

I don't even mind sending a little more, but 10K? Really? Why not even it out and let me pay 4K and a rich guy paying nothing 6K?

Am I ranting yet?

BTW if you think the Bullshit democrats (for the middle class my ass) will fix it you are crazy.....They are the ones that took these charitable things away in their policies over the years and called me "rich." I have no idea what Obama/dems calls the real rich, friends? The dem party is no longer the friend of the middle class. Thats why I support the lowest tax party, its a ponzi scheme, give me the ones not taxing me (the middle class) any further.

Bob
02-24-2015, 10:12 PM
That only means that half of the population doesn't earn enough to exceed the basic personal exemptions which are based on the the minimal amount of money someone would need to get by at a subsistence level, plus any other deductions to which they are entitled based on the Internal Revenue Code. That doesn't mean that they are not paying consumption taxes and property taxes which are not progressive. A single flat tax that excludes consumption taxes, property taxes and social benefit contributions would actually be more equitable, but it would not favor the wealthy because proportionately under the current system, the poor pay out more of their income in taxes than the rich. For the poor, they are paying out percentages of pre-taxed income which includes deductions for social benefits on consumables and other taxes, thus their net pay, which has already been reduced by significant amounts is ultimately far more reduced than that of the wealthy. That is because while income tax is geared to income, social benefit contributions are subject to maximums and consumption and property taxes are not progressive. So a wage earner making less than $117K per year loses far more of their relative income than the wealthy, before they even get paid.

I realize they are the lowest earners, but this does not mean they don't use up MORE than their share.

And lets look at the needs of the nation. Why pick only on the rich, or at least, mostly on the rich.

If this worked, by this time, fighting poverty, it would be over. LBJ started this nonsense in the early 60s.

Bob
02-24-2015, 10:22 PM
I totally agree on the rich weaseling out.......................The problem I have is not enough deductions based on my income. I always have to pay another 10K.......I get the max taken out, donate to charity and still get the screws stuck to me. I wanted to write that to a charity but it just doesn't matter......


This is a scam for us in the middle. It should be reversed and the rich should be complaining about paying but they can come up with the deductions whereas I cannot. Its a catch 22. I should be getting some breaks.......How can I max out and owe thousands? I call BULLSHIT!

I don't even mind sending a little more, but 10K? Really? Why not even it out and let me pay 4K and a rich guy paying nothing 6K?

Am I ranting yet?

BTW if you think the Bullshit democrats (for the middle class my ass) will fix it you are crazy.....They are the ones that took these charitable things away in their policies over the years and called me "rich." I have no idea what Obama/dems calls the real rich, friends? The dem party is no longer the friend of the middle class. Thats why I support the lowest tax party, its a ponzi scheme, give me the ones not taxing me (the middle class) any further.

Well that is a better view than from the Democrats.

Dr. Who
02-24-2015, 10:32 PM
I realize they are the lowest earners, but this does not mean they don't use up MORE than their share.

And lets look at the needs of the nation. Why pick only on the rich, or at least, mostly on the rich.

If this worked, by this time, fighting poverty, it would be over. LBJ started this nonsense in the early 60s.
You are not getting what I am saying. If I make $100 dollars a week and between source taxation, including benefits, I am left with $77 dollars, and then through flat taxes on consumption and perhaps property taxes I am actually left with less than $50 of usable revenue I am far worse off than the person who makes $15,000 a week who loses say $4500 to taxes etc, leaving $11,500 before other taxes which may only eat up 10% before shopping assuming they have an enormous property. But consumption for that earner may not eat up more than .5 percent of their remaining weekly income, whereas for the lower earner consumption will eat up virtually all of their remaining income. You cannot get blood from a stone. If you add to that, the intriguing tax loop holes available to the wealthy, but not available to poorer wage earners, you will see that the 47% who apparently pay no taxes are paying relatively more tax than the wealthy.

