G
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here's where you're an idiot, Yurt. You have bought in to the idea that "very wealthy" people are those who earn high incomes. While this may be the case in some situations, it is hardly universal. Many "very rich" people don't have an "income" they have "wealth!" Taxing income doesn't effect them much, since they no longer earn taxable incomes. In addition, many people who earn high taxable incomes, are not "very rich" they just happen to operate a small business, and report the business income on a personal tax return. (A requirement for ANY small business.) The high dollar amount reported, does not represent "profit" but rather income earned by the business. Expenses of operating the business still have to be paid, and while some of these are tax deductible, not all are, not by a long shot. Increasing tax rates on this upper-level of income, will dramatically effect small businesses, which provide 99.6% of the jobs in America. This is why Republicans are opposed to increasing the rate.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that she was willing to accept a compromise as long as all the current tax rates stayed the same for taxpayers of all incomes.
But, she said, she opposed a compromise that would be attached to extending unemployment benefits.
Stephanopoulos then asked why it was okay for the wealthy to get their tax cuts extended, but not okay to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless.
"Well, remember again what this is. It's a massive tax increase, and it's on the people who are the job creators," Bachmann said. "And people want to think that these are millionaires, sitting in leather chairs, lighting their cigars with $100 bills. That's not what we're talking about. These are people who, who are carpet layers who maybe employ two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it's $250,000 in gross sales for their business. They're the ones that are looking at massive tax increases."
It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Here's why: Plumbers -- or any other small business owner -- get to deduct their business expenses, so they'd have to be bringing in more than $250,000 in gross sales.
The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees' pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on.
Bachmann said that the tax increases kick in at "$250,000 in gross sales," which traditionally means total sales at invoice values, or everything the plumbers billed. And, she said the plumbers would be looking at "massive tax increases," when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Finally, of all taxpayers who declare business income, about 2 percent declare enough income to see tax increases if the rates on the top brackets expire.
Most small business owners would not see a tax increase, though the most profitable small businesses would.
Here's why: Plumbers -- or any other small business owner -- get to deduct their business expenses, so they'd have to be bringing in more than $250,000 in gross sales.
The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees' pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on.
Bachmann said that the tax increases kick in at "$250,000 in gross sales," which traditionally means total sales at invoice values, or everything the plumbers billed. And, she said the plumbers would be looking at "massive tax increases," when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.
Finally, of all taxpayers who declare business income, about 2 percent declare enough income to see tax increases if the rates on the top brackets expire.
Most small business owners would not see a tax increase, though the most profitable small businesses would.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ele-bachmann-250000-gross-sales-tax-increase/
And what's the Republican proposal to increase jobs? They've rejected Obama's payroll tax cut proposal.
apple0154
MEOW
And that's what has to be changed. Tax income from ALL sources.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The option for "The Jews" was inexplicably left vacant for Asshate to punch in... 
christiefan915
Catalyst
The poll is tied right now between blaming the GOP or the Democrats.
Where's Ice Dancer to declare that Dixie "won when it counted"?
Speaking of which, if dixie hadn't voted for himself, and if one of his posse hadn't voted twice, once under a troll name, he'd be even further behind.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But you can't. Some sources may not be in your jurisdiction. You can not tax that which has not been received (or earned) as income. There is no Constitutional provision for it, and it would violate to 4th Amendment to confiscate property, which wealth certainly is. There is currently over $9 trillion in wealth, residing outside of the United States. How do you propose we levy a tax in Switzerland? How can we impose income tax on investments made in Hong Kong? They won't impose or collect the taxes for us, how do we go about that? Unless the money comes back here, where it is received as income.... then we can tax it... but otherwise, it's not in our jurisdiction and we have no means to impose or collect any tax.
apple0154
MEOW
Let's take this from the top. You keep saying the wealthy don't have to earn an income here because they live off their "wealth". So, the question is, "How do they pay their bills here?" Even if they invest in Switzerland or Hiong Kong they have to bring money here in order to pay their land tax and pay for their new car and TV set and fine dining and clothes and everything else a person normally pays for and purchases. Tax that money.
When people withdraw money from, say, a retirement plan or other deferred tax-savings plan does not the bank hold a certain percentage for taxes, sort of like an automatic payroll deduction? Do the same with bank transfers. As soon as money arrives in the US from anywhere outside the country hold a portion of those funds until the person files income tax the following year to ensure taxes are paid on that money.
