Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Stashman]

Well my question is, is there a fair share. I mean is there a percentage that you think is fair to tax someone? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I always hear about people (left/right/middle/white/black/yellow/brown/red/smart/stupid-- literally everyone) talking about "their fair share" and I'm never quite sure what that means. I would think it would be a fairly simple answer. What do you think is a fair share for you to pay? I would think that whatever you think is fair for you to pay is same percentage that is fair for someone else to pay.

I just like to ask because "their" is easy to follow with "fair share". You ask someone what is 'your fair share' and suddenly they stammer and stutter like somehow it is different.

Mike

The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which ones aren't directly related to calculating net income?

Those that don't represent actual expenses incurred in generating said income. I gather you're trying to make a point, but rather than playing guessing games, it might be simpler if you said what it is.

My point is when people use the word "loophole" they often don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[Stashman]

Well my question is, is there a fair share. I mean is there a percentage that you think is fair to tax someone? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I always hear about people (left/right/middle/white/black/yellow/brown/red/smart/stupid-- literally everyone) talking about "their fair share" and I'm never quite sure what that means. I would think it would be a fairly simple answer. What do you think is a fair share for you to pay? I would think that whatever you think is fair for you to pay is same percentage that is fair for someone else to pay.

I just like to ask because "their" is easy to follow with "fair share". You ask someone what is 'your fair share' and suddenly they stammer and stutter like somehow it is different.

Mike

The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters

 

[dblack]

My point is when people use the word "loophole" they often don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Fair enough. I've noticed that as well.

Income tax is problematic at best, but as long as we are going to use it as a means of funding government, we need to get it under control. The vagueries involved in accurately calculating someone's income have been abused and twisted into a broad ranging political tool that radically expands the power of the government over society. Congress uses the tax code as defacto legislation to mandate to us in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional if they were approached in a more straightforward fashion.

 

[Immanuel]

The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

However, those are loopholes and you should take advantage of it.

Sidenote:

Your link makes this statement about Buffet and his secretary:

As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Apart from the seeming unfairness of this, he suggested that this tax policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

I have to say this and I have said it before, if Buffet was not lying about this he should fire his secretary because anyone who paid 30% on $60,000 of income is a complete idiot.

The marginal tax rate for a single person without deductions at all was 25%.
The marginal tax rate for married filing jointly was 15%. If she was married and her husband had income then that is a significant fact that Warren Buffet left out.

2006 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2006

Why would she have paid more than the marginal rate she was required to pay? Either she didn't and he lied or she is just plain stupid.

Immie

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

According to Wikipedia, the federal budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. This probably doesn't include the more than a trillion in various bailouts, so lets round it off at 4 trillion dollars.

Why would you add bailouts? That would be double counting.

 

[Stashman]

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

Bad link, bad link!!!

Sorry about that. Let me try again.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

 

[Immanuel]

The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

However, those are loopholes and you should take advantage of it.

Sidenote:

Your link makes this statement about Buffet and his secretary:

As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Apart from the seeming unfairness of this, he suggested that this tax policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

I have to say this and I have said it before, if Buffet was not lying about this he should fire his secretary because anyone who paid 30% on $60,000 of income is a complete idiot.

The marginal tax rate for a single person without deductions at all was 25%.
The marginal tax rate for married filing jointly was 15%. If she was married and her husband had income then that is a significant fact that Warren Buffet left out.

2006 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2006

Why would she have paid more than the marginal rate she was required to pay? Either she didn't and he lied or she is just plain stupid.

Immie

He lied. I've worked it out before around here.
She paid something like 16%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

Bad link, bad link!!!

Sorry about that. Let me try again.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

My bad. It worked the 3rd or 4th time I tried it.

 

[Immanuel]

That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich

However, those are loopholes and you should take advantage of it.

Sidenote:

Your link makes this statement about Buffet and his secretary:

As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Apart from the seeming unfairness of this, he suggested that this tax policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

I have to say this and I have said it before, if Buffet was not lying about this he should fire his secretary because anyone who paid 30% on $60,000 of income is a complete idiot.

