We Need to Get Rid of the Death Tax

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Further evidence in regards to the political leanings of the best and brightest:
…

hspder,

When was the last time you were completely out of the academic setting–meaning not going to classes, not employed by a university, not receiving money from a university? Just you working in the private sector like an average American?

[/quote]

I will not say that only idiots are Republicans, being as we have some very intelligent ones on here.

However, the dumber and more ignorant the person, the more likely they are to be very racist, very xenophobic, anti-Jew, and generally of the thought lines of, “Fuck them, let’s just bomb them”. These people vote Republican (if they vote at all).

142

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Kayrob wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Rather than being taxed on income and then buying a car his company buys or leases the car. It takes a depreciation on the car and gets a tax break on the deprecation. He drives it.

That’s simply anther legitimate tax deduction. I wouldn’t call it a loophole.

It seems like it’s an advantage of his job, not his income. Does the company benefit? They still have to pay for the car.

He gets the use of it, but he might have a company car anyway. Many sales people in fairly low level positions (in comparision) have the use of a company vehicle.

I am not an accountant so I do not know all the tax dodges.

Well, I think you may have come up with one. If you are a famous guy and you want to use that fame to start a legitimate charity via a ranch you now have the advantage of staying at that ranch.

The car is taxable income, the exec must report it as such, and pay FICA as well as income taxes. The company cannot take depreciation on the car if its not used in the business, it would record the expenses as salary. The employer also has to pay FICA taxes on the vehicle.

Staying at the ranch would be a ‘no additional cost’ benefit and is not taxable. Just like airline employees don’t have to claim their free travel as income (they do pay the sales tax)as long as the benefit is available to all employees and that there are no addional costs incurred by the company by providing the service.

Okay, I’m thinking you are an accountant!

(If you’re not pretend you are)

And that is what we need at this point in this thread.

Please tell me how a rich executive making…over 1 million dollars per year (not me and not anyone on this thread probably) can escape paying taxes, or dramtically lower his tax bite with a loophole.

Thank you for your time and you can bill Zap.

:)[/quote]

A tax loophole is a legal way of taking advantage of some quirk in the tax law, ie using the code to your advantage. Usually loopholes involve finding a way to loose money and off set your income without taking an economic loss. The classic tax loophole (now closed) was livestock. You make a bunch of money one year, then you invest in a bunch of livestock, you expense out the feed and other expenses and take a loss, you have just taken a loss on your taxes, when in reality you have made an investment. No return is recognized until the livestock is sold or slaughtered. This is no longer legal, but its an example of what a tax loophole is. AMT has been designed to close a lot of these loopholes.
Zap, the difference in loopholes and tax fraud is way more than semantics. One is legal, one is not. Expensing a personal trip as a business trip is criminal. The best way I can think to explain it is that you can say the rich get enough tax breaks from the government, but you can’t claim the same thing when they are committing a crime.

Cheers

143

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
One more thing I remember about my old company. It sold some of its CNC machines to our sister company. They then leased them to an outside company.

That outside company leased them back to us.

Our machinists had to use a different time code when using this equipment.

When I asked why one of our accountants tried to explain how we got a tax break for this. I did not understand but as far as I could gather our sister company was able to take depreciation on these machines.

They were long paid for and depreciated by us so it was our sister companies turn.[/quote]

The machines were sold at a gain, thus triggering a gain to be recognized on the first company’s books (lower tax rate than income). As long as the fair market value on the machines was about what they were sold for, then the new company put them on the books for that value and then depreciated them over the useful remaining life of the machines. The old company can now expense the lease payments each month.

This is a good example of a loophole!

144

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The fact is that the rich are indeed pulling this country along by paying a very high rate of taxes and the United States Treasury statistics have proven my point.[/quote]

No; The facts are that:

  • If we decrease their taxes, we drive up inflation rather than growth

  • If we increase their taxes, we curb inflation immediately and have the cash to be able to increase productivity long-term though, among other things, Universal Healthcare – and increased productivity means more wealth without inflation

So, the inescapable conclusion is that the rich need to pay MORE – not less – taxes than they do today.

145

[quote]hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
When was the last time you were completely out of the academic setting–meaning not going to classes, not employed by a university, not receiving money from a university? Just you working in the private sector like an average American?

I was a full time consultant at McKinsey about 10 years ago.
[/quote]

No…he means a real job…

146

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact is that the rich are indeed pulling this country along by paying a very high rate of taxes and the United States Treasury statistics have proven my point.

