Super rich pay no taxes

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by glasshouse

 

We should also take all the wealth the super rich have hidden in overseas accounts, for the simple reason crime shouldnt pay.

I have been robbed by these corrupt institutions who have destroyed our economy so many times I couldn't even begin to count. Probably you have as well.

edit on 31-8-2012 by poet1b because: Add n't

Now i know why you will all ways be poor you have no understanding of business.First people who make money overseas pay taxes in that country,Its not illegal to make investments in other countries Americans have been doing it since this nation was founded.Theres nothing wrong with making money i don't know why you believe thats evil but its people like you that make sure people stay poor.Do you realize the top 1 percent constantly changes from year to year. Someone comes up with an idea or product and can end up in the top 1 percent but guess what eventually they'll drop out of it.

As far as corporations robbing you ill refer back to the old adage a fool and his money are soon parted.My advice to you if you think its a good idea to deal with a corporation do the opposite your instincts appear to be poor.Most people have good experiences with corporations other wise they wouldn't remain in business.There isnt a sustainable business model on the planet where you screw your customers and remain in business.

Somebody explain to me how being rich is evil and poor is righteous? who made up these rules? Rich or poor people are the same but i will say with will and determination its all most impossible to stay poor.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil

 

Are you a billionaire? If not, then no, raising taxes on the super rich wouldnt take money from you, by returning the illgotten gains of the super rich back into the flow of the market economy would put more money into your bank account.

It's not redistributing wealth, it's re-redistributing the wealth back to the middle class.

If you bothered to pay attention you would notice that as the US government has sank deeply on debt, the rich have gotten richer.

Seriously, why do support policies against your own best interests?

edit on 30-8-2012 by poet1b because: Correct mistake in first statement.

The current Administration would raise my already high taxes if they had their way. On Average, at least about $4,900 more than I am currently according to what I have read. That's about $4,900 more than I want to pay in taxes. And the rate and amount will increase in the upcoming years under the Obama Plan as my business and income grow. Contrary to what you may think, I actually do read what both the Democrats and Republicans have to say about taxes. I make enough through my business, and again, I'm far from Uber Wealthy, that my overall taxes would go up substantially under President Obama's tax plans. That is a fact, not fiction.
If you think someone making over $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (married) is super rich then we must disagree on the definition of super rich. That's what the Presidents plan calls for. Look it up yourself.

I don't want to pay any more in taxes than I currently do, what part of that don't you understand? I pay my fair share of taxes, I really do. I haven't robbed or murdered anyone to get my money. I sure pay more then most everyone who clamors about raising taxes on the rich. I pay more in income tax percent and more in dollars......how much more extra do you want from me taxwise? Maybe I should just tithe 10% extra to the Government, would that be enough? To be honest, why do I get penalized more for being more successful than others? And you want to tax me even more? I've paid my dues to get where I am. I don't mind already paying more in percent and dollars then others (even though it doesn't seem "fair"). I do object to being asked to pay even more though. I'm not the one who messed up this economy, go set your pitchforks to those that did.

reply to post by pavil


Did you really create those jobs? Or did the people who developed the tech that allows your business to operate create those jobs?

Do you get back from the government what you pay into it?

I know I don't, and I sure don't think future generations should pay all the fed debt built up to make the super rich, rich.

reply to post by pavil


Do you you do business across state and national borders? Then you should pay taxes.

Did you vote for the last repub pres? Did you support free economics, deregulation? Policies that created our huge debt?

Do you think it is alright to leave this huge national debt to future generations?

Are you one of the boomers who grew up in a time of great prosperity who is now leaving a huge mess? Are you one of those who have benefited greatly from the policies that have favored the boomers and screwed everyone who came after them?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil

 

Did you really create those jobs? Or did the people who developed the tech that allows your business to operate create those jobs?

Really, I enabled those jobs to exist. I went though very lean times while I built up my business. It's not a very "techie" field I'm in. Without my capital, my sweat equity and without my drive, none of those jobs would currently exist. 110 less jobs. I know that probably comes as a shock to you. I don't know why you seem surprised by that.

Do you get back from the government what you pay into it?

I know I don't, and I sure don't think future generations should pay all the fed debt built up to make the super rich, rich.

Of course I don't feel I get my moneys worth from the government. I don't think there are any people who feel they get their moneys worth. Do you honestly think that the federal debt has just gone to the super-rich? I've got news for you..... it's been squandered by inept politicians on both sides. 15 TRILLION, it's a huge number. I rather not give them more money to waste. I'd rather they start living within their means. I want cut off their allowance, or at the very least not give them more allowance.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil

 

Do you you do business across state and national borders? Then you should pay taxes.

No I don't....should I not be paying taxes? Great!

Did you vote for the last repub pres? Did you support free economics, deregulation? Policies that created our huge debt?

Yes I did. Both parties have contributed immensely to the mess we are currently in. To be frank, Ron Paul has better ideas than either party.

Do you think it is alright to leave this huge national debt to future generations?

No of course not, that's why the current Administration has to go..... they are not getting the job done. Are you honestly going to tell me that President Obama has done a good job with the economy and the National Debt? The man really has no plan that will work. The best way out of this mess is to shrink Government and Grow jobs and revenue via creating more job and more opportunities for jobs. More employed people and less Government are what we need. It's really not rocket science.

Are you one of the boomers who grew up in a time of great prosperity who is now leaving a huge mess? Are you one of those who have benefited greatly from the policies that have favored the boomers and screwed everyone who came after them?

Nope, that would be my brothers... And you think we have problems now, wait till the entitled Boomers really hit Medicare and Social Security. You'll be talking to your kids about the "good ole days" back in 2010. I haven't benefited from much of anything other than a little luck and my own skills.

What else you got for me....

reply to post by pavil


Ron Paul's economic beliefs is what created this mess in the first place. You support the very policies that destroyed our economy. Deregulation is the illness, and insanity is continuously supporting what has been proven not to work.

I do agree, the upper middle class get screwed under current tax rates. But continuing to pretend that corporations and the super rich pay their fair share, is, once again failing to look out for your own best interests.

reply to post by pavil


Oh, and by the way, those free market pols you have supported have continuously raised taxes on the upper middle class in the US, in order to cut taxes on the wealthy, 500k plus annual, and corporations.

And the wealthy support big gov spending, when the money is borrowed, because they benefit the most by the spending put in place by the pols they financed by duping people like you into believing in the free market.

reply to post by poet1b

You mentioned the idea of a "fair share." Perhaps you have an answer to my question, no one else ever has. What is the "fair share" that each American has to pay? Can you put it in numbers? Is it however much the government wants to take for it's spending? Is it whatever number it takes to reduce the rich person's income to the national average? Does it go after what they own as well as what their income is? If so, how much are they allowed to keep?

Please provide something definite.

reply to post by charles1952


You should pay in accordance to what you get from government.

All international corporations and investors who earn money from international commerce shoul pay the cost of government support for international commerce.

Someone with 10 times the wealth of another should pay 10 times the cost of police protection.

Shipping creates 99% of road damage, shippers should pay 99% of the Costco repairs.

That would be a fair system of taxation.

Originally posted by poet1b

I do agree, the upper middle class get screwed under current tax rates. But continuing to pretend that corporations and the super rich pay their fair share, is, once again failing to look out for your own best interests.

Upper middle Class, thanks but according to the IRS and the Obama adminstration I'm already at the next level. I'm already in the top 5% of income earners and in about 18 months I will be in the "1%". I don't feel like it, truth be told. I don't have the fancy cars and such. I've seen my income tax grow year by year. I just don't want to pay any increase in taxes. When you take into context the Federal Taxes, Payroll Taxes my company shells out and State personal and business taxes I pay, I think I'm giving them enough to work with.

Somebody else asked, I will too since you didn't give a number. What is the "fair share" a corporation should pay on their profit? Give me a percent. If someone earns letst say $800,000 a year in income, how much should they pay in percent? If your going to say they aren't paying their fair share, then you must have a number in mind.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I don't remember our earlier discussions, but your reply is the best piece of work I can remember.
I really applaud you for putting forth a starting point for a discussion of "fair share." May I take a look at it for a moment? And remember, I would find fault with any tax system that anybody, left or right, came up with. The idea is to find something with the least amount of problems.

Take your idea of police protection.

Someone with 10 times the wealth of another should pay 10 times the cost of police protection.

I hope, and assume, that you are referring to income and not wealth. Even estate taxes don't get paid until the money is moved from one person to another. I won't support taxing someone's Porsche or yacht, just because they have it.

So, if the police protection is used by everyone, then everyone should chip in based on their income. If there was a flat tax where everybody paid a certain per centage, then those with ten times the income would pay ten times the dollars. (I'm not taking a position for or against it.) In our progressive system of taxation, those with ten times the income pay more than ten times the tax (in dollars).

You should pay in accordance to what you get from government.

