With the Facebook IPO tomorrow and one of its "founders" ditching the U.S. for Singapore, I figure its time to dust off the "unpatriotic" Americans that don't want to pay taxes issue once again...
QuoteSo the question is: What does Saverin owe the United States?
Is it reprehensible for him to drop his citizenship before paying his "fair" share to the government that made all this possible? Edward Kleinbard, a professor at the USC Gould School of Law, was quoted as saying: "For Eduardo Saverin to expatriate struck me as perfectly lawful and, at the same time, profoundly ungrateful." Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Maveriks tweeted, "This pisses me off." Similar reactions can be found across the Web.
The entire episode irks me, too. Yes, because Saverin seems like a selfish ingrate, but also for entirely different reasons.
If high taxation chases successful people out of the country, that's the country's fault. Daniel Mitchell at the Cato Institute likens this to a "fiscal version of blaming the victim." Obviously, attaching the word "victim" to a billionaire in an age of class warfare is not going to do much to bolster Saverin's case, but human beings will act in their own self interest. Surely, with every person, there are a host of reasons for making these kinds of decisions – who knows, maybe Saverin hates eating American cuisine or the weather – but once the tax code pushes people away rather than entice them to come, something is wrong.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51536
wait one minute....lots of people don't pay taxes..... ::) That FB founder left long ago...
We're stuck with big deficits...and these evaders are not the villains.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 17, 2012, 08:14:15 PM
wait one minute....lots of people don't pay taxes..... ::) That FB founder left long ago...
We're stuck with big deficits...and these evaders are not the villains.
That's right. The rich guys paying 15% instead of 0% are the villains. Make 'em pay up.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
That's right. The rich guys paying 15% instead of 0% are the villains. Make 'em pay up.
One could argue that this is illustrative of why it's not the best idea in the world to have a tax rate of zero on investment income foreigners make in the US.
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2012, 10:19:44 PM
One could argue that this is illustrative of why it's not the best idea in the world to have a tax rate of zero on investment income foreigners make in the US.
One could also argue that low tax rates for foreign investment make it possible. Whether or not that is good may depend on if you are a domestic investor.
There are other people that pay zero income tax too. I think every adult with any U.S. income should pay at least $1.00 in US Federal Income Tax to remind them that they are part of this game too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 17, 2012, 11:10:30 PM
There are other people that pay zero income tax too. I think every adult with any U.S. income should pay at least $1.00 in US Federal Income Tax to remind them that they are part of this game too.
Most do, they just get it back at the end of the year if they're poor enough.
One could also argue that he's a Brazilian that has lived in Singapore for years
Stupid story. Saverin renounced his citizenship back in September of 2011. The Douchebag twins Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey simply want to use this as a political pom-pom.
I don't know of anyone that thinks a law punishing ex-pats and foreign interests who invest in this country is a good idea. I doubt even Schumer & Casey think it's a good idea, they just want some attention, and picking on successful people is always their way to say "look at us, we're trying to sock it to those rich bastards!"
They must have the stupidest constituents in the country. Saverin is one of a small handful of people that has launched hundreds of companies, created thousands of millionaires, created hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, and generated more tax revenue through those endeavors than anyone could be reasonably calculate. Let him live on the moon if he wants, but for God sake thank him and those like him for taking risks, investing in this country, and creating prosperity for thousands of Americans. Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey are the epitome of everything that is wrong with the liberal mindset!
Quote from: Gaspar on May 18, 2012, 09:48:12 AM
Stupid story. Saverin renounced his citizenship back in September of 2011. The Douchebag twins Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey simply want to use this as a political pom-pom.
I don't know of anyone that thinks a law punishing ex-pats and foreign interests who invest in this country is a good idea. I doubt even Schumer & Casey think it's a good idea, they just want some attention, and picking on successful people is always their way to say "look at us, we're trying to sock it to those rich bastards!"
They must have the stupidest constituents in the country. Saverin is one of a small handful of people that has launched hundreds of companies, created thousands of millionaires, created hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, and generated more tax revenue through those endeavors than anyone could be reasonably calculate. Let him live on the moon if he wants, but for God sake thank him and those like him for taking risks, investing in this country, and creating prosperity for thousands of Americans. Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey are the epitome of everything that is wrong with the liberal mindset!
Can't do that. Job creators are evil-doers. They don't pay enough in taxes, and **GASP** they actually have to fire those who are unproductive and layoff people when slow economic times indicate. Bastards!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 10:43:56 AM
Can't do that. Job creators are evil-doers. They don't pay enough in taxes, and **GASP** they actually have to fire those who are unproductive and layoff people when slow economic times indicate. Bastards!
Well then, good riddens to the scum! Lets kick em all out!
Maybe it's post tax season, but lately I have noticed a sharp drop off in business around town with the exception of the Malls on the weekends.
This is usually a very slow time of year. Last night, Mayfest was kinda dead.
Hope it picks up for the week end. Can't wait for it to move down to Brady where it all belongs.
The middle class is being thinned out and you can tell by just looking around. The %1 events are still rockin'....
Who is creating jobs in TeaTown? It's not the bankruptcy courts....
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 18, 2012, 10:51:44 AM
Maybe it's post tax season, but lately I have noticed a sharp drop off in business around town with the exception of the Malls on the weekends.
This is usually a very slow time of year. Last night, Mayfest was kinda dead.
Hope it picks up for the week end. Can't wait for it to move down to Brady where it all belongs.
The middle class is being thinned out and you can tell by just looking around. The %1 events are still rockin'....
Who is creating jobs in TeaTown? It's not the bankruptcy courts....
Is Thursday ever really that busy during Mayfest? I think the BD Arts Festival has siphoned off people who used to go to Mayfest just for something to do. The BDAF has a far more organic and home-grown feel to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 10:56:47 AM
Is Thursday ever really that busy during Mayfest? I think the BD Arts Festival has siphoned off people who used to go to Mayfest just for something to do. The BDAF has a far more organic and home-grown feel to me.
Organic=hippie.
I like them both but I have more fun at the BD just looking at the non conformings.
He turned the "American Dream" into the "Singapore Fling"
I'll just leave this here:
Quote from: AquaMan on May 18, 2012, 11:18:50 AM
Organic=hippie.
I like them both but I have more fun at the BD just looking at the non conformings.