Bob
02-24-2015, 10:46 PM
You are not getting what I am saying. If I make $100 dollars a week and between source taxation, including benefits, I am left with $77 dollars, and then through flat taxes on consumption and perhaps property taxes I am actually left with less than $50 of usable revenue I am far worse off than the person who makes $15,000 a week who loses say $4500 to taxes etc, leaving $11,500 before other taxes which may only eat up 10% before shopping assuming they have an enormous property. But consumption for that earner may not eat up more than .5 percent of their remaining weekly income, whereas for the lower earner consumption will eat up virtually all of their remaining income. You cannot get blood from a stone. If you add to that, the intriguing tax loop holes available to the wealthy, but not available to poorer wage earners, you will see that the 47% who apparently pay no taxes are paying relatively more tax than the wealthy.

Actually, those earning that little collect the EIT as more revenue. They collect from these sources adding greatly to net income.

Welfare
Food stamps
Free or very low cost homes or apartments
They even can qualify to get free food at the local food bank.

I realize you are defending the indigenents, but you can escape income taxes up to a very decent living standard that is higher than the poverty line.

While you speak to me on emotion, the truth is the nation has mandated needs. When Obama forces you to drive a high mileage auto, naturally taxes on fuels is cheaper. They don't stop there with the poor. The add more taxes to gasoline. A lot of costs for the poor are fixed. And while you are right that the rich can afford it, think of it this way.

When the auto seller prices the car, the price is not dependent on a family income. It has a fixed price due to bargaining. (assuming all buyers are as equal in making bargains)

I avoid percentage discussions since it leads us to wrong conclusions.

Face it, if the voters at the bottom paid higher taxes, don't you think their standards for politicians would increase? A tax and spender like Obama might not get elected in the first place.

It is lawyers making laws. If you think of the Democrats in congress as hardly getting by, I tend to think they do very well.

Why not let the voters select by paying a larger share?

The 47 percent naturally will vote for one party. For the most part at least.

The way I see it, the Democrats are a failed party and it's time to kick them to the curb.

Crepitus
02-25-2015, 01:21 AM
Well, you believe the 47 percent don't deserve to pay for what they get then.
Bob says "Quick!! Think up something witty to say, he's making too much sense!!"

Bob
02-25-2015, 01:42 AM
You are not getting what I am saying. If I make $100 dollars a week and between source taxation, including benefits, I am left with $77 dollars, and then through flat taxes on consumption and perhaps property taxes I am actually left with less than $50 of usable revenue I am far worse off than the person who makes $15,000 a week who loses say $4500 to taxes etc, leaving $11,500 before other taxes which may only eat up 10% before shopping assuming they have an enormous property. But consumption for that earner may not eat up more than .5 percent of their remaining weekly income, whereas for the lower earner consumption will eat up virtually all of their remaining income. You cannot get blood from a stone. If you add to that, the intriguing tax loop holes available to the wealthy, but not available to poorer wage earners, you will see that the 47% who apparently pay no taxes are paying relatively more tax than the wealthy.

Back to this post one more whack.

What do you believe Taxes are for?

To take money from X and hand it over for the benefit of Y?

I believe when it comes to Government revenue, it is to do what the Constitution tells them to do.

This nonsense it is to pick up the tab for the poor only makes sure the poor enjoy stabbing the rich and staying out of the payment business is why this country is all messed up.

I hate taxes. I hate them for the poor. But to make the rich pay for most all of it keeps them howling over taxes and we get to laugh in their faces for they pay the bills and we collect the benefits.

I despise robbing any class, the rich included.

The Xl
02-25-2015, 02:20 AM
The poor tax the biggest hit off all effective taxation via the hidden inflation tax, and the upper part of the one percent pay the least percentage of their income because of the vast amount of ways they can avoid taxation, or are subsidized to some extent. Not to mention, the poor and middle class pay for things like the propping up of a stock market via inflation and taxation, and only the wealthy benefit, while the lower classes reap none of fruits of said propped up market.

gamewell45
02-25-2015, 02:30 AM
And enjoy being thieves.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.

