rehmwa 2 #1 April 29, 2010 Here's a concept game.... You just won a major lottery, and after taking the single payment option you get $10M dollars (before taxes). Congrats - you are the FILTHY RICH You have a great accountant and he gives you two options (he's amazing - you MAGICALLY get all $10M up front, but now you have to write a check to Uncle Sam to pay your taxes on the winnings): 1 - Follow all the rules and you owe Uncle Sam $3M - all legal and straightforward - Leaving you with a cool $7M 2 - Follow the rules, but it's a bit sneaky and transfer funds overseas and put some in trust and you owe Uncle Sam $2M - still all legal but a bit dirty - $8M in the bank, not bad You have friends that are bleeding hearts that always thought the filthy rich should pay 60% to Uncle Sam. But it never applied to them, or you until now because you made less than $10M in any previous years. So, end of the day, you have your checkbook open - you write in the date, and "U.S. Treasury" in the first line. You realize that sending in your 'fair share' means that money will go where ever congress says it will (could be guns, could be a couple jets for Congressional travel, could be research for disease, could be jobs programs, could be a small piece on an aircraft carrier, could go into green technology, could go to some industry that's just too big to fail, could just go into limbo). The point is, you give it to the government and have no say from that point. How much do you write down? (legal options of $2 or 3M? or your liberal morals indicating overpay to a total of $6M or more) Discussions on charity or starting businesses with it instead, are interesting, but that's above and beyond your 'fair share' of tax...... Spending it as you wish, even on charity, instead of giving to the treasury is a right wing concept, and that's dirty and foul. Edit: for the more advanced thinkers out there - you want to tax wealth AND income - so, do you write 6 mil the first year - then volunteer 2.4 the next year - then volunteer 1M the next year - and then 60% of whatever is left over each year until you are no longer rich? Edit Edit: Hey, if I gave the government (most any government) $10M they just might take care of me......) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #2 April 29, 2010 If it's legal ... $2M."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #3 April 29, 2010 QuoteIf it's legal ... $2M. that's me, I'm a selfish bastard, but I'd likely then be able to get my own wingsuit (and, easily, that extra $1M I get to choose to donate it to Cancer or Heart Disease research or start a business and hire a bunch of people, etc etc etc - that's what a greedy (small c) fiscal conservative does) (A Rep or Dem (capital C or capital L) will take that extra and line pockets of whatever voter demographic they are pandering to - just like they'll do with the first 2 mil.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #4 April 29, 2010 I'd pay the minimum $2M. There are plenty of non-profit organizations I work with that I would be donating money to each year after that. I'd rather determine where my money goes.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 April 29, 2010 QuoteI'd pay the minimum $2M. There are plenty of non-profit organizations I work with that I would be donating money to each year after that. I'd rather determine where my money goes. apparently that's selfish and insensitive and racist and homophobic - congress must decide for the good of the people - please add $4M more (Nancy and Harry and John need a new jet) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #6 April 29, 2010 I'm going $2 million, and my conscience will be clean since I have followed the law, plus with that kind of money I would generously donate to the organizations of my choice. I like keeping it local and am highly partial to kids - so community groups that serve children (at no higher than the county level) would benefit immensely if I ever became rich." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #7 April 29, 2010 QuoteI'm going $2 million, and my conscience will be clean since I have followed the law, plus with that kind of money I would generously donate to the organizations of my choice. I like keeping it local and am highly partial to kids - so community groups that serve children (at no higher than the county level) would benefit immensely if I ever became rich. won't be good if Obama gets the reduction in tax rebates for charitable donations he wants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #8 April 29, 2010 I look at this from a different angle. I am giving two million to the government. I will not personally receive anyting like two million in services from the government in my lifetime. Why in the world would I give more? I do not buy into the argument that I owe everyone else something. That is a form of slavery.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJM 0 #9 April 29, 2010 Im not sure I understand your post, if you take the one time lump sum option on the lottery all the taxes are already taken out, so you would be able to keep the 10 million and only have to pay taxes on the intersest you make from the money in the bank. Or am I missing the point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #10 April 29, 2010 QuoteIm not sure I understand your post, if you take the one time lump sum option on the lottery all the taxes are already taken out, so you would be able to keep the 10 million and only have to pay taxes on the intersest you make from the money in the bank. Or am I missing the point? You missed the point - big time.