Slashdot Mirror


How Google Avoided Paying $60 Billion In Taxes

bonch writes "Google only pays a 2.4% tax rate using money-funneling techniques known as the 'Double Irish' and the 'Dutch Sandwich,' even though the US corporate income tax is 35%. By using Irish loopholes, money is transferred legally between subsidiaries and ends up in island sanctuaries that have no income tax, giving Google the lowest tax rate amongst its technology peers. Facebook is planning to use the same strategy."

1,193 comments

  1. Headline Is So Very Wrong by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    How Google Avoided Paying $60 Billion In Taxes

    Yeah, unless you read the article that says:

    Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue, according to Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

    That's $60 billion total per year. Not just from Google but from every American business using these tax loopholes (Microsoft and Facebook included). The article clarifies:

    Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

    Emphasis mine. So you can see that it's on average a billion a year that Google saves doing this. Not $60 billion. Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes. But not 15% of their stock market worth. That's just unimaginable. Here's a bigger survey of companies using these loopholes with more details.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

    2. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It should also be noted that the official position of the government and the IRS is that tax avoidance, which this is, if done legally, which this is, is perfectly fine. It is not Google's fault that the tax code is so screwed up that they can avoid paying 90% of what, on the surface, appears to be their tax liability. Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.

    3. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by homer_s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes.

      Who's "they"? And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you?
      It's not your money.

    5. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another option: loopholes are there because the rich bribed government officials to put them there.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    6. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Brought to you from the same school of thought that claims downloaded songs are costing the artists billions of dollars per year.

      What Google is doing is perfectly legal, therefore it's not "costing" the US government anything. There's a difference between tax avoidance (not paying any tax you don't have to) and tax evasion (not paying taxes you have to). And while some governments bend over backwards to equate the two, the short version is that if there's no law against it, it's ok and said government can go to hell.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Raenex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.

      How about secret agreements with the IRS? From the article:

      "After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn't discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter."

    8. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US is one of the few countries, maybe the only one, which charges domestic taxes on income earned overseas. Everywhere else, that money is taxed only once, but here we expect it to be taxed twice.

      It's like the politicians are trying to get them to play accounting games, or simply pick up and leave, in order to have something to decry.

      What a ridiculous system. It's a wonder we have any multinationals based here at all.

    9. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I almost never agree with the parent poster. However, who in the hell marked the parent post "troll"? Some Google fanboy?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    10. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bladesjester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who's "they"? And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you?
      It's not your money.

      I disagree. The taxes they are avoiding paying would be used to pay for infrastructure, services, etc, so, in a very real way, it *is* his money because without those taxes, the system is not as well funded and projects/services/infrastructure have to be cut

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    11. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then Z must pay more. And having one of the richest companies in the world pay 2.4% when most of us are paying an order of magnitude more lacks justice.

      This is true for any plausible value of X, so simply saying "there shouldn't be as much tax" is irrelevant.

    12. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who's "they"? And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you?
      It's not your money.

      They're shafting you if you're a much smaller corporation or an individual that can't afford these tax dodges. Then you're bearing a disproportionately large share of the tax burden. And no, getting rid of corporate income taxes doesn't make this better, it makes it worse.

    13. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're being shafted because they aren't shouldering their fare share of the tax burden. Common people don't have any such loopholes. If we try and play a shell game to get out of paying taxes, we get audited and our lives get ruined. They get a cover story about how genius they are and how other companies who make money by selling information about us are going to start doing the same thing.

      If they're going to make money selling our personal data to other people who intend to exploit it to try and trick us into buying stuff, the least the can do is cough up the extra $1bn a year or whatever to help pay for infrastructure, social programs and wars. Fuck their money. As soon as it gets labeled taxable income it becomes government money, and that means everyone's money, so they are screwing us over.

    14. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      They're using infrastructure and employees that were constructed and educated using American tax money, and they're doing it without putting anything back.

      The laws are only structured the way they are because the rich can buy nearly any laws they want while the workers are left to feel the effects of it.

    15. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Flipao · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and a good chunk of them are rallying on the streets every day to try and keep it that way.

      Bless'em

    16. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LBt1st · · Score: 0, Troll

      naa, our government would just piss it away on dumb crap anyway. No loss.