The marginal tax rate for a single person without deductions at all was 25%.
The marginal tax rate for married filing jointly was 15%. If she was married and her husband had income then that is a significant fact that Warren Buffet left out.

2006 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2006

Why would she have paid more than the marginal rate she was required to pay? Either she didn't and he lied or she is just plain stupid.

Immie

He lied. I've worked it out before around here.
She paid something like 16%.

Even at 16% she was not very smart when it comes to tax planning.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what

And how's that working out for you? $1.4 trillion deficits, unemployment almost 10%, almost no recovery from the last recession and we're heading into the next one, trillions in debt to China, housing prices in a five year slump. You think they are "supposed" to be accountable to you and continue to vote for them when they are clearly not.

And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU.

Sure they're accountable. You just don't like what they account up to because WE ALL voted them in.

Show me where Americans have had the vote taken away, and I'll agree that they're not accountable. Did we all suddenly wake up in Bizarro world where we don't get to vote??? Of course not. They're accountable. The problem is that the citizenry has a short attention span and is too busy playing Xbox and watching The Real Housewives of Des Moine to give a damn. If they did, the crooks would be drummed out of office.

Fail by you.

Again, you make a great case for a strong local government tied together with a union dedicated to allowing several smaller sovereign states to exist. The one of the many problems with a lot of the debates that happen at a national level is removing the ability of people to vote with their feet.

You're right that people should vote but in reality the system of representation is pretty broken. You have congressmen (specifically in the HoR) that represent an average of 820,000 people. We need an increase of representation but more than just that we need to regain the ability to vote with our feet. Instead of a nationwide policy, we should have state policies. If you don't like the policies in your state, find one you like them in. Vote with your feet and have the states competing for your service. We need competition restored in government because competition always works to the customers advantage. Let the states (or the inhabitants of the states) decide on the majority of the policies. When that happens, if its working people will flock there (and encourage other states to follow their policies) on the other hand, if its not working people will leave the states. That will actually encourage more effective government because the good policies will spread while the bad policies will be discouraged.

Mike

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, those are loopholes and you should take advantage of it.

Sidenote:

Your link makes this statement about Buffet and his secretary:



I have to say this and I have said it before, if Buffet was not lying about this he should fire his secretary because anyone who paid 30% on $60,000 of income is a complete idiot.

The marginal tax rate for a single person without deductions at all was 25%.
The marginal tax rate for married filing jointly was 15%. If she was married and her husband had income then that is a significant fact that Warren Buffet left out.

2006 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2006

Why would she have paid more than the marginal rate she was required to pay? Either she didn't and he lied or she is just plain stupid.

Immie

He lied. I've worked it out before around here.
She paid something like 16%.

Even at 16% she was not very smart when it comes to tax planning.

Immie

Check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015

 

[Immanuel]

He lied. I've worked it out before around here.
She paid something like 16%.

Even at 16% she was not very smart when it comes to tax planning.

Immie

Check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015

Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot. Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money? I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even at 16% she was not very smart when it comes to tax planning.

Immie

Check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015

Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot. Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money? I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie

Right, the absolute maximum she'd pay was 15.7%.

Buffet lied big time.

 

[Vanquish]

And how's that working out for you? $1.4 trillion deficits, unemployment almost 10%, almost no recovery from the last recession and we're heading into the next one, trillions in debt to China, housing prices in a five year slump. You think they are "supposed" to be accountable to you and continue to vote for them when they are clearly not.

And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU.

Sure they're accountable. You just don't like what they account up to because WE ALL voted them in.

Show me where Americans have had the vote taken away, and I'll agree that they're not accountable. Did we all suddenly wake up in Bizarro world where we don't get to vote??? Of course not. They're accountable. The problem is that the citizenry has a short attention span and is too busy playing Xbox and watching The Real Housewives of Des Moine to give a damn. If they did, the crooks would be drummed out of office.

Fail by you.