If someone tries to smuggle in money from other countries (for example, a New Yorker travels to Florida, hops over to the Bahamas, makes a withdrawal and comes back with a shitload of undisclosed cash)
and is caught at customs that money should be seized along with an equivalent fine imposed and their Passport stamped to inform future customs agents to thoroughly search that person whenever they enter the country. That wealthy person is not going to live the wealthy lifestyle in the US without paying taxes on the money he receives, regardless of how he "earned" it. If someone wants to invest in Hong Kong and live there, fine. If they want to live the wealthy lifestyle here, tax them. What is complicated about that?
Furthermore, I read somewhere the US wants foreign banks to declare deposits made by US citizens as some citizens make money here and deposit it overseas in order to hide it. It is not complicated to follow the money.
So, to sum up, tax deposits made in foreign banks by US citizens until they can prove the money was not earned here and tax the money coming into the country. When one sees a guy living in a multi-million dollar home he's "earning" money somewhere in order to maintain it. This is not rocket science.
Let's take this from the top. You keep saying the wealthy don't have to earn an income here because they live off their "wealth". So, the question is, "How do they pay their bills here?" Even if they invest in Switzerland or Hiong Kong they have to bring money here in order to pay their land tax and pay for their new car and TV set and fine dining and clothes and everything else a person normally pays for and purchases. Tax that money.
When people withdraw money from, say, a retirement plan or other deferred tax-savings plan does not the bank hold a certain percentage for taxes, sort of like an automatic payroll deduction? Do the same with bank transfers. As soon as money arrives in the US from anywhere outside the country hold a portion of those funds until the person files income tax the following year to ensure taxes are paid on that money.
If someone tries to smuggle in money from other countries (for example, a New Yorker travels to Florida, hops over to the Bahamas, makes a withdrawal and comes back with a shitload of undisclosed cash)
If someone wants to invest in Hong Kong and live there, fine. If they want to live the wealthy lifestyle here, tax them. What is complicated about that?
Furthermore, I read somewhere the US wants foreign banks to declare deposits made by US citizens as some citizens make money here and deposit it overseas in order to hide it. It is not complicated to follow the money.
So, to sum up, tax deposits made in foreign banks by US citizens until they can prove the money was not earned here and tax the money coming into the country. When one sees a guy living in a multi-million dollar home he's "earning" money somewhere in order to maintain it. This is not rocket science.
It is way beyond rocket science for Dix. You see, they are living off the interest from their wealth, interest that dix somehow doesn't consider income, therefore, it can't be taxed.
Also, there was no initial wealth earning which could be taxed, the money (50 million) was deposited in an acount by a magic money fairy, tax free. If, however, the wealthy were EVER to withdraw any principal, ONLY THEN would they be liable for taxes, since it all acumulated tax free to begin with. Due to the fantastic largess of the tax free magic money fairy, the "wealthy" will never touch this principle unless they get a fresh new big tax cut every year or so, hence no jobs will be created, unless the other 98% of the population decide that they should pay all the taxes for the "wealthy".
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You most certainly can. You end subsidies, you end loopholes, you end deductions. The tax RATE remains the same, but by eliminating the others you raise revenue.
You really should stop trying to discuss taxes, you have proven time and again that you are a fucking idiot on the topic.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Mine:
It is time for this country to become fiscally responsible. The national debt has increased every fiscal year since 1960. What has happened to the responsibility of the two parties? Both like to point the blame at the other, but in reality neither have been responsible fiscally. It is time for a change. Let’s begin with our tax code. It should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. It should not be filled with thousands of loopholes and deductions. Let us push for the flat tax with a standard deduction and nothing more.
Start with a standard deduction of $30k (adjusted for inflation annually) for each adult and then tax every dollar over that $30k at 20%. This is simple, easy to understand, fair and progressive. It protects the low-income individuals and couples from paying federal income taxes. It provides the middle-income families a lower effective tax rate than the wealthy. This plan would encompass ALL income, including earned income, capital gains and dividend income. There would be no corporate income tax as all outlets of cash from the corporation would already be taxed
A person making $30k pays an effective rate of 0%.
A person making $50k pays an effective rate of 8%.
A person making $100k pays an effective rate of 14%.
A person making $200k pays en effective rate of 17%.
A person making $1mm pays an effective rate of 19.4%
Everyone has the same deduction and takes it. Which causes the effective tax rate to increase the more you make.
To reduce the national debt I would propose we add an additional temporary bracket to the flat tax. Every dollar over $1 million (again adjusted for inflation annually) would be taxed at 30% rather than 20%. The additional 10% would be mandated to pay down the debt.
It is our responsibility to pay our own way and not dump trillions of dollars of debt on future generations. We need to begin electing leaders that are fiscally responsible. The future of our nation depends upon it. We are our own worst enemy. It will be our ever-increasing debt that leads to our demise. We must act now.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again with this COMPLETE BULLSHIT DITZIE???