    17. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by eln · · Score: 1, Troll

      It may be legally fine, but it's ethically wrong. Google has built its vast wealth largely on the backs of American infrastructure paid for by American tax dollars. Ethically, they should be paying their fair share for that infrastructure, not exploiting loopholes to avoid it.

      I'm sure anti-tax zealots will disagree with me, but in my view exploiting these kinds of loopholes is just another example of how laughable Google's "don't be evil" slogan has become.

    18. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      I believe the US does not charge tax on income you earn over seas and never bring home. Which is why the Google "loophole" works.

      They keep their overseas earnings overseas to the greatest extent possible.

      If the US did not tax earnings brought into the US and spent here all this money would come on shore and be spent here.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I guess I'm poor then. I also guess that all poor people that actually turn a profit from government programs, as well as the taxes returned at the end of the year are still in your list.

      I don't begrudge people from getting assistance when they need it, but I do begrudge people from demanding that the rich pay even more taxes.

      With that said, I do begrudge the rich (companies included) that use tricks to hide their money from the government. That's what this is: hiding money. It should be illegal.

      Tax rates should be lower. And those evading taxes should be fined and corrected. Microsoft, Facebook, and Google included. I wonder how well the current administration will like to hear this considering how deeply embedded Google is with them. This will almost certainly be ignored, or only referred to generically.

    20. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tax evasion: illegal, not paying tax you owe.
      Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and is where you don't pay tax you're not required to pay.

      people need to understand that the 2 are not the same.

    21. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bagboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's rock solid there.... "according to" "My Uncle Joe who is extremely cynical and" "familiar with the matter". FTFY

    22. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by FlightTest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not a tax expert, however, I have heard that yes, you and your wife COULD do something similar, except the costs to get it going would greatly outweigh the benefits. Many of these tax "loopholes" have high fixed costs to get going, so they aren't useful for the kind of income most any household would have.

      --
      Merde, il pleut encore!
    23. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...

      Its because they can afford to pay folks who write the rules in the first place.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    24. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LehiNephi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't speak for corporate income tax, but for personal income tax, the deal is this: you get a tax credit for taxes paid overseas. If you still owe US taxes after that, then you pay US taxes. If the foreign tax credit eliminates your US tax bill, then you don't pay any US income tax. The problem is that it effectively ensures that you get taxed at the highest rate applicable.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    25. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine how much better our economy would be if our tax system encouraged corporations instead of discouraged them to move capital to our country.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    26. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Incorrect.

      What makes you, or anyone else feel entitled to income from someone else? The only fair "taxation" is voluntary "taxation" where you purchase a good or service. For example, if you drive a car, you would have to pay a fee to drive on government-provided roads. The problem is, what has the government done that entitles themselves to Google's income? Very little. Something tells me that the US government didn't spend $60 billion to help Google.

      Google hasn't taken anything from me, Google has taken a little bit from the government, yes. But very little, not $60 billion worth. This idea that somehow Google owes the US government or the people of the US money, is silly to say the least and borders on theft at the most.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    27. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Only poor people pay taxes."

      If counting "taxes" paid by sales/service excises, that may be true, although the rich don't get out of these taxes either. The average tax return from people under the median income usually garners a rebate. That means they get money back they didn't pay in to the system. The people getting shafted are the medium income earners, not the poor. Its called "wealth redistribution". And its bullshit. Companies/corps usually pay low taxes because state and local governments make deals with them to come into the municipality and provide jobs, not simply because of loopholes. The real question you should be asking yourself is; why do we (and I mean everyone, rich and poor alike) need to pay so much to a government that simply wastes that money, for the most part. Vilifying people for being successful may feel good, but only up to the point that you aren't successful. This is assuming most people aspire to be successful, of course. If you're happy staying poor and grousing about "the rich", then I don't know what to tell you. Enjoy being poor I guess.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    28. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethically, they owe every effort to reduce taxes and decrease other avoidable costs to their owners, the shareholders. Anything else is secondary.

    29. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's restate that accurately: The US charges corporations income tax only for income that they bring into the country. They charge individuals income tax on all money they earn, worldwide, no matter where it is earned or kept. There is an exception to that for the first $100K or so, I forget the actual number.

    30. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".

      What they did was perfectly legal. Why don't you stop whining on slashdot and earn some overseas income and move it from one of your overseas subsidiaries to your subsidiary in a tax free country.

