Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Skip8282 on August 26, 2011, 07:09:44 AM
-
Let us know your generous gift. :D
You can voluntarily give right here:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
-
Where's all the liberals?
Time to put up or shut up.
haha
Guess it's ok as long as it's somebody else's money.
-
Where's all the liberals?
Time to put up or shut up.
haha
Guess it's ok as long as it's somebody else's money.
I pay a "liberal" 28% of my adjusted gross income in Federal income taxes each year. I am doing my part. How about you?
-
Let us know your generous gift. :D
You can voluntarily give right here:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454
Darn right. Put up or shut up.
-
I pay a "liberal" 28% of my adjusted gross income in Federal income taxes each year. I am doing my part. How about you?
Uh, good for you I guess. Not sure what that has to do with the thread.
-
Uh, good for you I guess. Not sure what that has to do with the thread.
Some folks think a redistribution of taxes means more taxes. I don't. However, the wealthiest folks in the U.S. only pay 16% of their adjusted gross income in Federal income tax. My point is that I'm not donating any additional money to offset the National debt until there is a redistribution requiring that the wealthy no longer get a tax break at the rest of our expense.
-
Where's all the liberals?
Time to put up or shut up.
haha
Guess it's ok as long as it's somebody else's money.
I get the lol with providing a link to give an all but what does this have to do with anything libs are saying... I mean where is the "ah ha" here? I'm not seeing where what you posted has any real bearing on what libs and progressives have pushed for tax wise? It looks like you're taking a spot to say libs don't want to give in more and equating that to what they stand for is wrong? I think there is a bit more to the entire argument than that simplicity.
-
I get the lol with providing a link to give an all but what does this have to do with anything libs are saying... I mean where is the "ah ha" here? I'm not seeing where what you posted has any real bearing on what libs and progressives have pushed for tax wise? It looks like you're taking a spot to say libs don't want to give in more and equating that to what they stand for is wrong? I think there is a bit more to the entire argument than that simplicity.
Absolutely! There is nothing simple about tax laws at all. In my opinion, that is part of the problem; the problem being that there are a lot of people who abuse complicated tax laws to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, leaving it to those of us who are more honest to bear the burden of taxes.
Bill Sizemore, Oregon's initiative king, right wing nut and tax objector just finished doing time in prison for tax evasion and fraud. There is humor in his prison stay. Prisons are funded by tax dollars. When Sizemore talked to the media recently, he complained that the food in the prison was sub par and not nutritious. However prison records show that he was addicted to Twinkies, which everyone knows are loaded with nutrition, LOL.
-
I get the lol with providing a link to give an all but what does this have to do with anything libs are saying... I mean where is the "ah ha" here? I'm not seeing where what you posted has any real bearing on what libs and progressives have pushed for tax wise? It looks like you're taking a spot to say libs don't want to give in more and equating that to what they stand for is wrong? I think there is a bit more to the entire argument than that simplicity.
His quote makes perfect sense. Everyone's definition of "fair" is different, thus leading to the ridiculous situation we're in. I think it's not fair that nearly 50% of the people in this country don't pay shit in income taxes (with many of those people actually taking money out). They think it's not fair that the rich don't pay more.
They should stop worrying about what everyone else pays and lead by example. No one's stopping Uncle Warren from directing the billions he plans to give to the Gates Foundation to the government instead. But even he knows that they'll just waste it like they do everything else.
I pay a "liberal" 28% of my adjusted gross income in Federal income taxes each year. I am doing my part. How about you?
Pay more, scumbag. We're $14 trillion in debt. Give more to the government, you traitorous trash.
-
However, the wealthiest folks in the U.S. only pay 16% of their adjusted gross income in Federal income tax.
What? Where do you come up w/this?
-
What? Where do you come up w/this?
I'd like to know that too.
This is from 2008. What it shows is the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of federal taxes in 2008; the top 5 percent paid 58 percent of federal taxes; the bottom 50 percent paid 2.7 percent of federal taxes.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
-
What? Where do you come up w/this?
many sources for that info
here is one
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-americans-pay-an-18-tax-rate/
I posted this article earlier this year.
It's worth 5 minute of your time to read in it's entirety
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
-
Some folks think a redistribution of taxes means more taxes. I don't. However, the wealthiest folks in the U.S. only pay 16% of their adjusted gross income in Federal income tax. My point is that I'm not donating any additional money to offset the National debt until there is a redistribution requiring that the wealthy no longer get a tax break at the rest of our expense.
Still not following what that has to do with anything. For all we know you got all or most of that 28% back at the end of the year. Conversely, you don't what rich people are getting back, if anything.