No; The facts are that:

  • If we decrease their taxes, we drive up inflation rather than growth

  • If we increase their taxes, we curb inflation immediately and have the cash to be able to increase productivity long-term though, among other things, Universal Healthcare – and increased productivity means more wealth without inflation

So, the inescapable conclusion is that the rich need to pay MORE – not less – taxes than they do today.

[/quote]

LOL!

The top 1% of wage earners paying 33% of the taxes is not quite enough for you huh?

The top 20% of wage earners paying about 80% of the taxes while the bottom 80% pay 20% is not quite a large enough disparity for you either.

You won’t be happy until the rich are paying all of the taxes. But wait that day will never come will it?

As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

And then no new job creation…Higher unemployment and a reduced tax base!

Didn’t quite think about that one did you professor?

You ivory tower folks just don’t get it and you never will.

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Further evidence in regards to the political leanings of the best and brightest:
…

hspder,

When was the last time you were completely out of the academic setting–meaning not going to classes, not employed by a university, not receiving money from a university? Just you working in the private sector like an average American?

I will not say that only idiots are Republicans, being as we have some very intelligent ones on here.

However, the dumber and more ignorant the person, the more likely they are to be very racist, very xenophobic, anti-Jew, and generally of the thought lines of, “Fuck them, let’s just bomb them”. These people vote Republican (if they vote at all). [/quote]

While you’re usually a bit rabbid in your love of socialism and your disgust of Republicans–this might be the damn dumbest thing I’ve seen you or anyone else post. It sure the hell is the dumbest thing in this thread. And it sure the hell is relevant to nothing.

Let’s start with Mayor Nagin and most of the p[opulation he represents as the very description you painted, and ain’t none of them Republicans.

Come on Irish, this was beneath you.

148

[quote]ZEB wrote:
hspder wrote:
doogie wrote:
When was the last time you were completely out of the academic setting–meaning not going to classes, not employed by a university, not receiving money from a university? Just you working in the private sector like an average American?

I was a full time consultant at McKinsey about 10 years ago.

No…he means a real job…

[/quote]

ZEB

You’ve taken a quality thread and are running it down with your personal bias. Quantify your REAL job. If you are paid–it is a job. Your contempt is seething through and your continued mantra is old.

You’ve admitted to loopholes. Kayrob? who comes across as an accountant of some kind, acknowledges loopholes exist.
You won’t own up to the wealth owned by the very 1% and 20% you keep posting about. We will not agree here, that is obvious, but leave the door open for learning something new huh.

149

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
doogie wrote:
hspder wrote:
Further evidence in regards to the political leanings of the best and brightest:
…

hspder,

When was the last time you were completely out of the academic setting–meaning not going to classes, not employed by a university, not receiving money from a university? Just you working in the private sector like an average American?

I will not say that only idiots are Republicans, being as we have some very intelligent ones on here.

However, the dumber and more ignorant the person, the more likely they are to be very racist, very xenophobic, anti-Jew, and generally of the thought lines of, “Fuck them, let’s just bomb them”. These people vote Republican (if they vote at all).

While you’re usually a bit rabbid in your love of socialism and your disgust of Republicans–this might be the damn dumbest thing I’ve seen you or anyone else post. It sure the hell is the dumbest thing in this thread. And it sure the hell is relevant to nothing.

Let’s start with Mayor Nagin and most of the p[opulation he represents as the very description you painted, and ain’t none of them Republicans.

Come on Irish, this was beneath you.[/quote]

I’ll give you that. When I said this, I was thinking more of the white working class, not the black working class. My apologies.

150

[quote]ZEB wrote:
hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The fact is that the rich are indeed pulling this country along by paying a very high rate of taxes and the United States Treasury statistics have proven my point.

No; The facts are that:

  • If we decrease their taxes, we drive up inflation rather than growth

  • If we increase their taxes, we curb inflation immediately and have the cash to be able to increase productivity long-term though, among other things, Universal Healthcare – and increased productivity means more wealth without inflation

So, the inescapable conclusion is that the rich need to pay MORE – not less – taxes than they do today.

LOL!

The top 1% of wage earners paying 33% of the taxes is not quite enough for you huh?

The top 20% of wage earners paying about 80% of the taxes while the bottom 80% pay 20% is not quite a large enough disparity for you either.

You won’t be happy until the rich are paying all of the taxes. But wait that day will never come will it?

As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

And then no new job creation…Higher unemployment and a reduced tax base!

Didn’t quite think about that one did you professor?

