| Author | Message | ||
     Slaughter |
The year Leona Helmsley went to jail for underpayment of taxes, she STILL PAID over $54,000,000 in taxes | ||
| Reindog |
Even new spuds eventually get educated and realize that demonizing the so-called rich only help the looters and moochers dip into their own pockets. Living in Kalifornia also helps create Conservatives who usually end up abandoning the state to the looters and moochers. I just finished the first cut of taxes and have to reach for the vaseline. I am getting a Federal refund of $2k. So far so good. I do the state tax and I owe them $5.1k. Huh? I am withholding with 0 exemptions and add more $/paycheck. The State of Kalifornia has an insatiable appetite. Only 23 more days to "Atlas Shrugged". I can't wait for the shriekers to demonize the movie. | ||
| Court |
I always hear folks whine and moan when someone makes $200,000,000 a year. Then they whine and moan about $100,00,000. The argument is the same . . . to wit "no one is worth that". But . . most the folks making that are making it as return on investments. I am always curious as to what the whiners lower threshold is. Is a person who works hard and earns $3,400,000 in a year overpaid? How ya'll feel about a basketball player who makes $80,000 a game? How about my one of my best friends kid . . Gary Woodland, who won $990,000 last Sunday afternoon when he won his first PGA Tournament. . .was he overpaid? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Had George Steinbrenner died in 2009, his kids would have owed the Federal government $500,000,000 in taxes and more than likely would have had to sell the Yankees and handed over the proceeds. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Jeremy, Reread your post and think about it - you and I agree!!! Warren Buffet pays less taxes because he has structured most of his income to arrive as the result of capital gains...LOWER tax rate. we agree! Your next statement says that it is not possible to do that. I think that you pointed out just previously that it is not only possible but the rich routinely do it. Your last statement we also agree...} although I would say that the tax code makes it MUCH more difficult but does not prevent - We agree!!! I think Income is income. How I collect it should not decide the rate. IF Leona Helmsley owes 54,000,000 in taxes but cheated the tax code ... she gets a pass for jail time because? She earned how much that year?}} } | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Think through the next part of the question. WHY is the capital gain rate 15% and the income tax rate 35%? Buffet' assistant CAN'T have her income stated as capital gains. There is NO capital. His statement, while "correct" is disingenuous. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Warren Buffet pays less taxes because he has structured most of his income to arrive as the result of capital gains How else would he structure it? You speak nonsense. You cannot invest capital, aka money, gain profit on that investment and not earn "capital gains." By what means could he structure his income as earned income rather than as capital gains? Please do tell. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
He can not structure any other way - especially given the tax code. My much earlier comment was that the rich pay a lower income tax, now we all agree - finally - that the fact is true. Would the rich invest less if the tax rate on capital gains were higher - doubtful - what would they do, spend the money? - GREAT helps the economy. bury the money? fine give up 65% of the return just to spite the government. If they want to, I'm OK with that. I do not have any problem with how much anybody makes. I just do not expect that the rich need our pity or help with tax breaks to stay that way. During most of the the Reagan years the marginal tax rate was 50% and the capital gains rate was 28%. Now with the current rates since 2002, while we fought two very expensive wars, we are "broke" and either can't figure out why OR figure that it must be those damn public employees. I am not buying it. | ||
| Hootowl |
Spend the money? Nope. They sit on it, or they invest it overseas. What do you think Buffet is doing in India? | ||
| Sifo |
The tax rate is structured to prevent people from being able to move up. I've had the interesting situation of having to cut a tax check for more than my net income from my job. That was on top of the taxes withheld from my check. You can reach a point where you are basically working to do nothing but cover your taxes. Aussie, part of the tax reform that brought the rates down was a vast reduction in the ways to avoid paying taxes. Rates were reduced across the board however. This resulted in lower income folks getting a reduction in their tax rate just like the rich. The rich had their tax dodges taken away though, so they didn't see the same benefit from the cuts. You also seem confused on capital gains vs. earned income. I hope that someday you can experience the difference first hand. Bashing the rich isn't the path to have that happen for you though. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Thanks for the encouragement Sifo. I do have some capital gains this year - not rich but doing fine. I think that I have a handle on it. Even though I benefit from the code, and no Blake I don't plan to structure mine any differently either, I have a tough time thinking that it is fair for that income to be taxed at a MUCH lower rate. I would not divest myself and bury it if the rate was different - but the government should not be trying to steer outcomes with the tax code. | ||
