Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head.
I thouroughly enjoyed this lunch reading. The conversatoin with Zepp reminds me of every conversation I have with someone from France or the Netherlands.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head. [/quote]
Unless a small donation pushes you into a lower tax bracket. But that has little to do with the super rich.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[/quote]
Part of the problem i have with huge employers that under pay their employees is that . If they did not exist some one else would and in the case of Walmart, Micky D’s and the like , they would probably pay better .
Look at the huge amount of Major Corps that American tax payers have to subsidize their work force even if (WE) do not eat or shop there . Increase minimum wage to a LIVABLE WAGE . meaning If you have a job you can live above what the American standard of where Welfare kicks in
Too bad DC did not get that minimum wage passed and Walmart would have moved out . That would have been a telling experiment
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head. [/quote]
Unless a small donation pushes you into a lower tax bracket. But that has little to do with the super rich. [/quote]
No, this is incorrect. There isn’t going to be a case in which donating to charity saves you more cash out the door in tax than you spend in donation. Charitable donations are above the line deductions, therefore they reduce taxable income, not tax.
The situation you describe is getting a 10k tax savings for a 100k donation (net 90k cash out the door) or a 10k tax savings for an 80k donation (net 70k cash out the door.)
It simply doesn’t “pay” to give to charity. People that do it for tax purposes, and tax purposes alone are ignorant. You give because you want to give, and just so happen to get encouragement from the government in the form of a reduction in taxable income.
EDIT: fixed my math
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[/quote]
Part of the problem i have with huge employers that under pay their employees is that . If they did not exist some one else would and in the case of Walmart, Micky D’s and the like , they would probably pay better .
Look at the huge amount of Major Corps that American tax payers have to subsidize their work force even if (WE) do not eat or shop there . Increase minimum wage to a LIVABLE WAGE . meaning If you have a job you can live above what the American standard of where Welfare kicks in
[/quote]
Yeah! more hogwash. That tired old failed argument has been put to bed for too long. Thanks for bringing it back up…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[/quote]
Part of the problem i have with huge employers that under pay their employees is that . If they did not exist some one else would and in the case of Walmart, Micky D’s and the like , they would probably pay better .
Look at the huge amount of Major Corps that American tax payers have to subsidize their work force even if (WE) do not eat or shop there . Increase minimum wage to a LIVABLE WAGE . meaning If you have a job you can live above what the American standard of where Welfare kicks in
[/quote]
We can talk about Wal-Mart or McDonald’s, again, if you’d like. We know that only a portion of either work force makes minimum wage. IMO, they are not underpaid, they provide a service a 12 year old could. If that’s not enough to live off of, get a second job. Even if I accept what your saying about subsidies, these folks making little still pay tax in other ways, sales and use or gas, for example. So having a job = tax revenue and that job is provided by these evil corporations.
Please name this HUGE number of Corps that tax payers have to subsidize. I can’t imagine it’s that many IF your statement is even true.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[/quote]
Part of the problem i have with huge employers that under pay their employees is that . If they did not exist some one else would and in the case of Walmart, Micky D’s and the like , they would probably pay better .
Look at the huge amount of Major Corps that American tax payers have to subsidize their work force even if (WE) do not eat or shop there . Increase minimum wage to a LIVABLE WAGE . meaning If you have a job you can live above what the American standard of where Welfare kicks in
[/quote]
Increase minimum wage and you’ll see an increase in the general costs of goods and a decrease in buying power. Not an answer.
Everyone likes to look at the symptoms and put bandaids on everything.
The true problem we have in the US and in a lot of countries is that to truly fix any issues caused by layer, upon layer of nonsense is that to reverse it all, it will be EXTREMELY painful for some people in the short run. Who has the balls to stand up and say “fvck you guys for 10-20 years b/c we are a death spiral”? You’ll never see it happen.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also think about it this way. How many tax payers do these folks employ? Microsoft employs 100K people worldwide, 59K in the U.S.
[/quote]
Part of the problem i have with huge employers that under pay their employees is that . If they did not exist some one else would and in the case of Walmart, Micky D’s and the like , they would probably pay better .
Look at the huge amount of Major Corps that American tax payers have to subsidize their work force even if (WE) do not eat or shop there . Increase minimum wage to a LIVABLE WAGE . meaning If you have a job you can live above what the American standard of where Welfare kicks in
[/quote]
Increase minimum wage and you’ll see an increase in the general costs of goods and a decrease in buying power. Not an answer.
[/quote]
Lol, ya this has been said about 30 times in teh last year on PWI…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head. [/quote]
Unless a small donation pushes you into a lower tax bracket. But that has little to do with the super rich. [/quote]
No, this is incorrect. There isn’t going to be a case in which donating to charity saves you more cash out the door in tax than you spend in donation. Charitable donations are above the line deductions, therefore they reduce taxable income, not tax.
The situation you describe is getting a 10k tax savings for a 100k donation (net 90k cash out the door) or a 10k tax savings for an 80k donation (net 70k cash out the door.)
