It is also interesting to see that those screaming for higher taxes, want them on everyone but themselves. Who determines what the fair share is?
Maybe your income is too much then…you should pay 50% of it. See how that logic works? Do you want to argue fair as a proportion of public goods and services consumed? If so you would see all taxes as regressionary.
Higher nominal tax rates on the rich will not work. Period. They will move money off shore, hire better CPA’s for more loopholes,or simply become expats, wont expand business…etc. This is basic human nature.
Lower taxes and widen the net…business will return home, people will be hired, standard of living will be increased. While you are at it, shrink the size of government, and then as many taxes wont be necessary.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
lol Zeb, you sound like you’re about to have a heart attack. You alright man?[/quote]
I’m fine you?
I did post what the top 1% actually pay so anything other than agreement that they are overtaxed makes no sense to me.
Why would you or anyone else talk about loopholes? They obviously do not work for the top 1%. Sure some have loopholes and save money. But when you look at the top 1% as a group they are carrying the nation on their backs tax wise. So, subscribing to a myth that the top 1% escape taxation is the opposite of what is actually happening.
Simple.[/quote]
I’m doing good.
I myself don’t talk about loopholes - they don’t exist. I think I agree with you on this.
I could be wrong, but I think pittbull was just messing with ya.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The top %1 pay a lower rate than the top %50 [/quote]
The key word in there - to me anyway - is the rate.
I’m not an expert on taxes, but I think he’s right. Different methods of profits give you different tax rates. His statement is technically true, but it’s not in direct opposition to what you’ve been saying. A 15% tax on one billion brings in way more money than a 30% tax on 100K. But the 30% rate is higher.
He can’t defeat you on what you’re saying, and I think he knows that - so he will do what he can - by inducing a heart attack if you let him. Don’t let him
On the idea that it’s unfair for the rich to have a lower tax rate - that’s not actually the concept. Certain actions have certain taxes. Income received by taking jobs is taxed higher than money gained by investing / business - AKA creating jobs. The concept is that if you give a tax incentive to job creators, there will be more of them.
I myself would rather everyone get a tax incentive for everything - i.e. super lower taxes, but “class warfare” just sounds really dumb. You don’t actually move forward in line by pulling other people back. This is the opposite concept of how a free market works. Taxes and tyrannies are the only way to make big money without providing people with needs/wants/desires - and that’s how you get rich in a free market. You get people to buy your goods/services in order to meet there needs/wants/desires. It’s also called “vote with your dollars”. Whoever cares most (for you) wins (your $). Sorry, I forgot one - silly me. Taxes, tyrannies, and criminals. Hmmmmm
Blah. Somewhere along the way this turned into a rant. I’m still posting it - but let me know what I’m missing if you disagree
(no it’s not at you Zeb)
(no, not you either pitbull)
(…I’ll have to ponder who its really at - I don’t even think it’s at you either Zep. I’m assuming you will disagree with some stuff, let me know where - I’d really like to get to the bottom of this)
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
lol Zeb, you sound like you’re about to have a heart attack. You alright man?[/quote]
I’m fine you?
I did post what the top 1% actually pay so anything other than agreement that they are overtaxed makes no sense to me.
Why would you or anyone else talk about loopholes? They obviously do not work for the top 1%. Sure some have loopholes and save money. But when you look at the top 1% as a group they are carrying the nation on their backs tax wise. So, subscribing to a myth that the top 1% escape taxation is the opposite of what is actually happening.
Simple.[/quote]
I’m doing good.
I myself don’t talk about loopholes - they don’t exist. I think I agree with you on this.
I could be wrong, but I think pittbull was just messing with ya.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The top %1 pay a lower rate than the top %50 [/quote]
The key word in there - to me anyway - is the rate.
I’m not an expert on taxes, but I think he’s right. Different methods of profits give you different tax rates. His statement is technically true, but it’s not in direct opposition to what you’ve been saying. A 15% tax on one billion brings in way more money than a 30% tax on 100K. But the 30% rate is higher.