Why do all the non-conformists look alike with the tats and gauges? I guess they conform in their non-conformity?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 12:09:23 PM
Why do all the non-conformists look alike with the tats and gauges? I guess they conform in their non-conformity?
Unknown since the beginning of time. I made that argument in an essay in high school. My assertion was that hippies were more of a style than a true effort at non conformist behavior. No one bought it.
But, BD seems to have a variety of sub-cultures at play from true bohemians to wannabe's. Not so sure the art is first class but the quality of the lurk certainly is.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 18, 2012, 12:09:23 PM
Why do all the non-conformists look alike with the tats and gauges? I guess they conform in their non-conformity?
The same reason that some people feel it necessary to communicate with bumper stickers.
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2012, 12:43:08 AM
Most do, they just get it back at the end of the year if they're poor enough.
At the end of the year, everyone needs to leave at least $1.00 with the government. I'm sure you understand the difference between withholding and actual tax paid. Call this a new alternate minimum tax if you want but
everyone pays at least $1.00.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 12:37:27 PM
I'm sure you understand the difference between withholding and actual tax paid.
No, I don't understand how paying the government is different from paying the government. There is still this money that you would like to have that you do not have because the government has it.
Just curious. Is Singapore really all that? I mean to just give up the U.S. like that.
Have any of you guy's been there? and could you do it?
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2012, 11:36:51 AM
I'll just leave this here:
BRAVO! Thanks for posting this short but accurate talk....I just love TED.
I was realizing during the presentation that while the Mall was jamming Mother's Day weekend there were relatively few sacks of merchandise. The crowds were in the card shops and, naturally, the food court. The consumer has not the confidence to spend at this time. The middle class has less savings.
My guess is the citizenship was not renounced over only taxes, but issues regarding freedom. That's something that seems to be evaporating ever since the GOP/Teabaggers stole the handle.
Quote from: nathanm on May 18, 2012, 12:58:08 PM
No, I don't understand how paying the government is different from paying the government. There is still this money that you would like to have that you do not have because the government has it.
I am not buying that you are that stupid.
Your income tax is due (for most of us) on April 15. Withholding is payments in advance based on tables and whatnot to make sure you are able to pay your tax on April 15. You can adjust your withholding, within limits, to approximately match what your tax bill will be on April 15. If you pay too much in withholding, you get a refund because you paid too much in advance. You loaned the Feds money, interest free, and now you are getting back that excess. It is not a tax refund. It is getting back the amount that you overpaid during the year towards your tax bill that is due on April 15. You cannot escape prepayment. How much you over pay is adjustable.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 18, 2012, 09:26:17 PM
You loaned the Feds money, interest free, and now you are getting back that excess. It is not a tax refund. It is getting back the amount that you overpaid during the year towards your tax bill that is due on April 15. You cannot escape prepayment. How much you over pay is adjustable.
Those dollars are still paid. They may be returned, contingent on many factors, some of which are not knowable in advance, but that happens after the fact.
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2012, 01:04:09 AM
Those dollars are still paid. They may be returned, contingent on many factors, some of which are not knowable in advance, but that happens after the fact.
If you want to play semantics, OK. At the end of the tax period, no one gets all their money back. The most they can get back is what they put in minus $1.00. If they didn't put anything in, they must send in $1.00.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 20, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
If you want to play semantics, OK. At the end of the tax period, no one gets all their money back. The most they can get back is what they put in minus $1.00. If they didn't put anything in, they must send in $1.00.
As long as you realize this will put more people in poverty. (Not because of the dollar, but because we chose, for some strange reason, to provide much of our welfare through the tax code as the earned income tax credit)
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
As long as you realize this will put more people in poverty. (Not because of the dollar, but because we chose, for some strange reason, to provide much of our welfare through the tax code as the earned income tax credit)
Give me some numbers. I think those people are already in poverty. Since so many are ready to point out that we are not providing any upward mobility to our economically less fortunate, we need a different benefit system than the one which is presently not working. Even as a Republican, I don't want naked, starving, homeless people to not get some help. Our present help system is not working.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 20, 2012, 01:17:34 PM
Since so many are ready to point out that we are not providing any upward mobility to our economically less fortunate, we need a different benefit system than the one which is presently not working. Even as a Republican, I don't want naked, starving, homeless people to not get some help. Our present help system is not working.
On this we agree. The truly poor have no power and few advocates. We tend to help those who are in the system, like free lunches for kids in school and unemployment benefits for those who used to work, but are limited to help those on the street, the mentally ill, and the hopeless.
It is difficult to help them as an individual. Giving cash handouts doesn't solve anything and who among us is qualified to treat serious mental illness or substance abuse.
I give to the Day Center for the Homeless, contribute to the food bank, and encourage my co-workers to volunteer each week (on the clock) to serve at the Iron Gate. My church collects clothing and blankets and prepares a meal each month for the Day Center.
It is simply not enough. We have to find a way to do more.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 20, 2012, 01:17:34 PM
Give me some numbers. I think those people are already in poverty.
Ok. 6.3 million people in 2010 were lifted above the poverty line thanks to the earned income tax credit (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505).
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2012, 02:30:01 PM
Ok. 6.3 million people in 2010 were lifted above the poverty line thanks to the earned income tax credit (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505).
Looks like if I lose my job I can get some earned income tax credit. Thanks.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 20, 2012, 05:30:08 PM
Looks like if I lose my job I can get some earned income tax credit. Thanks.
Nope. There's a reason it's called the
Earned Income Tax Credit.
Here's another high profile tax avoider:
QuoteRich, 68, a Grammy-nominated songwriter and glossy figure in Democratic and European royalty circles, renounced her American passport in November, according to her lawyer.
Her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg, appeared in the Federal Register on April 30 in a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. citizenship and permanent residents who handed in their green cards. (link.reuters.com/naq28s)
By dumping her U.S. passport, Rich likely will save tens of millions of dollars or more in U.S. taxes over the long haul, tax lawyers say.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/09/entertainment-us-usa-immigration-deniser-idUSBRE8680MN20120709
If she lives/works outside the US. If not, her (legal) tax situation doesn't change. Not that that usually stops people. Tax enforcement is worse than speed enforcement in this country.
