The handwriting on the wall

[Mac77]

Seems pretty clear that the establishment is allowing it. :shrug:

That's because the people running the show, although American by birth, see themselves as above sovereign states.

Yes, the political establishment in Washington is working against the American people

Which is why trump was elected president

 

[Lafayette]

I personally believe it would be "fair" for loopholes to be gotten rid of and the federal income tax rate to go up progressively and substantially for incomes beyond about $1 million, with a top tax rate starting at say $100 million.

The tax-boondoggles are very well known, and employed by any astute Tax Counselor (CPA). After all, if Donald Dork could avoid paying taxes for years upon years, one can only imagine the possibilities.

A few leads in the Art of Tax-dodging:
*How to Pay No Taxes: 10 Strategies Used by the Rich
*7 strategies rich people use to pay less in taxes
*10 ACCOUNTING TRICKS THE 1% USE TO DODGE THE TAXMAN

Go for it! They do ...

 

[James972]

incomes beyond about $1 million, with a top tax rate starting at say $100 million.

cant do it since top 1% already pay 42% of all federal income tax. THe bottom pays little or nothing and thus is encouraged to vote for higher taxes on other people. Everybody must have skin in the game; not merely use democracy as a way to rip other people off. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

^Who Rules America:

don't you love the way liberals naturally lie? Even Trump does not rule America. Hitler Stalin Mao Castro Napoleon etc. ruled. So who does rule America and what is the best example of this "rule". We'll hold our breath waiting for the lie to be exposed.

 

[LessBiased?]

cant do it since top 1% already pay 42% of all federal income tax. THe bottom pays little or nothing and thus is encouraged to vote for higher taxes on other people. Everybody must have skin in the game; not merely use democracy as a way to rip other people off. Do you understand?

The top 1% pay a large chunk of the federal income tax because they have a large chunk of the income.

IMO there should be more focus on the top 0.1% rather than the top 1%, since the former is primarily where sophisticated strategies are used to avoid, reduce, and defer taxes. The top 0.1% have a lower average tax rate than the 0.9% below them, and higher you go within the top 0.1%, the more pronounced the difference becomes. In addition to closing loopholes, the tax rate for the very wealthy can certainly be raised.

I agree that everyone should have skin in the game. But we should remember that there are many taxes beyond the federal income tax - state income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, etc. - and those taxes are paid by everyone. When you add up all of these taxes and compare them with income, the tax rates paid by the bottom are in line with the middle class. Looking only at federal income tax gives a very incomplete picture which doesn't reflect the financial reality of actual households.

 

[Mach]

^ The top 0.1% is where you need to focus your attention, IMO. The income threshold for entering this category is about $1.5 million, and the sky is the limit from there, with some people known to have taken in more than $1 billion a year.
By definition, people in top 0.1% are rare. Owners and managers of small and medium sized businesses rarely make it to this level.
People in the top 0.1% are able to reduce their tax rates in ways that aren't accessible to everyone else. I personally believe it would be "fair" for loopholes to be gotten rid of and the federal income tax rate to go up progressively and substantially for incomes beyond about $1 million, with a top tax rate starting at say $100 million.

Who Rules America: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

It's too bad liberals/democrats, especially on this forum, rarely tie their posts/statistics, with policy that would match those statistics.
Apparently it was easy for you to do, what's your secret? Do you eat non-partisan bread for breakfast or something?

I can't remember the last time I read a post that pointed out that if you think the top 0.1% pays too little in taxes, you should tax the top 0.1%. <-- you get some sort of medal for that seemingly common sense position, IMO at least.

I don't necessarily mean you are correct or not, simply that you were consistent, and it made sense in context. So rare.

 

[James972]

The top 1% pay a large chunk of the federal income tax because they have a large chunk of the income.

question is not why they pay it but rather why they pay more than poor people. Do you want rich to pay more in super market too? Govt is no different. Welfare redistribution is crippling. How many kids would the poor have if they had to pay for education and health care? Liberals are anti science and trying to reverse evolution.

 

[LessBiased?]

question is not why they pay it but rather why they pay more than poor people. Do you want rich to pay more in super market too? Govt is no different. Welfare redistribution is crippling. How many kids would the poor have if they had to pay for education and health care? Liberals are anti science and trying to reverse evolution.

I think this is a multifaceted issue. My general thinking is below.

Society becomes wealthier when we collectively produce more, because we can only consume what we produce. So we want everyone to be productive to their potential, and we should both help them to do so (such as with education) as well as incentivize them to do so. Those who are unproductive become a burden on others because they take a lot more out of the system than they contribute; that's not good for society, nor for them.