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJM 0 #11 April 29, 2010 Well then what is the point "big time"? It seems that you guys are complaining about tax laws that dont actually exist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 29, 2010 QuoteIm not sure I understand your post, if you take the one time lump sum option on the lottery all the taxes are already taken out, so you would be able to keep the 10 million and only have to pay taxes on the intersest you make from the money in the bank. Or am I missing the point? Commonly 20% is removed. I don't know that they attempt to do the entire calculation. as a CA resident, I'd be looking for legal ways to move to a state without income taxes before collecting the prize. But it's important in this scenario, as well as the generic one presented, to be sure you have a consensus that it's legal, not just get one guy to say so and believe it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJM 0 #13 April 29, 2010 I just read about the taxes for the CA lottery on their website, there are no state taxes on super lottery winnings, and there is a 25% fed tax, that doesnt seem that bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #14 April 29, 2010 The question wasn't about tax laws. The underlying question was - Are you willing to give more than you have to?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 April 29, 2010 Quote The question wasn't about tax laws. The underlying question was - Are you willing to give more than you have to? It's directed to those that preach about the rich that 'should' pay more and whether they are hypocrits if they were put into their shoes suddenly (yes, lottery takes the taxes off the top, but this scenario simplifies by asking one to write the check directly by assuming otherwise - I assumed someone would eventually be purposely obtuse and obfuscate in this manner, it's funny that someone honestly was confused by the hypothetical instead of just being obnoxious ) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJM 0 #16 April 29, 2010 Well if you read the questions in the poll, they all pertain to tax laws, there just isnt an option for I will pay 0% and not leave the country because I havnt broken any laws Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #17 April 29, 2010 Quote and there is a 25% fed tax, that doesnt seem that bad ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 April 29, 2010 QuoteI do not buy into the argument that I owe everyone else something. That is a form of slavery. yeah, the Goodkind series had a lot of political messages hidden in the story ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 April 29, 2010 QuoteWell if you read the questions in the poll, they all pertain to tax laws, there just isnt an option for I will pay 0% and not leave the country because I havnt broken any laws The questions have NOTHING to do with tax law. The hypothetical is - if you were to legally owe 20%, but your politics make you believe the rich SHOULD pay 60% - will you DONATE extra in line with your beliefs? Or does your morals only apply to others, and not yourself. Everyone dodges the questions about paying extra by say "well, my beliefs don't apply to me because I'm not rich...." this allows them to think about it without the copout. I'll go edit the scenario to say the winnings are $10M (pre-tax) for clarity ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 April 29, 2010 most want to absolutely minimize their taxes and use the extras to voluntarily do good deeds - funny, I thought people that wanted lower taxes were all greedy asswipes.........However, I also have no issue with someone that wins the lottery and spends it all on themselves - if that's what they choose to do. (actually, it's not even 'having no issue' it's really "it's none of my business if they want to keep it, share, or otherwise" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 April 29, 2010 I'm waiting the funny post: I'll go with $2M, but then use the extra $4M my morals indicate - to lobby congress to change the tax code to force all the other millionaires to also pay 60% like I think I, and they, should I do this because I love the country. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #22 April 29, 2010 Quote most want to absolutely minimize their taxes and use the extras to voluntarily do good deeds - funny, I thought people that wanted lower taxes were all greedy asswipes......... I AM a greedy asswipe. I'd probably donate more throughout the year, but not in proportion to my now larger income. (interest on 8M is a nice chunk of change)-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #23 April 29, 2010 Quote(and, easily, that extra $1M I get to choose to donate it to Cancer or Heart Disease research or start a business and hire a bunch of people, etc etc etc - that's what a greedy (small c) fiscal conservative does)... You mean like Bill Gates coming to Stanford...a billionaire lecturing a bunch of millionaires, millionaires' kids, and potential millionaires on the benefits of philanthropy...and the next morning there are just as many homeless dudes sleeping at the bus shelter across the street from Stanford as the day before? Is that what fiscal conservatives do the help the world?"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotsR4pimps 0 #24 April 29, 2010 I am leaving. I dont want them taking that money to fund pointless overseas conquests when our roads and bridges are falling apart, education system is a disaster and..... the list can go on and on and on and on Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #25 April 29, 2010 I'd take the lump sum payout but offer to give every dime to charity if they gave me the full pretax ammount. Of course they wouldn't but would be fun to watch them squirm. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites