Government-spending directly means taxation

[Lafayette]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?

The reason for relatively low taxes is how the affluent earn and pay levies on investment income. These findings offer insights for Americans looking to reduce taxes and build wealth, experts say.

KEY POINTS

• Some of the world’s richest executives, including Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk, pay little to no taxes compared to their wealth, according to a ProPublica report.
• The reason for relatively low taxes is how the affluent earn and pay levies on investment income.
• These findings offer insights for Americans looking to reduce taxes and build wealth, experts say.

It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

 

[Emily L]

I know it's perfectly legal, and I wouldn't want a law to stop it, but I think it's a sad state of affairs when the rich not only brag about how much they can reduce their personal taxes but openly tell their rich friends how they can do it, too.

And no, I'm not jealous of rich people. I just hate to see any group of people behave so self-centeredly (if that's a word) when the money they would otherwise be paying in personal taxes is so desperately needed in so many areas.

Again, I'll defend to the death their right to do it--I just wish they wouldn't.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That points out two major problems with the personal federal income tax (FIT) code: 1) the ability of the donor class to get congress critters to enact ‘special’ income tax treatment (often called ‘loopholes’) of “investment” (non-wage?) income and 2) the ridiculous notion that identical amounts of income should (out of fairness?) be taxed differently based on how and/or upon who that income was later spent.

Another problem is the relative ease of having personal income be treated as business (corporate?) income which is taxed under entirely different portions of the FIT code, generally at a flat rate, thus avoiding the (higher) progressive rates applied to personal income (of the same amount).

 

[bongsaway]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

Five billion in profits, zero income tax paid. Can someone with a business degree explain to me how this happens. Isn't profit earned income?

 

[Da Mole]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

How long before the left will restrict intelligence levels as a way to reduce success and income levels? OH!, public education run by a socialist teacher, it's already here.

 

[danielpalos]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

It is why we should raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

 

[code1211]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

Thoughts like these are beyond stupidity and without any foundation whatever.

 

[Lafayette]

CANADA MAKES ONE HELLUVA LOTTA CARS!

It is why we should raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue.

That has always helped but it never corrected the problem.

The "problem" being that the US is undergoing a fundamental change of industry. For instance, we can't make cars in the US and resell them at a decent price - so we do it out of Mexico.

But my point is this: Cars are made in Canada! From here: Canadian Automotive Industry

Excerpt:

Canada’s automotive industry is centered in the heart of North America’s largest vehicle producing region: the Great Lakes automotive manufacturing cluster. Canada is one of the world’s top 12 producers of light vehicles. Five global OEMs assemble more than 1.4 million vehicles at their Canadian plants each year: Stellantis, Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota.

Their plants are supplied by a vibrant ecosystem of nearly 700 parts suppliers, including homegrown Tier 1 companies like Magna, Linamar and Martinrea. Canada is home to one of only five machine-tool-die-and-mould (MTDM) making clusters in the world. It’s been building vehicles for over a century, and has a proud legacy of high quality auto manufacturing.

And we cannot seem to make cars in the US at an affordable cost so they have to come from Mexico?

Just what is going on ... ?

PS: From here:

The average new vehicle is more expensive in Canada than it is in the US. Largely because of the desire of the Japanese, German and Korean auto companies to increase the amount of profits they take from Canadian consumers, the average new vehicle is $5,842 (17 percent) more expensive in Canada than it is in the US.

 

[Lafayette]

DA MOLE IN A HOLE

How long before the left will restrict intelligence levels as a way to reduce success and income levels? OH!, public education run by a socialist teacher, it's already here.

Blah-blah-blah blather!

The Left would not restrict intelligence-levels even if it wanted to do so. Because that would be Mission Impossible in the US ...

Unless, of course, you know how it is done and will show me NOW ...

 

[Lafayette]

REPLICANTS WHO DO "LITTLE FAVORS" FOR THEIR DONORS

Five billion in profits, zero income tax paid. Can someone with a business degree explain to me how this happens. Isn't profit earned income?

Your answer is here but the NYT freezes readers out. That is, you need to subscribe to the newspaper. However, tricky-dogs like me snuff around the internet and find a way in!

Thus, from the article in question:

No Federal Taxes for Dozens of Big, Profitable Companies FedEx and Nike are among those found to have avoided U.S. tax liability for three straight years. Twenty-six Fortune 500 companies, including FedEx, paid no federal income tax for the last three years, a study found.

And believe me, it was past Replicant administrations that allowed companies to avoid tax liabilities!

Now, if you want to complain about something to your HofR or Senate rep in Congress, then I suggest you do so. And if s/he is a Replicant do not expect a quick reply ... !

