182 replies to this topic

[C'Mon U.S.!]

as well, the biggest problem is, even if you raise the taxes, the same loopholes still exist.

you can be sure those multimillionaires know them all/pay someone that knows them all, while the guy making 500,000 a year doesn't have a tax guy that knows all the loopholes....therefore the multimillionaires are still paying next to nothing, and the guy making 500,000... is footing a 50% tax bill.

[GMoney]

my point is this; you can't use any specific amount of income to tax people. for the exact reason i stated. What do they do then? Say well if you make within 11,000 of the next tax bracket you have to pay that higher tax brackets income tax. So then I'll just make 11,001 under that bracket. Now the higher tax bracket is getting lower, and lower and lower and lower as people use ways to avoid making that amount in order to avoid the higher tax. Next thing you know, the middle class is paying the same as the "rich".

Follow what im saying with that?

C'mon US!

I try and go into things with an open mind and learn where ever I can. So please don't get defensive because I just want to point something out. What you're explaining above about tax brackets.....it actually doesn't work that way.

You DO NOT pay the same tax rate on all of your income. Instead, your tax bracket tell you exactly how much tax you will owe on income falling within the limits of that tax bracket. Any income falling below the threshold for that tax bracket will be taxed at a lower rate.

I hope this makes sense to you and hope it's helpful.

[GMoney]

as well, the biggest problem is, even if you raise the taxes, the same loopholes still exist.

you can be sure those multimillionaires know them all/pay someone that knows them all, while the guy making 500,000 a year doesn't have a tax guy that knows all the loopholes....therefore the multimillionaires are still paying next to nothing, and the guy making 500,000... is footing a 50% tax bill.

No doubt there are loopholes. Politicians make them to help themselves and their friends. Bad.

Trust me when I tell you that a guy making a half million a year has an awesome tax attorney. Guys making a lot less do.

And there is no such thing as an individual paying 50% taxes currently.

A couple making $100K a year without kids will be in the 25% tax bracket but they will pay $17K in taxes tops. Due to the progressive tax thing I was referring to in my last post.

[JBigjake54]

the multimillionaires are still paying next to nothing

If they pay 'next to nothing', how do the top 1% wind up paying 37% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay 2%?
While some wealthy people manage to avoid paying taxes, most pay quite a bit. Warren Buffet used to say that he paid less taxes than his secretary. What he should have said, was that his capital gains tax rate of 15%, was less than her marginal tax rate of 25%. Of course, he pays $7 Million on an income of $50 Million, while she would pay at most $4,750 on her first $35K, if single & not itemizing, (actually 13.8%), 25% above that.
IMO, the capital gains tax should be 20%, above $100,000, with NO deductions! Also, the increased marginal rates need to kick in at higher taxable incomes, not at $35K for singles and $70K for married couples.

[C'Mon U.S.!]

C'mon US!

I try and go into things with an open mind and learn where ever I can. So please don't get defensive because I just want to point something out. What you're explaining above about tax brackets.....it actually doesn't work that way.

You DO NOT pay the same tax rate on all of your income. Instead, your tax bracket tell you exactly how much tax you will owe on income falling within the limits of that tax bracket. Any income falling below the threshold for that tax bracket will be taxed at a lower rate.

I hope this makes sense to you and hope it's helpful.

sorry, I didn't mean for it to be defensive. My apologies that it came across as so.

I see how it works now that you explain it. Guess I'm use to the one tax bracket I'm in! hahahahahah

I just still don't agree with taxing the income. I feel as if you tax the income, owners will just lay off people to compensate for their lost income. I just know that from this fact; my dad owns a business, as do many of his friends and they have all said "if income taxes go up, we will lay people off".

[C'Mon U.S.!]

If they pay 'next to nothing', how do the top 1% wind up paying 37% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay 2%?
While some wealthy people manage to avoid paying taxes, most pay quite a bit. Warren Buffet used to say that he paid less taxes than his secretary. What he should have said, was that his capital gains tax rate of 15%, was less than her marginal tax rate of 25%. Of course, he pays $7 Million on an income of $50 Million, while she would pay at most $4,750 on her first $35K, if single & not itemizing, (actually 13.8%), 25% above that.
IMO, the capital gains tax should be 20%, above $100,000, with NO deductions! Also, the increased marginal rates need to kick in at higher taxable incomes, not at $35K for singles and $70K for married couples.

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all. Neither should income, in my opinion.

Warren Buffett, although he maybe super rich and smart, is in fact a manipulative ass clown.


At what salary do they consider you to be the top 1%? I'm pretty sure its like 350,000 they consider in the top 1%

But like I said earlier... those making nearly a million dollars a year, are probably paying out a fair amount because they cant afford to pay some super good tax guy 1 million dollars to find a loophole in every way possible (or hide money). So chances are, they are paying a fair amount.

BUT GE on the other hand.... well they were obviously able to afford quite a few really good tax guys because we all know what they paid in taxes.