| Sifo |
I have a tough time thinking that it is fair for that income to be taxed at a MUCH lower rate. And it isn't. You can't simply restructure your income as capital gains. | ||
| Doerman |
but the government should not be trying to steer outcomes with the tax code Done all the time. Best example is mortgage interest rate deduction. How about all the tax incentives for alternative energy systems. Same thing. Much of the tax code is designed to herd us in a direction the folks on capitol hill has deemed to be in the collective's best interest. It's a win-win if politicians benefit directly as well. However, often their "win-win" is our yoke. | ||
| Sifo |
And for some proof that the Reagan tax reform shifted the tax burden from the lower class to the upper class...  | ||
| Aesquire |
Unions. Public unions specifically. While some would say that unions are an anachronism from the industrial age, they have a valid purpose. Some companies are very tight fisted, and will work the employees to death if they can. Not so much as the dark ages of the early 20th century, but still going on. Safe working conditions, money, and benefits ( more money ) are the usual things Unions are good for. A good example is coal miners. Odds are the job will kill you, ( worse case, slowly ) and the companies had set up "company store" operations to keep the workers pretty much enslaved. If you got tired of giving your paycheck back to the company to buy food & shelter, running away got you in jail. Unions helped there a lot. A bad example is Firestone. After Bridgestone bought them ( yeah yeah, this is going to be overly simplistic ) the workers went on strike because of low pay and unsafe working conditions. Bad news, they got fired. The company hired new guys and kept on making bad product and injuring people. Got away with it too. I won't buy their product. Not, I admit for Union loyalty reasons, but because people I know died from the companies known bad product. (Firestone 500's, remember those?) Maybe the greedy ones who don't care if their customers die, cause there's plenty more, are gone. Maybe the company has guards now on the machines that used to rip off fingers and arms. I don't know. If you are a Firestone or Bridgestone employee, and it's now a company worthy of my patronage, I may reconsider. Let us know, please. In some cases, ( restaurants for example ) the margin between making payroll and folding is razor thin. A union, with the higher costs, ( you bet your bippy union stuff costs more. ) may make a business not make it. You may just look at it as Darwinian reality. Or just miss that great place thats gone. Some places that are unionized have a sharp us/them hostile relationship between management and workers. It may be that situation exists because of the union. I wonder. What do you think? It's not black & white. Sometimes quite murky grey. As to the "hate the rich" mantra. "tax the rich, not the children" Bite me. It's EASY to envy those with more. That's why that tactic has been successful at revolutions. It's the prime tactic of Commies, and those who want to steal your money. ( instead of working for a living, may I add. ) Easy to have envy. In the case of trust fund kids, or those who have not earned their wealth, it's even easier. It's also a sin, and bad for you. Watch your blood pressure. Here's a little spoken truth. Raise my ( and probably your ) taxes, and I have little choice but to pay. I pay a bank to pretend to own a house, and It's HARD for me to vote with my feet. ( or a van & trailer, far more realistic in the 21st century ) It would be hard to sell my house so that I could move to a cheaper place. Just let the bank have it? ruin my reputation. ( which is MORE important to me than it is to rich people, think about it. ) I live in NY, I'm screwed. But Tom Golisano, rich guy and wannabe Governor, can far more easily move to Florida, reconfigure his affairs to avoid paying NY taxes. He can even do so with pompous public announcements that get press. My pompous rant would get none. ( why? ask Charlie Sheen!! ) He DID leave to pay less taxes. The poor always suffer more. I can't afford to bribe my politicians enough to get cool tax breaks. Rich people can, and do. And, If I'm making 50k a year, pay 50% of my pay in taxes, ( actually more, all figured. Lots more ) I pay $25,000. If Richey Rich down the road, makes 50 million, and pays 50% taxes, he pays $25,000,000. That's fair, right? I promise I have a harder time than he does living on what's less. So? Duh. Poor are always hit hardest. They have less cushion. Figure out a fix for that that actually works, and does not involve sending armed men to throw me in jail for not giving my money to you, and I'll vote for you. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
He can not structure any other way - especially given the tax code. You are missing the point. He doesn't "structure" anything. The taxes he pays are a function of the type of income he receives. He receives capital gains because he is investing capital, holding that investment for more than 13 months and then selling that investment for gain. His assistant doesn't have the ability. Her income taxed as W-2 income because it is EARNED income. The majority of Buffet's income is PASSIVE income. There is no way to "classify" his assistant's income as passive. The majority of the top income earners do not derive the majority of their income from passive income. Most receive their income via W-2, 1099, 1065 or 1120S income all subject to the income tax rate (as well as social security and medicare and potentially self employment taxes). Buffet is unique and does not represent the majority of "wealthy" taxpayers. Bill Gates last year was paid $1,000,000 in earned income, but that doesn't even come close to representing the total income he earned from his $50,000,000,000 net worth. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I have a tough time thinking that it is fair for that income to be taxed at a MUCH lower rate. Again, I ask WHY is this the case? | ||
| Buellinmke |
I think he has a tough time thinking it is fair for that income to be taxed at a much lower rate because, as a patriotic citizen of the United States of America, he is concerned with the financial crises in this country. We the people have been lied to by politicians and corporations to the point where the country is quickly going broke. Fortunately, we the people are the ones that will fix this problem. We the people want to see this wonderful experiment of democracy and freedom succeed. We the people are willing to sacrifice for our country in order to fix the problems created by politicians and corporations. We the people are willing to pay more in taxes in order to fix our country. If we the people are willing to pay more, then why should they the corporations and politicians not pay more also? | ||
| Aesquire |
The politicians won't pay. Period. heck, the Sec. Treasury is a multiple tax cheat. You'd need a revolution, pitchforks and torches, ( sorry, that's for Frankenstein ) to get them to pay. And many are very rich. Very. ( like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick who made 26+ million at Fannie Mae and was a prime architect of the CDO ripoff ) And corporations don't pay taxes. You pay them. They just collect them from you and others and write the check to the IRS. Yep, you've been lied to by the Politicians and Corporations. You, unfortunately, believed some of those lies. ( Not saying I haven't too....... I just noticed the BS. you guys bought that's wrong ) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
WE aren't paying more in taxes in order to fix OUR country. When the bottom 50% ponies up and pays THEIR fair share, I'll say WE are fixing the problem. When do the bottom 50% get some "skin in the game"? If Buffet feels that the tax system is unfair, he can ALWAYS send in extra. Honestly, there is a special form where an individual can make extra payments in taxes if they feel so inclined. Hollywood too can do such. I don't see any of them lining up. Corporations DON'T pay more in taxes they raise prices to the extent that they can and when that doesn't narrow the gap between revenue and profit (expected by those who supplied the capital to invest), they outsource the jobs to reduce the labor costs. Piling taxes on the backs of corporations raises the cost of living by increasing the costs of goods. Collective bargaining for wages and benefits that are higher than market raises the cost of living by increasing the costs of goods. What you pro-union folks don't understand is that corporations don't run to provide you a job. Corporations exist to produce a product at a profit. That profit is the price required by those with capital to invest in that commercial enterprise. If the profit is not competitive with alternative investment opportunities (including overseas investments), the owners of that capital take their capital elsewhere. When the owners of that capital take their capital elsewhere, the company ceases to exist. Period. Who are the "owners of capital"? Anyone who invests in their own business or the business of another. If you have a mutual fund, a 401K, a stock, a bond, a CD, or an annuity, you are an "an owner of capital". If you have a pension plan provided by your employer or union, YOU are an "owner of capital". If you don't like capitalism, as an "owner of capital", I suggest you not bitch and complain when you lose 40% of your value. More than likely, your loss comes as a result of your own collectively bargained benefits coerced by your union and the political activities in which they engage. | ||
| Aesquire |
One of my favorite lines in a movie is from Ghostbusters. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! No that's not it, but it fits. Ah!, here it is. Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*. I've worked with & without unions, in small shops and large. College's are the best place to work, ever, if only because of Coeds. I'm neutral/sarcastic on unions, per se. The issue is really one of political power. Unions, especially govt. worker unions, have immense clout, and huge amounts of cash. It becomes a problem of pure corruption when a Union spends millions of dollars on political contributions. Where the recipients are pols who are in charge of the money to hire & pay for more union jobs, bennies, or pay raises. Pretty obvious Quid pro quo there, I'd think. Then when the unions needs the govt. to bail out the pension fund, health care plan, whatever.... one wonders if the money spent on "campaign funds" perhaps would have prevented the need? In any case the person paying for all this is you. Your taxes pay the worker. Part of your pay to him goes to the Union, who gives it to a pol. Then the pol votes to give the worker, union, and pol a raise. That you pay for. Fact of life. Just has to be controlled by adults so you don't get ripped off too much. Ft_, the 50% you want to pay too, actually pays a large percentage of their income in taxes. It's just that the system of taxes is widely dispersed, and hidden under prices. That way the dependent class ( using marxist terms ) and the low level laborers can be told they pay few taxes compared to the "affluent" middle class above them on the economic scale. Call the guy who makes a whopping 40k a year "bourgeois" and make them a target for envy. Actually the "rich" are the prime target for class hatred, the middle class gets treated to the status of "hardworking but dumb to do so" by the dependent class, and the self anointed elites. Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …" http://www.huxley.net/bnw/two.html | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Aesquire, I agree. It's the same lunacy behind the idea of "windfall profits tax". Really? So the oil companies are charged an additional 10%. That tax is given to the public as a gas credit to help them to afford gas. The oil companies raise the price of gasoline by 10% to cover the tax. Now the public at best has 10% percent more to buy the 10% higher gasoline, and they are back where they started. Except that the 10% tax revenues has to flow through the government grist mill of grift and they only get 4% in gas credit. Please, people. Catch on. | ||
| Sifo |
WE aren't paying more in taxes in order to fix OUR country. I didn't want to create a new political thread. Given the typical topic drift, it's starting to fit fairly well here, so... | ||
| Crusty |
Oh. Why is Exxon Mobil reporting record profits, if they're only passing on the tax? | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . . if you want to see one of the reasons that unions, emulating the Trade Guilds of Europe, were once far more relevant in the United States . . . take a moment and read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. It takes a lot to get me in a tuxedo but tonight I'll be there, along with other Safety Professionals from the American Society of Safety Engineers, having a dinner in the factory to celebrate the advances is industrial and worker safety in the 100 years since the fire occurred. | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Buellinmike: +1 Everyone else take a look back - he hit it! Crusty: +1 also Court: exactly, and those days are not necessarily all behind us. Sifo: that chart needs one more column. How much of the economy do the rich now control. Going from memory but since 1980 the top 25% increased their holdings 281% while the bottom 25 increased 16% - did not even match inflation. Sorry that they are now paying less but that happens in those circumstances. The capital gains tax rate structure says that if I am fortunate enough to have grampa leave me stock in his company, the money I make by collecting those dividends gets taxed at 15% max (could be as low as 0)and I get to use 85% to build additional capital. If I am Warren Buffet - same thing. If instead I need to start out in the coal mine and work mega overtime to try to build my capital - or start my business and try to build capital - the marginal tax rate for me (the dollars that I would like to invest) are first taxed as earned income, maybe 35%. I get to use only 65% to build my capital. NOW you tell me that your supporters want to be sold state assets (Wisconsin powerplants) in a no bid contract, they need additional tax breaks to make it and to distract me you point to those stinky old public employees and tell me that they are the reason we are broke? Sorry, I am still not buying it. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Why is Exxon Mobil reporting record profits" They're a well run company selling a product everyone wants to buy? | ||
| Aussie2126 |
Great!!! Then they probably don't need the help of the federal government with all the additional oil industry tax breaks??? That should help this broke problem we have!! | ||
| Doerman |
That should help this broke problem we have!! When you and I are low on funds and leveraged by mortgage and consumer loans, what do we do? Cut spending. Why should that be different for a government? If the current tax,entitlement and deficit speeding continues in this country, look to Greece and Ireland for the result. | ||
| Hootowl |
Exxon pays about 33% of its gross income as tax to the US government. The government starts off with outrageously high tax rates and then gives tax breaks to encourage certain behaviors. They give them to you, they given them to Exxon. 33% is a lot. Are you saying it should be more? I think it should be MUCH less. No one should have to pay a tax rate that high. It's theft, plain and simple. And the government should not be allowed to use the tax code as a tool for “social change” IMHO. No tax breaks for oil companies? Fine. None for you then either. When you're paying 33% of your income in taxes, you can complain about Exxon. Ideally, we'd just have a flat tax rate for everyone, and no tax breaks or incentives, but that would take too much power away from the politicians. We can't be having than now, can we? |