Not a bad idea, but we can't do it. People on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare programs, etc., can't pay in accordance to what they get from the government, that's why they're on the programs. So somebody else has to.

You've probably heard the numbers before, but in the 2009 tax year, the lowest half of the population (less than $32,396 in Adjusted Gross Income) paid 2% of Federal income taxes. The top 10% (over $112,124) paid 70% of the income taxes. I don't think anyone could say that the poorer half only got 2% of what government gave out. Do you think the top 10% should pay even more than 70%? Remember, they didn't get any benefit at all from Medicaid and food stamps.

Shipping creates 99% of road damage, shippers should pay 99% of the Costco repairs.

Not sure what you mean by Costco repairs, but a heavy truck, on average, pays about $9,000 a year in federal taxes, and an average of $5,000 in state fees. That is about a third of the highway trust fund revenues, considerably less than the 99% you mention (I didn't check that number). I'm agreeing with you, for now, that trucks to do much more damage than they pay for. This is related to your other comment:

All international corporations and investors who earn money from international commerce shoul pay the cost of government support for international commerce.

Let's say we triple the cost of shipping things, because, after all a tax is part of the cost, what will the truckers and corporations do then? If they ship fewer products, it's Joe Six-pack that gets hit with shortages. Don't you suppose they'll raise the cost of the goods to match the extra tax? Poor old Joe now gets hit with higher prices.

But, maybe I'm missing your point. If I am, my apologies. I'd like to hear your thoughts, especially since you're the only fellow I've run into willing to discuss what "fair" means. I applaud you again.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


You're looking at "income tax" but not total "income distribution" which is how tax money is appropriated and includes all taxes.

After the War, corporations went to work to change the federal tax system. Not only did they succeed in shifting the tax burden from corporations to individuals already by 1960, but that shifting has gone on steadily to the present. Consider also that while the individual income tax is partly progressive (the higher your income, the higher the percentage you pay), since 1980, it has become ever less important for Washington's total tax revenues than the faster rising regressive Social Security and Medicare tax systems (the higher your income, the lower the percentage you pay).

Who REALLY Pays Taxes by Economist Professor Richard Wolff

One such argument runs roughly as follows: "Half of Americans pay no income taxes, while the richest 5 percent of taxpayers pay over half of Washington's income taxes." First of all, the vast majority of those Americans who do not pay income taxes do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the Washington Post made clear (September 23, 2011), using data for 2011, of the 46 percent of US households who will not be paying federal income tax for 2011, the vast majority will be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. The truth is that only 18 percent of US households will pay neither income tax nor Social Security and Medicare taxes. All but 1 percent of those who pay no taxes to Washington are either elderly or else have household incomes under $20,000.

So your argument is not accurate:

Another such argument runs roughly as follows: "The richest 5 percent of income receivers in the US pay over half of all of Washington's income tax receipts." First of all, those same people pay a tiny percentage of Washington's Social Security and Medicare receipts. That is simply because the richest Americans earn the largest portion of their income from sources other than wages and salaries - such as interest, rents, dividends and capital gains. Incomes from such other sources do not have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes. Since Washington's Social Security and Medicare tax receipts are now as large or larger than its individual income tax receipts, any honest assessment of what the richest Americans pay cannot exclude counting Social Security and Medicare taxes paid disproportionately by the bottom 99 percent - just what most of the right-wing analyses routinely do.

So the income distribution which includes welfare for the rich -- tax subsidies and credits - has shifted income up for the elite and down for the masses:

Did the US federal tax system hurt the top 1 percent and help the remaining 99 percent; does it operate "unfairly" as they claim? An answer emerges from the best professional statistical work yet done on the US income distribution: that of Professors Piketty and Saez (widely available on the Internet). Their work covers 1993 to 2007 (before the current crisis hit). They found that the average annual growth in US real incomes over those years was 2.2 percent. In contrast, the real annual income growth of the incomes of the richest 1 percent was 5.9 percent. The real annual income growth of the other 99 percent of the US was 1.3 percent. The US federal tax system that right wingers portray as unfair and burdensome to the richest Americans allowed them for the last two decades to gather still greater income than everyone else. The US federal tax system enabled greater inequality. And the same results apply to the US distribution of wealth. No wonder the right resents, opposes and seeks to silence those who suggest even modest changes in a tax system so convenient for the richest.

So there is a class warfare against the poor.