What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/12/19/dumbest-moments-2012/3.html?iid=EL)last year.



Honestly I don't like seeing anyone get screwed, but if anyone gets screwed it should be the rich; most of them got where they are by walking all over people and exploiting them. They can afford to be screwed more then the average joe, so now that the shoe is on the other foot they'll know what its like to be screwed with nothing you can do about it for the most part.

Safety
02-25-2015, 05:10 AM
Honestly I don't like seeing anyone get screwed, but if anyone gets screwed it should be the rich; most of them got where they are by walking all over people and exploiting them. They can afford to be screwed more then the average joe, so now that the shoe is on the other foot they'll know what its like to be screwed with nothing you can do about it for the most part.

Listen, believe me when I say the rich are not getting screwed. If you think someone making over 250k a year pays the required % of their effective tax rate, you're kidding yourself. The only people getting screwed are the poor saps making around 120k or less (middle class) who have no tax liabilities to write off. People like Bob and others are just a distraction to divert your attention elsewhere. I wouldn't call them useful idiots, because that term isn't nice, but their function is about on the same level.

I don't believe even a quarter of the rich step or walk over anybody, they are just like any ordinary person, they just had a vision that became lucrative for them. If you take someone like Romney, this would be an example of what I spoke about earlier. Based upon his disclosure of tax records, with all his deductions he paid an effective tax rate of 15% instead of 35%. Now, he didn't even claim all his tax liabilities, which would have lowered his effective rate to around 12%, because he was running for president at the time and didn't want to appear to be not paying his fair share. But I suspect that when he didn't get elected, he went back and amended his return to collect his missing 3%.

Peter1469
02-25-2015, 06:06 AM
15% was the then current long term capital gains rate.

donttread
02-25-2015, 07:07 AM
And enjoy being thieves.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/
Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.

What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/12/19/dumbest-moments-2012/3.html?iid=EL)last year.



They are the beneficiaries of a tilted table where stock choices have more value than real work. Taxes are the only way they are held accountable, so far

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 07:11 AM
You are not getting what I am saying. If I make $100 dollars a week and between source taxation, including benefits, I am left with $77 dollars, and then through flat taxes on consumption and perhaps property taxes I am actually left with less than $50 of usable revenue I am far worse off than the person who makes $15,000 a week who loses say $4500 to taxes etc, leaving $11,500 before other taxes which may only eat up 10% before shopping assuming they have an enormous property. But consumption for that earner may not eat up more than .5 percent of their remaining weekly income, whereas for the lower earner consumption will eat up virtually all of their remaining income. You cannot get blood from a stone. If you add to that, the intriguing tax loop holes available to the wealthy, but not available to poorer wage earners, you will see that the 47% who apparently pay no taxes are paying relatively more tax than the wealthy.

So what you are saying is you need a better job!

Punishing someone because they have worked harder or have a better job is silly and leads to things that really hurt the little guy

I will give you an example. We build really energy efficient homes. they are super safe as we go above and beyond when it comes to electrical and gas utilities, fire places, water heaters, even utility rooms.

when we first started out we would build all homes at any price using these upgrades if you will and they only add about 7 K to the price of a home and the payback is very quick.

But with all of the added taxations and regulations over the past 15 years? I can make any money on those 200 to 400K homes. You know the ones that the middle class can afford. So they don't get the benefits that we put into a home.

I will not touch a home less than 800K and most are now over a million dollars. And guess who can afford those.

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 07:17 AM
The poor tax the biggest hit off all effective taxation via the hidden inflation tax, and the upper part of the one percent pay the least percentage of their income because of the vast amount of ways they can avoid taxation, or are subsidized to some extent. Not to mention, the poor and middle class pay for things like the propping up of a stock market via inflation and taxation, and only the wealthy benefit, while the lower classes reap none of fruits of said propped up market.

When did we take all of the 401K plans away from the working folks?

And when did we make retirement funds stop investing in the markets?

My employee's still have these programs I guess I did not get the memo!