I have a sneaking suspicion that someone is hard selling a tax "avoidance" scam at the moment that involves the renouncement. That seems to be how these schemes get suddenly fashionable. I'm also surprised that so many folks are doing it, given that you have to prepay a decade of tax ahead of time if the renouncement is for tax purposes. That makes me think that the enforcement of that provision is also lax at the moment...
A handful of wealthy expats does not an exodus make. However it is good to understand the motivation.
Some governments put up physical walls to keep their people in captivity. Other governments use more subtile methods of force to enslave their residents. Either way, for a government, it's not about money, it's about power. Nothing is as damaging to a power structure government as the exodus of its citizens. It indicates injustice and advertises that to the world. It gives foreign societies a powerful marketing and diplomacy tool. In essence, it's a gut blow to the government.
We've learned this lesson before. First the best and brightest, the innovators, the inventors, engineers, scientists, and otherwise successful make their escape. When that starts to happen other countries move into action by doing whatever is necessary to attract these valuable individuals (we used to be the masters of this). What they are fleeing may be as simple as property rights, taxes, or even a lack of social freedoms, it matters not, ultimately they are leaving to seek liberty from something. As they leave they form a vacuum, and where they go, they build prosperity. In their new country, they act as ambassadors and spokespeople for whatever liberty they receive. At this point the government has some choices, either build a wall, extort or threaten expats, imprison them, or eliminate whatever injustice exists. History teaches us that the latter is typically not the choice made. It seems we are growing our policies of extortion through financial penalty.
As free societies slouch towards socialism (the natural cycle) they become more reliant on a shrinking population of innovators, and at the same time they must serve a growing population of entitlement minded or otherwise dependent. If they don't stop the bleeding, one way or another, they will soon run out of the elements that make societies grow and prosper. Either enslave, or liberate.
On average 1500 people renounce their US citizenship each year. Most to secure residence elsewhere. Some for tax planning. Some in protest. To replace them 1000000 immigrants come to study, work and live. The amount living is miniscule.
To make sure the rich stay what should we do? After a certain level of wealth your tax rate already goes down. You can legally dump all the money you want at any cause or politician. There are very few ciuntries with any sort of a standard of living that would tax them less to which they could move. The FB guy has lessfreedom and more taxes in singapore. Other than just saying no taxes for the super rich... what is the proposal?
Or is the exodus of.0.000001% per year a crisis?
If you were to renounce your citizenship from our good ol U.S.of.A.
What would you miss the most?
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 10, 2012, 04:00:33 PM
If you were to renounce your citizenship from our good ol U.S.of.A.
What would you miss the most?
I'll tell you what I'd miss the least: our useless two party political system and broken bureaucracies.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 10, 2012, 04:05:23 PM
I'll tell you what I'd miss the least: our useless two party political system and broken bureaucracies.
Probably find those in most places
Quote from: Gaspar on July 10, 2012, 08:00:40 AM
We've learned this lesson before. First the best and brightest, the innovators, the inventors, engineers, scientists, and otherwise successful make their escape. When that starts to happen other countries move into action by doing whatever is necessary to attract these valuable individuals (we used to be the masters of this).
What they are fleeing may be as simple as property rights, taxes, or even a lack of social freedoms, it matters not, ultimately they are leaving to seek liberty from something. As they leave they form a vacuum, and where they go, they build prosperity. In their new country, they act as ambassadors and spokespeople for whatever liberty they receive. At this point the government has some choices, either build a wall, extort or threaten expats, imprison them, or eliminate whatever injustice exists. History teaches us that the latter is typically not the choice made. It seems we are growing our policies of extortion through financial penalty.
As free societies slouch towards socialism (the natural cycle) they become more reliant on a shrinking population of innovators, and at the same time they must serve a growing population of entitlement minded or otherwise dependent. If they don't stop the bleeding, one way or another, they will soon run out of the elements that make societies grow and prosper. Either enslave, or liberate.
We just lost 4 of those kind of people (that I know - good friends) - from Tulsa - who are the "best and brightest" technical types you are talking about. Because of the lack of social freedoms you mention. They are now in Canada, making a tremendous technical contribution to our buddies in the north.
Oh, well, we still got our "Okie" ways her in the USA....that's what's important....
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 10, 2012, 04:00:33 PM
If you were to renounce your citizenship from our good ol U.S.of.A.
What would you miss the most?
The right...no, the obligation! to bitc$ like he$$!!!!!
History doesn't exactly match Gaspar's post. There was a tremendous lack of social freedoms prior to and during WWII in the Axis countries. Germany was decades ahead of us in science/technology and Japan was much more efficient in many areas. And, we profited little from the exodus of their best and brightest at that time. It wasn't till after the war that we liberated those Nazi and Japanese intellects into this country to help us catch up.
Interestingly, just prior to the depression, during the roaring twenties we lost lots of talent and brainpower because of perceived lack of freedoms here in America (prohibition, racism, religion and politics). Financially we were experiencing our first income tax and curbs on corporate excess. Socialism was growing in Europe. Our economy was roaring and the brainpower was exiting.
Then during the most conservative post war period the political repression peaked and we lost again. The Russians launched Sputnik years ahead of us. Major entertainers, writers, intellectuals all felt the pangs of the loss of social freedoms. And the economy was booming.
It sounds like a defensible, plausable construct that he offers, it just isn't in line with historical events.
Quote from: DolfanBob on July 10, 2012, 04:00:33 PM
If you were to renounce your citizenship from our good ol U.S.of.A.
What would you miss the most?
That's a good question. Other than easy access to extended family, most places I'd want to go can replace a typical U.S. day-to-day life for me and my family--except I get to keep my money.
Leaving for social issues (real or perceived) is one thing. Or family, health, etc,.
An extremely rich person leaving due to some contrived issue involving taxes and the feeling they are being 'put upon' for having to pay those taxes is the symptom of a truly disgusting, despicable person. Having been here and enjoyed the freedoms, the opportunity, and the assistance of everyone involved in getting them rich, from availability of everything from infrastructure to personnel,....then to decide to leave because they must participate? Even with the lowest taxes available in the industrial world? Well, there should be - and there is - a leaving tax. For these circumstances, it should be a fixed rate of say, about 75%....
Worst sort of low life.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 10, 2012, 08:31:53 PM
Leaving for social issues (real or perceived) is one thing. Or family, health, etc,.