You ivory tower folks just don’t get it and you never will.

[/quote]

Who is curbing incentive. Remeber, we are talking about the very rich. How would people who earn over 1mil be affected by a tax increase of 1%? 5mil=2.5%? 10mil5%? I know that translates to large dollars, but how is their lifestyle impacted? Is it enough to thwart their desire to make 10mil?

Your crying like the poor little rich boy you claim not to be.

Look at how the tax burden is falling–your example not mine–it hasn’t stopped people from wanting to earn big$'s. Look at how taxes have increased in the past 20-50 years. Hasn’t stopped many from taking their chances at becoming rich. You need to look at things in all there dimensions, not just from your seemingly narrow view.

151

There is an underlying feeling among many that the only reason someone is rich is because they lied, cheated, or did some other bad thing to get their money. Or they had wealthy parents.

The truth is that the rich are just as honest or dishonest as the rest of us. And most worked very hard to get it.

The rich get taxed more (like the death tax) because people somehow feel they are getting even with rich people for being rich when they are not. So they feel some sense of entitlement that something is owed them because they were/are not rich.

Sorry to say that this is one attitude that liberals have been able to push quite successfully in the US. The class war is what many call it.

Well, my opinion is that if you didn’t work for it you do not deserve it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t take care of others, but it is not owed them and they don’t deserve it.

152

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
There is an underlying feeling among many that the only reason someone is rich is because they lied, cheated, or did some other bad thing to get their money. Or they had wealthy parents.

The truth is that the rich are just as honest or dishonest as the rest of us. And most worked very hard to get it.

The rich get taxed more (like the death tax) because people somehow feel they are getting even with rich people for being rich when they are not. So they feel some sense of entitlement that something is owed them because they were/are not rich.

Sorry to say that this is one attitude that liberals have been able to push quite successfully in the US. The class war is what many call it.

Well, my opinion is that if you didn’t work for it you do not deserve it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t take care of others, but it is not owed them and they don’t deserve it.
[/quote]

“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime”

153

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The top 1% of wage earners paying 33% of the taxes is not quite enough for you huh?

The top 20% of wage earners paying about 80% of the taxes while the bottom 80% pay 20% is not quite a large enough disparity for you either.[/quote]

That disparity comes from INCOME disparity not tax disparity. You cannot blame that on taxes – on the contrary. Those people make HUNDREDS of times more money per hour than the average worker.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You won’t be happy until the rich are paying all of the taxes. But wait that day will never come will it?

As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”[/quote]

That’s a straw-man and you know it. I am not advocating 100% tax rates (“giving it all to the government”). I’m not even advocating 70% tax rates like some European countries have. I’m not even advocating 50% tax rates. I’m just advocating we go back to the tax rates we had under Clinton.

The fact remains that, as high as the tax rate may be (below 100%), in a Capitalist economy a higher gross income will always translate into a higher net income. Hence, there will ALWAYS be an incentive to work hard and make more money in a capitalist economy.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And then no new job creation…Higher unemployment and a reduced tax base![/quote]

Prove it. Seriously, prove that claim: show me where, during, e.g, Clinton – when we had higher capital gains and dividend tax – there was no new job creation, higher unemployment and a reduced tax base.

You can’t, because it’s a straw-man. As high as the tax may be, the incentive will ALWAYS be there to make more money.

By the way, you haven’t yet answered one of my questions:

– What do you think of the fact that 1 hour of my work as investor is paid 100x (ONE HUNDRED TIMES) more than one hour of my work as professor? Do you think it is, in fact, WORTH 100x more?

154

[quote]hspder wrote:

– What do you think of the fact that 1 hour of my work as investor is paid 100x (ONE HUNDRED TIMES) more than one hour of my work as professor? Do you think it is, in fact, WORTH 100x more?
[/quote]

given the stuff you spew on here and no doubt spew as a professor you should be happy you get paid at all. :slight_smile:

155

Here we go…Just the way you like it.

:slight_smile:

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

ZEB

You’ve taken a quality thread and are running it down with your personal bias. [/quote]

Oh come on you started running the thread into the ground with your personal bias!

What else could it have been if not that?

“All the loopholes for the high income earners.”

That was funny stuff.

When pushed you coudn’t come up with one!

Not one…

Um…that was a joke. You know the old joke about “consultants?”

Okay…you don’t know it.

Well then it’s a good thing you don’t have to look at this thread anymore…PHEW!

LOL…Hey sasquatch I’m sorry you couldn’t come up with any loopholes…Why don’t you just live with it and stop the cheap message board retaliation.