It simply doesn’t “pay” to give to charity. People that do it for tax purposes, and tax purposes alone are ignorant. You give because you want to give, and just so happen to get encouragement from the government in the form of a reduction in taxable income.
EDIT: fixed my math[/quote]
You know, I knew it was an above the line deduction (I’m a CPA myself), but I see where I confused myself. Sorry for the deflection here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head. [/quote]
Unless a small donation pushes you into a lower tax bracket. But that has little to do with the super rich. [/quote]
No, this is incorrect. There isn’t going to be a case in which donating to charity saves you more cash out the door in tax than you spend in donation. Charitable donations are above the line deductions, therefore they reduce taxable income, not tax.
The situation you describe is getting a 10k tax savings for a 100k donation (net 90k cash out the door) or a 10k tax savings for an 80k donation (net 70k cash out the door.)
It simply doesn’t “pay” to give to charity. People that do it for tax purposes, and tax purposes alone are ignorant. You give because you want to give, and just so happen to get encouragement from the government in the form of a reduction in taxable income.
EDIT: fixed my math[/quote]
I agree with your basic premise, but a person can use “charitable giving” as a way to further their own personal and political goals and they can use charitable organizations as an extension of themselves. The super rich do this all the time and it isn’t necessarily all about “philanthropy.”
Also, to be clear, I’m not making a value judgment here, because as far as I’m concerned its their money and they can do what they want with it and I’m not big into taxes myself.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
(I’m a CPA myself),
[/quote]
E-High Five!
Love fellow nerds
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
There are lots of ways the super rich–not the regular rich, the super rich–avoid taxes. Some are legal, some are not so legal. One way is not showing any “income.” There are lots of legal ways to do this and still be super rich.
Also, 6 people in 2009 showed an AGI of around $200,000,000 and didn’t pay any income tax.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/08/23/why-superrich-dont-pay-taxes/
[/quote]
Massive charitable contributions are a horrid wealth management solution to a lower tax bill. It will cost you significantly more wealth than what you save in tax. People give to charity because they want to.
Therefore this money is significantly better spent being in charities than it was going to the government, assuming you aren’t giving to those charities that are only spending like 10% on actual activities and 90% on admin…
The article you linked is junk really, the author doesn’t know the circumstances of those returns, and neither does anyone. Calling loss carry forwards “smoke and mirrors” is your first jump off clue that the writer is in over his head. [/quote]
Unless a small donation pushes you into a lower tax bracket. But that has little to do with the super rich. [/quote]
No, this is incorrect. There isn’t going to be a case in which donating to charity saves you more cash out the door in tax than you spend in donation. Charitable donations are above the line deductions, therefore they reduce taxable income, not tax.
The situation you describe is getting a 10k tax savings for a 100k donation (net 90k cash out the door) or a 10k tax savings for an 80k donation (net 70k cash out the door.)
It simply doesn’t “pay” to give to charity. People that do it for tax purposes, and tax purposes alone are ignorant. You give because you want to give, and just so happen to get encouragement from the government in the form of a reduction in taxable income.
EDIT: fixed my math[/quote]
I agree with your basic premise, but a person can use “charitable giving” as a way to further their own personal and political goals and they can use charitable organizations as an extension of themselves. The super rich do this all the time and it isn’t necessarily all about “philanthropy.”
Also, to be clear, I’m not making a value judgment here, because as far as I’m concerned its their money and they can do what they want with it and I’m not big into taxes myself.
[/quote]
People can set up their own organizations and give to those and get the deduction, yes. However there are rules that have to be followed by the charitable organizations, one of which is no political contributions.
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income, but keep “control” over that income, but there are many ways to minimize your taxable income without creating a 501 that doesn’t have the rules a 501 does.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
reduce your income, but keep “control” over that income, [/quote]
This right here I have a real issue with. The rules that pertain to IRA’s should pertain in 501 also. No self dealing. Independent Churches do this all the time. The pastor owns nothing but the church owns the million dollar house, and the $250,000 bentley. All tax free. This is not only churches, but other organizations as well. Sammie Sosa did this to buy his multi million dollar apartment in Chicago.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!
Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.
So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.
In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Obama Regime? The double tax system in the US has been around much longer than that.
Your example assumes all profits are distributed as dividends. The first tax, the corporate tax, is the only tax that theoretically effects operational corporate decision-making. The dividend tax is a tax on shareholders, not the company. It theoretically influences a company’s capital structure and how it distributes profits.
Saying that, it’s definitely not a “fair” system. In NZ and Australia we have dividend imputation, so shareholders get a credit for the tax on dividends. Both our countries tax authority seem to be infatuated with this ideology of tax neutrality so I’d venture to say the decision to have a imputation system is purely ideological and not based on economics.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, there are ways to convolute the situation, reduce your income[/quote]
A tax code designed for the wealthy
[/quote]
It isn’t designed for the wealthy.
There are additional rules that only the wealthy use, but that is all. All individual rules apply to all individuals whether they make $10K or $10MM. [/quote]
I think what he means is you phyiscally can’t take advantage of some tax loopholes unless you are wealthy. It’s that pesky thing called cash flow.
And this comment is neutral FYI.