Should people that make more than you, be taxed more, simply for making more than you

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Schadenfreude said:
that would be hard on most 'honest' bsuinesses

my brother and his wife own two houses and rent them out, they earn a total of $24,000 before taxes and deductions for interest on loans, taxes and insurance

also, they receive about $36,000 from social security (which is not an entitlement but a paid insurance program and currently is not taxable)

if current tax deductions for rental properties are disallowed, then rental properties will disappear and a lot more people will be homeless

also, would a standard deduction apply to single people the same as married people
Click to expand...

No marriage deduction man. This couple would probably not pay federal taxes with the amount of earning you listed there. Halve the amounts, each person would pay zero...

And no, it wouldn't be hard on them. They would just not be allowed to defer salary and use corporate tax write offs to lower tax bills (the politicians call these "loopholes"). This would promote business owners to accept a salary and to pay taxes on the salary as the secondary earnings, like Buffett uses to lower his bill, would still be taxed the same.
 
Damo, your plan, like SF's plan, is great and wonderful until Democrats gain control of Congress again. As long as our tax system is based on income earnings, there will be class warfare waged by Liberals, and a constant push to raise rates on 'wealthy' individuals. You know this, SF knows it, I don't know why you want to pretend it would somehow be different. The ink wouldn't be dry on your reformed tax code, before Liberal pinheads began 'tweaking' it, and within a few election cycles, we'd be right back in the same boat all over again.

Get RID of the IRS and the income tax code completely! Scrap it for a CONSUMPTION tax... we are a consumer-driven nation, it would generate all the revenue we'd need, and there would never again be class warfare from the Libs, it nips it in the bud. You could completely eliminate corporate tax... can you imagine how many jobs that would create from industries who would WANT to come here?
 
Damocles said:
No marriage deduction man. This couple would probably not pay federal taxes with the amount of earning you listed there. Halve the amounts, each person would pay zero...

And no, it wouldn't be hard on them. They would just not be allowed to defer salary and use corporate tax write offs to lower tax bills (the politicians call these "loopholes"). This would promote business owners to accept a salary and to pay taxes on the salary as the secondary earnings, like Buffett uses to lower his bill, would still be taxed the same.
Click to expand...

my nephew owns his own business and employes 35 people

his basic monthly payout for salaries, rent, utilities, insurance etc is about $220,000, then there is the cost of the product he buys - what would be his deductible
 
Schadenfreude said:
my nephew owns his own business and employes 35 people

his basic monthly payout for salaries, rent, utilities, insurance etc is about $220,000, then there is the cost of the product he buys - what would be his deductible
Click to expand...

Again, you pay tax on earnings, not on expenses. Profit.

What is the Gross Profit his company earns? The company would then pay tax on the profit, after the standard deduction.

If I own a company that spends $1M in payroll, etc. The company makes 200K in profits after all the expenses, the company would then pay taxes on 150K. If you own the company it would make no difference if you drew a salary or not as the money would be taxed at the same rate regardless... Basically, Buffett could no longer defer taxes by taking a small salary then taking stock as a "bonus" and paying only capital gains because of the nature of the "bonus"... The money the company earned in profit would still be taxed at the same rate, after the standard deduction and his earnings would be taxed even though they were capital gains.
 
Damocles said:
Again, you pay tax on earnings, not on expenses. Profit.

What is the Gross Profit his company earns? The company would then pay tax on the profit, after the standard deduction.

If I own a company that spends $1M in payroll, etc. The company makes 200K in profits after all the expenses, the company would then pay taxes on 150K. If you own the company it would make no difference if you drew a salary or not as the money would be taxed at the same rate regardless... Basically, Buffett could no longer defer taxes by taking a small salary then taking stock as a "bonus" and paying only capital gains because of the nature of the "bonus"... The money the company earned in profit would still be taxed at the same rate, after the standard deduction and his earnings would be taxed even though they were capital gains.
Click to expand...

an interesting idea, but it will never get through congress
 
Nobody deserves to be taxed at all, thats not the point. In a perfect world noone would have to pay any taxes.
 
The wealthy already pay at a higher tax rate...except disingenuous assholes like Buffet. He comes out all smarmy like and says his secretary pays more then he does. Well, Buffet, pay yourself a salary so you can pay more taxes then her. And while you are at it tell that other disingenuous asshole, Obama, to stop pretending that your capital gains rate is a fair comparison to your secretary's income tax rate.
 
icedancer2theend said:
The wealthy already pay at a higher tax rate...except disingenuous assholes like Buffet. He comes out all smarmy like and says his secretary pays more then he does. Well, Buffet, pay yourself a salary so you can pay more taxes then her. And while you are at it tell that other disingenuous asshole, Obama, to stop pretending that your capital gains rate is a fair comparison to your secretary's income tax rate.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to tell him to direct his company to actually pay their tax bill. They owe more than $1 Billion for taxes in multiple years since 2002.
 
Statutory and effective tax rates are not the same, are they?

Our current tax code allows those with the resources to exploit loopholes to avoid taxation.

Does anyone believe that the Congressional paymasters (lobbyists) will ever allow those loopholes to be closed?

In the here-and-now-reality of today, if a balanced budget and zero deficit are truly your most fervent wish, explain how you can run the government without tax increases.

Of course, there's a possibility that you really don't care about balanced budgets and deficits.
 
I offered a solution that would resolve that. Shouting woefully, "We can't do anything because there are lobbyists!" then trying to blame that on others is a weak cop out. Tax increases won't matter the "paymasters" in your scenario will ensure that "the rich" won't pay any more. It will be you that is paying that bill.
 
Damocles said:
I offered a solution that would resolve that. Shouting woefully, "We can't do anything because there are lobbyists!" then trying to blame that on others is a weak cop out. Tax increases won't matter the "paymasters" in your scenario will ensure that "the rich" won't pay any more. It will be you that is paying that bill.
Click to expand...


Let me know how that works out for you.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Americans (still) support increasing taxes on rich families and eliminating tax loopholes for corporations by more than two-to-one.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-plan-to-spend-now-tax-the-rich-later/245434/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top