Let's be honest, they WILL NEVER eliminate the tax loopholes. The super wealthy CEO's will continue to pay nothing, while the guy making a 1million (even 5 million) will continue to pay out. All they will do is start to wipe out the "rich" and the upper-middle class, and erode the social pyramid until you have the super rich corportations, and everyone else. They will do it in the name of good will for the middle class and social well bieng for the the masses. Meanwhile, they are really looking to destroy everyone in the process and consolidate the wealth into the hands of a few.

THAT my friends, is called Liberal-Fascism.


Listen, I want some of the social programs as much as most of you do, there's just a way to go about it without destroying the middle and upper middle class. I believe that is through a VAT.
You know why the super wealthy tell you that the VAT won't work? Because they are the ones that spend mass amounts of money. Let's be fair, the lower, middle and upper middle class save their money (either it be for somehting or just to save), while the extremely wealthy spend just because they can. That is how you get the super wealthy to pay their share of the taxes.


EDIT:

Good source. You can see who the bottom 2% are, and where most of the tax money comes from. And I'm a proud part of the lower 50% last year. This year ill be part of the top 50%.

http://www.kiplinger...-stacks-up.html

Edit 2: You should read the book called Liberal Fascism. The cover is a smiley face with a hitler moustache.
"The smiley face with an Adolf Hitler-style mustache on the cover of the book is a reference to comments made by comedian George Carlin on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher that "when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley"

[GMoney]

sorry, I didn't mean for it to be defensive. My apologies that it came across as so.

I see how it works now that you explain it. Guess I'm use to the one tax bracket I'm in! hahahahahah

I just still don't agree with taxing the income. I feel as if you tax the income, owners will just lay off people to compensate for their lost income. I just know that from this fact; my dad owns a business, as do many of his friends and they have all said "if income taxes go up, we will lay people off".

It's absolutely your right not to agree with taxing income.


I just don't understand the last part. Probably a blind spot on my end but what does income tax going up have to do with laying people off? I don't get it.

[C'Mon U.S.!]

I just don't understand the last part. Probably a blind spot on my end but what does income tax going up have to do with laying people off? I don't get it.

Because the middle/upper middle class (small business owners) will lay people off to maintain their income and keep their standard of living.

Most small business owners are hard working people that have a drive to own a successful business that maintaines a good standard of living. Most will have no problem picking up the extra slack that another person would do, or have their employees work harder.

http://web.sba.gov/f...l.cfm?areaid=24 (less than 500 employees).

I think those are the last people you want to raise taxes on.

[GMoney]

I think small business are great. I've worked with small business owners a lot in my career. Awesome.

Let's put our heads together and separate rhetoric and jargan from reality. Let's seriously think through it. If your Dad makes $250K a year (which I think you stated earlier), or let's not make it your Dad. That way we can be objective. Just a business or small business owner.

If taxes were raised and let's say they took home $20K less a year (it really couldn't be more than that....and it's probably not going to be that much, but let's go with it). That small business owner doesn't want to take home less money, I totally get it. But the answer can't be to lay off workers. Stick with me a minute and let's really go through it.

If I lay off 2 people making $25K a year, more money for me, right? Wrong actually. If you lay people off production will go down. Now if you say those people were expendable and production won't go down, OK. But that means that you're not running an efficient business. No business can go down 2 headcount and not lose procuctivity.

The 2nd part is to make people work harder. Let's think through this again. You have a job and work hard...you really do. Income taxes go up and the big boss is unhappy he's not taking home as much. So he comes to you, who is making $25K a year and tells you that he needs you to work harder, so he can enjoy his house in the Hamptons. While you're living in a studio in the City. How do you think that will effect employee morale and productivity? Not a good solution.

It totally get where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. There's a lot of things people say they'll do, that they never do.

Small business owners are awesome and they got to where they are for a reason. Hard work, internal drive and a lot of other good qualities. They'll figure out how to make up the $$ by selling more, becoming more efficient, etc.

In the history of our country, taxes have gone up and went down a lot. There is no evidence of a samll income tax increase affecting the jobless rate.

You seem like a really smart kid and this is a good discussion. It's good to be pushed mentally and think of things at a different level, get challenged on your thoughts and challenge others on theirs.

[C'Mon U.S.!]

I think small business are great. I've worked with small business owners a lot in my career. Awesome.

Let's put our heads together and separate rhetoric and jargan from reality. Let's seriously think through it. If your Dad makes $250K a year (which I think you stated earlier), or let's not make it your Dad. That way we can be objective. Just a business or small business owner.

If taxes were raised and let's say they took home $20K less a year (it really couldn't be more than that....and it's probably not going to be that much, but let's go with it). That small business owner doesn't want to take home less money, I totally get it. But the answer can't be to lay off workers. Stick with me a minute and let's really go through it.

If I lay off 2 people making $25K a year, more money for me, right? Wrong actually. If you lay people off production will go down. Now if you say those people were expendable and production won't go down, OK. But that means that you're not running an efficient business. No business can go down 2 headcount and not lose procuctivity.

