Apple uses Tax Code to avoid paying taxes on Billions in Profit. Congress upset

[Gowen]

Taxing the "rich" has always been about taxing the middle class.

The really rich can avoid most taxes.

 

That has to be the most true statement ever said on the web!!!!

[makattak]

Taxing the "rich" has always been about taxing the middle class.

The really rich can avoid most taxes.

 

I'll add one caveat to that.

"Taxing the rich" is really about taxing the young upstart rich.

The "Old Rich" have very little of their wealth taxed. What is taxed are the people who actually come up with new ideas that make life better for everyone else.

The idle rich are left alone... to seek purpose... very often in Government. Hmm...

(For those who doubt that, look at the number of representatives and senators that either inherited or married into wealth vs. the number that actually earned it themselves. Then compare that number to the nation at large. I don't ask you to look at the number that aren't rich because that number is too small to make any statistical inferences upon.)

(Also note, I'm not asking for the idle rich to be punished. I'm just pointing out that if you're going to discourage a course of action, discouraging the "new rich" is likely more harmful to progress than attacking the "old rich." I'd prefer we lowered ALL taxes.)

[birdman]

I'll add one caveat to that.

"Taxing the rich" is really about taxing the young upstart rich.

The "Old Rich" have very little of their wealth taxed. What is taxed are the people who actually come up with new ideas that make life better for everyone else.

The idle rich are left alone... to seek purpose... very often in Government. Hmm...

(For those who doubt that, look at the number of representatives and senators that either inherited or married into wealth vs. the number that actually earned it themselves. Then compare that number to the nation at large. I don't ask you to look at the number that aren't rich because that number is too small to make any statistical inferences upon.)

(Also note, I'm not asking for the idle rich to be punished. I'm just pointing out that if you're going to discourage a course of action, discouraging the "new rich" is likely more harmful to progress than attacking the "old rich." I'd prefer we lowered ALL taxes.)

The bulk of capital investment is by the so called old rich you mention.  People tend to forget that the wealthy aren't using big money-bins like Scrooge mcduck to hold their wealth, they invest it or lend it.  Discouraging either is bad, however, if the young can't obtain capital, -and- they are discouraged by reduced potential profit, everything goes to hell.

[freakazoid]

People tend to forget that the wealthy aren't using big money-bins like Scrooge mcduck to hold their wealth,

And that's a real shame.

[Gowen]

My wife just read me a story last night about how auction houses like Christi's are seeing people spend big money on items like painting and such.  The rich are putting their wealth in tangibles like paintings, metals and such.  I think Cyprus scared the wealthy a whole lot more than the media likes to report.

[makattak]

The bulk of capital investment is by the so called old rich you mention.  People tend to forget that the wealthy aren't using big money-bins like Scrooge mcduck to hold their wealth, they invest it or lend it.  Discouraging either is bad, however, if the young can't obtain capital, -and- they are discouraged by reduced potential profit, everything goes to hell.

I'm not saying the old rich suck, let's get them.

I'm saying their "contribution" is far more easily demogogued. (Did I spell that right?) Yet, for some odd reason, the tax code is set up to their benefit and to the detriment of new money.

It's one of those inexplicable things, like how the laws are generally set up to benefit lawyers.

[birdman]

I'm not saying the old rich suck, let's get them.

I'm saying their "contribution" is far more easily demogogued. (Did I spell that right?) Yet, for some odd reason, the tax code is set up to their benefit and to the detriment of new money.

It's one of those inexplicable things, like how the laws are generally set up to benefit lawyers.

More easily demagogued, but difficult to tax.  The only targets that are the least bit constitutional are wealth transfers or changes (eg estate, capital gains taxes).  Taxing wealth ownership is difficult, and effectively unconstitutional, and therein lies the rub for progressivism, the folks that have the assets can shelter them from taxes by simply not doing anything...hence the "rich" is defined by income, and gets driven down onto the middle class.

[makattak]

More easily demagogued, but difficult to tax.  The only targets that are the least bit constitutional are wealth transfers or changes (eg estate, capital gains taxes).  Taxing wealth ownership is difficult, and effectively unconstitutional, and therein lies the rub for progressivism, the folks that have the assets can shelter them from taxes by simply not doing anything...hence the "rich" is defined by income, and gets driven down onto the middle class.

I don't see how it's all that hard. As you note, it might be difficult to do a "wealth tax" but as you well know, most of the Old Rich aren't merely living off the diminishing principal of their fore bearers accumulated wealth. As a result, they tend to make capital gains. Capital gains taxes (if the democrats were actually after "the rich") would be their most demagogued issue.

It isn't. They want to raise income taxes. The SERIOUSLY rich don't make their money off of income. But what is the focus? Income taxes.

It belies either a complete inability to understand the nature of the wealthy in this country (I find this possibility extremely improbable), or an aim other than "soaking the rich". (This possibility includes the taking advantage of the public's misconception of what makes one "rich".)

I will state, once again, I don't think any taxes ought to be raised and I don't think the Old Rich deserve to be demogogued any more than those who actually produce goods or services and make income. I'm merely pointing out that "progressive's" stated goals and means don't match up. (My explanation for this is that they prefer to shelter the "old rich", just as there is a preference towards benefiting lawyers.)

[Tallpine]

The trouble with "capital gains" tax is that in many cases it is just a tax on government induced inflation.   

[just Warren]

Double taxation is what made this country great! It is doubleplus ungood to not think the same!

[birdman]

The trouble with "capital gains" tax is that in many cases it is just a tax on government induced inflation.   

Damn skippy.

I don't see how it's all that hard. As you note, it might be difficult to do a "wealth tax" but as you well know, most of the Old Rich aren't merely living off the diminishing principal of their fore bearers accumulated wealth. As a result, they tend to make capital gains. Capital gains taxes (if the democrats were actually after "the rich") would be their most demagogued issue.

It isn't. They want to raise income taxes. The SERIOUSLY rich don't make their money off of income. But what is the focus? Income taxes.

It belies either a complete inability to understand the nature of the wealthy in this country (I find this possibility extremely improbable), or an aim other than "soaking the rich". (This possibility includes the taking advantage of the public's misconception of what makes one "rich".)

I think its actually a third option, if a substantive wealth tax (say, a quasi constitutional extremely high capital gains tax that as tallpine points out, results in substantial taxation even on zero yield things) were introduced, what you would see is a ,assume reduction in -any- capital movement, as its only taxed if it moves, effectively crippling any growth.  I think the progs know this, and as such, aim at income, as its economic effects are more short term and ironically, less damaging to the economy.