Chris
02-25-2015, 07:18 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png/640px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png


Very Marxist in it's exploitation theory.

Mr. Right
02-25-2015, 07:27 AM
They do pay the majority of the taxes here in the States. However, I believe the premise is somewhat misleading, for if they paid percentage wise what the middle class pays percentage wise, it would be a more fair system. Most of your affluent people have an accountant or two, and they are able to maximize their deductions to make sure that "x amount of "charity/donations/farm deductions/business deductions/etc." dollars will let me keep y amount of my money" is achieved.

I believe I read that GE had a team of 900 lawyers employed to make sure they had a zero tax liability. Zero.

Middle class doesn't have access to that resource, so they are forced to cough up every dollar .gov requests, or go to prison.

It's not surprising that a liberal proggie outfit like GE would work so hard to avoid tax. In the typical fashion, they have ideas about how to spend "other people's money." In that they own one of the big 3 alphabet mouthpieces they, without skin in the game, want to be the quarterback.

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 07:28 AM
Honestly I don't like seeing anyone get screwed, but if anyone gets screwed it should be the rich; most of them got where they are by walking all over people and exploiting them. They can afford to be screwed more then the average joe, so now that the shoe is on the other foot they'll know what its like to be screwed with nothing you can do about it for the most part.

this is a really silly statement on at least 2 accounts.

First most of the really wealthy are business owners, I would like to see your facts that most of them have gained there money through ill gotten gains.

And next there is nothing that they can do about it????

Why do think prices go up, people get laid off, raised and benefits and even wages are cut? Companies move operations or many times just corporate headquarters offshore?

Here is a little hint! I own 3 businesses a Distribution company, Rental Properties, and Construction

When the Bush tax cuts were let to expire and the ACA added 3 and 6% to my tax burden and caused my insurance cost to double?

do you think I took that money out of my pocket???? Wrong! it was passed on to my consumers and some came from downsizing

I make the exact same percentage today as I did before all this happened. That is what is really funny and Bob is the only one that is getting it!

You think that because you are in a low or are paying NO income tax, that you are not being hurt by raising taxes on the rich?

When actually the people that buy the products and services that have made the people rich, are going to pay for the new taxes.

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 07:31 AM
They are the beneficiaries of a tilted table where stock choices have more value than real work. Taxes are the only way they are held accountable, so far

So you actually believe that taxations is a great way to punish the rich?

Punish them for what?

And I ask? how do you like paying the taxes for them, because that is what is happening.

Mr. Right
02-25-2015, 07:37 AM
You are not getting what I am saying. If I make $100 dollars a week and between source taxation, including benefits, I am left with $77 dollars, and then through flat taxes on consumption and perhaps property taxes I am actually left with less than $50 of usable revenue I am far worse off than the person who makes $15,000 a week who loses say $4500 to taxes etc, leaving $11,500 before other taxes which may only eat up 10% before shopping assuming they have an enormous property. But consumption for that earner may not eat up more than .5 percent of their remaining weekly income, whereas for the lower earner consumption will eat up virtually all of their remaining income. You cannot get blood from a stone. If you add to that, the intriguing tax loop holes available to the wealthy, but not available to poorer wage earners, you will see that the 47% who apparently pay no taxes are paying relatively more tax than the wealthy.

At least they're not acting like GE and avoiding tax completely.

Bob
02-25-2015, 02:15 PM
They are the beneficiaries of a tilted table where stock choices have more value than real work. Taxes are the only way they are held accountable, so far

What are you talking about? The topic is the rich pay far more than their alleged "Share" to the Federals when the funds could be used to assist many to be employed.

Bob
02-25-2015, 02:21 PM
Honestly I don't like seeing anyone get screwed, but if anyone gets screwed it should be the rich; most of them got where they are by walking all over people and exploiting them. They can afford to be screwed more then the average joe, so now that the shoe is on the other foot they'll know what its like to be screwed with nothing you can do about it for the most part.

That blast on the rich is actually a case of bigotry.