An extremely rich person leaving due to some contrived issue involving taxes and the feeling they are being 'put upon' for having to pay those taxes is the symptom of a truly disgusting, despicable person. Having been here and enjoyed the freedoms, the opportunity, and the assistance of everyone involved in getting them rich, from availability of everything from infrastructure to personnel,....then to decide to leave because they must participate? Even with the lowest taxes available in the industrial world? Well, there should be - and there is - a leaving tax. For these circumstances, it should be a fixed rate of say, about 75%....
Worst sort of low life.
If people want to leave and take THEIR money and THEIR jobs overseas, that should only be THEIR business. A person is free to leave if they are zillionaires or poor, and in this free country it shouldn't be punished.
I just do not get this "the rich got rich because of everyone" meme currently sung by Oklahoma's Elizabeth "Your Wampum My Wampum" Warren (borrowed).
I would better understand your rage if the rich in this country weren't the most prolific tax evaders. You're outraged about stuff that doesn't actually exist. That seems to be all the rage these days, though. Luckily, being a free country, nobody is going to stop you.
Quote from: nathanm on July 11, 2012, 01:01:51 AM
I would better understand your rage if the rich in this country weren't the most prolific tax evaders.
You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 07:32:43 AM
You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.
What they (for some significant subset, including our most recent former President) can't avoid, they evade. There's little penalty if you can afford good attorneys. We refuse to allocate the IRS enough funding to make the legal fees more expensive than the tax, or to even do enough audits to uncover most of the evasion. Even when the evaders are caught, prosecutions are very rare and even penalties are also lightly used.
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2012, 12:22:28 AM
I just do not get this "the rich got rich because of everyone" meme currently sung by Oklahoma's Elizabeth "Your Wampum My Wampum" Warren (borrowed).
That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times. How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure? Really?? It is like you blank out the contribution all those around and all those who have gone before you have made to the circumstances that have enabled you to get where you are.
Leaving out all the other items like schools, roads to get you to schools, teachers to teach you through high school, and all the support people you have around you in your office, at court, and just the general infrastructure in Tulsa....
University of Tulsa - private school. Does NOT mean you paid for your entire education on your own. You were literally supported by over 100 years of infrastructure and support that has gone on before you. Including the huge endowments TU holds that subsidized your private education.
If this whole "rugged individualist" fantasy myth was anywhere near any kind of reality, you would never have gotten anywhere close to where you are in anywhere near the time frame you have done it in. This also applies to the rest of us, too. All of us enjoy the leverage that all the other people around us give.
So, yeah...all the richest DO have a debt to the society around them. As do I, and you, and everyone around us. And yet, even with the lowest taxes in the civilized world, we STILL hear their plaintive bleat - of these selfish little "kindergarten kids" - whining and crying about how "it's mine,...it's mine,...it's all mine...".
Let me put it a different way: Even the Reagan-loving right wingers of our southern neighbors have expressed their shock at what we're doing to ourselves in the name of conservatism.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 09:46:17 AM
That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times. How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure? Really?? It is like you blank out the contribution all those around and all those who have gone before you have made to the circumstances that have enabled you to get where you are.
Leaving out all the other items like schools, roads to get you to schools, teachers to teach you through high school, and all the support people you have around you in your office, at court, and just the general infrastructure in Tulsa....
University of Tulsa - private school. Does NOT mean you paid for your entire education on your own. You were literally supported by over 100 years of infrastructure and support that has gone on before you. Including the huge endowments TU holds that subsidized your private education.
If this whole "rugged individualist" fantasy myth was anywhere near any kind of reality, you would never have gotten anywhere close to where you are in anywhere near the time frame you have done it in. This also applies to the rest of us, too. All of us enjoy the leverage that all the other people around us give.
So, yeah...all the richest DO have a debt to the society around them. As do I, and you, and everyone around us. And yet, even with the lowest taxes in the civilized world, we STILL hear their plaintive bleat - of these selfish little "kindergarten kids" - whining and crying about how "it's mine,...it's mine,...it's all mine...".
There's a big difference in giving back or having your wealth taken by force.
It really doesn't bother me at all that George Kaiser pays very little in personal income tax and I'm sure his various corporate entities legally avoid paying many other taxes. He gives far more to public projects which either improve the human condition with educational programs, grants, and enterprises for the disadvantaged, better public spaces we all enjoy, or helping provide for the arts. He does far more for the rest of us via his own gifting devices than the government would ever do on it's own if they took stewardship over that money rather than his own charitable trusts.
The same can be said for many other billionaires and millionaires. You probably will be shocked to hear this come from my mouth, but if progressive taxation results in more charitable giving via trusts and foundations to avoid additional taxes, I say raise them.
Your writing however seems to suggest those more successful should be punished for that success like they owe the rest of us something. Calling people "despicable" if they move off-shore to lower tax burden? I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 11, 2012, 11:02:50 AM
I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.
It depends on how you define "their share". If, for example, they're a public company's CEO avoiding tax on their fringe benefits, which can be quite substantial when they have a jet at their disposal, they pay zero times on that money and you pay for it both in your increased share of the tax burden from the CEO's tax avoidance and you pay because you're probably a stock holder through some mutual fund in your 401(k). And, of course, all this reduces the tax liability of the company itself. Same deal when they come up with deferred compensation agreements that pay above market rate interest to the executive for leaving their money on deposit with the company, both avoiding tax (for the CEO) and increasing the cost to the shareholders twice, once in the extra tax payments from not paying the CEO and again in the above market rate interest on the account. Don't think they have to leave that money idle, though. Banks, of course, are more than happy to lend them cash now so that they get use of the money today. Remember the above market interest rate makes this cost-free.
So maybe, sometime in the future, this guy might pay tax on all of his income. (Not likely, he can just pull a Mitt Romney and defer the tax until retirement) Why, though, does he get to pay later while you and I have to pay now?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 11, 2012, 11:02:50 AM
Your writing however seems to suggest those more successful should be punished for that success like they owe the rest of us something.
Calling people "despicable" if they move off-shore to lower tax burden? I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.
So going by that, it would mean that I should certainly not be punished by having the deductions taken out that are removed by force every two weeks. I am being punished in even greater fashion for a much more modest form of success. And since we know for a fact - having gone through it over and over - that those richest are limited to an average under 16% even if they triple their income. So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??