He can’t defeat you on what you’re saying, and I think he knows that - so he will do what he can - by inducing a heart attack if you let him. Don’t let him
On the idea that it’s unfair for the rich to have a lower tax rate - that’s not actually the concept. Certain actions have certain taxes. Income received by taking jobs is taxed higher than money gained by investing / business - AKA creating jobs. The concept is that if you give a tax incentive to job creators, there will be more of them.
I myself would rather everyone get a tax incentive for everything - i.e. super lower taxes, but “class warfare” just sounds really dumb. You don’t actually move forward in line by pulling other people back. This is the opposite concept of how a free market works. Taxes and tyrannies are the only way to make big money without providing people with needs/wants/desires - and that’s how you get rich in a free market. You get people to buy your goods/services in order to meet there needs/wants/desires. It’s also called “vote with your dollars”. Whoever cares most (for you) wins (your $). Sorry, I forgot one - silly me. Taxes, tyrannies, and criminals. Hmmmmm
Blah. Somewhere along the way this turned into a rant. I’m still posting it - but let me know what I’m missing if you disagree
(no it’s not at you Zeb)
(no, not you either pitbull)
(…I’ll have to ponder who its really at - I don’t even think it’s at you either Zep. I’m assuming you will disagree with some stuff, let me know where - I’d really like to get to the bottom of this)[/quote]
Great post, but I want to remind you that the top 1% make money through various means. Some from capital gains and that money is taxed at 15%. But, keep in mind that they already paid the maximum rate when they first earned it and now an additional rate of 15% if they purchased a stock and it goes up. And if they are short term traders, they pay 50% on that gain!
But nevertheless most of the wealthy are paying the top rate because the wealthy in this country are in fact the job creators.
Zep lives on a dream world where socialism reins. Too bad it never works long-term in reality.
I don’t post here much anymore, but slow day at work I was lurking the PWI forums and had to make a couple comments…
This post isn’t bad at all, but you could spend some time looking into a few things and it will help:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Not only that but they have very proficient CPA’s who know loopholes and deductions.[/quote]
okay, first off, there is no such thing as a “loophole”. It is a word made up by pinko freaks and the media to rile up the uninformed. All that is, is the IRC. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE plays by the same rules.
Are some industries given tax incentives? Yes. (So are single parents who live on state assistance.) That does not make, and never has made a loophole. Loopholes aren’t a real thing, more so a catch-phrase used to guilt poor people into voting for one liar over another.
Second, anyone can take deductions, and I would encourage everyone that isn’t comfortable with the instructions to the 1040, 1120, or whatever form you file, to hire a professional. There is no shame in making sure you don’t pay more than you have to.
Look up passive v. active income, and passive activity loss rules. People who make less money get more benefit from the losses generated by real estate.
Don’t get me wrong, owning a rental is a good opportunity to make some money. Typically a good property will generate healthy positive cash flows, and healthly tax losses. The higher your AGI, however (unless you are a RE professional) the less likely you are to be able to use those losses to offset earned income. (Earned is the income taxed at the higher rate.)
RE is passive, unearned income/loss. There are strict rules as to how you treat it. For “rich” non real estate professionals this equates to: Pay tax on the income and suspend the losses until you can take them.
Earned income (wages and salaries, self employment income, etc) is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains and qualified dividends, yes. However, interest, unqualified dividends and other (somewhat less common) unearned income is ALSO taxed at OI rates. (OI= ordinary income, non-investment income, earned income.)
On a side note, you should look into AMT (Alternative minimum tax) and what it does to tax payers who have larger AGI’s.
The more information, the better your point of veiw will be. Like I said not a bad post, but somewhat missleading.
Long term investment.
Domestic production/manufacturing/research & Development
Procreation by low wage earners
Multinationals to keep profits (cash) in foreign markets
among many other things…
Anyone can open an “e-trade” account and buy shares of facebook (LOL!). That would just require them to stop going to starbucks and dunkins 8 times a week and brew their coffee at home, after buying the ground lbs of coffee from those places. And to stop taking out debt they can’t afford for a few years… OH THE HORROR!