I am not here to defend the rich, I am here promoting justice.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 06:13 PM
So what you are saying is you need a better job!

Punishing someone because they have worked harder or have a better job is silly and leads to things that really hurt the little guy

I will give you an example. We build really energy efficient homes. they are super safe as we go above and beyond when it comes to electrical and gas utilities, fire places, water heaters, even utility rooms.

when we first started out we would build all homes at any price using these upgrades if you will and they only add about 7 K to the price of a home and the payback is very quick.

But with all of the added taxations and regulations over the past 15 years? I can make any money on those 200 to 400K homes. You know the ones that the middle class can afford. So they don't get the benefits that we put into a home.

I will not touch a home less than 800K and most are now over a million dollars. And guess who can afford those.
Actually I would suggest a flat tax that pays for everything, from municipal, state and federal tax to social benefits and no loopholes. That way if the tax is 30% across the board, the guy with 100 dollars contributes $30 and the guy with $1,000,000 contributes $300,000. That's fair. I'm talking personal income tax, not business tax. Consumption taxes which are flat taxes, adversely affect the poor and middle class, who are first of all shopping with pre-taxed income, and consume far more relative to their income that the wealthy.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 06:33 PM
At least they're not acting like GE and avoiding tax completely.
I'm sure some do. If you are wealthy enough, you can find ways to hide your income. Offshore bank accounts are pretty popular. If you derive income from foreign sources where you don't live and that income is funneled to an off shore bank in the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands, I guess the IRS won't know anything about it. Of course it's illegal to have an undeclared foreign account, but that doesn't really stop many people. They probably have Visa cards issued by those banks, so they can spend their money in the US without a paper trail to a US resident. Chances are however, they spend that foreign money outside of the country, further reducing the chances of getting caught.

Bob
02-25-2015, 06:38 PM
I'm sure some do. If you are wealthy enough, you can find ways to hide your income. Offshore bank accounts are pretty popular. If you derive income from foreign sources where you don't live and that income is funneled to an off shore bank in the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands, I guess the IRS won't know anything about it. Of course it's illegal to have an undeclared foreign account, but that doesn't really stop many people. They probably have Visa cards issued by those banks, so they can spend their money in the US without a paper trail to a US resident. Chances are however, they spend that foreign money outside of the country, further reducing the chances of getting caught.

Posters keep claiming the rich can hide income.

Who has stopped to ask this. Why should any of us, rich or middle class or poor have to hide our income?

Who put us all in the position to "hide" incomes.

We need to stop bickering and rather move to the FAIR TAX.

FAIR TAX ends all that hiding.

http://fairtax.org/

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated! - See more at: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works#sthash.dHn6gdin.dpuf

Bob
02-25-2015, 06:42 PM
Actually I would suggest a flat tax that pays for everything, from municipal, state and federal tax to social benefits and no loopholes. That way if the tax is 30% across the board, the guy with 100 dollars contributes $30 and the guy with $1,000,000 contributes $300,000. That's fair. I'm talking personal income tax, not business tax. Consumption taxes which are flat taxes, adversely affect the poor and middle class, who are first of all shopping with pre-taxed income, and consume far more relative to their income that the wealthy.

You advocate taxing income, promoting hiding income, promoting moving income off shore, and I advocate taxing spending. We have a lot of experience with taxing spending. I never read stories that taxing spending produces tax cheats.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 06:56 PM
You advocate taxing income, promoting hiding income, promoting moving income off shore, and I advocate taxing spending. We have a lot of experience with taxing spending. I never read stories that taxing spending produces tax cheats.
I wasn't promoting moving income off shore, I was saying that most wealthy people "shelter" their income and outright evade taxation, off shore being one method only.

gamewell45
02-25-2015, 06:58 PM
That blast on the rich is actually a case of bigotry.

I am not here to defend the rich, I am here promoting justice.

Bob, I have to disagree; if I was mentioning race, ethnic background, religion, creed or sexual orientation, then I might agree with you, however in this case its over financial considerations so I don't feel that it fits that criteria.