Because I don't own anyone in Congress.
As for paying their share - well, that also goes hand in hand again with all the previous discussions. If I double my pay and the tax percentage goes up - which it does - but the 1% double their pay and the tax percentage stays the same (actually even decreases slightly), then no, they have NOT paid their share.
Quote from: nathanm on July 11, 2012, 11:14:37 AM
It depends on how you define "their share". If, for example, they're a public company's CEO avoiding tax on their fringe benefits, which can be quite substantial when they have a jet at their disposal, they pay zero times on that money and you pay for it both in your increased share of the tax burden from the CEO's tax avoidance and you pay because you're probably a stock holder through some mutual fund in your 401(k). And, of course, all this reduces the tax liability of the company itself. Same deal when they come up with deferred compensation agreements that pay above market rate interest to the executive for leaving their money on deposit with the company, both avoiding tax (for the CEO) and increasing the cost to the shareholders twice, once in the extra tax payments from not paying the CEO and again in the above market rate interest on the account. Don't think they have to leave that money idle, though. Banks, of course, are more than happy to lend them cash now so that they get use of the money today. Remember the above market interest rate makes this cost-free.
A solution to this horrible inequity would be to raise the CEO's salary enough to cover the cost and tax of these benefits.
Quote
So maybe, sometime in the future, this guy might pay tax on all of his income. (Not likely, he can just pull a Mitt Romney and defer the tax until retirement) Why, though, does he get to pay later while you and I have to pay now?
I take it you don't have any tax deferred retirement savings. Perhaps you have enough tax deductions to make tax deferred retirement savings ineffective. One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget. He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans. Is that your situation?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??
If your overall Federal Income Tax rate is much more than 16%, you have enough money to invest in places that are limited to 15% tax.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 12:52:14 PM
If your overall Federal Income Tax rate is much more than 16%, you have enough money to invest in places that are limited to 15% tax.
Company won't give me any ISO's. I'm not important enough...too interchangeable, I guess.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 12:45:25 PM
I take it you don't have any tax deferred retirement savings. Perhaps you have enough tax deductions to make tax deferred retirement savings ineffective. One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget. He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans. Is that your situation?
Must not have been much of a company match... hard to be a constant 50% or better return...tax or no tax...
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 12:45:25 PM
One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget. He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans. Is that your situation?
Only Mitt Romney and his ilk get to dump unlimited sums into their IRA. We get $5,000/$6,000. We don't get to deposit assets worth tens of millions of dollars and claim they are actually valueless because they haven't produced income
yet, even though it's a contractually guaranteed thing. Let's also not forget that even his retirement package from Bain counts as a capital gain, where yours or mine would be taxed as income.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
So going by that, it would mean that I should certainly not be punished by having the deductions taken out that are removed by force every two weeks. I am being punished in even greater fashion for a much more modest form of success. And since we know for a fact - having gone through it over and over - that those richest are limited to an average under 16% even if they triple their income. So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??
Because I don't own anyone in Congress.
As for paying their share - well, that also goes hand in hand again with all the previous discussions. If I double my pay and the tax percentage goes up - which it does - but the 1% double their pay and the tax percentage stays the same (actually even decreases slightly), then no, they have NOT paid their share.
Most American's effective overall tax rate is about the same when you consider all the various deductions and other loopholes people can take advantage of. Secondly, you have simply never grasped the concept that the wealthiest make most of their income off dividends and cap gains, not a W-2 statement. Often times, that net income the individual enjoys is post corporate tax. Before you insert the requisite "GE doesn't pay corporate tax" meme not every corporation or investment firm is quite so creative at skating on taxes.
I will tell you this though, my income doubled last year, yet I paid not an amount equal to twice my prior year's taxes, but rather much closer to three times, and yes, I was still under 6 figures. Did I take any more out of infrastructure last year than any other year? No. Did I depend on any more government benefits than the prior year? No. Why should my taxes nearly triple for making double the income when I'm decidedly middle class?
In case you are wondering how I doubled in a year, I rely heavily on bonuses for my income. We had two pisser years then a very good one last year. Huge fluctuation, but I live fairly frugally.
You also forget those whom you think aren't contributing their fair share contribute many, many jobs to the federal, state, and local tax rolls aside from what their investment and corporate vehicles pay in taxes, fees, and licenses.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 07:32:43 AM
You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.
Boom....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 09:46:17 AM
That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times. How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure? Really??
I stand by this post I made a while back on the notion that I was somehow luck or fortunate to be where I am today.
Quote
I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!! And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.
There are countless other stories out there better (or worse depending on the POV) than mine of people making it from nothing and IMO are not despicable if they decide to leave and take THEIR money and THEIR jobs with them...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 11, 2012, 01:45:14 PM
(1)
Secondly, you have simply never grasped the concept that the wealthiest make most of their income off dividends and cap gains, not a W-2 statement. Often times, that net income the individual enjoys is post corporate tax. Before you insert the requisite "GE doesn't pay corporate tax" meme not every corporation or investment firm is quite so creative at skating on taxes.
(2)
I will tell you this though, my income doubled last year, yet I paid not an amount equal to twice my prior year's taxes, but rather much closer to three times, and yes, I was still under 6 figures. Did I take any more out of infrastructure last year than any other year? No. Did I depend on any more government benefits than the prior year? No. Why should my taxes nearly triple for making double the income when I'm decidedly middle class?
(3)
In case you are wondering how I doubled in a year, I rely heavily on bonuses for my income. We had two pisser years then a very good one last year. Huge fluctuation, but I live fairly frugally.
(4)
You also forget those whom you think aren't contributing their fair share contribute many, many jobs to the federal, state, and local tax rolls aside from what their investment and corporate vehicles pay in taxes, fees, and licenses.
(1)
I have very definitely grasped that for many many years, and that point specifically, along with ISO's is EXACTLY what I have used in examples many, many times here when discussing the tax situation. Most of us DON"T have access to those sweet deals that entail getting the vast majority of our income magically changed to long term capital gains. Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....
(2)
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Also, one of my gripes about the system as defined by the richest buying Congress. (You just keep making the same points as I, so why the disagreement?)