One corporation paid $26,000 a year to maintain a post office box in Bermuda as its legal headquarters. That little trick saved them $40 million in corporate taxes. Not bad. Taxes on the wealthy used to be high. During the Eisenhower years in the 1950′s, a fairly conservative period which saw tremendous economic growth, the tax rate for the haves was 91 percent. Today it’s a third of that, and few actually pay that much. In true Orwellian fashion, if you raise these issues you are accused of class warfare. There is class warfare all right. It’s been successfully waged by the affluent 1 percent against everybody else.

one hour podcast interview with Professor Richard Wolff on taxes

reply to post by pavil


Year after year, decade after decade, repubs have refused to tie the income brackets to the rate of inflation so that the upper middle class pay taxes that only the wealth used to have to pay.

Don't blame Obama for policies pushed by the repubs for decades.

I agree people in your income bracket get screwed the most when it comes to tax rates.

But you should wake up to the reality that your tax rates have increased to pay for the tax cuts for the super rich and corporations.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Dear fullotusqigong.

You're looking at "income tax" but not total "income distribution" which is how tax money is appropriated and includes all taxes.

You're absolutely right, of course. But I was looking at federal income tax because it seemed that that was what the comments I was responding to were about. My argument wasn't inaccurate, it was dealing with something different from what you would like to talk about. We stumbled over "taxes."

But since you'd like to look at the effect of all federal taxes, I did a little digging. I was quite surprised, and I expect you will be, too. There is an interesting article and accompanying charts at www.taxpolicycenter.org...
It includes the payroll taxes you mentioned, indeed, it claims to deal with all federal taxes.

Taxes and the Poor: How does the federal tax system affect low-income households?

Low-income households pay relatively low federal taxes, primarily because tax credits reduce or eliminate their income tax liability, and some (called refundable credits) result in net payments to them. Stimulus measures enacted to offset the adverse effects of the 2008-09 recession further re-duced the tax-burden on these families. In 2011, tax units in the lowest income quintile (that is, the 20 percent of all tax units with the lowest incomes) on average paid federal income, payroll, and es-tate taxes equal to 0.8 percent of their cash income, less than a twentieth of the 18.1 percent average effective tax rate for all tax units (see table).

The table shows that the lowest 20% of income earners, have an effective tax rate of 0.8%. The next 20% pay 5.7%, the next pay 12.4% the next pay 16.4% and the top 20% pay 23.1% The top 1% pay 30.8%.

Now, I admit I didn't look at State taxes. But, at least at the federal level, the rich do pay much more in taxes.

If I've missed your point, I'd be happy to look into it further. I have to thank you for bringing this idea up, it has stretched my understanding.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


All STOCKS AND BONDS ARE EXEMPTED FROM PROPERTY TAX.

O.K. it's real simple.

So you need to include property taxes, sale taxes, etc.

Economists use INCOME DISTRIBUTION based on total taxes and total government subsidies, credits, exemptions, etc.

For example Yale University pays no property tax and so the city has to cover all the costs for the government services provided to Yale University. Yale University is the third or fourth richest school on Earth. New Haven has the highest property tax rate of all towns -- because it's POOR citizens have to deliver FREE public services to Yale University. The poor people of New Haven are subsidizing a University with an endowment of 18 billion dollars.

When a CEO or businessman goes out to an expensive lunch they can deduct it from their taxes! Normal people can't do that.

Advertisting is 100% of tax deductible.

So even though the big business make the most profits they are taxed the least.

The IRS says you can use the tax code to find everything that could lower your tax bill but most people can't understand the tax code and can't afford an accountant to do that work -- so the IRS gives people a "general exemption" to write off a summary of the average person's expenses -- like 15%.

But for rich people they can pay $5000 to an accountant because they'll save $100,000 in taxes -- for example one of the gimmicks is that if you have an expense as a business income - it can then be a deduction from your income. So normal people can't deduct their meals.

So the "credits" are you referring to do not count personal item deductions that rich people use.

That means donations of art -- that are then a tax deduction -- but can be legally "loaned" back to the original owner for nothing. When you die -- say Harvard gets the art work -- but you can keep it while your alive as a TAX DEDUCTION. So:

Art, advertising, accountants, lawyers, meals, jets, homes - they're all personal tax exemptions for the rich.

This is how Warren Buffet for example keeps his taxes so low.