Bob
02-25-2015, 07:00 PM
Bob, I have to disagree; if I was mentioning race, ethnic background, religion, creed or sexual orientation, then I might agree with you, however in this case its over financial considerations so I don't feel that it fits that criteria.

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry[/URL]

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#)



Wikipedia



Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal ...‎[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_%28disambiguation%29"]Bigot (disambiguation) (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=653&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry+bigotry&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=-WHuVKPqJ4OuogTh_4IY&ved=0CCoQHzAB) - ‎Purist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purist) - ‎Yobaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yobaz)

PolWatch
02-25-2015, 07:01 PM
If we ever see a day when the citizen making $50,000 pays the same actual % as the citizen making $500,000,000....I'll say its fair. Now, with the system of tax shelters, loopholes & deductions, its only as fair as a person can afford to pay for.

Bob
02-25-2015, 07:02 PM
I wasn't promoting moving income off shore, I was saying that most wealthy people "shelter" their income and outright evade taxation, off shore being one method only.

It is much harder for them to shelter spending. Taxing spending should have been what was the topic of the 16th amendment. I bet today the country would have balanced finances.

Safety
02-25-2015, 07:06 PM
Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry[/URL]

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#)



Wikipedia



Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal ...‎[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_%28disambiguation%29"]Bigot (disambiguation) (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=653&q=related:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry+bigotry&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=-WHuVKPqJ4OuogTh_4IY&ved=0CCoQHzAB) - ‎Purist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purist) - ‎Yobaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yobaz)





But in his opinion, he doesn't show irrational or unfair dislike of rich people, he gave the reasons why, so I don't believe you can call that bigotry.

Bob
02-25-2015, 07:15 PM
But in his opinion, he doesn't show irrational or unfair dislike of rich people, he gave the reasons why, so I don't believe you can call that bigotry.

The dislike of the rich is not rational. It presumes all are the same. Ergo, bigotry.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 07:19 PM
Posters keep claiming the rich can hide income.

Who has stopped to ask this. Why should any of us, rich or middle class or poor have to hide our income?

Who put us all in the position to "hide" incomes.

We need to stop bickering and rather move to the FAIR TAX.

FAIR TAX ends all that hiding.

http://fairtax.org/

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated! - See more at: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works#sthash.dHn6gdin.dpuf
So when Mr. and Mrs. Richy Rich do all of their discretionary spending in Paris, Milan and Rome and only declare some small percentage of their purchases at customs, as they come and go with great frequency, how does the US collect the the fair tax? People go abroad with empty suitcases all the time. Remove the tags, and how can customs tell whether you went shopping or not. If you are a millionaire or billionaire, the labels will not give you away. Your clothing is all designer anyway.

Bob
02-25-2015, 07:28 PM
So when Mr. and Mrs. Richy Rich do all of their discretionary spending in Paris, Milan and Rome and only declare some small percentage of their purchases at customs, as they come and go with great frequency, how does the US collect the the fair tax? People go abroad with empty suitcases all the time. Remove the tags, and how can customs tell whether you went shopping or not. If you are a millionaire or billionaire, the labels will not give you away. Your clothing is all designer anyway.

There is still this intense jealousy of the rich. While you ask a good question, the spending being taxed is only inside the USA. That spending happens today despite the tax laws.

For instance, the rich can earn income outside the USA. But I don't think we need to fund the US government based on such fears. My opinion of course.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 07:40 PM
There is still this intense jealousy of the rich. While you ask a good question, the spending being taxed is only inside the USA. That spending happens today despite the tax laws.

For instance, the rich can earn income outside the USA. But I don't think we need to fund the US government based on such fears. My opinion of course.
How can a fair tax, which is based on consumption be really fair when the poor and middle classes do 99% of their spending in the US, whereas the wealthy have the option to do the bulk of their discretionary spending off shore at lower tax rates?