      Oh, yeah, I forgot, that would entail actual WORK.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    31. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      It's not "ok", it's just legal. It's also unfair since smaller companies and individuals can't make use of these loopholes.

      Moral behavior is not required by law, but that doesn't mean that it has no value. If someone behaves like a jerk, it's good that society calls them on that. Google paying a ridiculously low amount of tax is jerkish behavior to say the least.

    32. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never felt very good about paying into a system that requires me to either be an expert in that system, which would mean spending the equivalent time to get at least a two year degree, just to pay my taxes, or hiring an expert to do them for me. If I am required under penalty of imprisonment to pay taxes, its galling to me that I must also hire an expert to do them for me. Its a ridiculous, and unsustainable, situation that needs to change.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    33. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes.

      Was it the "double Irish" or the "Dutch sandwich" used? Because those are technically legal. Sorry.

    34. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.

      Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    35. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by operagost · · Score: 1

      Truly impoverished people don't pay any taxes. In fact, they get free money from the Treasury if they use the EIC.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      It goes along the lines of:

      I pay a higher fraction of my income to keep the country defended, the streets safe, the laws enforced, the mail moving, the homeless sheltered and the children educated than does companies like Google.

      And I'll add, this in spite of the fact that I have much less to gain from military invasions, road maintenance, public education and law enforcement included but not limited to copyright and trademark enforcement and myriad other public services, than these same companies.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    37. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends if you count providing services to the employable population as "doing something" for Google. Taxes (should) go to keep the country livable and safe so that businesses can operate openly and fairly. When people avoid paying taxes they get an unfair competitive advantage by taking from that work force that other people paid to keep safe, healthy, and educated.

      And Google didn't dodge $60 billion in taxes, if you were capable of reading the article you'd see that it's just under a billion per year.

      But you seem to be happy to foot the bill for this sort of corporate theft. I don't understand it as it diminishes your quality of life. I guess you're just a masochist.

    38. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is, what has the government done that entitles themselves to Google's income?

      Invented the Internet and then gave it away for companies like Google to make hundreds of billions dollars?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    39. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by spiffmastercow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, what has the government done that entitles themselves to Google's income?

      You mean besides building the internet in the first place?

    40. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to look up what ethics means. Ethics means responsibility to all *stakeholders*, not just the shareholders. Stakeholders in a company include the shareholders, employees, and the society in which they operate. A company that does whatever it can to maximize shareholder value without regard to any of the other stakeholders is not ethical.

    41. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They're using infrastructure and employees that were constructed and educated using American tax money,

      Which infrastructure would that be? Please give examples of US government infrastructure being exploited by Google.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    42. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes.

      You're thinking of the Dutch Rudder, not the Dutch Sandwich.

    43. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      How much do you suppose those employees pay in tax? More than they should need to, Google even pays some of them extra to cover the taxes Uncle Sam unjustly charges them on benefits for their domestic partners (those that have them). What would you like Google to cut in order to pay the amount of tax you want them to? Research? Salaries? More than 22% of my paycheck goes to the federal government (I don't work for Google), I haven't gotten a tax refund in years, and I don't have a problem with what Google is doing. They're paying exactly as much tax as the law says they should. I suppose since I'm only paying as much tax as the law says I should, you think I should pay more? How much? Would 50% do?

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    44. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      who in the hell marked the parent post "troll"

      Perhaps someone who knows how to read and follow the links to the actual story. Google did noting wrong. That money was all earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas.

      Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.

      So what's your beef?

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    45. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pojut · · Score: 1

      What they did was perfectly legal.

      There was a time when it was legal to deny serving or employing someone due to their race. Did that make it OK? Sorry for the strawman, but come on...just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right (and vice versa, naturally.

      Why don't you stop whining on slashdot and earn some overseas income and move it from one of your overseas subsidiaries to your subsidiary in a tax free country.

      Oh, yeah, I forgot, that would entail actual WORK.

      Right...that paycheck that shows up in my checking account every two weeks just appears out of nowhere.

      I'm not pissed that they do it and I don't...I'm pissed that they do it and gloat about it.

    46. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually that's true of many areas, not just taxes; it's basically impossible for a productive citizen to know what's legal and what's not.