Because that "gift" to Upper Management was likely arranged, I'll bet, under a past Replicant administration .... !

 

[danielpalos]

General taxation should be preferred to direct taxation whenever possible.

 

[Lafayette]

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BUSINESS & PERSONAL TAXATION

Five billion in profits, zero income tax paid. Can someone with a business degree explain to me how this happens. Isn't profit earned income?

Business income-tax is different from the personal variety. Most people understand that distinction.

But, we do not understand its consequences as shown here:

The difference between both is as follows (from here):

Particulars	Business Tax	Personal Tax
Definition	Business tax is an income tax paid on the net earnings and levied on its income. It is a direct tax and is often called a corporate tax.	Personal tax is directly taxed on an individual's income by the government.
Difference in Dates	Business taxations have several tax deadlines. Business owners pay quarterly tax, payroll taxes that are filed monthly, and final tax returns due annually, between March and May.	Individuals usually know their due tax date, i.e., April 15, except for holidays. They pay their taxes annually.
Tax Rates	Large companies pay corporate tax and file different tax forms than a self-employed individual, sole proprietor, etc. Small companies file a Form 1120S. While partnership companies file several documents like Form K1, the tax rates are comparatively higher than self-employed individuals.	The personal taxes applied to individuals generally have low tax rates as compared to business taxes. For example, the tax rates of self-employed individuals are small amounts. Self-employed individuals don't have employers, so they pay self-employment tax and pay both the employer and employee contribution. The self-employment tax covers the health and social security of an individual.
Payment Expectations	The businesses pay taxes every quarter.	An individual pays taxes annually.
Business Deductions	The business has many deductions available to them. For example, payments made to employees, business investments, traveling costs, office expenses, rent expenses can be deducted on a business tax return.	Individuals have a very limited number of deductions available to them, like health and social security exemptions, etc.
Change	Business Owners should hire a tax professional to guide them through the basics of the difference between personal and business taxes and to have a sound knowledge related to penalties and tax systems.	An individual might not need to know the different tax systems of personal and business taxes because they only pay personal taxes and not business taxes.

 

[Lafayette]

A RECENT HISTORY OF FEDERAL TAXATION

I just hate to see any group of people behave so self-centeredly (if that's a word) when the money they would otherwise be paying in personal taxes is so desperately needed in so many areas.

Again, I'll defend to the death their right to do it--I just wish they wouldn't.

That sort of intent will get you/us (the American people) absolutely nowhere!

Taxation is meant to be fair-and-equitable - which is decidedly NOT THE CASE in America. And it has been happening ever since JFK himself started the process just before his death.

The Replicants - when they took power in the Oval Office, simply continued diminishing upper-income taxation. That's how they got re-elected!

See that historical reference here:

Just look at the rate-reductions that began just before JFK's demise in 1964 - from 90% to 40% at present! Who was PotUS in 1986 that reduced it to just below 30%. Ronnie Raygun!

Who was the PotUS who brought it back up? Bill Clinton!

Wakey, wakey, America - we've had enough of making billionaires in the USA ... !!!

 

[HangLow]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

 

[Lafayette]

Inch'allah ... ?

From here: 55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxe

FedEx and Nike are among those found to have avoided U.S. tax liability for three straight years.

 

[The Work Outing]

WHY ARE SOME AMERICANS SO TERRIBLY SUPER-RICH?

From here: Why does the upper class pay less taxes?



It will take a revolution of sorts to change the unfairness of, first, unacceptable income-levels at the lowest-levels and indecently low taxation of the rich-and-super-rich.

For which the above linked site is well worth reading ... !

No it won't.

It's simple.
1) remove the 'full employment' mandate from the Fed.
2) make income and capital gains tax rates identical.
3) remove all tax deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.
4) balance the fiscal budget.

You do all that?
You will - eventually - end the ongoing and disturbing increase in the wealth gap in America.

 

[Lafayette]

It's simple.
1) remove the 'full employment' mandate from the Fed.
2) make income and capital gains tax rates identical.
3) remove all tax deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.
4) balance the fiscal budget.

You do all that?
You will - eventually - end the ongoing and disturbing increase in the wealth gap in America.

You think all that above is "simple"? Well, it aint!

But a "good start" would be to stop the ignominious reduction of upper-income taxation by a select group of the already Super-rich American Gentry by putting the highest earners at the highest level of taxation!

The Replicants have been lowering the upper-income taxation ever since the first reduction that JFK made just before he was assassinated. (And no I am not making an association between the two historical facts!)

It's a long history of Income Tax reductions - see it here:

All those movements in rates downwards since 1964 have been made by Replicant presidents (with the exception of the very last one in 2018. Which brought the rate back down to 40%. (Oh, wow! ;^)

Imagine making megabucks and paying less than 40% in taxation! It's crazy!!!

What a rip-off by richly-rich Yanks! They should be taxed at far higher levels - around 90% for revenues in the millions or billions of dollars! Do you understand why they contribute sooooo much money to reelecting Replicant candidates to Congress !!!

 

[Lafayette]

NO NEED FOR WANNABE BILLIONAIRES

2) make income and capital gains tax rates identical.
3) remove all tax deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.
4) balance the fiscal budget.

All that is just for beginners. It does not address Uncle Sam's acute problem of significant National Income Unfairness.

Uncle Sam's disposition of wealth is warped. Yes, I know - such is a diabolical-misinterpretation by a Communist pig. (I've been called worse.)

Name calling is of no concern to me - in a Debate Forum it is a kind of mediocre idiocy as rebuttal.

What we want and need badly is what economists call "Economic Fairness". And what might that be? It could go like this:

When all inhabitants of a nation benefit from its economic success such that opportunity and prosperity is shared equitably. Not equally, but equitably. That is, in a fair and impartial manner.

Which further means, for those at the bottom, tackling discrimination and disadvantage thereby reducing the inequality by narrowing the gaps between people. But, how must a country accomplish "reducing inequality"? Communism tried that by having ALL earn the same income. And what became of that theory? NADA!

One can reduce inequality, but in a dynamically competitive economic-system one cannot do away with it.

Meaning quite simply, there will always be those who know how to profit from the economic mechanism and some very handsomely. Well, the amounts of money earned simply must be capped equitably.

But that's gonna kill the economy!

I seriously doubt that outcome. There will always be millionaires but wannabe-billionaires will leave the country. And good riddance to them!

PS: Oh no! The above is excessive! It's gonna kill the economy!
PPS: I seriously doubt that. The economy will survive! But, it will get rid of a great number of people who earn billions of dollars to simply leave it all to their kids! Which is unfair and indecent in an equitable-nation!

 

[The Work Outing]

You think all that above is "simple"? Well, it aint!

Yes it is simple.
1-removing the 'full employment mandate' just takes an act of Congress.
2-same with income and capital gains taxes.
3-same with deductions.
4-just pass a rock hard ceiling on deficit spending.

It just would not be easy...I agree.
But in terms of complexity?
If enough Americans forced Congress to do these things?
They could all be done in days/weeks.

But a "good start" would be to stop the ignominious reduction of upper-income taxation by a select group of the already Super-rich American Gentry by putting the highest earners at the highest level of taxation!

The Replicants have been lowering the upper-income taxation ever since the first reduction that JFK made just before he was assassinated. (And no I am not making an association between the two historical facts!)

It's a long history of Income Tax reductions - see it here:

All those movements in rates downwards since 1964 have been made by Replicant presidents (with the exception of the very last one in 2018. Which brought the rate back down to 40%. (Oh, wow! ;^)

Imagine making megabucks and paying less than 40% in taxation! It's crazy!!!

What a rip-off by richly-rich Yanks! They should be taxed at far higher levels - around 90% for revenues in the millions or billions of dollars! Do you understand why they contribute sooooo much money to reelecting Replicant candidates to Congress !!!

But if you don't change the capital gains taxes?
The Mega-rich will not be affected.
For they make almost none of their income through income.

If people really want to get at the mega-wealthy?
They have to STOP thinking about income.
And start thinking about capital gains.

 

[The Work Outing]

NO NEED FOR WANNABE BILLIONAIRES



All that is just for beginners. It does not address Uncle Sam's acute problem of significant National Income Unfairness.

Actually, it largely does, IMO.
If you take away the Fed's 'full employment' mandate'?
Which basically allows them to do almost anything they want and 'print' any amount of money they wish.
All without ANY congressional oversight.
This will mean no more QE or bank/corporate bailouts (except from Congress).

And taxing capital gains at the same rate as income forces the wealthy to pay the same taxes as everyone else.
Even more so.
Right now?
The mega-wealthy pay almost no tax.

Uncle Sam's disposition of wealth is warped. Yes, I know - such is a diabolical-misinterpretation by a Communist pig. (I've been called worse.)

Name calling is of no concern to me - in a Debate Forum it is a kind of mediocre idiocy as rebuttal.

What we want and need badly is what economists call "Economic Fairness". And what might that be? It could go like this:


Which further means, for those at the bottom, tackling discrimination and disadvantage thereby reducing the inequality by narrowing the gaps between people. But, how must a country accomplish "reducing inequality"? Communism tried that by having ALL earn the same income. And what became of that theory? NADA!