Now that’s old!

Yes, I think he pointed one out. I think it was more like a business deduction however. Either way, it had nothing to do with all of the “rich people finding loopholes to hide income.” It was a business deduction…or loophole if you like.

Own up to it? LOL

Okay (clears throat) I own up to it!

But they earn it. And I don’t think it’s fair to have the top 20% of the income earners pay about 80% of all the taxes.

Do you?

Oh that’s right you do.

I learn a lot every single day. I keep my mind open.

But when someone says there are all types of loopholes for those with a very high personal income to get out of paying taxes…Well, I just don’t see them, and YOU couldn’t point even ONE out.

And so far no one else has pointed any out relative to the “personal income” of a rich guy…

OWN UP TO THAT!

And when your buddy hspdr starts blathering about the rich not paying enough in taxes when the US Treasury department shows something quite different well…I’ll have to “learn something on another thread.”

But you can keep getting your tax education from hspdr.

I’ll pass thanks…

Please write back soon.

I think we have a really good Internet fight brewing here…(I know…I know…)

And to think we almost avoided this.

156

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

Who is curbing incentive. Remeber, we are talking about the very rich. How would people who earn over 1mil be affected by a tax increase of 1%? 5mil=2.5%? 10mil5%? I know that translates to large dollars, but how is their lifestyle impacted? Is it enough to thwart their desire to make 10mil?[/quote]

Read this very carefully:

"As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

Where does it say anything about a 1% tax hike?

Gee there sasquatch I guess it doesn’t huh?

(And we go deeper-You know where this ends up right?..Okay. Remember when I said I had one good year? Ah never mind. Facts don’t really matter when you want attack someone right? Okay, I’ll retaliate)

And you sound like a guy who just fell off his working class bar stool trying to find all those loopholes that the rich have…But came up short!

(Come on now that had to hurt.)

(Now I have to do one back at you- Don’t you understand how these fights go?)

And you need a lesson in reading comprehension!

Here is what I said for the second time:

"As soon as you take away enough of the incentive to become wealthy people who have an idea to create a product or service and would have started a business will just say…“what’s the point of working hard and giving it all to the government?”

Now, are you claiming that no matter what the tax hike to the rich that the incentive will never be taken away? NO matter how high the tax rate goes?

How foolish that would be if you are saying that.

(See how I still gave you the benefit of the doubt- I could have stated that much worse. I’m still trying to be somewhat civil…we can still pull this out)

I know if you make it not worth their while they won’t do it.

That is a simple business law. The risk has to be worth the ultimate reward.

Go ask your buddy hspdr…Oh that’s right he wants to tax the top 20% even more since they only pay 80% of the taxes in the US.

Talk to you again soon…(I’m sure)

Make sure that you escalate the name calling and personal attacks. I will do the same and at the end of an additional 6 or 7 more posts each we will have really shown each other!

:wink:

157

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
There is an underlying feeling among many that the only reason someone is rich is because they lied, cheated, or did some other bad thing to get their money. Or they had wealthy parents.

The truth is that the rich are just as honest or dishonest as the rest of us. And most worked very hard to get it.

The rich get taxed more (like the death tax) because people somehow feel they are getting even with rich people for being rich when they are not. So they feel some sense of entitlement that something is owed them because they were/are not rich.

Sorry to say that this is one attitude that liberals have been able to push quite successfully in the US. The class war is what many call it.

Well, my opinion is that if you didn’t work for it you do not deserve it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t take care of others, but it is not owed them and they don’t deserve it.

“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime”[/quote]

That makes about as much sense as saying:

“Everyone who makes less than 40-K per year is lazy.”

How foolish both statements are!

158

I believe what this started this argument is that someone said something like, “Close the current loopholes, THEN take away the estate tax.”

So if the loopholes were closed, most of you would feel fine about getting rid of it?

So if people didn’t use these, it would be fair not to tax their estates so heavily, in your opinions?

How many people who use these loopholes take are affected by the estate tax? If it’s not the majority, then why not lower the tax rate or push back the amount one must inherit before being taxed until it mostly affects those who take advantage of all these loopholes?

What about grandma and grandpa who bought their land cheap but now sit on property that would be worth enough to be taxed?

159

[quote]hspder wrote:
ZEB wrote:
The top 1% of wage earners paying 33% of the taxes is not quite enough for you huh?

The top 20% of wage earners paying about 80% of the taxes while the bottom 80% pay 20% is not quite a large enough disparity for you either.