Again, you make a great case for a strong local government tied together with a union dedicated to allowing several smaller sovereign states to exist. The one of the many problems with a lot of the debates that happen at a national level is removing the ability of people to vote with their feet.

You're right that people should vote but in reality the system of representation is pretty broken. You have congressmen (specifically in the HoR) that represent an average of 820,000 people. We need an increase of representation but more than just that we need to regain the ability to vote with our feet. Instead of a nationwide policy, we should have state policies. If you don't like the policies in your state, find one you like them in. Vote with your feet and have the states competing for your service. We need competition restored in government because competition always works to the customers advantage. Let the states (or the inhabitants of the states) decide on the majority of the policies. When that happens, if its working people will flock there (and encourage other states to follow their policies) on the other hand, if its not working people will leave the states. That will actually encourage more effective government because the good policies will spread while the bad policies will be discouraged.

Mike

I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level. Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)

I'm not against a strong local government. I respect the fact that local values are different from city to city, county to county and state to state. I want my laws to reflect the values of the community I live in. Even so, the power of the vote is alive and well...its just that people don't organize enough, nor do they follow through!

 

[Foxfyre]

Check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015

Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot. Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money? I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie

Right, the absolute maximum she'd pay was 15.7%.

Buffet lied big time.

Of course those who aren't drawing wages but are living off their investments will be paying lower taxes on capital gains that will many of those paying wages. But the only way to remedy that situation is to raise taxes on capital gains which has and will always start freezing up that money, putting it into cold storage, sending it overseas, or other measures that takes it out of the economy. That's part of the problem now. Without having assurance that the government won't raise taxes, trillions are currently sidelined both here and overseas until there is some assurance of what the risk will be if all that capital is put back into the economy.

You simply cannot help the poor by going after the resources of the rich. And even the rich aren't fools who will take unnecessary or irrational risks with their resources. And Warren Buffet has to know that. Or maybe he's getting senile in his old age and isn't thinking rationally any more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot. Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money? I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie

Right, the absolute maximum she'd pay was 15.7%.

Buffet lied big time.

Of course those who aren't drawing wages but are living off their investments will be paying lower taxes on capital gains that will many of those paying wages. But the only way to remedy that situation is to raise taxes on capital gains which has and will always start freezing up that money, putting it into cold storage, sending it overseas, or other measures that takes it out of the economy. That's part of the problem now. Without having assurance that the government won't raise taxes, trillions are currently sidelined both here and overseas until there is some assurance of what the risk will be if all that capital is put back into the economy.

You simply cannot help the poor by going after the resources of the rich. And even the rich aren't fools who will take unnecessary or irrational risks with their resources. And Warren Buffet has to know that. Or maybe he's getting senile in his old age and isn't thinking rationally any more.

Buffet's salary from Berkshire was $100,000.
He paid a higher rate on his income than his $60,000 secretary.
He paid more payroll tax (at the same rate) as his secretary.
He paid more capital gains tax, while being charged the same rate, than his secretary paid on her capital gains, if any.

I don't see a problem here.

 

[Texanmike]

Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot. Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money? I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie

Right, the absolute maximum she'd pay was 15.7%.

Buffet lied big time.

Of course those who aren't drawing wages but are living off their investments will be paying lower taxes on capital gains that will many of those paying wages. But the only way to remedy that situation is to raise taxes on capital gains which has and will always start freezing up that money, putting it into cold storage, sending it overseas, or other measures that takes it out of the economy. That's part of the problem now. Without having assurance that the government won't raise taxes, trillions are currently sidelined both here and overseas until there is some assurance of what the risk will be if all that capital is put back into the economy.

You simply cannot help the poor by going after the resources of the rich. And even the rich aren't fools who will take unnecessary or irrational risks with their resources. And Warren Buffet has to know that. Or maybe he's getting senile in his old age and isn't thinking rationally any more.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity -- A. Rodgers.

Mike

 

[Bern80]

So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to? If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes". Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie

Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters

Tax loopholes do cost billions.

Know why they are there? Know why they never go away? Because politicians wield power. Congress wields power. Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works. There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes". The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie

Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.