The 2nd part is to make people work harder. Let's think through this again. You have a job and work hard...you really do. Income taxes go up and the big boss is unhappy he's not taking home as much. So he comes to you, who is making $25K a year and tells you that he needs you to work harder, so he can enjoy his house in the Hamptons. While you're living in a studio in the City. How do you think that will effect employee morale and productivity? Not a good solution.

It totally get where you're coming from, don't get me wrong. There's a lot of things people say they'll do, that they never do.

Small business owners are awesome and they got to where they are for a reason. Hard work, internal drive and a lot of other good qualities. They'll figure out how to make up the $$ by selling more, becoming more efficient, etc.

In the history of our country, taxes have gone up and went down a lot. There is no evidence of a samll income tax increase affecting the jobless rate.

You seem like a really smart kid and this is a good discussion. It's good to be pushed mentally and think of things at a different level, get challenged on your thoughts and challenge others on theirs.

Thanks it's nice to have a good conversation with someone, minus all the B/S that usally happens on MF.

As well, though when it comes to small business owner, it can also subject to what they sell/do. My dad owns an allstate. He only has 2 people working for him, because he doesn't want to do as much, take weekends off, and not deal with customers (he's basically getting old, lazy and a beery gut lol). My dad pays very well, especially to the 1 woman that works there without a P&C license (he pays her $16 an hour- cash) and the otehr person over 20 an hour (not exactly sure of the amount but i remember him telling me that one time)

although he may be getting old, he'll deal with customers if he has to and work a weekend - because that's how he is.

now in that type of business, you can get away with laying someone off. Say its a company that produces a tangible good, that may be different, although i don't put it past them..but maybe thats because i dont trust the bastards! lol

[JBigjake54]

Capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all. Neither should income, in my opinion.

Your VAT suggestion is regressive. People who earn $500 per week, who do not pay federal income tax, do not need to be spending $15 - 20% of their income for a national sales tax.

At what salary do they consider you to be the top 1%? I'm pretty sure its like 350,000 they consider in the top 1%

At least in 2009, that was the case:
http://ntu.org/tax-b...come-taxes.html
I'd like to see the federal government find some way to either save 12%, or squeeze it out of the top quarter, with no one below that level having to pay FIT. What they pay in FICA, state income tax and other taxes, is enough.

The super wealthy CEO's will continue to pay nothing

I don't run the IRS, but if I did, I would have a list of EVERY wealthy person in the USA, and what they paid in federal income tax, on my desk, and have anyone who paid less than an average percentage annually, audited every year. Whether you're a CEO or Wesley Snipes, any creative accounting would be identified and stopped in Year One.

[GMoney]

Thanks it's nice to have a good conversation with someone, minus all the B/S that usally happens on MF.

As well, though when it comes to small business owner, it can also subject to what they sell/do. My dad owns an allstate. He only has 2 people working for him, because he doesn't want to do as much, take weekends off, and not deal with customers (he's basically getting old, lazy and a beery gut lol). My dad pays very well, especially to the 1 woman that works there without a P&C license (he pays her $16 an hour- cash) and the otehr person over 20 an hour (not exactly sure of the amount but i remember him telling me that one time)

although he may be getting old, he'll deal with customers if he has to and work a weekend - because that's how he is.

now in that type of business, you can get away with laying someone off. Say its a company that produces a tangible good, that may be different, although i don't put it past them..but maybe thats because i dont trust the bastards! lol

Gotcha! What you said above totally makes sense.

You should think of a career in Insurance. Good business, tons of money and recession proof.

[C'Mon U.S.!]

Gotcha! What you said above totally makes sense.

You should think of a career in Insurance. Good business, tons of money and recession proof.

You couldn't pay me 500k to do insurance...actually wait you could. I would pay people to do it for me!

[C'Mon U.S.!]

Your VAT suggestion is regressive. People who earn $500 per week, who do not pay federal income tax, do not need to be spending $15 - 20% of their income for a national sales tax.

At least in 2009, that was the case:
http://ntu.org/tax-b...come-taxes.html
I'd like to see the federal government find some way to either save 12%, or squeeze it out of the top quarter, with no one below that level having to pay FIT. What they pay in FICA, state income tax and other taxes, is enough.

I don't run the IRS, but if I did, I would have a list of EVERY wealthy person in the USA, and what they paid in federal income tax, on my desk, and have anyone who paid less than an average percentage annually, audited every year. Whether you're a CEO or Wesley Snipes, any creative accounting would be identified and stopped in Year One.

Well, until my recent job I just started, I was on about 580 a week. Now, i only spend money on 3 things, gas, food and rent.

My food bill is about 75 (before tax) a week...for three people. Gas $40 a week.

25% VAT (according to my plan) of of 75 is about 19.00. So a total of 94. That's not including my idea for exemptions (not vat on milk, bread, flour, baby food/formula).

On 580 a week ( what I was on), I had $80 (approx) per week taken out in taxes.


I'll Pay the VAT of (high balled) $19. Plus I get to live with the comfort knowing that my daughter, fiancé, and I all have healthcare.



However, I COMPLETELY agree with you on the audit idea.

[UncleLTrain]

Thomas Binkley gets my vote.