One can reduce inequality, but in a dynamically competitive economic-system one cannot do away with it.

Meaning quite simply, there will always be those who know how to profit from the economic mechanism and some very handsomely. Well, the amounts of money earned simply must be capped equitably.

But that's gonna kill the economy!

I seriously doubt that outcome. There will always be millionaires but wannabe-billionaires will leave the country. And good riddance to them!

PS: Oh no! The above is excessive! It's gonna kill the economy!
PPS: I seriously doubt that. The economy will survive! But, it will get rid of a great number of people who earn billions of dollars to simply leave it all to their kids! Which is unfair and indecent in an equitable-nation!

I am not sure what you are saying here.
Or proposing.

Could you put it a little more succinctly, please?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No it won't.

It's simple.
1) remove the 'full employment' mandate from the Fed.
2) make income and capital gains tax rates identical.
3) remove all tax deductions except for charitable contributions and capital losses.
4) balance the fiscal budget.

You do all that?
You will - eventually - end the ongoing and disturbing increase in the wealth gap in America.

Your 3) needs some adjustment. If you removed the standard deduction (effectively placing the first $X of income in the 0% bracket rate) that would increase the taxation of everyone - including those with relatively low (at or near poverty level) incomes.

With the progressive tax rate scheme, any itemized deductions get rewarded with a larger federal subsidy for those with income in higher marginal rate brackets. For example, a $10K itemized deduction results in a $1K tax reduction (federal subsidy) for someone in the 10% bracket, yet results in a $2.5K tax reduction (federal subsidy) for someone with income in the 25% bracket.

 

[The Work Outing]

Your 3) needs some adjustment. If you removed the standard deduction (effectively placing the first $X of income in the 0% bracket rate) that would increase the taxation of everyone - including those with relatively low (at or near poverty level) incomes.

With the progressive tax rate scheme, any itemized deductions get rewarded with a larger federal subsidy for those with income in higher marginal rate brackets. For example, a $10K itemized deduction results in a $1K tax reduction (federal subsidy) for someone in the 10% bracket, yet results in a $2.5K tax reduction (federal subsidy) for someone with income in the 25% bracket.

Agreed.
I forgot about that.

I would reduce tax rates to 0% below $12,550.

Thank you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Agreed.
I forgot about that.

I would reduce tax rates to 0% below $12,550.

Thank you.

IMHO, that is far too low. That is below the federal poverty level (FPL) for a single person household and below the average (annual) Social Security retirement benefit level. I would make (index?) the standard deduction equal to the FPL for a three (or even four) person household. After all, those with wage income subject to FICA payroll taxation (below the income cap) are already (effectively) paying 15.3% on all of their income.

2021 Poverty Guidelines

U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs [Federal Register Notice, February 1, 2021 - Full text] [Computations for the 2021 Poverty Guidelines] There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:

aspe.hhs.gov

 

[The Work Outing]

IMHO, that is far too low. That is below the federal poverty level (FPL) for a single person household and below the average (annual) Social Security retirement benefit level. I would make (index?) the standard deduction equal to the FPL for a three (or even four) person household. After all, those with wage income subject to FICA payroll taxation (below the income cap) are already (effectively) paying 15.3% on all of their income.

2021 Poverty Guidelines

U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs [Federal Register Notice, February 1, 2021 - Full text] [Computations for the 2021 Poverty Guidelines] There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:

aspe.hhs.gov

Sorry.
I am self-employed.
Have been for decades.
So I keep forgetting about all the things that 'normal' working 'stiffs' have to pay.

Okay...what would you set the lowest tax rates at?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sorry.
I am self-employed.
Have been for decades.

So I keep forgetting about all the things that 'normal' working stiffs have to pay.

Okay...what would you set the lowest tax rates at?

I would do away with the progressive federal income tax (FIT) rates and use a two number tax code: a generous, but truly standard deduction of $30K and a tax rate of 20% on income from all sources above that amount. It would still remain effectively quite progressive for all but the highest earners. Any adjustments by congress would impact all FIT payers, thus allowing less targeting of FIT code changes.

Examples:

Income of $30K (or less) would pay $0 FIT for an effective rate of 0%.

Income of $50K would pay $4K FIT for an effective rate of 8%.

Income of $100K would pay $14K FIT for an effective rate of 14%.

Income of $200K would pay $34K FIT for an effective rate of 17%.

Income of $400K would pay $74K FIT for an effective rate of 18.5%.

Income of $800K would pay $154K FIT for an effective rate of 19.25%.