Again, the tax portion of owning Rental RE may very well NOT be the advantage, depending on the taxpayer.
But, then again, it can be. If you know wtf you are doing… haha.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t post here much anymore, but slow day at work I was lurking the PWI forums and had to make a couple comments…
This post isn’t bad at all, but you could spend some time looking into a few things and it will help:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Not only that but they have very proficient CPA’s who know loopholes and deductions.[/quote]
okay, first off, there is no such thing as a “loophole”. It is a word made up by pinko freaks and the media to rile up the uninformed. All that is, is the IRC. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE plays by the same rules.
Are some industries given tax incentives? Yes. (So are single parents who live on state assistance.) That does not make, and never has made a loophole. Loopholes aren’t a real thing, more so a catch-phrase used to guilt poor people into voting for one liar over another.
Second, anyone can take deductions, and I would encourage everyone that isn’t comfortable with the instructions to the 1040, 1120, or whatever form you file, to hire a professional. There is no shame in making sure you don’t pay more than you have to.
Look up passive v. active income, and passive activity loss rules. People who make less money get more benefit from the losses generated by real estate.
Don’t get me wrong, owning a rental is a good opportunity to make some money. Typically a good property will generate healthy positive cash flows, and healthly tax losses. The higher your AGI, however (unless you are a RE professional) the less likely you are to be able to use those losses to offset earned income. (Earned is the income taxed at the higher rate.)
RE is passive, unearned income/loss. There are strict rules as to how you treat it. For “rich” non real estate professionals this equates to: Pay tax on the income and suspend the losses until you can take them.
Earned income (wages and salaries, self employment income, etc) is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains and qualified dividends, yes. However, interest, unqualified dividends and other (somewhat less common) unearned income is ALSO taxed at OI rates. (OI= ordinary income, non-investment income, earned income.)
On a side note, you should look into AMT (Alternative minimum tax) and what it does to tax payers who have larger AGI’s.
The more information, the better your point of veiw will be. Like I said not a bad post, but somewhat missleading.
Long term investment.
Domestic production/manufacturing/research & Development
Procreation by low wage earners
Multinationals to keep profits (cash) in foreign markets
among many other things…
Anyone can open an “e-trade” account and buy shares of facebook (LOL!). That would just require them to stop going to starbucks and dunkins 8 times a week and brew their coffee at home, after buying the ground lbs of coffee from those places. And to stop taking out debt they can’t afford for a few years… OH THE HORROR!
Again, the tax portion of owning Rental RE may very well NOT be the advantage, depending on the taxpayer.
But, then again, it can be. If you know wtf you are doing… haha.
[/quote]
Do me a favor and post here more often your wisdom is needed.
And by the way as I posted above the top 1% pay 37% of all income tax. How much do you want them to pay? Do you think they’re going to bust their butt if they have to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government? [/quote]
We agree on a lot of the points you are making, so I’m not attacking, but you are confusing the argument. Or maybe you aren’t and making a point, but I do want to clarify…
I may be wrong, but the 37% is in terms of total dollars given to the treasury. That means if the Treasury collects 100 billion in 2011, the top 1% paid in 34 billion, correct?
If so, that is NOT the same as paying 37% on their income. (The second part of your post I quoted. 75% in your example.) For them to pay in 34 billion, they may very well have a collective taxable income of 170 billion or more.
For the record, I am NOT in favor of increasing tax rates, on anyone.
60-65% may be high, but consider someone with a 20mil AGI who lives and works in NYC.
they will pay:
Fed taxes (20-25% effective rate on average I would say)
State taxes (something crazy like 9%, so effectively like 5-8%)
NYC tax (Lower than NYS, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but lets say 3% for arguments sake)
FICA (the 7.65% taken from everyone for Social security and medicare, SS has a 109k limit, right off the top)
I think sales tax in NY is some ass raping figure like 12%, so that is 12% on POST TAX $.
Real estate taxes…
FML, and people bitch about Mass.
So before taxes on post tax earnings (sales & use, property, meals, etc), you are at 35.65%
Depending on where you live, a person pays a fuck load of taxes.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. [/quote]
This is happening right now.