(3)
None of my business (a sentiment I have expressed before here) - am very happy for you, though. UNLESS it were somehow, as in the case of a corporation awarding these massive pay packages, getting a tax deduction, then the recipient getting EXTREME preferential tax treatment to the point of almost total tax avoidance - while I (or you for that matter) and millions just like us, are required to make up the difference - that is a subsidy. It is corporate welfare.
(4)
And we have seen for many years that is just not true. Otherwise, we would be swimming in jobs. Since they are swimming in trillions of dollars of cash laying around. Doing nothing - but more specifically doing nothing to help the economy by creating more jobs...because they are "worried" about the future...??
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2012, 03:22:41 PM
I stand by this post I made a while back on the notion that I was somehow luck or fortunate to be where I am today.
There are countless other stories out there better (or worse depending on the POV) than mine of people making it from nothing and IMO are not despicable if they decide to leave and take THEIR money and THEIR jobs with them...
As long as they pay their share of taxes. There's the rub, isn't it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 03:34:07 PM
(1)
I have very definitely grasped that for many many years, and that point specifically, along with ISO's is EXACTLY what I have used in examples many, many times here when discussing the tax situation. Most of us DON"T have access to those sweet deals that entail getting the vast majority of our income magically changed to long term capital gains. Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....
(2)
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Also, one of my gripes about the system as defined by the richest buying Congress. (You just keep making the same points as I, so why the disagreement?)
(3)
None of my business (a sentiment I have expressed before here) - am very happy for you, though. UNLESS it were somehow, as in the case of a corporation awarding these massive pay packages, getting a tax deduction, then the recipient getting EXTREME preferential tax treatment to the point of almost total tax avoidance - while I (or you for that matter) and millions just like us, are required to make up the difference - that is a subsidy. It is corporate welfare.
(4)
And we have seen for many years that is just not true. Otherwise, we would be swimming in jobs. Since they are swimming in trillions of dollars of cash laying around. Doing nothing - but more specifically doing nothing to help the economy by creating more jobs...because they are "worried" about the future...??
You are mistakenly obsessed with the idea that all the "1%'ers" are making huge bank on ISO's. That's actually a very small minority of the wealthy in this country. Many of the wealthy make a living off active or passive investment which helps keep the wheels (somewhat) on the economy or are CEO's of their own business. If you participate in a company matching contribution IRA or 401K you are reaping the benefits of deferred income, just like the big cats.
You simply cannot compel someone to create jobs by creating a punitive atmosphere that if they don't spend those trillions they legally earned you will take it. That's what forces jobs and job creators to less hostile environments overseas where they don't have the constant meme that the wealthy are nothing but a bunch of tax-cheating a-holes who do zilch for the rest of society.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 03:35:49 PM
As long as they pay their share of taxes. There's the rub, isn't it?
What does their "fair share" mean to you? And for those that pay no federal income tax, why are you not complaining about their not paying a "fair share"? Here's a wild idea, instead of making it so the rich do not leave, why not find a way to encourage them to stay? In all seriousness, if I ever felt that staying in a country that did not make me feel welcome and treated me unequally solely because I happen to be a "have", I'd leave too. Call me despicable all you like, as I am speeding around in my boat or sports car with the U.S. in my rear view showing it my rear view.
The data simply does not support a correlation between job creation and tax rates. In a capitalist country jobs are actually "created" when doing so will make the owner more money in some way. Period.
High taxes. Low taxes. There are arguments and incentives both ways. With high taxes i am compelled to leave money on the company (jobs are an expense) and with less take home i have to earn more to pay for private jets (or, like kaiser, your nonprofit foundation can own them). But at the end of the day, if employing more people makes me more money im in.
"What? 49% top tax rate on investment income! Screw you. I REFUSE to hire more workers who will increase my earnings and count as a deductible expense.". /not advocating 49%.
The current tax code awards wealth over work. It is ripe with special interest and corporate welfare... ot to mention market manipulation. It needs to be trashed.
Slash corporate taxes in exchange for increasing taxes on investment income. Lower personal tax rates in exchange for less deductions and a broader tax base. Go.
I guess it just irks me that the average American taxpayer has lost about 9% of their income in the past decade and folks ask for them to pay more tax, while the folks at the top have seen their incomes increase 20-40% and have had their tax burden decline significantly.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 11, 2012, 03:43:17 PM
If you participate in a company matching contribution IRA or 401K you are reaping the benefits of deferred income, just like the big cats.
Well, not just like the big cats. As I mentioned earlier, you and I only get to contribute $5,000 (or $6,000 for some of you) a year to (all of) your IRA(s) and, what, about $14,000 to your 401(k). And, of course, most of what they get isn't their own money possibly with a small company match, they get a straight up pension that gets treated as capital gains instead of wage income. Your pension, if you have one, is taxed as wage income.
Interestingly, if my SO's company pays for me to fly somewhere, that's treated as income to her. In many cases, if a CEO has his company pay to fly his wife somewhere on the company jet, that's not counted as income. Still a tax deductible business expense for the corporation, though, so you and I pay for 35% of the actual cost. (Same goes when one of my clients flies me around in his jet..thank you for your contribution) He's not also stealing from shareholders in the process, at least.
It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago when we disapproved of those who took great pains to avoid tax. AMT, after all, was put into place because many of the top income earners were not paying any income tax at the time. Congress really managed to love that one up, though. Now it mainly only effects people like guido, and probably Conan if his income tax tripled. There's not really any other way that's mathematically possible, barring some other reason for losing lots of deductions (or a very low starting income, or the married thing coming into play).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
Must not have been much of a company match... hard to be a constant 50% or better return...tax or no tax...
I think the match is 4%, it's been a while since I signed on. As I remember, his overall Federal tax rate was single digit.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 11, 2012, 01:45:14 PM
Why should my taxes nearly triple for making double the income when I'm decidedly middle class?
Because you can afford it.
(I'm practicing to become a Democrat when I retire so I can vote my wallet. ;D)
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2012, 07:41:56 PM
What does their "fair share" mean to you? And for those that pay no federal income tax, why are you not complaining about their not paying a "fair share"? Here's a wild idea, instead of making it so the rich do not leave, why not find a way to encourage them to stay? In all seriousness, if I ever felt that staying in a country that did not make me feel welcome and treated me unequally solely because I happen to be a "have", I'd leave too. Call me despicable all you like, as I am speeding around in my boat or sports car with the U.S. in my rear view showing it my rear view.