That disparity comes from INCOME disparity not tax disparity. You cannot blame that on taxes – on the contrary. Those people make HUNDREDS of times more money per hour than the average worker.[/quote]

You forgot one really important point: They earned it, it’s their money, not the governments!

If you want a “nanny style” government that redistributes wealth I think that will fail and has failed in other governments and other times.

But I don’t think you want that, do you?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I am not advocating 100% tax rates[/quote]

I never said that you were!

But keep in mind that you don’t have to be at 100% tax rates for the incentive to take a nose dive.

Just like overtaxing the working man. Will he want to work more overtime? Not if he ends up in a much higher tax bracket

It starts to not make sense for him either.

I see you have never owned a small business.

If costs are higher. The top line can stay high while the bottom line falls…and falls…

Not if the tax rates climb and capatalists think that the risk reward is not there.

Go back to my example of the working man and overtime…same thing.

People are people…

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And then no new job creation…Higher unemployment and a reduced tax base!

Prove it. Seriously, prove that claim: show me where, during, e.g, Clinton – when we had higher capital gains and dividend tax – there was no new job creation, higher unemployment and a reduced tax base.[/quote]

I don’t think a Clintonesque “tax policy” is all that bad. And I never said that it was. But it can be better. Better than this President has made it.

[quote]By the way, you haven’t yet answered one of my questions:

– What do you think of the fact that 1 hour of my work as investor is paid 100x (ONE HUNDRED TIMES) more than one hour of my work as professor? Do you think it is, in fact, WORTH 100x more?
[/quote]

Easy question:

It’s worth whatever the market will bear!

160

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Here we go…Just the way you like it.

:slight_smile:

sasquatch wrote:

ZEB

You’ve taken a quality thread and are running it down with your personal bias.

Oh come on you started running the thread into the ground with your personal bias!

What else could it have been if not that?

“All the loopholes for the high income earners.”

That was funny stuff.

When pushed you coudn’t come up with one!

Not one…

Quantify your REAL job.

Um…that was a joke. You know the old joke about “consultants?”

Okay…you don’t know it.

Your contempt is seething through and your continued mantra is old.

Well then it’s a good thing you don’t have to look at this thread anymore…PHEW!

LOL…Hey sasquatch I’m sorry you couldn’t come up with any loopholes…Why don’t you just live with it and stop the cheap message board retaliation.

Now that’s old!

You’ve admitted to loopholes. Kayrob? who comes across as an accountant of some kind, acknowledges loopholes exist.

Yes, I think he pointed one out. I think it was more like a business deduction however. Either way, it had nothing to do with all of the “rich people finding loopholes to hide income.” It was a business deduction…or loophole if you like.

You won’t own up to the wealth owned by the very 1% and 20% you keep posting about.

Own up to it? LOL

Okay (clears throat) I own up to it!

But they earn it. And I don’t think it’s fair to have the top 20% of the income earners pay about 80% of all the taxes.

Do you?

Oh that’s right you do.

We will not agree here, that is obvious, but leave the door open for learning something new huh.

I learn a lot every single day. I keep my mind open.

But when someone says there are all types of loopholes for those with a very high personal income to get out of paying taxes…Well, I just don’t see them, and YOU couldn’t point even ONE out.

And so far no one else has pointed any out relative to the “personal income” of a rich guy…

OWN UP TO THAT!

And when your buddy hspdr starts blathering about the rich not paying enough in taxes when the US Treasury department shows something quite different well…I’ll have to “learn something on another thread.”

But you can keep getting your tax education from hspdr.

I’ll pass thanks…

Please write back soon.

I think we have a really good Internet fight brewing here…(I know…I know…)

And to think we almost avoided this.[/quote]

I don’t think asking a legitimate question, whether you deem it so or not it is quite obvious others do, is running down a thread. I think personal bias does. I’m guilty on numerous ocassions. It is counterproductive.

I know the consultant joke. That doesn’t mean I think it’s funny or appropriate.

No messagr board retaliation here. I’ve tried to learn from all and sometimes that means getting into discussions with people whose opinions differ from mine.

You continue to use, I believe, a skewed bit of data twisted just enough to suit you. You continue to push the amount of population that pays a percentage of tax. I think that is a poor comparison. I happen to believe my contention that 95% of the wealth pays 80% of the taxes is fairer. It matters little to me how many people control that money. That is statistically insignificant to compare a 2 different value groups.

I’ve learned from hspdr just as I have from you and doogoe and many others. No fight, I promise.