How many times do I have to completely debunk the above?
You are a fucking moron. While in the occasional year you may have SOME wealthy people not pay taxes due to LOSSES, they ALL on average have INCOMES.
YOU are 100% INCORRECT to state that taxing income doesn't effect them. It most certainly does. Whether their income is taxed directly or not it effects them if you raise tax rates.
I was referring to the Republicans in Congress that thought a 85-15 mix of spending cuts to revenue increases was ideal and then rejected the Democrat's 83-17 mix proposal. What revenue increases are they proposing?
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Strange question to ask me.
I'm not a republican, and I'm not surprised they rejected it.
My whole life has seen the reps say one thing and do another. They're national socialists. And some really bad ones at that.
I could tell you my proposal to increase jobs, or the libertarian proposal if you're interested.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Let's take this from the top. You keep saying the wealthy don't have to earn an income here because they live off their "wealth". So, the question is, "How do they pay their bills here?" Even if they invest in Switzerland or Hiong Kong they have to bring money here in order to pay their land tax and pay for their new car and TV set and fine dining and clothes and everything else a person normally pays for and purchases. Tax that money.
When people withdraw money from, say, a retirement plan or other deferred tax-savings plan does not the bank hold a certain percentage for taxes, sort of like an automatic payroll deduction? Do the same with bank transfers. As soon as money arrives in the US from anywhere outside the country hold a portion of those funds until the person files income tax the following year to ensure taxes are paid on that money.
If someone tries to smuggle in money from other countries (for example, a New Yorker travels to Florida, hops over to the Bahamas, makes a withdrawal and comes back with a shitload of undisclosed cash)
If someone wants to invest in Hong Kong and live there, fine. If they want to live the wealthy lifestyle here, tax them. What is complicated about that?
Furthermore, I read somewhere the US wants foreign banks to declare deposits made by US citizens as some citizens make money here and deposit it overseas in order to hide it. It is not complicated to follow the money.
So, to sum up, tax deposits made in foreign banks by US citizens until they can prove the money was not earned here and tax the money coming into the country. When one sees a guy living in a multi-million dollar home he's "earning" money somewhere in order to maintain it. This is not rocket science.
Okay, let me kill two pinheads with one stone here... I have never said that raising tax rates "doesn't effect" the wealthy. I said, they don't care if you raise income tax rates, they don't need to earn income, they are already wealthy. It most certainly "effects" them to raise tax rates, it "effects" anyone who you raise taxes on. But someone with massive wealth, really doesn't give two shits if your income tax rate is 39% or 59%... since they don't HAVE to earn income anymore. Now they may prefer that you keep tax rates low... I don't doubt that... who wouldn't? But as far as being some big deal to them, they really don't care, it's not important, it won't effect their lifestyle. What it MAY effect, is what they do with their wealth. Whether they keep it locked away in a security protected from taxation, or whether they take it out to invest in a new business idea and jobs. They are not just going to automatically decide to take their wealth out of tax-free securities and invest it, they don't have some kind of uncontrollable urge to spend money like the Democrats in congress, and they aren't addicted to earning income to the point they can't do anything about it. Wealthy people make decisions on how to handle their money, and generally speaking, they go with what is best for them in the long run.
Now, Apple... you need to know, we already DO tax monies received from overseas accounts and whatnot. Wealthy people don't really mind paying $30k or $40k..or even $100k in taxes to live whatever lifestyle they are accustomed to. We're going to get that tax revenue, no matter what, unless they move to Switzerland or something. When I say that rich people don't need income, I mean, they don't need any more income... they make enough from the wealth already, and they do pay taxes on that already. They don't need to take millions or billions out of tax-security and pay the taxes on the money, then invest it into a money-making venture, where they would also pay tax on the earned income. It is both financially safer, and wiser, to leave their money in tax-free securities, and earn less income.
Look... If I am a multi-billionaire, and I have $10 million to blow on whatever... I can leave that money in a tax-free security and earn 2%..3%..heck, maybe even 5~6% on the wealth, each year, roll it back into the tax-free security, and never pay a dime of tax on it until I withdraw it. OR-- I can take that $10 million out of the security, where I will immediately pay about $4 million in taxes (because it became taxable income)...leaving me with $6 million to blow on some business idea that might eventually make a profit. There is the risk of litigation, market collapse, competition, etc... it's not a guarantee that my $6 million investment will pan out. In any event, if it does, I will also have to pay income taxes on those earnings. When you start deducting all the taxation, measured against all the possible risks, it becomes easy to see why many wealthy people would choose to leave their money in tax-free securities and not mess with it until they need it. The MORE you increase the upper-level tax rate, the MORE you discourage these wealthy people from taking any chances with that money, and the MORE it remains in tax-free securities, and DOESN'T help the economy or create jobs.
So Dixtard, when did they raise capital gains tax from 15% to 40%?
apple0154
MEOW
It's not the billionaire we need to target. They are not going to open up a five man plumbing shop or buy the local landscaping business employing half a dozen grass cutters.
Dix, it's obvious you don't know wealthy people. You talk like an average person envisioning what it's like to be rich.
Most "un-wealthy" people think along the same line. If they had money, if they won the lotto, they'd put the money in the bank and live off the interest. Why do they think that way? It's because they could maintain their lifestyle without working.
Now consider the wealthy. They don't live the same lifestyle. A person with $10 million to invest (the example you gave) is not interested in merely not working. They are interested in making money. In some cases it borders on an addiction.
Why would a person with $5 million try to obtain $10 million if all they wanted to do was live without working? The answer is, they wouldn't. They would have stopped at $5 million or $4 million or..... The point being wealthy people are going to continually seek ways to make money.
Now, they may stop investing for a while if taxes are increased or loopholes are closed but they will resume when they realize that's the way it's going to stay. Why? Because that's their lifestyle. Investing. Making money.
In other words they enjoy investing, making money. They are not investing with the idea of not working one day because, as you said, they already have enough money they don't have to work assuming they want to live a limited lifestyle.
As I've tried to explain to you before it's similar to the average person saying, "If only I earned $100/wk more I'd be fine. Or $200/wk. Whatever the amount they always need a little bit more and when they do get that raise it's never quite enough. Wealthy people, the guy with $5 million or $10 million does not believe he has enough either. If they want a $50 million home and they're collecting 2% bank interest on $10 million they can't afford it.
If the average tax is 32% then the $2 million is worth $1,360,000. How can they possibly afford a modestly priced private jet at $40 million?
They couldn't even afford this modest 5 bedroom home on 1-1/2 acres as a summer place, in Canada even, on their meager salary of $1.4 million.
Do you think the "average" 45 year old with $10 million in assets is going to retire? Retire, as in stop trying to make money?
Suppose he wants a boat? Here's one priced just over $3 million and it's nothing extravagant.
If his income is $1.4 million that's two year's "salary". Who can afford to spend two years salary on a boat but if he has acquired $10 million by 40 or 45 years of age he can definitely contemplate making more and affording that boat.
The wealthy will always try to make more money because that's what wealthy people do, especially the wealthy individuals who earned that money in the first place as opposed to those whom received it through a lottery draw or other windfall.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You know, I am about tired of you telling me I don't know rich people. I happen to know the richest man in Alabama on a first name basis, I have two friends from high school who are uber-wealthy now, and personally, I have about $7 million in assets, sitting in Germany as we speak. It is YOU who doesn't know any rich people, or anything about how rich people think, behave, or act.
YES... Some rich people might very well open the 5-guys plumbing or landscape business, or better yet, they might be 'angel investors' who simply provide someone with the resources to open such business... But they certainly WON'T be doing that if you are committed to taxing the living fuck out of every penny they remove from tax-free securities. Under those circumstances, they will keep their money hidden away, where you can't touch it, and that is where it will stay. That's what is currently happening in this economy.... how is that working for ya?
You're still caught up in some idiotic notion that rich people can't help their greed, they so want to make more money, that they will gladly forfeit a large chunk of it to the government for the opportunity. That may have been the case as they were becoming rich, but once they have wealth, why do they need to keep earning income? They can live very comfortably, have anything they want, and never have to touch the principle of their wealth... they don't NEED to go out and EARN INCOME! They might like to do that... They might get some personal enjoyment or gratification from it... but again, they certainly AREN'T going to do it if it means sacrificing a large chunk of their wealth to the government, they would be STUPID to do that. I gave a valid example with the $10 million... the guy would have to make more than $4 million, just to be back where he started! Rich people will look at that and say... Fuck it! I'll leave my wealth in tax-free securities for now, and hope Republicans ease taxation at a later date.
But hey.... Like you said... They still have to buy cars and caviar... they will still spend money and live their opulent rich lifestyles, and we will still collect tax on that money... But which way would we realize more tax revenue and economic growth? Rich person living off their wealth, paying $40-100k a year in taxes... or Rich person investing millions into new business ventures, where they stand to make billions of dollars which can be taxed? Think real hard dumbshit... which one of these would you rather have the tax collection on?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Seven million in assets sitting in Germany? What's the matter, your own country's financial institutions not good enough for you?