What we do know is that the OTA tells us that the majority of taxes are footed by the wealthiest people. If you want others to pay more, especially without knowing their specific tax situation, then feel free to lead by example.
-
His quote makes perfect sense. Everyone's definition of "fair" is different, thus leading to the ridiculous situation we're in. I think it's not fair that nearly 50% of the people in this country don't pay shit in income taxes (with many of those people actually taking money out). They think it's not fair that the rich don't pay more.
They should stop worrying about what everyone else pays and lead by example. No one's stopping Uncle Warren from directing the billions he plans to give to the Gates Foundation to the government instead. But even he knows that they'll just waste it like they do everything else.
Pay more, scumbag. We're $14 trillion in debt. Give more to the government, you traitorous trash.
This ^^ Hugo.
Agreed on the complexity of the tax code. National sales tax that doesn't cover necessities perhaps?
-
....For all we I know you got all or most of that 28% back at the end of the year....
Which just goes to prove you don't know shit!
-
Which just goes to prove you don't know shit!
Yawn...best you got grandpa?
-
I made 6 figures last year and didn't pay a single dime in taxes.
u mad?
-
I made 6 figures last year and didn't pay a single dime in taxes.
u mad?
The only thing I'm mad about is the educational system. It's producing illiterate retards like you who can't comprehend the thread or even the thread title for that matter.
Damn, education has gone to shit.
-
prime and straw, ever heard of double taxation?
guess what the richest ppl in the country have in common?
the own corporations or get income from investments in corporations...
which means their income is taxed once at the corporate level and then again at the personal level...
-
Double taxed indeed! If anything, corporations enjoy additional ways to hide their profits, which are what they are taxed on. Incidentally, those wages people pay income tax on are a deduction for the corporations. Read below:
Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.
Understanding Corporate Taxation
Because a corporation is a separate legal entity from its owners, the company itself is taxed on all profits that it cannot deduct as business expenses. Generally, taxable profits consist of money kept in the company to cover expenses or expansion (called "retained earnings") and profits that are distributed to the owners (shareholders) as dividends.
Tax-Deductible Expenses
To reduce taxable profits, a corporation can deduct many of its business expenses -- money the corporation spends in the legitimate pursuit of profit. In addition to start-up costs, operating expenses, and product and advertising outlays, a corporation can deduct the salaries and bonuses it pays and all of the costs associated with medical and retirement plans for employees.
Shareholder Tax Payments
If the corporation's owners work for the corporation, they pay individual income taxes on their salaries and bonuses like regular employees of any company. Salaries and bonuses are deductible business expenses, so the corporation does not pay taxes on them.
Tax on Dividends
If a corporation distributes dividends to the owners, they must report and pay personal income tax on these amounts. And because dividends, unlike salaries and bonuses, are not tax-deductible, the corporation must also pay taxes on them. This means that dividends are taxed twice -- once to the corporation and again to the shareholders. Smaller corporations rarely face this problem: Because their owners typically work for the corporation as employees, the corporation can pay them in the form of tax-deductible salaries and bonuses, rather than taxable dividends.
-
prime and straw, ever heard of double taxation?
guess what the richest ppl in the country have in common?
the own corporations or get income from investments in corporations...
which means their income is taxed once at the corporate level and then again at the personal level...
In theory, you are correct about the potential for "double taxation" however theories and realitities differ, see how:
A Good Business Should be Structured so It Doesn’t Pay Taxes (Or Pay as Little as Possible)
What the layperson doesn’t often understand is why most businesses aren’t taxed. A lot of it comes down to the double taxation of corporate profits. If you recall from Business Entities 101, a corporation is a separate legal and taxable entity. This means that corporate profits are taxed at the corporate level, and when disbursed to business owners or shareholders in the form of dividends, are taxed again at the personal level. Clearly, business owners want to avoid having their profits taxed twice, so they will structure the profits to be paid out in a way that minimizes or eliminates this. One common method of doing this is to shift the corporate profits into salaries as opposed to being paid out in dividends. The money is still being taxed, but just at the personal level.
-
Yawn...best you got grandpa?
Is that suppose to be insulting to me? Quite the contrary; there is every reason to believe I have a lot more financial and political experience than you do since by calling me grandpa, you give others the impression you are far less mature and much less experienced than I am.
-
His quote makes perfect sense. Everyone's definition of "fair" is different, thus leading to the ridiculous situation we're in. I think it's not fair that nearly 50% of the people in this country don't pay shit in income taxes (with many of those people actually taking money out). They think it's not fair that the rich don't pay more.
They should stop worrying about what everyone else pays and lead by example. No one's stopping Uncle Warren from directing the billions he plans to give to the Gates Foundation to the government instead. But even he knows that they'll just waste it like they do everything else.
Pay more, scumbag. We're $14 trillion in debt. Give more to the government, you traitorous trash.
How are you going to pay income tax if you dont have an income?
-
Oh bullshit. They do have income, but theough the tax code don't pay dick.
Btw - ron paul disagrees w you about this.
-
Oh bullshit. They do have income, but theough the tax code don't pay dick.
Btw - ron paul disagrees w you about this.
Are you talking about rich folks who evades taxes or people without a job who cant pay taxes?
I
-
The only thing I'm mad about is the educational system. It's producing illiterate retards like you who can't comprehend the thread or even the thread title for that matter.
Damn, education has gone to shit.
u mad?
-
many sources for that info
here is one
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/07/25/the-400-richest-americans-pay-an-18-tax-rate/
I posted this article earlier this year.
It's worth 5 minute of your time to read in it's entirety
http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
-
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
Good post.
-
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
sounds like you understand it pretty well. Keep in mind that most uber rich people (and even people making just a few million dollars a year) don't usually receive that money as W-2 wages. They usually have corporations, LLC's, etc.. which can be manipulated to filter their income through the least taxed avenue (and since our laws allow this there is nothing wrong or evil about it but it doesn't change the fact that they pay less as a percentage of their income then people making a lot less money)
-
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
Nice. You should post here more often. :)
-
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
Good for you....commomsense always wins when all is said and done. Many publications on any subject including taxes are skewed. The truth is there are many versions of the truth and they are all arguable and supportable. One's need to be right is powerful. When someone (including me) is trying to make a point they will seek the best example to do this. The best example is rarely a neutral or middle of the road viewpoint.
The above being said, facts (even skewed ones) are better than personal opinions which are often presented as fact. Unfortunately, many people are gullible and as long as what someone says confirms what they want to believe they don't question it or the source. I have read some pretty outrageous comments on a variety of topics which were written with no proviso, such as, IMO. The result is many people read these personal comments and believe them to be facts. They aren't and that is dangerous. It leaves people making decisions about important matters based on erroneous information.
-
I'm not an accountant (or even good w/math!) so I may need clarification/help but:
Both of those articles look to concentrate on the "richest 400" paying a ~16% income tax rate because their income is mainly based on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at the lower rate), right?
Not all the "rich" fall into this category and not all of them use loopholes etc such as those in Section 4 of your second article. Plus the hedge managers in Section 4 eventually will pay.
Your second article is somewhat skewed, imo, in the wording of some things, for instance the case that they try to point out that people that pay no income tax still pay taxes but also make statements like "Donald Trump [lives tax free] and paid no taxes for 2 years."
That said, I'm not blind to the fact that some people do use loopholes to pay a lower percentage but some also if they made enough charitable donations (the latter not being a bad thing imo).
not only that but income from dividends is net of tax that the corporation they are receiving dividends from has already paid on that income...
so that income is techinically being taxed twice...
-
In theory, you are correct about the potential for "double taxation" however theories and realitities differ, see how:
A Good Business Should be Structured so It Doesn’t Pay Taxes (Or Pay as Little as Possible)
What the layperson doesn’t often understand is why most businesses aren’t taxed. A lot of it comes down to the double taxation of corporate profits. If you recall from Business Entities 101, a corporation is a separate legal and taxable entity. This means that corporate profits are taxed at the corporate level, and when disbursed to business owners or shareholders in the form of dividends, are taxed again at the personal level. Clearly, business owners want to avoid having their profits taxed twice, so they will structure the profits to be paid out in a way that minimizes or eliminates this. One common method of doing this is to shift the corporate profits into salaries as opposed to being paid out in dividends. The money is still being taxed, but just at the personal level.
hmmm, the problem is that most companies dont do that as you say...it really is a great idea but the fact of the matter is most companies tie the higher managers income into the profitability of the company.
This helps to limit the amount of self intersted acts the managers perform b/c their income is ultimately tied into the companies income. Therefor whats good for the company is ultimately whats good for the manager.
Your idea is good in theory but its not the practice, the practice is to give stock options etc...
-
hmmm, the problem is that most companies dont do that as you say...it really is a great idea but the fact of the matter is most companies tie the higher managers income into the profitability of the company.
This helps to limit the amount of self intersted acts the managers perform b/c their income is ultimately tied into the companies income. Therefor whats good for the company is ultimately whats good for the manager.
Your idea is good in theory but its not the practice, the practice is to give stock options etc...
It would be dishonest for me to take credit for this idea it came from an article written by an economist....which I am not.
-
It would be dishonest for me to take credit for this idea it came from an article written by an economist....which I am not.
well its a good idea from the private arenas point of view i would say. I think that a person of your opinion would think of it as a bad idea seeing as it strives to keep more of the money in private hands and out of the govt.
either way, its not really common practice for the managers of corporations especially those whos actions severely effect the corp.
If you make the managers income tied to the price of the companies stock like they do in stock options. Then you dont see the self interested acts you do when their income is tied with hitting numbers or simply giving them a salary. This is why the CEO's, VP's, CFO's etc...get stock options as part of their compensation, to keep them honest ;)
-
Is that suppose to be insulting to me? Quite the contrary; there is every reason to believe I have a lot more financial and political experience than you do since by calling me grandpa, you give others the impression you are far less mature and much less experienced than I am.
Still got nothing gramps? Keep trying, keep failing.
-
And still, nobody wants to lead by example?
lol
-
And still, nobody wants to lead by example?
lol
we know Bama sure as he'll didn't.
-
I guess nobody wants to pay more taxes. What a surprise
-
Is it easier to use loopholes to pay less if the company is publicly traded?
If so, does anyone know how to find out approximately what percent of companies are publicly traded?
-
Is it easier to use loopholes to pay less if the company is publicly traded?
If so, does anyone know how to find out approximately what percent of companies are publicly traded?
The thing is that those that are publicly traded generally are going to have more opportunities to exploit those loopholes bc of the amount of activity that their larger businesses take part in.
I actually would think that the private companies have an easier time of using tax loopholes as they dont have to report straight to the SEC with 10k's/10Q's
Im no tax guru but I think that the public companies get the bad wrap one b/c they have to report their financials so the public gets to see their income and tax burdens as opposed to the private companies that dont and can hide them. Also b/c their income is much higher by nature and it makes their tax burden seem smaller in comparison.
Im not sure about the % of publicly traded corps but I would think that the amount of private corps FAR outweighs the amount of public ones.
-
Is it easier to use loopholes to pay less if the company is publicly traded?
If so, does anyone know how to find out approximately what percent of companies are publicly traded?
The big loopholes are in the multi-national corporation tax codes. Basically multi-national corporations can use losses in other countries they operate in to offset profits here in the US allowing them to pay little to no taxes (i.e. GE paying zero taxes in 2010 IIRC). GE used their massive losses in Ireland to offset their massive profits here in the US allowing them to not pay a dime in taxes.
That's where the large tax revenues are being "lost".
-
Thanks guys, I was thinking along the line of Emmortal's line of thinking...the bigger/more public, the more used loopholes...
And also in tony's line, I'm under the impression that there are many more Private Companies than huge/public ones.
So I am under the impression that people that think "all or most of the rich" don't pay taxes, or pay a much lower rate than 30+% are basing their assumption on what happens with these huge companies and not often w/the smaller, private companies, of which there are many more. It seems like they are just lumping all the "rich" together and making a blanket assumption.
That Warren Buffet statement that he paid ~17% rate while his secretary paid more, I think is ingrained in some people's minds that all the "rich" only pay ~16% which is clearly false.
-
The big loopholes are in the multi-national corporation tax codes. Basically multi-national corporations can use losses in other countries they operate in to offset profits here in the US allowing them to pay little to no taxes (i.e. GE paying zero taxes in 2010 IIRC). GE used their massive losses in Ireland to offset their massive profits here in the US allowing them to not pay a dime in taxes.
That's where the large tax revenues are being "lost".
this has more to do with gaap than tax loopholes.
gaap says that you must consolidate your operations and any companies that you have controlling interest in into the parent companies financials...
thats what your example falls under, if you simply take into account the money brought in and expenses incurred in the US. how do you account for the income and expenses earned and spent in other countries?
so this is in accordance with gaap and not a tax loophole.
-
Thanks guys, I was thinking along the line of Emmortal's line of thinking...the bigger/more public, the more used loopholes...
And also in tony's line, I'm under the impression that there are many more Private Companies than huge/public ones.
So I am under the impression that people that think "all or most of the rich" don't pay taxes, or pay a much lower rate than 30+% are basing their assumption on what happens with these huge companies and not often w/the smaller, private companies, of which there are many more. It seems like they are just lumping all the "rich" together and making a blanket assumption.
That Warren Buffet statement that he paid ~17% rate while his secretary paid more, I think is ingrained in some people's minds that all the "rich" only pay ~16% which is clearly false.
agreed, agreed and agreed.
most ppl also dont take into account that the ppl that own or operate corporations also are paying the corporate tax before they even get their share of the profit that is TAXED AGAIN by the federal govt for federal income tax and in some states yet AGAIN for state income tax.
So their idea is far from on point and is a simple statement for a very complex issue.