But the statement is somewhat misleading, as well.
The fact is, it only really applies to the True-rich. The Obama-Rich (this stupid fucking 200,000 agi limit, 200k isn’t shit, but it isn’t rich either) typically just change the way they do business rather than leave. If the tax rates change, small business will take a hit, and then try and find a new way of operating to save some of that money. Downsizing and reducing the top line is an option but you are cutting off your nose to spite your face in some ways.
Now the True-rich… The repatriation of foreign profits is a complex transaction that results in a 35% hit in taxes… How people aren’t up in arms about this is insane… The glut of funds just waiting to come back into the states is insane.
If the stupid fucking government would give a 300 day holiday and tax repatriation at 5% rather than 35%, we would need one less stimulus package for sure…
This isn’t a simple thing I’m talking about, nor am I an expert, but I do know there is a shit load of money, that would be invested in the states, sitting in foreign corps, that won’t come back because keeping only 65% of your money v keeping 100% of your money.
EDIT: think about it, 5% of something is better than 35% of nothing, and people will be much more willing to part with only 5%.
Look to the success of the recent holidays on foreign earnings fraud.
Why should there be a debate between Romney and Paul? We already had the primaries, Paul had his shot then. He lost, like he always does. Why waste time with a debate between the Republican nominee and the washed-up has-been…wait, washed-up never-was?
60-65% may be high, but consider someone with a 20mil AGI who lives and works in NYC.
they will pay:
Fed taxes (20-25% effective rate on average I would say)
State taxes (something crazy like 9%, so effectively like 5-8%)
NYC tax (Lower than NYS, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but lets say 3% for arguments sake)
FICA (the 7.65% taken from everyone for Social security and medicare, SS has a 109k limit, right off the top)
I think sales tax in NY is some ass raping figure like 12%, so that is 12% on POST TAX $.
Real estate taxes…
FML, and people bitch about Mass.
So before taxes on post tax earnings (sales & use, property, meals, etc), you are at 35.65%
Depending on where you live, a person pays a fuck load of taxes. [/quote]
I already explained this, I was referring to some states that have such a high state tax that between that and the federal tax and all other taxes such as property etc, they pay around 60%. And if you check some states like California and New York I am spot on!
If someone thinks just raising taxes on “the rich” will solve our woes they are either really young, really broke, or really ignorant. I put rich in quotes because while to someone working the day shift at Applebees might think someone making 100K is rich, they really aren’t in the grand scheme. They are doing well for themselves but the more you squeeze out of them in taxes, the more it makes investments and consumer spending more out of reach for a broader group of folks.
Here’s the real bottom line though…our government (including the last administration) spends our money like a drunk teenager with daddy’s credit card. The fiscal responsibility is appalling and has been for a while so explain to me again why in the hell this dysfunctional organization should get any more of my money then they already do??
[quote]storey420 wrote:
If someone thinks just raising taxes on “the rich” will solve our woes they are either really young, really broke, or really ignorant. I put rich in quotes because while to someone working the day shift at Applebees might think someone making 100K is rich, they really aren’t in the grand scheme. They are doing well for themselves but the more you squeeze out of them in taxes, the more it makes investments and consumer spending more out of reach for a broader group of folks.
Here’s the real bottom line though…our government (including the last administration) spends our money like a drunk teenager with daddy’s credit card. The fiscal responsibility is appalling and has been for a while so explain to me again why in the hell this dysfunctional organization should get any more of my money then they already do??[/quote]
You’ve shined the spotlight two problems. Not only are we over taxed the governemt spends too much. Obama should be ousted for both of those reasons.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
If someone thinks just raising taxes on “the rich” will solve our woes they are either really young, really broke, or really ignorant. I put rich in quotes because while to someone working the day shift at Applebees might think someone making 100K is rich, they really aren’t in the grand scheme. They are doing well for themselves but the more you squeeze out of them in taxes, the more it makes investments and consumer spending more out of reach for a broader group of folks.
