Taxation

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 7, 2011, 3:19 pm

Theodore Roosevelt in 1910 wrote:No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered--not gambling in stocks…I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes.

This coming from a man who was born into exactly the kind of fortune he was advocating be taxed and taxed HARD. Now aside of the VV's own trust-fund party-darling Winnow, does anyone here actually oppose making the rich pay more taxes?

Canoe · Post by **Canoe** » April 7, 2011, 3:26 pm

Yes, I oppose the rich paying more proportionally than others.

This society doesn't work, if you penalize people for achieving more money. We are a capitalistic society, that thrives on people creating more business, more wealth, etc... The minute we start taking away the reward for pursuing more wealth.... is when we will see stagnation (we already do to some extent) and the need to go to a socialistic society will arise (which is not what I personally want).

That being said, I am not for eliminating taxes on the rich, or asking them to pay less taxes than anyone else.

I think taxing the rich proportionally, and taxing the rich at a higher percentage, are two different arguments.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 7, 2011, 3:31 pm

Canoe wrote:Yes, I oppose the rich paying more proportionally than others.

This society doesn't work, if you penalize people for achieving more money. We are a capitalistic society, that thrives on people creating more business, more wealth, etc... The minute we start taking away the reward for pursuing more wealth.... is when we will see stagnation (we already do to some extent) and the need to go to a socialistic society will arise (which is not what I personally want).

That being said, I am not for eliminating taxes on the rich, or asking them to pay less taxes than anyone else.

I think taxing the rich more proportionally, and taxing the rich at a higher percentage, are two different arguments.

^ Pretty much that, exactly.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 7, 2011, 3:35 pm

So you both are in favor of making the capital gains tax rate the same as the regular income tax rate?

Canoe · Post by **Canoe** » April 7, 2011, 4:27 pm

Sure.

As long as at the end of the day, the rich aren't taxed more than the poor - I'm cool with it.

Your capital gains is a terrible example, as it's around the same rate as most "average" Americans are taxed at anyway. It's just the "rich" are taxed at a higher rate with their income, so everyone claims capital gains is so much lower.

So essentially - flat tax me - I'd be thrilled. We know that won't happen, but don't take it to the extreme in the other direction either.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 7, 2011, 4:53 pm

The poor are lazy and should be taxed more since they aren't contributing as much. Bring back debtor's prisons and the serf system.

Post by **pyrella** » April 7, 2011, 6:54 pm

Creepy - I was just looking at http://www.fairtax.org

The one question I have....what's blatantly wrong with this - as this seems like something that would be too good to be true...

The gist of it:

Everyone pays 23% tax on consumption (a federal sales tax). This works out to the current cost of payroll tax at 7-8% and the lowest income tax bracket at 15%.

It applies evenly across the board as it's based on what you spend, not what you earn.

No VAT so you're getting multi taxed within the same product based on cost of supplies, etc, etc

Like I said - it sounds great....what's wrong with it?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 7, 2011, 7:57 pm

Canoe wrote:This society doesn't work, if you penalize people for achieving more money. We are a capitalistic society, that thrives on people creating more business, more wealth, etc... The minute we start taking away the reward for pursuing more wealth....

It seems to make sense, except that the logic doesn't prove true. It might make them more adept at hiding the fact they're making a lot of money, or leaving\moving money offshore but those people aren't going to lose the drive for "more" due to taxation.

I don't claim to know why, I worked with a well run company that never turned a profit in it's 7 year existence, except seemingly by accident in 1 quarter. Was eventually bought out for a very significant sum, much of which went into the CEO\founder\majority shareholders pocket which she turned around and used to create another company. Can think of a couple others offhand who seem to be doing the same things for different reasons today.

Fair tax does seem like a decent deal, I don't expect it to happen though.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » April 8, 2011, 8:14 am

Cant say how it is in the US, but I will take a guess and say that you guys are hit way harder than we are in Denmark on the biggest tax problem: companies.

We got a boatload of companies who does the usual tax evasion thing by moving the profit to their divisions in other countries, where they dont have to pay taxes, or only pay very little.
We got the riduculous situation that CSC claims that they havent had a profit in 10 years, but still think theyre contributing because "because the people we hire pay their taxes, so we are paying taxes", IBM claim to have no profit in 15 years and so on.

