kallend 1,635 #1 April 17, 2012 www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-17/how-to-pay-no-taxes-10-strategies-used-by-the-rich For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just over 18 percent in 2008, according to the IRS. And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so. The true effective rate for multimillionaires is actually far lower than that indicated by official government statistics. That’s because those figures fail to include the additional income that’s generated by many sophisticated tax-avoidance strategies. Several of those techniques involve some variation of complicated borrowings that never get repaid, netting the beneficiaries hundreds of millions in tax-free cash. From 2003 to 2008, for example, Los Angeles Dodgers owner and real estate developer Frank H. McCourt Jr. paid no federal or state regular income taxes, as stated in court records dug up by the Los Angeles Times.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 April 17, 2012 I'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #3 April 17, 2012 QuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. True. But, I'll bet you that their total tax burden as a percentage of income is still incredibly low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #4 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. True. But, I'll bet you that their total tax burden as a percentage of income is still incredibly low. But the amount is still higher than I pay. They also employ far more Lawyers, Accountants, Chefs, Drivers, Lawn Care guru's, personal trainers, security etc, than I can, so they are spreading far more of the wealth than this article want us to believe. Close loop holes, ban deductions over a certain thresh holds and make EVERYONE pay. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #5 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. True. But, I'll bet you that their total tax burden as a percentage of income is still incredibly low. How dare you revert to logical thinking! You mean these people don't eat more than you or drink more than you or drive more than you! But they are rich they should eat like 100 times more than you every day! FYI all of the above, accountants, staff legal and food...tax write off.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #6 April 17, 2012 QuoteBut the amount is still higher than I pay. Right, I was talking percentage. To me assessing tax in equal absolute amounts is idiotic and unworkable. QuoteClose loop holes, ban deductions over a certain thresh holds and make EVERYONE pay. I agree withthe first part of your sentence. The EVERYONE pay is a nice Utopia, but that is just never going to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #7 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut the amount is still higher than I pay. Right, I was talking percentage. To me assessing tax in equal absolute amounts is idiotic and unworkable. QuoteClose loop holes, ban deductions over a certain thresh holds and make EVERYONE pay. I agree withthe first part of your sentence. The EVERYONE pay is a nice Utopia, but that is just never going to work. Then why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Their percentage is less, but their share is MORE. Every one in the country benefits from the GOV's "work", every one should contribute to its funding, that includes income taxes. Some people may not be able to pay their full fare share, but they can pay a share at least! MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #8 April 17, 2012 Quote...but they can pay a share at least! And they do. See the "Happy Wealth Redistribution Day" thread, particularly the unintendedly fair-mainded article linked by the OP. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,407 #9 April 17, 2012 >Every one in the country benefits from the GOV's "work", every one should >contribute to its funding, that includes income taxes. Nice in theory, unworkable in practice. You could tax everyone in the country about $30,000 a year; that would pay our expenses and start to pay down our deficit. You would then have to put roughly 32% of the taxpayers in the US in jail for nonpayment of taxes. At about $30,000 a year for keeping people in jail your taxes would rise to around $45,000 a year to support all the people now in jail. So instead we have a progressive system in which everyone pays a percentage. Lowest percentage is around 10% which seems reasonable. Some people then pay nothing at all because of all the deductions that are allowed nowadays. That seems like the issue to go after, rather than changing a system that's taxing everyone at least 10%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #10 April 17, 2012 QuoteThen why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Because that allows everybody to argue about what is FAIR. There can never be agreement on what is fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #11 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteThen why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Because that allows everybody to argue about what is FAIR. There can never be agreement on what is fair. Maybe, but it is hard to argue that for a billionaire to pay NO federal is is fair.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #12 April 17, 2012 QuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #13 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Because that allows everybody to argue about what is FAIR. There can never be agreement on what is fair. Maybe, but it is hard to argue that for a billionaire to pay NO federal is is fair. It is a lot easier to agree on what isn't fair than what is fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #14 April 17, 2012 Not every one pays income tax, every one should, they benefit from the GOV. Every one should pay a percentage of their taxes, no deduction, no loop holes. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 April 17, 2012 Quote For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just over 18 percent in 2008, according to the IRS. And it's easy to see why. In 1986, under Reagan, capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% to match (then) income rates. In 1998, under Clinton, capital gains tax rate lowered to 20% again. Alan Greenspan, still considered a genius, was the driving cheerleader, encouraging 0% rates. In 2004, under Bush, capital gains tax rate lowered to 15%. Note that this is long term (now 12 months, formerly 18), so it doesn't apply to day trading. Reduction of the dividend tax rate in 2002 from full to 15% was another change. Quote The true effective rate for multimillionaires is actually far lower than that indicated by official government statistics. That’s because those figures fail to include the additional income that’s generated by many sophisticated tax-avoidance strategies. Several of those techniques involve some variation of complicated borrowings that never get repaid, netting the beneficiaries hundreds of millions in tax-free cash. From 2003 to 2008, for example, Los Angeles Dodgers owner and real estate developer Frank H. McCourt Jr. paid no federal or state regular income taxes, as stated in court records dug up by the Los Angeles Times. McCourt appeared to be stealing money from the Dodgers, so he may be a better example of fraud and bankrupcy than tax avoidance. But if you accept the above as gospel, then what will be gained by raising the investment costs on the middle class, if the rich can avoid them anyway? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Because that allows everybody to argue about what is FAIR. There can never be agreement on what is fair. Maybe, but it is hard to argue that for a billionaire to pay NO federal is is fair. I'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm sure they all paid sales tax and gas tax and property tax and capital gains taxes and other taxes. Like the rest of us have to pay, too. Equally applicable to the other side of the argument, where you bring up all those taxes as a counter to almost half the country having no income tax liability.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThen why is the "Fare Share" argument being used so much? Because that allows everybody to argue about what is FAIR. There can never be agreement on what is fair. Maybe, but it is hard to argue that for a billionaire to pay NO federal is is fair. I'm sure there have been years where Trump didn't pay. And others where he paid a rather substantial fortune. I think overall we're doing pretty good by the man with the awesome hair. Give up on your desire for a wealth tax - it isn't remotely in the discussion of tax reform. Taxing people who lose billions is hardly a way to encourage economic participation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 April 17, 2012 QuoteNot every one pays income tax, every one should, they benefit from the GOV. Every one should pay a percentage of their taxes, no deduction, no loop holes. Matt and then Billvon's up thread comment QuoteSome people then pay nothing at all because of all the deductions that are allowed nowadays. That seems like the issue to go after seems there is a common ground after all that gets the rich and the freeloading deadbeats to join the rest of us ... 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
Southern_Man 0 #20 April 17, 2012 QuoteNot every one pays income tax, every one should, they benefit from the GOV. Every one should pay a percentage of their taxes, no deduction, no loop holes. Matt Not everyone has income."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteNot every one pays income tax, every one should, they benefit from the GOV. Every one should pay a percentage of their taxes, no deduction, no loop holes. Matt Not everyone has income. true, there should be minimum flat fee for general services - above that then based on income - that takes care of the retired, the leisurely rich, and those that just won't work at all regardless of lifestyle ... 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
DanG 1 #22 April 17, 2012 Quotethere should be minimum flat fee for general services What about the disabled, elderly, students, you know, PEOPLE WITH NO INCOME? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #23 April 17, 2012 QuoteQuotethere should be minimum flat fee for general services What about the disabled, elderly, students, you know, PEOPLE WITH NO INCOME? We have people like that in the USA? They are just a burden to the billionaires!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #24 April 17, 2012 Quote>Every one in the country benefits from the GOV's "work", every one should >contribute to its funding, that includes income taxes. Nice in theory, unworkable in practice. You could tax everyone in the country about $30,000 a year; that would pay our expenses and start to pay down our deficit. You would then have to put roughly 32% of the taxpayers in the US in jail for nonpayment of taxes. At about $30,000 a year for keeping people in jail your taxes would rise to around $45,000 a year to support all the people now in jail. So instead we have a progressive system in which everyone pays a percentage. Lowest percentage is around 10% which seems reasonable. Some people then pay nothing at all because of all the deductions that are allowed nowadays. That seems like the issue to go after, rather than changing a system that's taxing everyone at least 10%. Wrong, 45-50% pay no federal income tax after tax day Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 April 17, 2012 QuoteIn 1986, under Reagan, capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% to match (then) income rates Reagan didn't raise taxes. Congress did. Reagan proposed to redo the tax code by eliminating loopholes and raising the marginal rates. Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt sponsored it in the Senate and House, respectively. It was well supported by such folks as Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood (both scandal plagued). The proposal was sent by Reagan's treasury department to Congress and took about two years to work out. I don't think it can happen now. The TRA eliminated loopholes, raised corporate taxes, cut personal taxes and even raised capital gains rate (which was a mistake that the President used to believe in before). There was no use searching for loopholes anymore. The corporations loved it, as did employees, because the taxes on wages were lowered (the biggest cost being wages). All of these are politicized where it's not about raising revenue but rather sticking it to the rich. Thus, Congress would rather say they are raising taxes but leave juicy loopholes nowadays, thus appearing populist while taking the grease. The other reason why it can't happen is that the people that Reagan had working for him are absent today. Reagan got the thing going in public. WHen Rostenkowski did his "Write Rosty" speech it became bipartisan. The President and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee both in favor of tax reform. James Baker - intelligent and gifted dealmaker - working on behalf of the administration. And then Congress took up the reform bill and started voting in loophole after loophole for lobbyists and constituents. The press reported it and the public apathy became public anger. Lobbyists went full fledge against the TRA, and who stood in the way was Reagan - the Great Communicator - who let everyone know to eviscerate Congress if they didn't pass it. Public opinion became the tool to get congresspersons to not want to be the one who killed it. We don't have that now. We don't have the stewardship and dealmaking nowadays. The GOP doesn't want to raise taxes. The Democrats want to hammer the wealthy and corporations. Same thing as 1986. The Health Care bill is an example of the ineptitude. Rather than the president forwarding a proposal to Congress he let Congress take control and do everything. Rather than getting support of the GOP, Congress essentially locked them out. It was done quickly - we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. The time is SOOOOO ripe for tax reform. The President had a Joint Commission on the Deficit report that listed tax reform as a top priority. He could have trumped it instead of ignored it. Maybe in his second term Obama be will more likely to look away from the campaign donors. But I have my doubts. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