Here’s the real bottom line though…our government (including the last administration) spends our money like a drunk teenager with daddy’s credit card. The fiscal responsibility is appalling and has been for a while so explain to me again why in the hell this dysfunctional organization should get any more of my money then they already do??[/quote]
And there is of course another thing.
When Ron Paul proclaimed that he would cut the federal budget by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!one111!!!
the Demuplicans and the Replocrats collectively shat their panrts as if that would take the US back to the 15th century, with witch burnings and the black death and all.
If you look at it, that would actually take you all the way back to 2006, maybe 2007.
Have you seen an uninterrupted Republican primary of 2012? If you think Paul lost, I believe you have only watched the CNN version shrug
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why should there be a debate between Romney and Paul? We already had the primaries, Paul had his shot then. He lost, like he always does. Why waste time with a debate between the Republican nominee and the washed-up has-been…wait, washed-up never-was?[/quote]
Zeb, do you think Romney would be a single bit different, if NOT worse? Please show evidence of other than lowering taxes in one State. There are 50 in America and please show me how the war machine will be funded. Again, please show evidence. Pretty pictures are a bonus ; )
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, do you think Romney would be a single bit different, if NOT worse? Please show evidence of other than lowering taxes in one State. There are 50 in America and please show me how the war machine will be funded. Again, please show evidence. Pretty pictures are a bonus ; )
[/quote]
First of all I do respect your American spirit I really do.
As for Romney he was only Governor of one state therefore I cannot show you his history for lowering taxes in all 50 states (or as Obama has said all 57 states). But as Governor he lowered taxes 19 times! In addition to that he got rid of needless regulations on small business. I understand you want Ron Paul, but he’s not going to be the nominee (Zeb said for the 78th time).
And I’ve pointed out the many differences between Obama and Romney multiple times. Romney is flat out far more conservative and just about anyone who studies politics will agree with me.
1-Romney will ditch Obamacare. Not because HE hates but because he’s put himself out there too many times saying he’ll do it and he must follow through or there will be no second term.
2-He has a tax plan wich will cut rates for all Americans (and as you know Obama has never seen a tax that he hasn’t liked)
The differences are endless. The democratic party wants people like you to keep saying there is no difference in order to lower the republican turn-out but the truth is the differences between Obama and Romney are many and very deep!
As for the “war machine” you’re looking at it the wrong way my friend. If it were not for that “war machine” we would be over run by our enemies. Just like on a personal level, having more muscle and fighting skills is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you use it to bully others. You don’t want America stripped of it’s fabulous fighting force. What you want is for us to use it less. I understand that.
Finally, if you wanted Ron Paul to Be President and your for smaller government and less taxes then the only alternative is to vote for Mitt Romney because Obama represents the opposite of what Ron Paul stands for!
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Zeb, do you think Romney would be a single bit different, if NOT worse? Please show evidence of other than lowering taxes in one State. There are 50 in America and please show me how the war machine will be funded. Again, please show evidence. Pretty pictures are a bonus ; )
[/quote]
It would be worst selective tax cuts and selective welfare programs for Corporations so that Ma and Pa can’t compete, He probably would manage to LOOK mean towards those lazy welfare recipients and maybe the old people too
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all I do respect your American spirit I really do.[/quote] Well we agree there! ; )
[quote]As for Romney he was only Governor of one state therefore I cannot show you his history for lowering taxes in all 50 states (or as Obama has said all 57 states).[/quote] NICE! [quote] But as Governor he lowered taxes 19 times![/quote] So is the state still in the green and everything running smooth still? [quote]In addition to that he got rid of needless regulations on small business.[/quote] Good for him, but where will the nation get its needed funding? [quote] I understand you want Ron Paul, but he’s not going to be the nominee (Zeb said for the 78th time).[/quote] You apparently like to hear yourself talk, because you say the same thing over and over. ; )
[quote]And I’ve pointed out the many differences between Obama and Romney multiple times.[/quote] I honestly could not care. I have disliked Barry since he first took office. He gives me the heebie jeebies, and because of him I took an interest in exercising my rights in this country. Many of which are God given and declared by our founding fathers. Romney does NOT rub very differently than Barry. [quote] Romney is flat out far more conservative and just about anyone who studies politics will agree with me.[/quote] So is your claim that he will just slightly change things and the behemoth Government we have now? I know this country needs some large scale change, otherwise America will crumble in the exact same manner as Rome once did and Greece preceded that country. Small change will not stop her from collapsing. It has been said by Edmund Burke that “those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Can you honestly say that you understand their collapse? I am still learning and it scares me each minute I spend learning about each of their histories.
[quote]1-Romney will ditch Obamacare. Not because HE hates but because he’s put himself out there too many times saying he’ll do it and he must follow through or there will be no second term.[/quote] So? Romney is a politician and he will do what he needs to do to get into office, nothing more.
[quote]2-He has a tax plan wich will cut rates for all Americans (and as you know Obama has never seen a tax that he hasn’t liked)[/quote] Which is spelled with an H ; )
[quote]The differences are endless. The democratic party wants people like you to keep saying there is no difference in order to lower the republican turn-out but the truth is the differences between Obama and Romney are many and very deep![/quote] I want Barry gone, as badly as just about anyone. However this country can turn away from the current path and be the leader of the world through example and innovation. This will only happen when people are free.
[quote]As for the “war machine” you’re looking at it the wrong way my friend. If it were not for that “war machine” we would be over run by our enemies. Just like on a personal level, having more muscle and fighting skills is a good thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you use it to bully others. You don’t want America stripped of it’s fabulous fighting force. What you want is for us to use it less. I understand that.[/quote] Rather than go through each line, I will just address your points in one shot. So if America were to pull out of EVERYWHERE and bring ALL of our troops home, why would another country attack us? Because they are jealous? Because they want the freedoms we enjoy? You know the reason why we were attacked on 9/11/01 right? Come on Zeb, you know the term BLOWBACK? Well here is a site which I found - http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/general/articles/blowback.aspx - and here is another, from a book. I can’t find it to pass on the source page - Blowback Blowback The Costs and Consequences of American Empire - Imagine what would happen if we pulled our troops home? When i was at my largest, I never walked around looking for a fight. I have never been a drinker, so I was never in the bars. After I got into MMA it was the same thing, I never looked for a fight. Guess what, even though I was in college during the year I lifted, I never got into a fight! Guess how many fights I got into when I was fix foot something my freshman year as I weighed a buck sixty? I often got into fights. But my long limbs gave me an obvious reach and I could run. My point, the nicest and chillest guys I ever met were also the biggest and strongest guys. One of the best guys I know, he actually caught a peeping tom in college at WSU. Bristol is a hell of a chill guy. He can hit like a train wreck though. I will never forget the first time we sparred.
I will summarize the point I am trying to make. By fighting other countries in war, or anything like that, how has that actually benefited us as a country? Imagine pulling our troops home and simply protecting our borders? Imagine the concept.
[quote]Finally, if you wanted Ron Paul to Be President and your for smaller government and less taxes then the only alternative is to vote for Mitt Romney because Obama represents the opposite of what Ron Paul stands for![/quote] I am honestly asking, what in the fuck gave you the idea that Barry is someone I would ever vote for? I knew we where in trouble four years ago and I am still scared of what he can/will do in the future.
[quote]Think it over.[/quote] Trust me, I have spent quite a bit of time mulling over the thought of this country. The hard part, where to get your information. You say that Ron Paul has no support for the Presidency. I never made it to a rally here in AZ, at least I never knew of one I could make. However, my brother in law went to Berkley for a Paul convention and the video he showed as he spun 360 showed people packed in tight, all supporting the good Dr. I notice you didn’t bring up Romney’s Masters and I am thankful because a former ObGyn requires a tad more schooling.
I will tell you that by no means do I expect you to provide counter points, line by line. Only Trib seems to have the eyes for that! :o ]
But I need to bring one more point to the table. The first President of this country actually did NOT want to be President. He only stepped into the role because that is what his comrades in arm asked of him. Paul has a desire to lead this country because he wants to save this country, NOT break her back!
If you know wtf you are doing… haha.