We are trying to solve it in a quite interesting way, which of course means that some bought politicials will kill it, but its still an interesting suggestion:
Whenever any tax funded state/government have to do any big projects, make them look at the bottom line of the companies bidding for the job. If a company have been unable to make a profilt for TEN years, it should be disqualified from bidding, since the company is obviously on the verge of collapse, and can not be trusted

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 8, 2011, 1:53 pm

I am constantly amazed at the economic naivety of many Americans. A flat tax is a regressive tax because of the realities of marginal purchasing power.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » April 8, 2011, 3:43 pm

Americans are so dumb. Where else do you see people so willingly turning off their brains in order to vote for the option than hurts them the most.

What pisses me off about taxes? Richers complaining - about anything. You steamrolling, skull-mashing, pile-topping carnivores have all the power, all the money, all the potential to do great things, and you... complain. It is pathetic to see those who would rather have 15% of the country continue to starve in order to be able to furnish your summer home's new addition with the cashmere carpet option. God forbid you have to opt for the Lexus without all the options.

Newsflash: the bush-era "temporary" tax cuts are permanent, unfair, and perpetuate the grossly unsustainable class divide, which, by the way, is gaping wider than the mouths of the millions of new-poor.

The Great American Bubble Machine

What should be done?

Cut the defense budget by 20%. I'm pretty sure it would be laughably effective.

and here we have the republicants and the democraps ready to shut down the government over a paltry $7,000,000,000 discrepancy in the budget, or roughly how much it costs to run the government for a few days. OPEN THINE EYESSSS.

You richers should be happy. Because when it all goes south, you'll be fine, while pro-active, not-yet-rich people like me will be sucked into the vortex of doom along with millions of other capable souls.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 8, 2011, 4:55 pm

I'm in the top 15%, you really don't have to make that much to be there. You'll be there in a couple years, might be close already.

I know a number of millionaires and even a couple billionaires. You don't even get personal service at brokerages anymore unless you've got 25 million+ with them.

With wide scale 401ks instead if retirement plans there's going to be either a lot more millionaire retirees or a lot more people working until they're in the grave in the future US.

The people you're complaining about are more like the top 1 or 2%.

The fairtax as spoken of on that site isn't a flat tax. A flat tax does unfairly target those who live hand to mouth.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » April 8, 2011, 4:58 pm

To clarify, the "15%" in my post represents the percentage of americans who go hungry.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 8, 2011, 5:10 pm

Leonaerd wrote:To clarify, the "15%" in my post represents the percentage of americans who go hungry.

Read through it too fast

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 8, 2011, 10:43 pm

Aabidano wrote:With wide scale 401ks instead if retirement plans there's going to be either a lot more millionaire retirees or a lot more people working until they're in the grave in the future US.

401ks are a fucking joke. Sure you might start earning something for a year or two then everything will crash and you'll lose half of it. By the time you start getting ahead again in a couple years guess what? Yeah.. Another crash and you get to take another big hit. While the fat cats running Wall Street keep on truckin with their ridiculous bonuses.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 8, 2011, 11:44 pm

In a truly unregulated capitalist society, all wealth divests to the top 0.001% of people, until the populace kills them.

Smart rich people, like Buffet, know that it's far better to keep everyone at a relatively good level because it's cheaper than security.

Flat tax fucks everyone but the hyper rich, including the middle class, but they love the idea of paying a little less tax and will jump at it, despite that meaning their percentage of the burden will increase massively. The flow on is that if you are paying less now, the government will run out of money and raise the flat rate, all of a sudden you're paying more. That's win/win for the top.

If you're going for the "encouraging hard work" argument, then you should be lowering the middle class tax and raising the top end and reducing their tax shelters, not making them pay less.... or do you really think CEOs on 5 million+ a year are going to give up the 2.5 million a year they get to keep because they're being taxed 50% and instead take up a job as a golf pro?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 9, 2011, 8:59 am

Aslanna wrote: 401ks are a fucking joke. Sure you might start earning something for a year or two then everything will crash and you'll lose half of it. By the time you start getting ahead again in a couple years guess what? Yeah.. Another crash and you get to take another big hit. While the fat cats running Wall Street keep on truckin with their ridiculous bonuses.

Let's privatize social security, that'll fix it!

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » April 9, 2011, 11:13 pm

I oppose it. I own two small businesses, and the amount of income I am being taxed for doesn't accurately represent how much I personally make. I can write a lot of things off, but not enough to get it to a manageable amount. It is sad...but my partners and I are talking about dissolving one of the companies and selling all the equipment just so we can afford to pay our taxes. Now, this isn't only because of the % taxes cost, but because of how much we reinvested and how down business is (making around 20% of what we were at our peak, and were at our peak for probably 9 months in 2010).

