Super rich pay no taxes

reply to post by dolphinfan


The goal of the entire thread is to get people to start supporting tax reforms that taxes these investment parasites at the rate they should be taxed. Try to keep up.

The majority of wealth in these investment portfolios would no longer exist if it wasn't for the GW Bush bailout, that has put $10 Trillion in debt on the US Fed Gov..

What is really irritating is that people like you are more than happy to dump that debt on future generations in order to keep your ill gotten gains. And if you don't have illgotten gains, you are foolish to support policies that allow these crooks to keep their ill gotten gains

reply to post by poet1b


Get over it and stop blaming every thing from the nation's budget, droughts, the sorry state of the Washington Redskins and your local traffic congestion on Bush.

The rich have been working the tax system since the tax system was created. How do you think the Kennedy's got their wealth? Exploiting opportunities in the tax system.

There is only one way to solve these problems, all of them and that is to zero base budget the entire federal government. Start every function with zero money and take two years to justify every body, building, service offered, regulation, program - all of it. Do it in a transparent manner so that everyone knows what is going on.

Until that is done, the discussion of tax policy is moot. Discussing tax rates absent the discussion of fundamental reform of the role of government and the effectiveness of government is a fool's errand.

How can anyone complain about the rich doing everything possible to pay as few taxes as possible for such a fundamentally dysfunctional, power hungry and incompetent system?

Fix the government, cut the waste, ring-fence by law that requires a super majority to change the scope of the functions of government and then establish a reformed tax policy that is progressive, aligned with wealth in an appropriate manner, have zero loop holes which support both the rich and poor and implement it.

reply to post by dolphinfan


GW was just a kid they put at the front counter, while the ICBs robbed the store.

The mumbo jumbo free market solution you describe will solve nothing.

Once again, we need to do what has been proven to work back in the fifties. Raise taxes on the super rich, enforce sound regulations, and start writing trade treaties that represent the people instead of the corporations.

reply to post by poet1b


Regardless of the tax policy, you can't go back to the 50s without taking government back to the 50s. If you can do that and folks thought that their taxes were paying for an effective government that added real value to society, there would be less of an issue. The size and scope of the federal government today dwarfs the size and scope of the federal government in the 50's.

People don't tend to employ tax avoidance strategies to deal with local and state taxes. Why? Because those taxes are directed to support the communities where they live. Those taxes actually increase the value of the investment holdings of the rich, like real estate, private equity, etc. It actually benefits the rich to pay state and local taxes. We need to embrace the 10th amendment, push functions back to the states which would have the effect of lowering federal taxes and raising state and local taxes.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by beezzer

 

No. My argument is that the democrats squeal like stuck pigs and THEN do nothing to change the current laws.

The "mess" was not started by the Democrats...it was started about 100 years ago by the Federal Reserve, and by implementing Social Securty and Income Taxes.

The Federal Reserve System, Social Security and the 16th Amendment allowing for a Federal income tax were all created by Democratic administrations.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

The Federal Reserve System, Social Security and the 16th Amendment allowing for a Federal income tax were all created by Democratic administrations.

Well, if that is the case, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, today's Democrats are not those Democrats. And, what do you propose as a solution?

reply to post by dolphinfan


It is a different world than the fifties, but you aren't too far off. A great deal more of what the fed did then defended the rights of the people than they do today.

Clinton managed to pull it together for a few years, proving it can be done.

All this aside, do you recognize that the bankers are the biggest problem? Even bigger than our current government.

The fed res was a compromise with the repubs and the banking masters they serve.

SS was always a good idea, and income tax that only taxes the super rich wasn't a bad idea either

Deregulation has been the worse idea of all. The whole free market con is what destroyed our economy , and put us so deeply in debt. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The rich have been working the tax system since the tax system was created. How do you think the Kennedy's got their wealth? Exploiting opportunities in the tax system.

Not at all.

Prohibition, stock-market, but the most came from brilliant real estate investments that netted incredible profit. He left a lot of money in trust for his family.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

Rather than discuss all of the tax policy issues that have been raised, may I ask about one of your statements?

The majority of wealth in these investment portfolios would no longer exist if it wasn't for the GW Bush bailout, that has put $10 Trillion in debt on the US Fed Gov..

I am curious about your number. The Bush portion of "TARP" was $700 billion dollars. Where does your $10 trillion come from?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Look up deficit growth under GWs admin. the bailout wasnt a one year deal, and the whole scam took place over GWs 8 years in office.

Our debt was created by free market policies, and to continue to deny this at this point in te is very foolish.

reply to post by beezzer


What you are proposing is literally Harry Potter "magic."

The flat tax does not work, for two reasons: 1) It only taxes income. Rich people don't have income, they have investments. They don't pay taxes on their investments at anywhere near the marginal or flat rate. 2) A dollar today is literally worth more than a dollar a year from now. From this, springs forth all madness, such as:

Taxes are set so that the combined corporate rate and the personal tax rate on received dividends from corporations equals the same amount if that money was paid directly to a person, without the existence of a corporation. It's called being tax neutral so that tax policy doesn't "distort" business planning. What it misses is that if you have enough money, you just leave that money sitting in the corporation and dividend it out way later, deferring the second half of the taxes.

To be paid at a later date when the money is worth far less (by 6-7%) than the money is worth if paid out today. Regular people can't consistently game the system in this way, and therefore, make up that shortfall through a reduction in their own buying power.

A flat tax is just a structured system for making the working tax-payer pay MORE than their fair share, while incredibly wealthy people who don't pay much "income" tax pay even less than they do now.

Originally posted by beezzer
No. My argument is that the democrats squeal like stuck pigs and THEN do nothing to change the current laws.

So the problem is what the GOP actually did but your problem is with the Democrats who want to change it, not changing it fast enough? Do you blame stabbing victims for seeking medical help?

reply to post by beezzer

But the left refuses to be fair. They want to punish the rich and justify the theft by taking it all.

No, beez......they are fair. They want to insist that the super-rich spread around their excessive wealth, and not whine about it!
Who really, really needs several million dollars?




NO ONE

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I am constantly amazed at how thoroughly confused I can get. As an example, take your most recent post.

Look up deficit growth under GWs admin. the bailout wasnt a one year deal, and the whole scam took place over GWs 8 years in office.

Our debt was created by free market policies, and to continue to deny this at this point in te is very foolish.

OK, I looked it up. The largest deficit under Bush was $459 billion. Obama's deficits have never been under a trillion. Obama has added more to the debt in four years than Bush did in eight.

The bailout wasn't a one year deal? Then what are you referencing? Were there other spending bills besides TARP I and II that you are describing as bailouts? Bush signed TARP I, Obama signed TARP II. Was TARP I a scam, and TARP II legitimate?

You're saying that excessive government spending is caused by free market policies? Since Obama is creating bigger deficits than Bush, doesn't that mean that Obama is a superhero of free market policies?

Can you understand why you've got me confused?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wildtimes

Dear wildtimes,

Nice to see you again, can you clarify something for me?

They want to insist that the super-rich spread around their excessive wealth, and not whine about it!
Who really, really needs several million dollars? NO ONE

That makes me think that you're suggesting that the State can take anything from anybody if the State determines that that individual doesn't need it. Not surprisingly, that position frightens me.

I can't imagine any household needing more than one car per adult driver, or needing a gun, or your crazy neighbor's marble collection with 320,000 marbles. The idea that anything we don't need is the State's bothers me on a philosophical basis, even before we get to the problem of incentivization. Not to mention Constitutional and practical problems with taxing money stuffed in a mattress.

Any help in understanding your position would be appreciated.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by beezzer

 

The GOP gets blamed because they are the ones who wrote the laws that allow the super rich to avoid paying taxes.

We need to do what was done after WW II, and start taxing the super rich up to their eye brows until the huge debts created by the free market scam is wiped out.

Any working person smart enought to look after their own welfare should support high taxes on the rich.

There's a Rich person, Burn them!!!!

There's a little problem with this.....






We need more rich people to get money from.......

Something I've wondered about is the interest deduction on home mortgages that the US gives. Is that only on the family home being lived in (one home only) or does it apply to every home a person has the ability to mortgage?
Money making money...

Sweet deal for home owners - crappy for those that cannot afford to own a house.


I wish we had that deduction, most countries don't.

Originally posted by pavil
We need more rich people to get money from.......

edit on 26-8-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Is that what they got you to believe? My money does not come from rich people. Do you think the CEO of Walmart is as rich as he is because he got his money from rich people? Or is he rich because of all the money he makes off of poor people?
Where is the money coming from again? No rich person ever gave me a job.

reply to post by Endorra

As you will come to know, I am one of the most easily confused people on ATS. May I ask for some help?

We need more rich people to get money from.......

I took that to mean that the government needs more rich people to tax, thereby getting money from.

My money does not come from rich people.

You may be talking about your own situation, but aren't many people hired either by rich people or rich corporations? Many aren't, they're paid by the local baker to serve as an assistant and so on. But, even in that case, the baker has enough money to pay the employee, more than he needs for his immediate needs. A poor person can't give anyone a job as he has nothing to pay them with.

Do you think the CEO of Walmart is as rich as he is because he got his money from rich people? Or is he rich because of all the money he makes off of poor people?

Walmart makes an offer to the world. "Do you want this cheap lawn chair for $4.99? If so, we've got a deal. If not, 'bye and thanks for shopping at Walmart." I suspect most of their customers are "poor," but I don't see the problem. If their choice is a $4.99 lawn chair, or one for $150, it would seem that Walmart is meeting their needs and giving them a choice. They have to make money on the deal, but so does every business.

See why I say I'm so easily confused?