Bob
02-25-2015, 07:55 PM
How can a fair tax, which is based on consumption be really fair when the poor and middle classes do 99% of their spending in the US, whereas the wealthy have the option to do the bulk of their discretionary spending off shore at lower tax rates?


Everyone Pays Their Fair Share Tax evasion and the underground economy cost each taxpayer an additional $2,500 every year! But by taxing new products and services consumed, the FairTax puts everyone in the country at the same level at the cash register. Further, only legal residents are eligible for the prebate. Learn more. The IRS is No Longer Needed No more complicated tax forms, individual audits, or intrusive federal bureaucracy. Retailers will collect the FairTax just as they do now with state sales taxes. All money will be collected and remitted to the U.S. Treasury, and both the retailers and states will be paid a fee for their collection service. Learn More. - See more at: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works#sthash.tcujs8dF.dpuf





Is the FAIRtax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending? (https://fairtax.org/faq#)Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below — where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.
- See more at: https://fairtax.org/faq#sthash.ZopekvH3.dpuf

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 08:24 PM
That doesn't address the point that I made. Wealthy people travel a great deal. If they make purchases at lower or non-existent tax rates in foreign places and don't declare most of those goods when they come back to the US, how does the fair tax make much off their consumer spending? It makes money off their airline tickets, assuming they don't fly private jet, and if they fly private jet, it makes money off the fuel consumption. However since one designer original garment can cost $10K or more, if said persons drop $100K in a foreign country, the US gets none or very little of it.

Peter1469
02-25-2015, 08:48 PM
That doesn't address the point that I made. Wealthy people travel a great deal. If they make purchases at lower or non-existent tax rates in foreign places and don't declare most of those goods when they come back to the US, how does the fair tax make much off their consumer spending? It makes money off their airline tickets, assuming they don't fly private jet, and if they fly private jet, it makes money off the fuel consumption. However since one designer original garment can cost $10K or more, if said persons drop $100K in a foreign country, the US gets none or very little of it.

A poor person could purchase many items used and also avoid the tax.

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 08:58 PM
A poor person could purchase many items used and also avoid the tax.
They could, but most probably wouldn't. Many people get weirded out about buying used goods. Cooties. Plus, when it comes to the poor the fair tax prefunds the taxes monthly so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free. (sounds like a lot of admin to me).

gamewell45
02-25-2015, 09:50 PM
The dislike of the rich is not rational. It presumes all are the same. Ergo, bigotry.

Bob, your certainly entitled to your opinion; just that we both disagree on each others viewpoints. Not much more to be said at this time. :)

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 10:04 PM
I'm sure some do. If you are wealthy enough, you can find ways to hide your income. Offshore bank accounts are pretty popular. If you derive income from foreign sources where you don't live and that income is funneled to an off shore bank in the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands, I guess the IRS won't know anything about it. Of course it's illegal to have an undeclared foreign account, but that doesn't really stop many people. They probably have Visa cards issued by those banks, so they can spend their money in the US without a paper trail to a US resident. Chances are however, they spend that foreign money outside of the country, further reducing the chances of getting caught.

Money earned over seas buy companies that have headquarters in other countries are not subject to US taxes.

this is the shelter that is used.

The US has a policy of taxing these funds at a rate of 35% which is why there is not over 3 trillion in corporate assets that will not be invested in the USA.

That is what you get when governments try and screw big business

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 10:10 PM
Money earned over seas buy companies that have headquarters in other countries are not subject to US taxes.

this is the shelter that is used.

The US has a policy of taxing these funds at a rate of 35% which is why there is not over 3 trillion in corporate assets that will not be invested in the USA.

That is what you get when governments try and screw big business
I'm just talking about wealthy individuals who may or may not have interests in those foreign registered companies - probably do and where their personal income goes. I would suggest that any income that is not derived from domestic sources, never enters the US.

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 10:11 PM
If we ever see a day when the citizen making $50,000 pays the same actual % as the citizen making $500,000,000....I'll say its fair. Now, with the system of tax shelters, loopholes & deductions, its only as fair as a person can afford to pay for.

