Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 160
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: UpInequality

  1. #31
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    18,887
    Thanks
    2976

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post

    That is wrong because tax deductions do NOT favor the wealthy, as one gets wealthier the benefit of tax deductions is basically phased out.
    That's why when you get near that threshold, offshoring and other tax shelters are worth employing.

    There's a reason why companies like Google only pay about 2% tax.

  2. #32
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,208
    Thanks
    42146

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    They are NOT regressive. Medicaid counts.
    Sales and property taxes are very regressive.
    Thanks from Babba and Madeline

  3. #33
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,208
    Thanks
    42146

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    That's why when you get near that threshold, offshoring and other tax shelters are worth employing.

    There's a reason why companies like Google only pay about 2% tax.
    Trump will get that down to zero.
    Thanks from Madeline

  4. #34
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,789
    Thanks
    1067

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    There's a reason why companies like Google only pay about 2% tax.
    Google of course is a C Corporation. I had an LLC and an S Corporation. I paid 0% at the 'corporate level.' Of course that income would 'pass thru' to my personal return, where I would pay tax. I could have chosen to be treated just like google actually and been a c corporation, but that would have entailed paying even more tax.

    Theoretically an employee could eschew being an employee and form a corporation just like google and have the corporation sell services to his employer. There might be some legal barrier to that that I would be unaware of, of course, but I would never know because nobody in their right mind would do it to begin with.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,631
    Thanks
    26021

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Ummm, most the world thinks we're pretty right wing. I'm just pointing that out. It could have something to do with our elections and policies.
    Agree but the OP poster has previously discussed how unhappy he was with both candidates in the US election in 2016.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,631
    Thanks
    26021

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    If more people understood that state and local taxes are VERY regressive, that would help.
    But how would that help? It isn't like they are going away. In fact more people are willing to pay more for local and state taxes than federal because they see results. They fund their teachers, firemen, police, streets, landfills etc. Even though they complain if given a choice they are likely to pick those taxes, whereas federal taxes they often claim they see nothing from them until they retire.
    Thanks from Madeline

  7. #37
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,066
    Thanks
    48074

    From
    So. Md.
    In 2015, Buffett’s adjusted gross income was about $11 million (on which he paid roughly $2 million in income taxes); that’s certainly a lot of money, but more than 10,000 households reported more income than he did. In an economic sense, however, Buffett’s annual income is actually measured in the billions. His net worth rises and falls based on the price of the stock he owns in his company, Berkshire Hathaway, but in the past five years its value has increased from $39 billion to $65.5 billion, according to Forbes. That’s more than $5 billion per year, even as Buffett was giving away billions of dollars.

    According to the tax code, however, that $5 billion per year might as well not exist: When stock goes up in value, the increase does not count as income until the stock is sold. This allows Buffett and other extremely rich investors to defer paying taxes on stock appreciation, effectively reducing their tax rates. In addition, they can donate stock to charity and claim a tax deduction for the full amount of the gift without ever having to pay taxes on the stock’s increased value. And, if they die without selling the stock, its cost basis—the amount originally paid for the stock, for the purposes of computing taxes—is “stepped up” to its value at the time of death, allowing their heirs to likewise avoid paying taxes on the stock’s appreciation.

    By continually deferring capital-gains taxes, ultra-wealthy families can pay virtually no income tax for generation after generation. (They may have to pay estate tax, depending on how creative their lawyers are, but that’s another story.) And when they do decide to sell stock, their capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income from working—about 24 percent instead of 43 percent—which on its own costs the federal government about $90 billion per year. Unsurprisingly, of the four largest family fortunes in America today, three—the Waltons, the Kochs, and the Marses—were inherited from earlier generations (although the Kochs did significantly increase the size of their empire).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ealthy/504188/

    The above is a big part of why income inequality is growing. Simply increasing the marginal tax rate won't address that completely, although it would help address the debt and the deficit. We have to find a way to tax investment income that doesn't hurt middle class investors simply trying to save for retirement.
    Thanks from Madeline and Panzareta

  8. #38
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,066
    Thanks
    48074

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    But how would that help? It isn't like they are going away. In fact more people are willing to pay more for local and state taxes than federal because they see results. They fund their teachers, firemen, police, streets, landfills etc. Even though they complain if given a choice they are likely to pick those taxes, whereas federal taxes they often claim they see nothing from them until they retire.
    People are confused about how much they're paying in taxes and to whom they're paying it. When someone with a family earning $50,000 a year bitches about federal taxes, then they're powerful confused. I agree that the lower and middle classes pay way more than their share in state and local taxes and that's where their complaints should be directed.

    I do agree that it's difficult for the average person to see what they're getting from the federal government anymore. That needs to be fix. I can't argue with that.
    Thanks from bajisima and Madeline

  9. #39
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    48,341
    Thanks
    14254

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    What is your solution?

    To simply seize the money of the rich?
    No, go back to the marginal tax rates we had 40 yrs ago before we were 20 trillion in debt
    Thanks from Madeline

  10. #40
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    48,341
    Thanks
    14254

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Yeah, check out Zimbabwe to see how that worked for them when they seized white farmers land.

    Here's a hint: food production went down 70%.

    Thanks Mugabe!
    Who the fuck is contemplating seizing farmers land?
    Thanks from Babba, OldGaffer, Madeline and 1 others

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed