Author Topic: Millionaires and Taxes (Read 8486 times)

P5 Guy · « **on:** August 16, 2011, 12:50:21 PM »

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

If you are so smart you made billions and could afford all those lobbyists to get those deduction you can't figure out how to get taxed more without the help of Congress?

I have an idea, fire the army of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists. Next tax season use the 1040EZ and just take the standard dedution

zxcvbob · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2011, 12:58:53 PM »

Did you notice they are accepting donations? (and the "Donate Today" page where you type in your credit card number is not secure)

birdman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2011, 01:17:08 PM »

Also, if you want to voluntarily pay more "to reduce the deficit" you can simply do so on your tax form...there is a block for it IIRC. Of course, note they say deficit and not debt, as the funds just go into the general fund, and aren't targeted at debt reduction. What the .gov should do if they wanted to implement such a patriotic donation is give you a tax exemption for the amount increased by the total yield on an X year treasury--then target the money at payoff of that treasury. Of course, that would actually do something, and allow people to ensure their funds were directed appropriately, instead of doing their "feel good" method that doesn't do jack.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2011, 03:30:18 PM »

The govt could tax all the millionaires 100% and it still wouldn't be enough money.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2011, 04:47:56 PM »

Quote

The govt could tax all the millionaires 100% and it still wouldn't be enough money.

Actually, I read that if you taxed everyone making over $250,000 a year at 100%, the revenue from that would carry the country through the first 140 days of the year, under Obama's budget. After that, if you taxed the profits of the Fortune 500 companies at 100%, that would carry the country through the middle of summer. Finally, if the government took every last home, boat, car, bank account and everything else owned by billionaires, that still wouldn't carry the country through the end of the year.

Scout26 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2011, 06:16:38 PM »

Iowahawk proved this earlier this year. That if the .gov took damn near everything of value it would just barely get us through this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

charby · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:17:01 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on August 16, 2011, 04:47:56 PM

Actually, I read that if you taxed everyone making over $250,000 a year at 100%, the revenue from that would carry the country through the first 140 days of the year, under Obama's budget. After that, if you taxed the profits of the Fortune 500 companies at 100%, that would carry the country through the middle of summer. Finally, if the government took every last home, boat, car, bank account and everything else owned by billionaires, that still wouldn't carry the country through the end of the year.

According to wikipedia that is not true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-GWUS_2-2

Quote

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:35:40 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on August 16, 2011, 04:47:56 PM

. Finally, if the government took every last home, boat, car, bank account and everything else owned by billionaires, that still wouldn't carry the country through the end of the year.

The thing about seizing assets, is that they are only worth what someone will pay for them. If all the ultra rich are taxed out of ultra-richness, and thier assets siezed, who is left to buy those assets for the government to make money from?

seeker_two · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:41:44 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on August 16, 2011, 04:47:56 PM

Actually, I read that if you taxed everyone making over $250,000 a year at 100%, the revenue from that would carry the country through the first 140 days of the year, under Obama's budget. After that, if you taxed the profits of the Fortune 500 companies at 100%, that would carry the country through the middle of summer. Finally, if the government took every last home, boat, car, bank account and everything else owned by billionaires, that still wouldn't carry the country through the end of the year.

Gee, thanks Monkeyleg.....for giving them new ideas....

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #9 on:** August 16, 2011, 09:21:04 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on August 16, 2011, 08:35:40 PM

The thing about seizing assets, is that they are only worth what someone will pay for them. If all the ultra rich are taxed out of ultra-richness, and thier assets siezed, who is left to buy those assets for the government to make money from?

People who live in free countries?

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #10 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:00:20 PM »

Where are these "free countries" of which you speak?

No, seriously, where are they?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:13:43 PM »

I only mean the nations that aren't taxing their people to such absurd extremes. They'd be free by comparison.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:33:32 PM »

Quote from: charby on August 16, 2011, 08:17:01 PM

According to wikipedia that is not true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-GWUS_2-2

Maybe I am dense but I do not see in the Wiki article where it disputes Monkeyleg's theory .....

I'm not sure how long confiscating all the money from the wealthy would last but it can't be long, it won't solve the problem and it will create far more problems.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:33:49 PM »

Charby, I believe it was Walter Williams who said that. Wiki should take it up with him.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2011, 11:04:19 AM »

The main point is that our taxes are on income, not wealth. Just because someone has a large income doesn't necessarily mean they are wealthy. Most of those wealthy hypocrites who call for higher taxes have all their money in tax shelters. They really mean they want tax all those "little people" who are trying to get wealthy.

Balog · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2011, 11:06:26 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on August 17, 2011, 11:04:19 AM

The main point is that our taxes are on income, not wealth. Just because someone has a large income doesn't necessarily mean they are wealthy. Most of those wealthy hypocrites who call for higher taxes have all their money in tax shelters. They really mean they want tax all those "little people" who are trying to get wealthy.

This. It's also why when a CEO says "I'll take a $1 salary this year" it's essentially meaningless.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2011, 12:26:21 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on August 17, 2011, 11:04:19 AM

The main point is that our taxes are on income, not wealth. Just because someone has a large income doesn't necessarily mean they are wealthy. Most of those wealthy hypocrites who call for higher taxes have all their money in tax shelters. They really mean they want tax all those "little people" who are trying to get wealthy.

Not only that, many of them have figured out how to make money off of higher taxes. Selling insurance to cover estate taxes, buying the property of those who have to sell off due to estate taxes, etc etc.
Then there is the issue of income taxes. If you're ultra rich, say 200 million just sitting, and you don't really work anymore, then why worry about the millionaire in your town (who owns 5 taco bells and a car dealership, and works 6 days a week)? Screw him.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2011, 12:32:08 PM »

Question: What's the deal with Warren Buffet paying 17% tax and his staff paying 34%, or so he claims?

birdman · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2011, 05:29:46 PM »

Quote from: fistful on August 17, 2011, 12:32:08 PM

Question: What's the deal with Warren Buffet paying 17% tax and his staff paying 34%, or so he claims?

Long term capital gains/dividends (15%) comprise the bulk of his "income", while a small fraction of his employees income.

What is forgotten is the 35% corporate tax paid on the dividends before he gets them....so basically, he's lying. The company pays salaries (not taxed at the corporate level, as they are costs), then pays 35% corporate taxes on profits, the remainder of which is distributed as either increased equity (which would then be taxed later as capital gains), or dividends (taxed now at 15%). So TECHNICALLY he is paying 50% federal taxes on his "income"...and he's lying out of his ass.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:21:11 PM »

Thanks for the explanation.

wmenorr67 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2011, 03:51:01 PM »

Quote

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money

Margaret Thatcher

RocketMan · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2011, 11:54:09 PM »

Quote from: charby on August 16, 2011, 08:17:01 PM

According to wikipedia that is not true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-GWUS_2-2

Charby, what Monkeyleg was referring to was taxing the wealthy at 100% for the current year not being sufficient to put a meaningful dent in the current deficit. He was not talking about confiscating all the wealth held by the rich to apply to the deficit or the national debt.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2011, 12:07:10 AM »

Thanks for clearing that up, Rocketman. I thought I' done so with this:

Quote

the revenue from that would carry the country through the first 140 days of the year, under Obama's budget.

Lee · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2011, 09:38:12 PM »

Quote

What is forgotten is the 35% corporate tax paid on the dividends before he gets them....so basically, he's lying. The company pays salaries (not taxed at the corporate level, as they are costs), then pays 35% corporate taxes on profits, the remainder of which is distributed as either increased equity (which would then be taxed later as capital gains), or dividends (taxed now at 15%). So TECHNICALLY he is paying 50% federal taxes on his "income"...and he's lying out of his ass.

I always hear that....but can someone name a few major companies that actually pay 35%?

birdman · « **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2011, 06:37:27 AM »

Quote from: Lee on August 23, 2011, 09:38:12 PM

I always hear that....but can someone name a few major companies that actually pay 35%?

On actual profits, most. The news is lying once again. Just as there is a difference between your take home pay and your AGI, there is a difference between profit after costs and taxable profit. Corporations have tax deductions, exemptions, and credits just like people.

News:

Author Topic: Millionaires and Taxes (Read 8486 times)