If I did not have pay $20k+ in taxes (exact amount not sure yet), and some of my partners $40k+ our business would survive and we would get back to where we were. We have the deals lined up, but just not enough time.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 10, 2011, 4:11 am

Aabidano wrote:
Aslanna wrote: 401ks are a fucking joke. Sure you might start earning something for a year or two then everything will crash and you'll lose half of it. By the time you start getting ahead again in a couple years guess what? Yeah.. Another crash and you get to take another big hit. While the fat cats running Wall Street keep on truckin with their ridiculous bonuses.
Let's privatize social security, that'll fix it!

And by 401ks I really meant the market in general. It's rigged just like the house in a casino. It's balanced to favor those running the show. Sure a few here and there might become rich playing but a large majority just end up being fucked in the drive-thru at least as long as this bubble-bust cycle keeps repeating every few years.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 10, 2011, 7:38 am

I would be fine with my taxes being raised. It is an honor to pay taxes in this country. So glad we have the #1 military, #1 space industry, #1 tech industry, #1 GDP, etc. on this planet. Sure would like to keep it that way. Most Americans take their country for granted. Fools.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 10, 2011, 9:20 am

"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 12, 2011, 10:20 pm

There is no good argument against progressive taxation. OF COURSE the wealthy should pay more in taxes. There's a bit of a problem implementing this-- with the advent of globalization, it's easier and easier for the ultra-wealthy to evade taxes. But, in theory, at least, the rich should pay more. I'm in favor of implementing a millionaire's tax at whatever rate is feasible.

It's all well and good to say that there's something fundamentally unfair about one person paying a higher tax rate than another, but that's bullshit. Every fortune in this country is built at least in part on either dumb luck or on the backs of those who aren't wealthy, and usually both (and, of course, often in part based on talent and hard work, for which the rich are compensated by STILL BEING RICH EVEN AFTER PAYING HIGHER TAX RATES). The world is not some Ayn Rand fantasyland.

Asheran, why would your situation lead you to oppose progressive taxation? If you don't have the money to pay your taxes without your businesses folding, you are by definition not rich. A more progressive tax system would lead to more taxes being paid by people who can afford it and less taxes being paid by people like yourself, who cannot. If the tax system is mistakenly classifying you as rich, there are only a few options: You have a terrible accountant, or there is something really bizarre going on with your business (which, if business has crashed that substantially in such a short period of time, might be the case).

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » April 13, 2011, 2:18 am

Spang wrote:"Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

What does this have to do with the conversation about people with more money paying more taxes? Are you saying they should get more privileges because they pay more? All this says is we should all pay taxes.

Knarlz · Post by **Knarlz** » April 13, 2011, 12:38 pm

How the rich pay no taxes..

http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.aspx? ... &GT1=33005

"As Warren Buffett likes to point out, since most of his income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the people who clean his office. "

The article has links to 11 tax schemes used mainly by the ultra rich but several look like they could be used by merely affluent people.

Here's one of the link results....

The Bountiful Loss
Using, but not unloading, underwater stock shares to adjust your tax bill

An investor has capital-gains income from a sold-off stock position. Separately, the investor has other shares that are down an equal amount; if he sold them he'd realize a loss to offset the gains and pay no taxes. But no one likes to sell low. So he wants to use that loss without actually selling the shares. IRS rules prohibit investors from taking a loss against a gain and then buying the shares back within 30 days.

1. At least 31 days before the planned sale, the investor buys an equal value of additional shares of the underwater stock.

2. The investor buys a "put" option on the new shares at their current price, and sells a "call" option. Now he's protected from the downside on that second purchase.

3. At least 31 days later, the investor sells the first block of underwater shares. He now has his tax loss, without having taken any additional downside risk from the purchase of the second block of shares.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 14, 2011, 12:15 pm

What really is not fair is supporting lazy useless turds who choose to not work and pump out kids so that they get paid more.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 14, 2011, 1:01 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What really is not fair is supporting lazy useless turds who choose to not work and pump out kids so that they get paid more.

Sarah Palin (2012) is not a lazy turd! She works very hard blogging on Facebook and babbling on Fox News from her living room!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 14, 2011, 2:05 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What really is not fair is supporting lazy useless turds who choose to not work and pump out kids so that they get paid more.

While I agree with you I'm willing to support 10 lazy turds to catch the one person who through no fault of their own finds themselves in need. Having known people in the situation, one of whom put herself through school and owns a prosperous independent business today.

