- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Concerning 401k and IRA investing, when the average guy withdraws that, he pays a tax rate based on AGI for the year, which for me and my wife was up in the 34% range 2 years ago, and that is whether the account earned money, or lost money. Our income was part earned, and part unearned. We paid SS on the earned portion.
The rich invest in regular accounts, their profits are capital gains on unearned income, and get a preferred tax rate of 15%. They don't pay into SS on unearned income.
Warren Buffet says his employees pay a higher tax rate than he does...
The rich have the politicians in their pockets, while the gullible middle class have no pockets. A lot of middle class demand tax cuts that will save them a few hundred a year, but save the uber rich a few hundred thousand a year, or more....
And for those "conservatives" who think I envy the rich, the wife and I have plenty of assets and our retirement income accumulates faster than we can spend it.
So the progressive tax system is working pretty well....
Now that's the spirit, don't care about what the rich pay. My bet is those that don't pay any income taxes could care less what others pay as well. Isn't it easy supporting something that doesn't affect you?
Utah Bill, heard of the Son of Boss tax scheme? A completely artificial way to generate insanely large fake losses to completely eliminate all taxable income? It ain't the poor and middle class who are using them.
Utah Bill, heard of the Son of Boss tax scheme? A completely artificial way to generate insanely large fake losses to completely eliminate all taxable income? It ain't the poor and middle class who are using them.
You try living paycheck to paycheck for 20 years and then tell me weather or not you care what they get taxed. BTW, I never said I supported the rich getting taxed to high hell or not.
Two Words:
Flat Tax.
Three Words:
National Sales Tax.
Four Word:
No Value Added Tax.
I know, my apology, it does seem to be a popular position however by far too many. Those that pay no income taxes don't seem to care about how much taxes others pay as they keep electing the same people over and over again that raise taxes.
Wonder how much Warren Buffet would pay in taxes if he didn't donate most of his income to charity?
Isn't the Son of Boss designed to lower capital gains taxes?
Why don't we do with the capital gains tax that we do with income taxes, raise the rates on those who do pay capital gains taxes to offset the lost revenue from those how use this tax scheme.
Less. But you ignored his point. He's talking about RATE. Not amount.
Two Words:
Flat Tax.
Three Words:
National Sales Tax.
Three Word:
Value Added Tax.
Specifically? No. Can it indirectly by eliminating all taxable income? Yes.
A better idea would be to impose ridiculously large fines on those who use it rather then simply disallow the reduction in taxes with the current fine system.
I do believe BOSS was a KPMG product. Not surprising it's massively illegal.
Ok, thanks, I just get so confused, just doesn't seem right that he would pay less in taxes if he didn't have the deductions for charitable giving but I bow to your superior wisdom
Well, his effective tax rate would drop to 7.5% as cash donations are limited to 50% of total taxable income. As his income is effectively taxed at the 15% rate with a immaterial change due to his standard deduction, donating half his wealth would slice his marginal effective in half. It's not going to be exactly 7.5% but it will be close. At $48.1 million in 2006, his itemized phase out is almost a million, but donating $68+ billion will ensure his carry over is quite large indefinitely. So his taxable income was $24.05 million, which at 19% is $4.5 million split between state and federal. That's signifcently less then my effective tax rate.
And yes, you should bow to my superior wisdom.
Wow, impressive, you indeed have superior wisdom to everyone in this forum which is lucky to have you but I stated that he shouldn't contribute to charities thus would have no charitable deductions meaning that his taxable income would be a lot higher. Sorry if I wasn't clearer. We all know that rich people should stop giving to charities and send all their money to the govt. so they can deliver it to the charities they deem worthy.
Specifically? No. Can it indirectly by eliminating all taxable income? Yes.
A better idea would be to impose ridiculously large fines on those who use it rather then simply disallow the reduction in taxes with the current fine system.
I do believe BOSS was a KPMG product. Not surprising it's massively illegal.
I could have sworn that this site claims that Son of Boss was a tax scheme to prevent paying capital gains taxes
Introduction to the Son of Boss Abusive Tax Shelter Transaction
Wow, impressive you still can't read properly. Utahbill was talking about tax rates. You screwed that up. I merely calculated the change to his effectively marginal tax rate showing that charitable deductions would further slice an already low effective tax rate to even new lows.
You are still wrong, go look at that table again and pay close attention to the letters - AGI at the top of the column - they mean something.
While you're at it, please peruse the following link:
Tax shelter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are right really screwed
that up as I always get caught up in how much actual money is paid instead of the rate charged.
Seems that is a better way of looking at things but again you are much, much smarter.
I guess your answer still stands that if Buffet didn't contribute to any charities his rate would still be 7.5%.
Yes you did. Confusing rate and amount is what you did.
Yet you support a flat tax no? It would seem you are being once again, dishonest. You only care about certain things when it supports your current argument only to flip around when it doesn't.
Only if you were consistent. Which you are anything but.
Guess my point still stands that you can't read properly. Saying my answer that Buffet would have a 7.5% effective without donating shows you have no idea what my post actually stated.
Conservative
[So you think taking more taxes from the rich will help the middle class?
Please give me an example of anytime that higher taxes made someone in the middle class move up a class?
So are you saying I should be patting rich people on the back even though under Bush they got a much better tax break?
Yes, and we know how badly the govt. needs the taxpayer money since they spend it so effeciently. We all should be concerned about paying for that meager 3.8 trillion dollar budget and all those bailouts for after all that income from the individual should be the government's first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?