Rich people and taxes

[jessicasimpson]

Well, I don't think this thead could be more off track. I meant to point out that a 15 billion dollar company is in trouble for more corperate greed. I don't know if there has ever been such a level of corperate greed ever. My personal favorite is Adelphia, a company run by a father and his 2 sons. These people went in and took a billion dollars out of petty cash, each. What the hell were they going to do with all that money? Start their own space program? I would have loved to be at that family meeting. "But dad, timmy's parents let him shoot monkeys to jupiter, you never let us do anything fun, I hate you!"
Maybe they wanted to buy all the corn in Iowa. "Hey everybody, we're havin a hoe down!"

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

"Their" two huge tax cuts?

I must have missed that. I thought the tax cuts were for all of us, across the board.

Sarcasm Alert:
Thats right, I implied that their was a special tax cut just for KPMG clients who made over 20 million

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

Well, I don't think this thead could be more off track.

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

You would think their 2 huge tax cuts would be enough, guess not

You said it. We are now debating whether your statement, and the assumptions inherent in it, are true. Not off track at all.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

You said it. We are now debating whether your statement, and the assumptions inherent in it, are true. Not off track at all.

So... are you trying to say that people over the 20 million mark did not get a tax cut or two? That not paying taxes is a right the uber wealthy are due?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

So... are you trying to say that people over the 20 million mark did not get a tax cut or two? That not paying taxes is a right the uber wealthy are due?

Not sure where you're coming up with this. If you'd read anything I posted, you'd see that I've said:

1) All taxpayers got a tax cut, regardless of their wealth.

2) Care must be used when attributing a point to someone who was actually saying something else.

3) The overwhelming majority of tax revenue comes from the wealthy.

4) Any discussion of highly-subjective issues such as fairness, if such discussion is to be worthwhile, requires that one first understand where the other person is coming from, as well as why one feels the way he himself does, which is often the hard part.

5) Investing dollars and saving dollars are just as stimulating to the economy as spending dollars.


Did you even bother to read anything I wrote?

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Not sure where you're coming up with this. If you'd read anything I posted, you'd see that I've said:

1) All taxpayers got a tax cut, regardless of their wealth.

2) Care must be used when attributing a point to someone who was actually saying something else.

3) The overwhelming majority of tax revenue comes from the wealthy.

4) Any discussion of highly-subjective issues such as fairness, if such discussion is to be worthwhile, requires that one first understand where the other person is coming from, as well as why one feels the way he himself does, which is often the hard part.

5) Investing dollars and saving dollars are just as stimulating to the economy as spending dollars.


Did you even bother to read anything I wrote?

1 The more wealth, the better the tax cut
2 My point exactly
3 How could it possibly be any other way?
4 That is why i said this thread is off track
5 Now i'm confussed, so people who invest more should pay less taxes?

Did you bother to read the article?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

So... are you trying to say that people over the 20 million mark did not get a tax cut or two? That not paying taxes is a right the uber wealthy are due?

Well, I always had a bit of an issue with an increasing tax rate for the wealthy versus the unwealthy. Afterall, didn't the wealthy earn that money somehow? How come the guy that can't/won't do anything gets a big slice of the rich guy's paycheque?

And to further Epee's point, there is very little that may be purchased that doesn't benefit society in some way. I buy a new Lear Jet and I've paid the salary for probably 500 people for the year and contracted to employ another 50 year over year. Why should I then be taxed further on that purchase?

James.

[jessicasimpson]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Well, I always had a bit of an issue with an increasing tax rate for the wealthy versus the unwealthy. Afterall, didn't the wealthy earn that money somehow? How come the guy that can't/won't do anything gets a big slice of the rich guy's paycheque?

And to further Epee's point, there is very little that may be purchased that doesn't benefit society in some way. I buy a new Lear Jet and I've paid the salary for probably 500 people for the year and contracted to employ another 50 year over year. Why should I then be taxed further on that purchase?

James.

We must be on two seperate pages. Are you saying that if you buy a jet to help society, you are intitled to pay less taxes to the goverment? Or is there some extra tax on a lear that does not apply to a cessna that I am unaware of?

[jeff]

Odd that sales tax is (it appears) to be under discussion. Normally sales tax is considered in the category of taxes that harm the less-wealthy (since a higher % of their earnings have to be taxed for the necessities of life) more than the wealthy.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

We must be on two seperate pages. Are you saying that if you buy a jet to help society, you are intitled to pay less taxes to the goverment? Or is there some extra tax on a lear that does not apply to a cessna that I am unaware of?

We probably are on two seperate pages...

I'm wondering why the beneficial social effect of buying a lear jet for purely private use is not included in calculating how much personal tax a person is required to pay. In particular, why the tax on a lear jet should be significantly greater then the tax on a cessna.

Further, I'm wondering why a rich guy deserves to be taxed significantly more heavily then a poor guy. I'm also questioning the wisdom of the idea that the only beneficial tax breaks are the ones that reduce the amount of tax that the poor guy pays. The poor guy being unlikely to further the social mean in as significant a manner as the rich guy.

James.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

In particular, why the tax on a lear jet should be significantly greater then the tax on a cessna.

Because it's a percentage...

Originally Posted by jBirch

Further, I'm wondering why a rich guy deserves to be taxed significantly more heavily then a poor guy.

Even with a flat tax that some propose, it would still be a percentage and Mr. Rich would still be taxed more heavily. Due to means available only to the rich and the lower rates on capital gains than wages, and considering other payroll taxes, they're already not taxed disproportionately to their income.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm also questioning the wisdom of the idea that the only beneficial tax breaks are the ones that reduce the amount of tax that the poor guy pays. The poor guy being unlikely to further the social mean in as significant a manner as the rich guy.

Because the poor man is working on solving the Halting Problem.

What is this "social mean" you refer to?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

1 The more wealth, the better the tax cut
2 My point exactly
3 How could it possibly be any other way?
4 That is why i said this thread is off track
5 Now i'm confussed, so people who invest more should pay less taxes?

Did you bother to read the article?

1. So? Are you suggesting that people who pay LESS in taxes should receive GREATER tax cuts than others? Don't forget about people whose tax liability went to zero, or even became eligible for tax credits -- one might say their subjective benefit is the greatest, even from across-the-board reductions.

2. Wish you'd abide by it, then.

3. Pro rata taxation comes to mind -- each person pays X dollars, period, regardless of how much more cash they have or don't have. It costs a zillion bucks to do all the functions we demand of our government, there's 300 million people in the country, so each person owes (1 zillion divided by 300 million) dollars for their fair share of the cost. Some would say that THIS is only fair. Which leads to..

4. Not off topic at all, but rather answering a fair question about how useful it is to discuss fairness, as you yourself are doing. How can anyone respond to you without knowing what you're presupposing that's different from their own understanding? Unless you just want pointless gainsaying back and forth, rather than an intelligent attempt to seek out a genuine solution.

5. Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths? Where do I say anything of the sort? Like I said before, I'm not sure where you're coming from. A little more #4 from you might work wonders.

And as to your unnumbered #6, of course I read the article, and I'm not sure what a few people's tax-evasion crimes have to do with taxing wealthy people.

If your intent was to focus strictly on the tax crimes committed, then you should have raised only that topic. You yourself raised the topic of equitable taxation in your first post, and others have subsequently been challenging the assumptions inherent in your statement. It's not threadjacking or even thread drift. We're on topic.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Because it's a percentage...

Yeah, I know. Thanks Jeff. *grin* I meant why should the rich guy have to pay a higher PERCENTAGE of his earnings in tax?

Even with a flat tax that some propose, it would still be a percentage and Mr. Rich would still be taxed more heavily. Due to means available only to the rich and the lower rates on capital gains than wages, and considering other payroll taxes, they're already not taxed disproportionately to their income.

You sure on this one? My understanding was that the rate of tax on a given dollar of income was significantly higher for the rich guy then for the poor guy. The whole progressive tax thing.

Because the poor man is working on solving the Halting Problem.

You mean, now that I've solved it, I'm de facto rich?

What is this "social mean" you refer to?

The average quality of life in a given social grouping. The idea that not only is the rich guy taxed higher, but their activities with their residual money do more for society then does the use of the poor guy's residual money.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jessicasimpson

We must be on two seperate pages. Are you saying that if you buy a jet to help society, you are intitled to pay less taxes to the goverment? Or is there some extra tax on a lear that does not apply to a cessna that I am unaware of?

Where do you come up with this? Nobody is saying that wealthy people ought to pay fewer taxes because of their wealth or because of what they buy.

Perhaps if you stop reading unstated positions into the clear statements that people are writing, then you might be less confused about what they're saying.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yeah, I know. Thanks Jeff. *grin* I meant why should the rich guy have to pay a higher PERCENTAGE of his earnings in tax?

Jeff takes off his Mr. Obvious Man superhero costume and resumes his secret identity
There should be a KA-BONG sound effect to go with that!

Originally Posted by jBirch

You sure on this one? My understanding was that the rate of tax on a given dollar of income was significantly higher for the rich guy then for the poor guy. The whole progressive tax thing.

That's how the theory goes, but the practice is different. I went over this topic in excruciating detail a few years ago here - use the Advanced Search function or go get Perfectly Legal from bookstore or library and read it (if books on US taxation are available Up North and your Huskies can mush to the book purveyor). Taxation is at most mildly progressive when you factor in payroll taxes, the lower taxation rate of capital gains (which poor folk don't get) over wages (which they do), and the wide list of methods the very wealthy can use to avoid taxation. Middle class and professionals are screwed, since they make money but not enough to avail themselves of the really effective tax avoidance schemes.

Originally Posted by jBirch

You mean, now that I've solved it, I'm de facto rich?

Just send me 1/2, eh? Or, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...

Originally Posted by jBirch

The average quality of life in a given social grouping. The idea that not only is the rich guy taxed higher, but their activities with their residual money do more for society then does the use of the poor guy's residual money.

James.

Ooh, I'd like to see some evidence for that. And, why should it be the mean rather than the median we target, huh?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jeff

Ooh, I'd like to see some evidence for that. And, why should it be the mean rather than the median we target, huh?

Or, if it's the greater good we seek to serve, why not target the mode?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

That's how the theory goes, but the practice is different. I went over this topic in excruciating detail a few years ago here - use the Advanced Search function or go get Perfectly Legal from bookstore or library and read it (if books on US taxation are available Up North and your Huskies can mush to the book purveyor). Taxation is at most mildly progressive when you factor in payroll taxes, the lower taxation rate of capital gains (which poor folk don't get) over wages (which they do), and the wide list of methods the very wealthy can use to avoid taxation. Middle class and professionals are screwed, since they make money but not enough to avail themselves of the really effective tax avoidance schemes.

I vaguely remember something like that. Tell me though, can rich folk SPEND that money too or does it end up coming out as income in some way or another?

Just send me 1/2, eh? Or, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32...

Half. The limit of your series there is 1 and I'm not forking over all of my nothing just because you ask. I'm Canadian, sure, but not all of us are THAT altruistic.

Ooh, I'd like to see some evidence for that. And, why should it be the mean rather than the median we target, huh?

Totally unsubstantiated conjecture. Playing devil's advocate here, but I figure someone has analysed that idea to death and there's some merit in it. Haven't you ever seen Brewster's Millions? Do you know how hard it is to spend large gobs of cash without having any benefit for your spending?

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Or, if it's the greater good we seek to serve, why not target the mode?

Because the Chi Square is vibrating at the wrong frequency.

James.

[SJB]

An unfair advantage given to the rich versus the poor is tax shelters.

I don't know what the US situation is like but wealthy Canadians are infamous for stashing their money in bank accounts where the government cannot access the funds for taxation.

Doe