What's the average duration someone is on welfare? I'd think if it's under perhaps 3 years(?) the system is working, more or less. Took Michelle about that long to dig herself out of the pit her schizophrenic ex-husband left her and her 3 kids in.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 14, 2011, 2:38 pm

Spang wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:What really is not fair is supporting lazy useless turds who choose to not work and pump out kids so that they get paid more.
Sarah Palin (2012) is not a lazy turd! She works very hard blogging on Facebook and babbling on Fox News from her living room!

Palin has made millions fleecing the republican flock since she quite her job as governor of Alaska. She's an opportunist who's managed to stretch her 15 minutes of fame into the distant horizon. She will never need welfare. I'm sure she's getting all sorts of creative with hiding her money though.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 14, 2011, 3:39 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Palin has made millions fleecing the republican flock since she quite her job as governor of Alaska.

The ability of our faux conservatives to dupe the white lower middle and middle class is amazing. I took them while not at face value, but as the lesser of two evils for years.

I'm really not so sure anymore, which isn't to say the DNC is any better, they (sometimes) at least mean well in a frequently misguided, nanny state sort of way. That's in areas where there's any significant difference at all.

The tea party in particular is a spectacular example. Again, I could almost thank the tea party and Glenn Beck for being so utterly bizarre as to make me look at what's actually been accomplished in the name of conservatism.

In short, not much. They shout and wave the same flags over and over, and over and over blame the "liberals" for their failures on the knee jerk issues while succeeding wildly for their corporate sponsors. Which makes them stupid, incompetent, or.... liars.

They're moving the agenda they came there with forward, it just doesn't have anything to do with what they campaigned on.

On the welfare deal, good read here:
http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 14, 2011, 3:46 pm

If there is a god in heaven, then give me a Palin/Trump republican ticket. That would be utterly amazing.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 14, 2011, 3:59 pm

Trump is not that stupid.....unless he is wanting to run and lose purely for publicity.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 14, 2011, 4:37 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Trump is not that stupid.....unless he is wanting to run and lose purely for publicity.

Wouldn't surprise me of him.

Unless something drastic happens this election is a loss for the RNC, doesn't really matter who they run. Would almost expect the DNC to regain ground pointing out what massive tools the RNC have been since 2008, but they've never shown themselves to be capable of it before so I don't expect it.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 14, 2011, 4:48 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Trump is not that stupid.....unless he is wanting to run and lose purely for publicity.

Dude, Trump is a birther for Christs sake.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 14, 2011, 8:25 pm

No he is not. He's just got them pegged as the sappiest bunch in the sap convention that is the far right.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 14, 2011, 9:14 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Palin has made millions fleecing the republican flock since she quite her job as governor of Alaska. She's an opportunist who's managed to stretch her 15 minutes of fame into the distant horizon. She will never need welfare. I'm sure she's getting all sorts of creative with hiding her money though.

That's true now, but before her 15 minutes, she popped out five of those little fuckers. In Alaska, the more kids you have the more money you get each year from the state.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 15, 2011, 9:33 am

Spang wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:Palin has made millions fleecing the republican flock since she quite her job as governor of Alaska. She's an opportunist who's managed to stretch her 15 minutes of fame into the distant horizon. She will never need welfare. I'm sure she's getting all sorts of creative with hiding her money though.
That's true now, but before her 15 minutes, she popped out five of those little fuckers. In Alaska, the more kids you have the more money you get each year from the state.

The amount of money you get for that nowadays isn't much. I think my cousin, who is married with two kids, gets maybe 6-8k a year. When my aunt & uncle moved there maybe 16-18 years ago it was like 5 or 6 times that.

Edit: To be clear, I'm in no way defending her, or even really weighing in on the exchange going on right now, just wanted to point out that the money people get to live in AK nowadays isn't much.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 15, 2011, 5:59 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:The amount of money you get for that nowadays isn't much. I think my cousin, who is married with two kids, gets maybe 6-8k a year. When my aunt & uncle moved there maybe 16-18 years ago it was like 5 or 6 times that.

In 2010, the dividend check was $1,281. "16-18 years ago," the checks were less than a grand. It's peek was in 2008, when each Alaskan resident received over $3,000. Multiply that by 7 Palins and it adds up to a nice sum of cash, and all you had to do was shit out a bunch of kids.