First, "fair share" is your term. My term was "their share".
What I think would be fair is that my share do down to their level. If they get ISO's, then everyone should share in the gimmick - great way to compose a 'bonus' program.
So, you think the best business opportunity, the best tax rates in the civilized world, the 37th best health system in the world are all not enough incentive for them to stay??
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 10:44:56 PM
Because you can afford it.
(I'm practicing to become a Democrat when I retire so I can vote my wallet. ;D)
Actually, his taxes shouldn't go up that much. Unless the guys way above him go up, too.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 03:34:07 PM
[Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....
And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 11:00:14 PM
Actually, his taxes shouldn't go up that much. Unless the guys way above him go up, too.
I'm not going to do the math but if he jumped a bracket or two it's possible.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:00:56 PM
And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
Have just now checked it out. Are you sure that's what you want to argue with? From 2001 to 2009, the tax rate paid on W-2 income is going down every year for the 1%ers. As well as everyone else. Which we already knew. (And which also correlates well to the deficits and increases in national debt...)
But you still keep trying to narrow the income concept to just the W-2 numbers. I certainly have never made any comment about that without also considering the "off W-2" income, which, as you well know, is where the games are played, and the rewards are paid to the 1.0%ers from a grateful Congress. So, that table takes into account a very small percentage of income for the 1%ers, and ALL of the income for you, me, and most everyone else.
Since 1968, the real buying power of people at the minimum wage level have gone down over 30%. Today is $7.25 per hour. 1968 minimum wage buying power was equivalent to almost $10.50 per hour. In that same time, the richest have NEVER had a reduction, and just in the last 4 years or so, have risen from around $
And what really rubs our noses in it, is that if your company pays you a bonus, you get to pay at regular rates, while CEO's get the ISO so they can pay at capital gains rates.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 11, 2012, 11:00:56 PM
And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0
Go directly to the source and you'll find the IRS gives figures for the top 400. (not sure if they do the top 0.1% or not) You'll find that the folks lower on the scale pay a higher percentage, even within the top 1%. Sort of like how the folks in the 10th to 5th percentile pay the highest percentage of anyone. They're not generally wealthy enough to make capital gains money or take advantage of the many loopholes. The tax attorneys who know about the dirty little secrets are rather expensive, obviously.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 11, 2012, 11:27:31 PM
Have just now checked it out. Are you sure that's what you want to argue with?
I guess you will continue to be blind to the percentage of the AGI that most of us pay which is less than your magic 16%.
QuoteBut you still keep trying to narrow the income concept to just the W-2 numbers.
No, I'm not narrowing anything. I pay tax on w-2 and 1099s. Most of us do. There are other reportable income sources too. It's part of the AGI. I don't do odd jobs for cash. It's not worth the tax hassle.
Quote from: nathanm on July 11, 2012, 11:34:39 PM
Go directly to the source and you'll find the IRS gives figures for the top 400. (not sure if they do the top 0.1% or not) You'll find that the folks lower on the scale pay a higher percentage, even within the top 1%. Sort of like how the folks in the 10th to 5th percentile pay the highest percentage of anyone. They're not generally wealthy enough to make capital gains money or take advantage of the many loopholes. The tax attorneys who know about the dirty little secrets are rather expensive, obviously.
I really don't care about the top 400 taxpayers in the USA. Ignore the man behind the curtain screaming 16%. Look at the numbers below the top 10%, the columns for between 10% & 25%, between 25 and 50%, and below 50%. They are ALL below Herion's magic 16%. That's why if I say if he is paying well over 16%, I have no sympathy for him. Yes this is about income tax, not the total burden including sales tax, property tax...... but that is what this discussion is about - income tax on AGI (and not just W-2 income). We all know the others are there.
My point is that the folks at the very top pay less. Less, even, than a single person making $65,000 a year, if you count payroll tax. Which you should, since chances are the folks at the top are paying SE tax, which gets reported in the SOI tables as part of the income tax, if I'm remembering correctly.
Quote from: nathanm on July 12, 2012, 12:47:51 AM
My point is that the folks at the very top pay less. Less, even, than a single person making $65,000 a year, if you count payroll tax. Which you should, since chances are the folks at the top are paying SE tax, which gets reported in the SOI tables as part of the income tax, if I'm remembering correctly.
I am well aware of your point just as you should be aware that:
1. The really wealthy pay more dollars in tax in one year, even at low percentage rates, than I will make in my lifetime. It's a non-issue for me that they pay a bit lower rate.
2. Payroll tax is a tax that, if we live long enough, will benefit us directly in $ in our individual pockets. It benefits the bottom of the pay scale more than those at the top in terms of living expenses so it doesn't bother me that the tax is a larger part of the bottom's pay. It also doesn't bother me that only the first (approx) $106,000 is subject to the payroll tax since benefits are based partly on contributions. Someone making 100 times what you or I do isn't going to get 100 times the monthly SS benefits that you or I will get.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 12, 2012, 07:48:17 AM
I am well aware of your point just as you should be aware that:
1. The really wealthy pay more dollars in tax in one year, even at low percentage rates, than I will make in my lifetime. It's a non-issue for me that they pay a bit lower rate.
2. Payroll tax is a tax that, if we live long enough, will benefit us directly in $ in our individual pockets. It benefits the bottom of the pay scale more than those at the top in terms of living expenses so it doesn't bother me that the tax is a larger part of the bottom's pay. It also doesn't bother me that only the first (approx) $106,000 is subject to the payroll tax since benefits are based partly on contributions. Someone making 100 times what you or I do isn't going to get 100 times the monthly SS benefits that you or I will get.
Red,
You are banging your head against an unyielding wall. Envy is the primary motivator behind demonizing the successful, not fairness, not the deficit, not helping the poor, not creating jobs, nothing but envy.
Even if the progs were to pass laws confiscating 90% or 100% of the wealth of the successful, it would represent a puff of smoke against the pillar of flame they would/do propose in spending. If they were to take down every evil rich guy, every evil bankster, and bleed every fat-cat business owner, it would only be to satisfy some misguided view of justice.
