Not So Fast. The Rich Pay Their Fair Share

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.[/quote]

what choice? There is always that choice, but most people do not know that. They just make the wrong choice.[/quote]

Lets say you wanted to open a IhavenoideawhatthenameisinEnglishandIcantbebotheredtolookitupbusiness amd your contractors required you to have a 200 000 EUR bank garantuee because you might not get paid and then they might not get paid and even if you had it you would kind of have it off the books, sooooooo…

either way, a mortage it is.

Sort of, not really, more like a bank garantuee backed with your assets, but, whatever…

Brought in threefold because the some small alpine country´s taxes might be stuctured you saved a shitton on payroll taxes if you had a low salary but relatively high profits.

No hard and fast rules on this one.
Point is, sometimes you have to, or you cubicle hamster your way into a subjective life span of two weeks because you do the same shit over and over and over again for 30 years.

Whoa, that was rambling, gotta hit submit.

102

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.[/quote]

what choice? There is always that choice, but most people do not know that. They just make the wrong choice.[/quote]

Lets say you wanted to open a IhavenoideawhatthenameisinEnglishandIcantbebotheredtolookitupbusiness amd your contractors required you to have a 200 000 EUR bank garantuee because you might not get paid and then they might not get paid and even if you had it you would kind of have it off the books, sooooooo…

either way, a mortage it is.

Sort of, not really, more like a bank garantuee backed with your assets, but, whatever…

Brought in threefold because the some small alpine country�´s taxes might be stuctured you saved a shitton on payroll taxes if you had a low salary but relatively high profits.

No hard and fast rules on this one.
Point is, sometimes you have to, or you cubicle hamster your way into a subjective life span of two weeks because you do the same shit over and over and over again for 30 years.

Whoa, that was rambling, gotta hit submit. [/quote]

lol. It took me longer to read the name of the business than it did to read the rest of the post.

Again the person made the choice to take out the loan on their house. They did not have to open the business. They could have saved up the $200k first so they could have paid cash instead of have the Line of Credit backed by the mortgage.

103

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Only if you guarantee the loan. Some loans are nonrecourse, so they can not go after it. Also that is what Bankruptcy law is for.[/quote]

That may be true, I don’t know much about bankruptcy law. [/quote]

Just listen to me for a moment. You are a smart guy, and I am only 36 so not too much older than you. This is why I employ a lot of people to know this for me. I just want to know the 10,000 foot view of the information. I do not need to know the detailed information, but over a course of 10-20 years you will learn a bunch about it, usually when you mess up. I pay these people to keep me out of those messes. Again this is the mentality of the Middle Class. The Middle Class wants to do it all their selves to save a couple of bucks, but it bites them in the ass 10 fold of what they would have paid a professional to do it.

There are a lot of smart people on this site on many topics, so listen to them. I do have a Masters of Business Administration in Finance. I only care to know how much money I have and how can I put that money to work efficiently to make me the most money. I hire everything else. [/quote]

My wife would love this post, beleive me, I am all for hiring someone else that is an expert :slight_smile:

All I was saying is the informaiton is there. Beleive me, I understand how much informaiton it is, but that doesn’t make it rocket science. If you’re really good at something else, like rocket science, and you’re successful hire an expert to do your taxes. All I’m saying is, if the folks at H&R block can do it, so can everyone else.

Please don’t think me to be a, “know it all,” I am fully aware I know about as much as a child when it comes to life. [/quote]

I love to learn, but tax law changes all the time, and an expert is suppose to have continuing education to keep up on those changes. Most people at H&R Block took a two day class to learn how to do a 1040EZ which is very EZ. You put in your W-2 income, take the standard deduction subtract the amount in taxes paid, and bam you are done.

Once you get into itemized deductions, K-1s, Trusts, and some many other things please hire a professional. It takes a full time job to keep up and learn this stuff.

Keep learning and you can do it.[/quote]

I’ve got a pro at home, my wife has an M.S. in Taxation :)[/quote]

You cheater. lol. That helps. I married a Nurse, and a very highly compensated Nurse.

104

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.[/quote]

what choice? There is always that choice, but most people do not know that. They just make the wrong choice.[/quote]

Lets say you wanted to open a IhavenoideawhatthenameisinEnglishandIcantbebotheredtolookitupbusiness amd your contractors required you to have a 200 000 EUR bank garantuee because you might not get paid and then they might not get paid and even if you had it you would kind of have it off the books, sooooooo…

either way, a mortage it is.

Sort of, not really, more like a bank garantuee backed with your assets, but, whatever…

Brought in threefold because the some small alpine country�?�´s taxes might be stuctured you saved a shitton on payroll taxes if you had a low salary but relatively high profits.

No hard and fast rules on this one.
Point is, sometimes you have to, or you cubicle hamster your way into a subjective life span of two weeks because you do the same shit over and over and over again for 30 years.

Whoa, that was rambling, gotta hit submit. [/quote]

lol. It took me longer to read the name of the business than it did to read the rest of the post.

Again the person made the choice to take out the loan on their house. They did not have to open the business. They could have saved up the $200k first so they could have paid cash instead of have the Line of Credit backed by the mortgage.[/quote]

Do you know how long it takes an average person to save 200k.

105

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What I mean is, risk is non-existant in the sense that you are guranteed under the law to earn a wage, what ever that may be, for the work you do. A business owner could go out of business and be ruined for life or take home $0 because he had to pay you. Being his employee, you just have to find another job if his business fails.

Your job is also different because it is commision based = greater risk. [/quote]

Risk is relevant. I used to think like you do until my job was based on what someone else produced. That made risk go sky high and I had a good job. And when a business owner goes out of business then you go out of business and have to find another company to work for just like that person does. If that business owner was smart they put some assets in another company that is not tied to the business so they are not ruined for life. There are better ways to mitigate risk as a business owner then as an employee. It feels like a nice warm fuzzy blanket, but it is nothing more than thin air.[/quote]

Right, the differnce is the owner doesn’t just lose their job they can lose their house. The word choice on my part was poor. [/quote]

Not necessarily. If you are mortgaging your house to go into business for yourself then that is just stupid. Keep business assets separate from Personal Assets. Pass some income from your business to your personal assets every year as a dividend. You pay less taxes than if you pay yourself a salary. Have multiple businesses so if one goes under the assets are still protected. An attorney can help with that. Another person I am happy to spend money on for advice. My business employs a lot of contractors.[/quote]

I did not know that you always had that choice.

Silly me.[/quote]

what choice? There is always that choice, but most people do not know that. They just make the wrong choice.[/quote]

Lets say you wanted to open a IhavenoideawhatthenameisinEnglishandIcantbebotheredtolookitupbusiness amd your contractors required you to have a 200 000 EUR bank garantuee because you might not get paid and then they might not get paid and even if you had it you would kind of have it off the books, sooooooo…

either way, a mortage it is.

Sort of, not really, more like a bank garantuee backed with your assets, but, whatever…

Brought in threefold because the some small alpine country�??�??�?�´s taxes might be stuctured you saved a shitton on payroll taxes if you had a low salary but relatively high profits.

No hard and fast rules on this one.
Point is, sometimes you have to, or you cubicle hamster your way into a subjective life span of two weeks because you do the same shit over and over and over again for 30 years.

Whoa, that was rambling, gotta hit submit. [/quote]

lol. It took me longer to read the name of the business than it did to read the rest of the post.

Again the person made the choice to take out the loan on their house. They did not have to open the business. They could have saved up the $200k first so they could have paid cash instead of have the Line of Credit backed by the mortgage.[/quote]

Do you know how long it takes an average person to save 200k.

[/quote]

There is a choice that is my argument. I also said taking out a mortgage on your house to get a business loan on your first attempt was stupid. I will also stick to that. If that is the person’s choice then they have to live with the consequences if they do not pay it back. Having that type of pressure either makes you strong and you will be richly rewarded, or you are going to sink faster than the Titanic if you suck at that business.

I made an investment in a guys shipping company, and he is going through this right now. I think he will be successful, but he is taking on way too much risk. Eat what you kill.

106

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Pitt,

In your opinion is it okay for the government to tax anyone more than 50% of their earnings? [/quote]

no it is not ok if every one paid their fair share no one would be taxed to that degree . If the 40% of all income that the upper income earners earn are taxed @ 8% and they had to pay what the middle class paid IE 20% every one’s taxes would come down except for the very wealthy pay 8%
[/quote]

Considering nothing of that sort has ever happened. I doubt it. If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs
2: you generally don’t get more revenue, They are the ones that have means to do what it takes to avoid taxation.
3: revenue has no impact on spending and spending has no impact on revenue. All the federal government has ever done and will ever do when it gets more money, is spend more money. If we had a balanced budget, then your scenario would at least be possible, but we don’t and it isn’t.

107

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs

[/quote]

says Who???

108

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Again the person made the choice to take out the loan on their house. They did not have to open the business. They could have saved up the $200k first so they could have paid cash instead of have the Line of Credit backed by the mortgage.[/quote]

Do you know how long it takes an average person to save 200k.

[/quote]

Most small businesses have significantly more assets than the value of the average house. So they can use business assets as collateral.

If the business does not have assets then why are they taking out a $200k loan? Taking out a $200k loan on an unproven business model is basically gambling and is no better than mortgaging the house to go play at the casino or bet on the horses. If it is a proven business model and you are a proven business person then you should be able to get investors.

109

Holy shit, even CNN knows the rich pay more taxes than anyone else…what, what, what???

110

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice… [/quote]
The thread title.

111

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs

[/quote]

says Who???
[/quote]

I’m not an expert, but if a top earner owns a small business and you increase their taxes, one course of action for them to maintain their lifestyle would be to cut jobs. Heck they might add jobs to lower their income though.

Another possibility is that top earners have less expendable cash or no longer be able to invest their expendable cash. This could reduce demand for almost all financial jobs as well as businesses that sell non-essential items.

112

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice… [/quote]
The thread title. [/quote]

Fair enough I suppose. Although I thought that was the title of the article. It’s not at all what my statements say though.

113

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice… [/quote]
The thread title. [/quote]

What’s also funny is, out of all I’ve written, this is what you pick out…

114

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs

[/quote]

says Who???
[/quote]

Any of the more than 250 companies (as defined as having 50+ employees) who fled my state.

115

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs

[/quote]

says Who???
[/quote]

Any of the more than 250 companies (as defined as having 50+ employees) who fled my state.[/quote]

It is going to get much worse. A new Old Testament Exodus. Rick Perry plays Moses and parts the Colorado River.

116

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you raise taxes on the top earners:
1: you will kill some jobs

[/quote]

says Who???
[/quote]

Any of the more than 250 companies (as defined as having 50+ employees) who fled my state.[/quote]

Names please

117

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice… [/quote]
The thread title. [/quote]

What’s also funny is, out of all I’ve written, this is what you pick out…[/quote]

The problem is that fair needs to be defined before talking about what is or isn’t fair. Is it fair that someone makes millions because they throw a football while a combat vet walking around with no legs depends upon disability and whatever VA benefits he is entitled to? I’m not saying what Flacco pays in taxes is right or wrong just that before we talk about fair or what’s right we need to recognize that our values as a country need to be evaluated.

People want better teachers but if that means we need to pay them more well, that’s an issue. The thing is that the money that a soldier makes, a teacher makes, or Flacco makes all comes from the same source. Maybe if people were paid based upon their value to society these questions of fair taxation would be easier to answer as you wouldn’t have these huge gaps in pay. If Flacco pays half in taxes he is still a millionaire while someone in the middleclass would be destitute paying the same rate. In some ways it could be seen as fair as the contribution Flacco makes to society is nothing compared to what that disabled vet made so Flacco makes up for it in other ways: taxes. Again, I’m not saying what Flacco pays is fair just that fair can mean a lot of things.

118

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

The problem is that fair needs to be defined before talking about what is or isn’t fair.

[/quote]

This x1000

119

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice… [/quote]
The thread title. [/quote]

What’s also funny is, out of all I’ve written, this is what you pick out…[/quote]

The problem is that fair needs to be defined before talking about what is or isn’t fair. Is it fair that someone makes millions because they throw a football while a combat vet walking around with no legs depends upon disability and whatever VA benefits he is entitled to? I’m not saying what Flacco pays in taxes is right or wrong just that before we talk about fair or what’s right we need to recognize that our values as a country need to be evaluated.

People want better teachers but if that means we need to pay them more well, that’s an issue. The thing is that the money that a soldier makes, a teacher makes, or Flacco makes all comes from the same source. Maybe if people were paid based upon their value to society these questions of fair taxation would be easier to answer as you wouldn’t have these huge gaps in pay. If Flacco pays half in taxes he is still a millionaire while someone in the middleclass would be destitute paying the same rate. In some ways it could be seen as fair as the contribution Flacco makes to society is nothing compared to what that disabled vet made so Flacco makes up for it in other ways: taxes. Again, I’m not saying what Flacco pays is fair just that fair can mean a lot of things.

[/quote]

That’s fair enough and a reasonable stance.

Maybe instead of what is fair or not we should talk about what is reasonable or not. I don’t believe it’s reasonable for a person making $50K a year to pay more than 10% in taxes. I also don’t think it’s reasonable to make a person making $1M a year to pay more than 30%.

You are absolutely right that we as a country need to reevaluate ourselves. I think its absurd the amount of money athletes make, but I like everyone else set their “value” by buying jerseys, tickets, etc… Personally I buy knock offs specifically because I won’t help inflate the value of entertainers. The key though is that we as a nation did this to ourselves. We undervalue teachers because well to be frank, we are idiotic. We undervalue soldiers because in our lifetime no war has truly threatened us. This is just an unfortunate side of capitalism that we have to live with.