What we collectively produce also needs to be distributed fairly among us all, and roughly in proportion to what each person has contributed to the system. This incentivizes people, so that increases effort, innovation, and willingness to take risks, all of which increase collective productivity, so that's also good. And IMO there's no doubt that some people contribute much more than others, so they merit more. Not to denigrate anyone but, setting aside political correctness, brain surgeons are generally on a different level than the typical working class person. So I think that many people who work smart and hard to earn incomes up to say $1 million actually warrant those incomes.

But when we get to incomes above $1 million, and reaching 10x or 100x or even 1000x that amount, I have a hard time accepting that many people "deserve" such incomes. You won't be able to convince me that a hedge funder making $1 billion a year, by making money on money rather than producing anything real, warrants that kind of income - no one is that smart and productive. He or she has simply been able to game the system to grab much too large a piece of the pie that we all collectively produced. I don't see a practical way to limit people's incomes, but we can certainly limit what they get to keep versus return to the rest of society, and IMO a high tax rate on that kind of income is a "fair" and effective way to accomplish that. That may not solve all of our economic issues, but it would help.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not really.

But it would be nice to see people who read my posts and do not come to such mindless conclusions.

Of course, given the general level of clientele here in this forum, neither am I the least bit surprised ...

That is not a mindless conclusion. To think otherwise is mindless.

We already have more of our young educated than there are jobs for their level of learning. The laws of supply and demand have already lowered wages for our graduating college students. Make even more graduates and the increased overflow will be competing for work at places like McDonald's. These lower wage jobs will have the ability to hire college students over HS graduates.

cant you see how the trend will be?

 

[Lord of Planar]

^ The top 0.1% is where you need to focus your attention, IMO. The income threshold for entering this category is about $1.5 million, and the sky is the limit from there, with some people known to have taken in more than $1 billion a year.

By definition, people in top 0.1% are rare. Owners and managers of small and medium sized businesses rarely make it to this level.

People in the top 0.1% are able to reduce their tax rates in ways that aren't accessible to everyone else. I personally believe it would be "fair" for loopholes to be gotten rid of and the federal income tax rate to go up progressively and substantially for incomes beyond about $1 million, with a top tax rate starting at say $100 million.

Who Rules America: An Investment Manager's View on the Top 1%

Just remove all tax breaks for everyone, and tax everyone the same tax rate if you want fair.

 

[LessBiased?]

Just remove all tax breaks for everyone, and tax everyone the same tax rate if you want fair.

I like the idea of simplifying the tax code and getting rid of tax breaks. But I would still raise tax rates substantially on the top 0.1%. I wouldn't raise taxes on people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, because that would be a disincentive for many highly capable people, plus that kind of income only makes a person affluent, not "rich".

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well put.

The regressive attitude has caught the American mentality - Trump has captured the mindset.

Like all such mentalities it is fixated on just one thing, jobs-jobs-jobs. This happens frequently when the people are asked their opinion. They respond with emotion and not clever thinking.

What's a country to do? What can America do?

Not much, until this present wave has crested. Till then, keep working at the bottom of the pile whilst the top of the pile does what it only knows how to do - make megabucks-of-moolah on our sweat

Those with a functional brain could boycott Trumpery Enterprises. Avoid the casinos, the hotels, the properties, etc., etc., etc.

It's not much, but something ...

Also well put.

But I disagree there is nothing can be done. If I am reading this right, in time there will be a backlash when his rabid followers discover he can't or won't come through as promised, when he finds out the consequences of tearing up trade agreements [news this morning China is already planning tariff reprisals.

In the interum the opponents need to remain a "government in waiting" and show statesmanship. Then hope that the next four years don't undo what's working for the sake of the false idea you can bring back jobs by tearing up paper.

In closing, Americans are already getting heat, on CBC this morning an incredible story I never thought would happen here. In a California car with a sticker that read "Make America Great Again" a couple of tourists became stuck when our snow storm hit....no snow tires of course, they became stuck on the side of a minor slope, not knowing how to drive in snow they ended up at a bad angle. When they asked a passer-by for help one man in a group replied "Call Donald Trump."

In nearly 70 years of life in this country I have NEVER seen a Canadian turn down ANY plea for help. IT isn't an isolated incident. There have been several bomb threats to Vancouver's "Trump Tower". We are normally peaceful people, but I have never witnessed such attitude in Canada since the Vietnam era where draft dodgers were welcomed and Nixon was burned in effigy almost weekly.



So as that vein of bigotry and hate delivered a 'change' president, it also triggered a back lash with your best friends on the planet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

cant do it since top 1% already pay 42% of all federal income tax. THe bottom pays little or nothing and thus is encouraged to vote for higher taxes on other people. Everybody must have skin in the game; not merely use democracy as a way to rip other people off. Do you understand?

I agree.

I haven't said this for a few years, so it's time for me to voice this opinion again.

I advocate elimination of the payroll taxes by employers.

Make employees pay the whole of the 15.3%

A one time mandatory increase of all wage earners paying FICA so their net income is the same when only paying the 7.65%.

This will no longer be FICA, be be called a social tax, and paid as a percentage of all earned income.

Eliminate tax all tax break associated with tax filing, and drop the tax rate for all to 18% (or close to)

The new "social tax" which is paid by all earners, will increase or decrease based on the demands of what we pay to subsidize those in need.

I forget the rest off the top of my head, but those are the more important points.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I like the idea of simplifying the tax code and getting rid of tax breaks. But I would still raise tax rates substantially on the top 0.1%. I wouldn't raise taxes on people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, because that would be a disincentive for many highly capable people, plus that kind of income only makes a person affluent, not "rich".

Excuse me, but I fail to understand why one person should pay a higher percentage than another. There is no fair way to play favorites.

 

[LessBiased?]

Excuse me, but I fail to understand why one person should pay a higher percentage than another. There is no fair way to play favorites.

Why not then go further and say that everyone should pay the same tax in absolute dollars, rather than the same tax rate? That would be a true "flat" tax, rather than tax increasing with income.

There's no formula for tax rates which can be shown to be objectively "correct" or even "fair". So I take a step back and ask how much of their income a person should be able to keep, considering that very high incomes are largely due to the overall system created collectively by many generations, rather than solely individual ability and effort. The most capable person will be working hard just to survive (literally) if they have to live off the land as part of a small group. There was no one like a Warren Buffet or Donald Trump during the pre-domestication era of human history which lasted many tens of thousands of years.

So my argument is that incomes above say $1 million are increasingly due to the system, rather than individual effort and merit, so an increasingly large percentage of those incomes should be returned back to the system. The fact that the opposite happens, with effective tax rates actually dropping for the top 0.1%, shows that they've managed to rig the system in their favor and are using their powerful influence on our government to keep it rigged. Both parties are complicit in this, and meanwhile the 99% or 99.9% are getting duped.

 

[James972]

effective tax rates actually dropping for the top 0.1%,.

Top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax. No country relies on top 1% for revenue like the USA. Liberals imagine things and then pretends they are true.

 

[James972]

So my argument is that incomes above say $1 million are increasingly due to the system,

its a free country; system is open to everybody. Whats the reason to steal from those who use the system to sell stuff that we freely buy to improve our standard of living? Do you want to lower our standard of living? Maybe we won't get a cure for cancer because liberals removed the incentive. Do you see why we say liberalism must be based in pure ignorance?

 

[Mac77]

Also well put.

But I disagree there is nothing can be done.

If I am reading this right, in time there will be a backlash when his rabid followers discover he can't or won't come through as promised, when he finds out the consequences of tearing up trade agreements [news this morning China is already planning tariff reprisals.

In the interum the opponents need to remain a "government in waiting" and show statesmanship. Then hope that the next four years don't undo what's working for the sake of the false idea you can bring back jobs by tearing up paper.

In closing, Americans are already getting heat, on CBC this morning an incredible story I never thought would happen here. In a California car with a sticker that read "Make America Great Again" a couple of tourists became stuck when our snow storm hit....no snow tires of course, they became stuck on the side of a minor slope, not knowing how to drive in snow they ended up at a bad angle. When they asked a passer-by for help one man in a group replied "Call Donald Trump."

In nearly 70 years of life in this country I have NEVER seen a Canadian turn down ANY plea for help. IT isn't an isolated incident. There have been several bomb threats to Vancouver's "Trump Tower". We are normally peaceful people, but I have never witnessed such attitude in Canada since the Vietnam era where draft dodgers were welcomed and Nixon was burned in effigy almost weekly.



So as that vein of bigotry and hate delivered a 'change' president, it also triggered a back lash with your best friends on the planet.

We export (sell) about $70 bil a year to china but they sell up to $500 billion a year to us.

So who has more to lose by a trade war?

 

[Lafayette]

Excuse me, but I fail to understand why one person should pay a higher percentage than another. There is no fair way to play favorites.

Because they can?

Why is a progressive tax considered fair and equitable (at all levels of income)? It's a matter of debate.

From here:Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax?

Progressive taxation versus flat taxation inspires ongoing debate, and both have proponents and critics. In the United States, the historical favorite is the progressive tax. Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers. No one pays more or less than anyone else under a flat tax system. Both of these systems may be considered "fair" in the sense that they are consistent and apply a rational approach to taxation. They differ, however, in their treatment of wealth, and each system may be called "unfair" according to who benefits or is treated differently.

Supporters of the progressive system claim that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes and that this is the fairest system because it lessens the tax burden of the poor. Since the poor have the smallest disposable incomes and spend a higher proportion of their money on basic survival needs, such as housing, this system allows them to keep more of their money. Affluent taxpayers are better able to provide for their physical needs and therefore are charged more. A flat tax would ignore the differences between rich and poor taxpayers. Some argue that flat taxes are unfair for this reason. Progressive taxes, however, treat the rich and poor differently, which is also unfair.

As regards the phrases highlighted in red above: For as long as a society accepts the fact that the better-off have a moral-duty to contribute more than others quite simply because they have more.

Which is deduced from the fact that, in a market-economy, we all contribute our work to producing goods/services but also by consuming them as well. Those who benefit more therefore should assist more in the tax-burden. (And this logic is the foundation for the much higher levels of taxation in Europe than the US.)

Taxation by country as a percent of GDP (from here):

By comparison, the EU-taxation is at 40% of GDP. Members of the EU pay more in taxes therefore expect more in terms of government services. Which they obtain in this manner:
*National Health Services that are generally half the per capita cost of the US (see here).
*Free Tertiary Education in the EU results in a total cost per student at about one-sixth (15%)of the US (see here)[/QUOTE]

Different strokes for different folks ...

 

[James972]

. So I take a step back and ask how much of their income a person should be able to keep, .

so high income from raising our standard of living should not be kept but rather violently stolen by govt for even more crippling welfare? Discouraging rich and poor from working is how liberals slowly starved 120 million to death?

 

[James972]

Excuse me, but I fail to understand why one person should pay a higher percentage than another. There is no fair way to play favorites.

exactly, next liberals will force the rich to pay more at the supermarket.

 

[jdog]

Sure you have.
Exploitation is primarily a concern in third world and developing countries. Stop acting as though you have any evidence that top income earners in the U.S. are doing what they do for "exploitation". It's terrible of you to do so.


You have it exactly wrong. The freedom to pursue ones lust for material goods in a regulated market economy is one of the greatest inventions in modern history, and is part of what makes the west, and capitalism in general, such a wild success at lifting historically astounding levels of people out of absolute poverty, into the modern age.

You just don't get it. Instead of raping and pillaging, we have CEOs that contribute to your 401K portfolio so you can retire, and train, hire, and invest in our economy, under federal and state corporate and labor regulations. It's so brilliant that if one person had figured all this out, we'd refer to them as Little Jesus...and I'm not even religious.

Some people do it only for power, not for material goods at all, you actually really engaged in our economy.
Some people do it to keep with the Jones's in terms of career progression, caring little for power or money.
Some do it for joy, some for hate, some because they have really just been on auto-pilot of most of their career, and when where they were asked to, and did a good job when told.
And everything i between. this is how a free marketplace works, no jackass is here to tell you, even though you don't appreciate it, what your job is, or why you should do it. It's facism to try and force people to live and work in the manner in which you proclaim from up high...


100% nonsense.

In the U.S., we provide federal assistance to poverty level and above, for those of low or no income. Survival is not at stake for most of the poor in the U.S., you are making that up.
Furthermore, the "haves" already pay the vast majority of our federal tax burden! The top 20% earners pay 84% of all income taxes.
You are trivially shown to be wrong in every meaningful way.

Meanwhile we had occupy wall street, the big bad hipsters and pot smokers with starbucks in one hand, cell phones in the other, protesting...well, they didn't ****ing have a clue what they were really protesting, but they sure had fun and were "part of a major event!". It went nowhere and did nothing, because everyone knows including them, that their standard of living is so high, that it puts most of the free world, and certainly most everyone in human history, to complete and utter shame.

You are either delusional or a shill for the establishment. In either case your are beyond any enlightenment that I may bestow. Have a nice life.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, the political establishment in Washington is working against the American people

Which is why trump was elected president

Are you saying that Trump is an improvement then?

 

[LessBiased?]

My argument for a higher tax rate on the top 0.1% isn't on the basis of taking from the rich to help the poor. My argument is on the basis that those very high incomes are only possible in the first place because some people are able to benefit very disproportionately from our capitalistic system, so they need to give a large chunk of that money back to the system which made that excess income possible. With a higher tax rate on the very rich, they will still be very rich - just not as rich as they would have been - and most of the poor will still be poor.

It's ironic that so many people who aren't even close to the top 1%, much less the top 0.1%, argue that taxes on the top 0.1% shouldn't be raised, without having any detailed info on the incomes and effective tax rates of the very rich. Quite an impressive ideological trick to be able to convince people to believe something which is against their own interest and doesn't fit facts which are easily determined based on a bit of diligent and open-minded research.

 

[James972]

some people are able to benefit very disproportionately from our capitalistic system,

actually the beauty of Republican capitalism is you benefit disproportionately when you contribute disproportionately. You could benefit wildly too all you gotta do is invent something everybody wants to buy more than anything else on earth. Do you have anything other than jealousy??Its sort of like you have to be a saint under capitalism. You want the guy inventing a cure for cancer to always benefit more not less. Now do you understand why Cuba is poor and Florida is rich?