In the end they would reap a world without incentive, a nation of dullards unchallenged by the burden of innovation and the rewards of success. They want to build up failure by destroying achievement. They see a collective society as an attractive alternative to their own broken dreams. It's personal for them.
Progressives make the mistake of confusing individual worth with success. They believe you cannot allow people to succeed in case those who fail feel worthless. – Kenneth Baker
Wealth comes from successful individual efforts to please one's fellow man ... that's what competition is all about: "outpleasing" your competitors to win over the consumers. – Walter Williams
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman
The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects – his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity. – Henry Hazlitt
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
Even if the progs were to pass laws confiscating 90% or 100% of the wealth of the successful, it would represent a puff of smoke against the pillar of flame they would/do propose in spending.
And we have absolute proof of how false THAT is by the spending of the last 32 years - you remember all those years don't you - where Republican spending has shown the Democrats how little they actually did? And how much you could get away with just by saying the other guy is a tax/spend type of guy...
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
Red,
You are banging your head against an unyielding wall.
Not really. I know you can't raise the temperature of a pan of boiling water with an ice cube.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
Red,
You are banging your head against an unyielding wall. Envy is the primary motivator behind demonizing the successful, not fairness, not the deficit, not helping the poor, not creating jobs, nothing but envy.
That's it in a nutshell. As I have said repeatedly, looking back when I was younger and living basically hand to mouth, I can't recall ever thinking to myself, "Gee, what this country and I really need is to take more money from the guy making more than me."
Now, was I envious? Sure. Seeing my superiors rolling up in their Mercedes and Porsche while I drove something looking like this for six years:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Cavalier_Type_10_Hatch.jpg/200px-Cavalier_Type_10_Hatch.jpg)
But instead of bitching about it I worked my aquaman off.
As long as you pretend to know the motivations in my head (and get them wrong) you'll find it difficult to understand my point of view. That's OK. It's a common problem. As I've said on many occasions, I like that there are rich people, especially when they share their nice things with me, as they often do. As I've also repeatedly stated, I have no problem with the folks like Guido who are paying more than their fair share already. The real problems are at the very top where straight tax evasion is distressingly common and almost never gets prosecuted even when discovered.
Quote from: nathanm on July 12, 2012, 03:10:30 PM
As long as you pretend to know the motivations in my head (and get them wrong) you'll find it difficult to understand my point of view. That's OK. It's a common problem. As I've said on many occasions, I like that there are rich people, especially when they share their nice things with me, as they often do. As I've also repeatedly stated, I have no problem with the folks like Guido who are paying more than their fair share already. The real problems are at the very top where straight tax evasion is distressingly common and almost never gets prosecuted even when discovered.
I like rich people. Especially when they are sharing Marshall's!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 12, 2012, 03:11:23 PM
I like rich people. Especially when they are sharing Marshall's!
You're speaking my language... :D
Quote from: guido911 on July 12, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
That's it in a nutshell. As I have said repeatedly, looking back when I was younger and living basically hand to mouth, I can't recall ever thinking to myself, "Gee, what this country and I really need is to take more money from the guy making more than me."
Now, was I envious? Sure. Seeing my superiors rolling up in their Mercedes and Porsche while I drove something looking like this for six years:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Cavalier_Type_10_Hatch.jpg/200px-Cavalier_Type_10_Hatch.jpg)
But instead of bitching about it I worked my aquaman off.
Hah! That was funny. I often think of you too. About 10am each morning as I flush the commode. And just like that.....gone!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 12, 2012, 03:11:23 PM
I like rich people. Especially when they are sharing Marshall's!
Ha! I knew someone would slip that in here. Well played Conan "The Barbarian"
Going for the record. Woo-hoo. Party time.
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/24/more-americans-renounce-citizenship-with-2014-on-pace-for-a-record/
Trying to find out where they are heading before I cry racism.
Quote from: guido911 on October 25, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
Going for the record. Woo-hoo. Party time.
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/24/more-americans-renounce-citizenship-with-2014-on-pace-for-a-record/
Trying to find out where they are heading before I cry racism.
Sorry guido, but what you proclaim and what the article discusses is apples and oranges. Scaling that to a year is less than 1% of the population and a large part are not actual citizens and it's in response to the Swiss no longer being a safe haven for hiding money.
Very few people do it, and they increased the fees too.. Many people Renounce citizen ship and move to a country like Panama with no income taxes and then they get a Visa to re-enter the USA and carry on without the tax burden. The $3,000+ fee is pocket change to many people who make the big jump but more and more people are doing it as our taxes and regulations grow worse and worse with every passing year.
Some people say it's Unpatriotic for Americans to not pay taxes, but right now we have almost half the population that pays zero taxes and get tax refunds. IMO that's not fair everyone should pay something in taxes even the poor and those on the public dole. It's not fair that people who pay zero taxes still get huge tax refunds with that tax credit and earned income credit. I favor a flat tax that's the most fair where everyone pays the same percentage.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 26, 2014, 01:15:57 PM
Sorry guido, but what you proclaim and what the article discusses is apples and oranges. Scaling that to a year is less than 1% of the population and a large part are not actual citizens and it's in response to the Swiss no longer being a safe haven for hiding money.
Not proclaiming anything. Read the article. It's about people fed up with tax policy. Here's a passage:
QuoteUnlike other developed nations, the U.S. taxes citizens on income they earn anywhere in the world. The rule dates to the Civil War. U.S. tax liabilities can also cover children born to Americans abroad, extending the reach of the Internal Revenue Service across generations as well as oceans. There are only partial offsets for double taxation for people who owe taxes both to the U.S. and a foreign country, and the reporting rules are onerous, experts say.
Here's another link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/07/many-americans-renounce-citizenship-hitting-new-record/
So I think the message is don't put money in banks, put it under a mattress if you live abroad. :P
Quote from: sauerkraut on October 26, 2014, 02:54:13 PM
Some people say it's Unpatriotic for Americans to not pay taxes, but right now we have almost half the population that pays zero taxes and get tax refunds. IMO that's not fair everyone should pay something in taxes even the poor and those on the public dole. It's not fair that people who pay zero taxes still get huge tax refunds with that tax credit and earned income credit. I favor a flat tax that's the most fair where everyone pays the same percentage.
Who ties your shoes for you??