If that money comes on actual income the percentage would be much higher.

A person making 50K is likely going to be way less than 20% And unless the persons making 500 million has 400 million in re investment? he is going to be in the low 30%

Here is what happens that people don't understand.

#1 much of the income is on investments that are make with dollars that have already been taxed.

#2 I am in Madison at our yearly sales meeting with a manufacture that has revenue of nearly 1 billion dollars.
it is a privately owned business. so that is the income. However nearly all of this money is invested back into the company. Thus that actual income of the owner is less that .5% of that amount. Thus a much lower tax rate

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 10:17 PM
So when Mr. and Mrs. Richy Rich do all of their discretionary spending in Paris, Milan and Rome and only declare some small percentage of their purchases at customs, as they come and go with great frequency, how does the US collect the the fair tax? People go abroad with empty suitcases all the time. Remove the tags, and how can customs tell whether you went shopping or not. If you are a millionaire or billionaire, the labels will not give you away. Your clothing is all designer anyway.

Why should they be taxed again on items they paid taxes on in the country where they spent the money?

This is a red haring

The truth is that taxing the rich does not cost the rich money it is filtered down to the poor and middle class.

Or they just fold up shop and move to where the taxations and regulations are more suitable to them.

The left uses this as a feel good topic to keep the uninformed happy, by thinking that the democrats are sticking it to the rich.

They believe that the government will take from the rich and distribute these funds to them. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. That is why the programs don't get people out of poverty, they are designed for just the opposite, keeping them there

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 10:19 PM
I'm just talking about wealthy individuals who may or may not have interests in those foreign registered companies - probably do and where their personal income goes. I would suggest that any income that is not derived from domestic sources, never enters the US.

so you want to do away with foreign investments into the USA?

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 10:26 PM
Why should they be taxed again on items they paid taxes on in the country where they spent the money?

This is a red haring

The truth is that taxing the rich does not cost the rich money it is filtered down to the poor and middle class.

Or they just fold up shop and move to where the taxations and regulations are more suitable to them.

The left uses this as a feel good topic to keep the uninformed happy, by thinking that the democrats are sticking it to the rich.

They believe that the government will take from the rich and distribute these funds to them. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. That is why the programs don't get people out of poverty, they are designed for just the opposite, keeping them there

My comment reference the fair tax that proposes to make all taxation based on consumption only.

zelmo1234
02-25-2015, 10:40 PM
My comment reference the fair tax that proposes to make all taxation based on consumption only.

There is a lot of benefit in not taxing production, so I am not totally opposed to that!

And it could work well for the poor if they have some spunk. Imagine if they were to grow fruits and vegetables from seed. the only thing that would be taxed is the seeds. They can hit the garage sales for canning jars and save a ton of money

they could even work with farmers in trade for beef or chickens! using barter instead of spending!

I know the left thinks it is a terrible thing when people can take care of themselves, but it would sure make the world a better place

Dr. Who
02-25-2015, 10:55 PM
There is a lot of benefit in not taxing production, so I am not totally opposed to that!

And it could work well for the poor if they have some spunk. Imagine if they were to grow fruits and vegetables from seed. the only thing that would be taxed is the seeds. They can hit the garage sales for canning jars and save a ton of money

they could even work with farmers in trade for beef or chickens! using barter instead of spending!

I know the left thinks it is a terrible thing when people can take care of themselves, but it would sure make the world a better place
I don't think it's a terrible thing for people to take care of themselves. I think that we would be well served in teaching people how to cook, how to make great meals from inexpensive but healthy foods. People would be far more healthy.

Bob
02-26-2015, 12:38 PM
I wasn't promoting moving income off shore, I was saying that most wealthy people "shelter" their income and outright evade taxation, off shore being one method only.

I gave you the wrong idea. When i said you promote moving income off shore, I meant to say the system you support promotes moving income off shore. I am not blaming you since you did not create any laws.

As to your claim of most wealthy, will you show me proof?