The Source

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » April 15, 2011, 8:22 pm

I don't truly believe Donald Trump is a birther either. But still, he's williong to trot down that road to earn points in the polls. That his strategy is working is bolth an indictment of him and the Republican party.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 15, 2011, 8:33 pm

What is wrong with asking to see the proof of one of the key factors to determine eligibility for the office of President? The interviews I saw with Trump before the hilarious GMA bit was him simply asking to see the proof for himself. That is not saying that Obama is not eligible for the office, but that there have been enough questions for people to simply show the proof which any other candidate should have to provide.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 15, 2011, 8:56 pm

Boogahz wrote:What is wrong with asking to see the proof of one of the key factors to determine eligibility for the office of President?

The proof has already been shown.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 15, 2011, 9:00 pm

Boogahz wrote:What is wrong with asking to see the proof of one of the key factors to determine eligibility for the office of President? The interviews I saw with Trump before the hilarious GMA bit was him simply asking to see the proof for himself. That is not saying that Obama is not eligible for the office, but that there have been enough questions for people to simply show the proof which any other candidate should have to provide.

I'll let one of the biggest, craziest republican shills on the planet, Ann Coulter answer that one.

You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet. Obama has produced his birth certificate. There were announcements that ran in two contemporaneous Hawaiian newspapers at that time. The head of the Hawaiian medical record has announced I have seen the long-form you all want. I don’t know why the long form is considered more credible than the short form. They are both from the same office. The State Department accepts the short form or as we call it the birth certificate. Hawaii accepts the birth certificate short form. So, I mean, it is a conspiracy theory that won’t die on the Internet, but every responsible, conservative organization to look at it and shot it down

Do you really think another piece of paper is going to make birthers happy? It's just an excuse. Nothing more.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 15, 2011, 10:04 pm

Boogahz wrote:...but that there have been enough questions for people to simply show the proof which any other candidate should have to provide.

Wouldn't you think at the time of the election that the people who actually had a stake looked pretty close and were satisfied? The McCain camp in particular?

100 people telling me the sky is falling doesn't make it any more likely. Especially with the loonies who keep bringing this up.

Tea Party tax day rally on the news today, the people they interviewed should be embarrassed for themselves. Of course it's the same folks who believed the "death panel" idiocy.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 15, 2011, 11:39 pm

Seriously, *I* don't question Obama's citizenship in any way. I do love how y'all get riled up about stupid shit though.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 16, 2011, 12:01 am

How is answering your question being "riled up"?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » April 16, 2011, 7:18 am

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-receipt

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » April 16, 2011, 7:16 pm

Boogahz wrote:Seriously, *I* don't question Obama's citizenship in any way. I do love how y'all get riled up about stupid shit though.

Why get riled up? Because his birth certificate has been out there since 2008. Why? because the birther movement is nothing but veiled racism. If Obama was white, there would be no debate. Ironically, John McCain was born in Panama, and no one ever made a stir about him not being an American citizen. And the worst part of it is is that people spend effort on this one point, when it is a non-issue and there are better things to talk about like hmmmm taxation.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 18, 2011, 10:36 am

It is very telling that a thread on taxes would get turned into a thread about an issue that I thought was settled three years ago.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 13, 2011, 1:13 pm

Back on the tax subject, they've created some very nice tax incentives for using US based R&D groups, which is what I happen to do. Assuming the R&D employees are US based AND you generate a taxable profit, a non-trivial percentage of the R&D employee cost can written off. Definitely cheaper than traditional off-shoring locations. Due to increased competition many are as expensive as the US now anyway.

When you add in foreign tariffs & such some US R&D can be nearly free.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 13, 2011, 8:12 pm

Aabidano wrote:Back on the tax subject, they've created some very nice tax incentives for using US based R&D groups, which is what I happen to do. Assuming the R&D employees are US based AND you generate a taxable profit, a non-trivial percentage of the R&D employee cost can written off. Definitely cheaper than traditional off-shoring locations. Due to increased competition many are as expensive as the US now anyway.

When you add in foreign tariffs & such some US R&D can be nearly free.

R&D generates patents, patents are the new borders in a global economy, protect your borders!

But seriously, even in China you have companies like Huawai (Huawei in this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/huawei/), with "almost half" their 110,000 person workforce in R&D. And China doesn't know what IP is, legally.

We should all be spending into it...

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 13, 2011, 10:24 pm

Zaelath wrote:But seriously, even in China you have companies like Huawai (Huawei in this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/huawei/), with "almost half" their 110,000 person workforce in R&D. And China doesn't know what IP is, legally.

The countries & companies they want to operate in do, they've had their collective pee pee smacked a few times.

It's not too maintainable either, buying their stuff in many cases seems analogous to buying a car that you can't change the oil in.