For many years now Buffett has pointed out that he pays less tax than his secretary. How could the country’s most well-known billionaire, worth $50 billion, get away with that? Here’s the significant reason — one that Buffett omits from his Op-Ed: He has traditionally drawn a tiny salary from his company Berkshire Hathaway and gives no dividends to shareholders like himself. So, even if Buffett raised income tax rates on the wealthy, he might not pay significantly more in taxes. By keeping his wealth in his company, Buffett has discovered one of the best tax avoidance schemes ever invented. And Buffett never suggests that corporate loopholes that he’s personally taken advantage of for decades should be closed. For example, his Berkshire Hathaway company has acted as an effective holding company for his vast investment portfolio. Last I checked, Berkshire Hathaway was generating over $7 billion in dividend income each year from stocks the company owned. Due to a special exemption (read: loophole) Buffett enjoys, his company benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of the dividend income is exempt from any corporate tax! (I do too, as I am a shareholder as well.) !

The Warren Buffett tax exemption scam

Social security is regressive because any income over $107,000 has no social security covered as a percentage of the income. It's a regressive exemption and it covers no other form of income from bonds, stocks, etc.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Dear fulllotusqigong,

Thanks for your reply, but I'm not sure I'm nimble enough to keep up with you. I started with Federal Income tax, then I willingly switched to all federal taxes, now I have to go into state taxes?

All STOCKS AND BONDS ARE EXEMPTED FROM PROPERTY TAX.

Well, of course they are, so are collections of coins, cars, wine bottles, and everything else. Part of the problem is that they vary in value. In the case of stocks and bonds, they vary daily. You buy stocks and bonds with money you've paid taxes on, and on whatever interest or dividends they pay, and whatever profit you make when you sell them. I may be missing your point, but are you suggesting a property tax on anything of value?

So you need to include property taxes, sale taxes, etc.

Sure, fine, but those vary from state to state. Besides, the rich have higher value homes, so they pay more property taxes. The rich also buy, more, and more expensive things, so they pay more excise taxes. As I say, these are state policies. Many states (including mine) have property tax refunds if your income is low.

Alaska, for example does not have a sales tax or a personal income tax. Going back to The Tax Foundation for a minute:

But the lengthy study by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank, found more remarkable comparisons between states.

For example, the five lowest tax states, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska pay about 40 percent less in taxes than the highest tax states, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Rhode Island.

Why the disparity? For Alaska and Wyoming, massive oil and gas revenues make them outliers. Nevada enjoys sizable gaming and tourism income.

But experts say the decisions and political choices of lawmakers also play a role in how much states tax their residents.

"How much lawmakers spend is driven by who elects them," said Tax Foundation economist Marc Robyn. "A small government state, they elect small government type leaders and they won't be spending as much."

I hesitate to ask, but would you remind me again of your point on taxes and the rich? I seem to be drifting now into a fog of uncertainty.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

(But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)

That means 81% of the income of the rich does not come from money taxed as income.

O.K.?

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.

O.K. NONE of that is covered by your claim about "income tax."

How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.

O.K. so the poor people get a "tax credit" of 15% but their net income does not or barely covers their basic expenses.

But the very rich -- their huge income is not spent on goods and services - instead it's "invested" in speculation -- they don't SPEND it so it doesn't stimulate the economy -- it goes into financial products -- derivatives and gambling.

You are incorrectly claiming that stocks and bonds are equivalent to household goods and services. They're not.

As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.

O.K. you've ignored the personal tax exemptions that rich people take.

This study includes local and state taxes along with federal

O.K. you state people buy stocks with their income. OH really?

An executive has $200 million of company shares. He wants cash but doesn’t want to trigger $30 million or so in capital-gains taxes. 1. The executive borrows about $200 million from an investment bank, with the shares as collateral. Now he has cash. 2. To freeze the value of the collateral shares, he buys and sells “puts” and “calls.” These are options granting him the right to buy and sell them later at a fixed price, insuring against a crash. 3. He eventually can return the cash, or he can keep it. If he keeps it, he has to hand over the shares. The tax bill comes years after the initial borrowing. His money has been working for him all the while.

Then people have to pay the measly 15% capital gains tax right? Nope:

Three years later, the note is repaid. McDuck now owns 100 percent of a partnership sitting on a $50 million pile of cash—the amount McDuck would have received from selling his stake in the real estate—without triggering any capital-gains tax.

More secrets revealed of how the super rich avoid taxes

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Dear fulllotusqigong,

Before I switch to a new subject, income and wealth distribution, and sources, may I ask a favor? I've put a little effort in to the last two or three posts. It seems that your response each time is to switch to something different. I don't want to cramp your style, but may I ask you to respond to my posts, instead of bringing up something new?

Are my points correct or incorrect? If you believe them to be incorrect, may we discuss them then go on to new points? I'd be appreciative.

With respect,
Charles1952