    47. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Fortunately society is (usually) ruled by law, and not your highly subjective emotions on what you think is fair or not. One man's jerk is another man's hero.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    48. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by brit74 · · Score: 1

      The rich still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, but that percentage has dropped quite a bit over the past few decades. Between 1960 and the mid-70s, the richest 0.01% Americans paid roughly 70% of their income in federal taxes, but by 2004 that percentage had dropped to about 35%: http://post.cloudfront.goodinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nytimes_taxes_graph.jpg

    49. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.

      So what's your beef?

      That was my entire point...it shouldn't be legal, and when a company does this, laws should have been violated.

      Was racial discrimination OK back when it was legal?

    50. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      I never felt very good about paying into a system that requires me to either be an expert in that system, which would mean spending the equivalent time to get at least a two year degree, just to pay my taxes, or hiring an expert to do them for me. If I am required under penalty of imprisonment to pay taxes, its galling to me that I must also hire an expert to do them for me. Its a ridiculous, and unsustainable, situation that needs to change.

      They do, technically, offer another way that doesn't require paying an expert or learning anything: give them every cent you make and don't ask for any of it back, ever. Not a good option, but it is there :P Really, the reason experts are needed is to get out of paying the maximum amount, if you're just going to pay the maximum and not deal with deductions or anything like that it's not overly complicated - it's when you want to not get screwed over that you run into the complications.

    51. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a misleading statement. The companies are only charged once, but under two systems. You wind up paying whatever is more: the US taxes or the foreign taxes. This can get a little complicated based on what exactly is taxed in what countries are involved.

      A simplified example (all numbers made up): if a US-based company would be taxed at 20% of their profits, but does business in a country where they would be taxed only 15% on those profits then US law says that they should pay 20%, 15% to the other country, and 5% to the US. If that other country had 25% taxes on those profits (vs. the hypothetical 20% in the US), then they would owe no US taxes on these profits earned abroad.

      There are a lot of things that can make this simplistic picture get very complicated in reality, because every govenment has a different view on what should be taxed and how. The US is very profit focused, where Europe tends to be "value added" focused. This leads to rediculous statements like "the US has the highest coporate taxes", when in reality US companies pay a smaller percentage of their bottom line in actual taxes than any other devloped nation.

      Right now my wife and I are very aware of the complicated nature of cross-boarder taxes. She just sold an apartment that she bought while living in another country, because she is now living in the US. Since it was her first property that country does not charge her taxes on it, but because she has not lived in it in a certain number of years the US does not consider it eligible for a similar exemption on capital gains. And then on top of it she bought it with money earned in the US, and transfered over when the exchange rate was favorable in that direction, and now the rate as changed much in the other direction. Lets just say we are not going to be filing any form with an "EZ" in its name this year. It might well be that she lost money on the apartment (with inflation it looks like she really did), but we might be paying a nice chunk of money on it none-the-less.

    52. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the few countries, maybe the only one, which charges domestic taxes on income earned overseas.

      Actually, most countries that assess corporate and personal income taxes do so on global income for resident/locally headquartered individuals and corporations, and on local income for nonresident individuals and foreign corporations.

    53. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Do you really think Bermuda or Ireland have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with their earnings? FUCK NO. The US government (and the rest of the nation) IS going to hell thanks to underhanded "perfectly legal" practices like this. Companies that try to play by the rules and contribute to a stronger nation are penalized because they have to compete with companies who take advantage of tax rate arbitrage by earning money in one place and claiming it in another. Taxes pay for the infrastructure to make Google possible. Their earnings are because of the US government's (like it or not) business climate. They don't want to pay their share back into said climate and so to keep the books square (not that they are even close anyway) the taxes on everyone else has to go up.

      Unless the entire lot of Americans plan on retiring in Bermuda (the island won't hold that many people, first off) then this practice NEEDS to stop.

    54. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because Y pays less income tax does NOT mean Z must pay more income tax. That's just one form of tax that businesses pay.

    55. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by cobrausn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really that naive? In paying 1% of their income, an evil rich guy will pay more in taxes than you will see all year. What infuriates me is when the middle class gets lumped in with the rich and ends up being poor, all because of class hate.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    56. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      If the SEC knows about it, it's clearly not "secret" (any more than a CEO reporting his company stock sale to the SEC is "secret") and if the IRS approved it, it's not tax evasion.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I believe the US does not charge tax on income you earn over seas and never bring home. Which is why the Google "loophole" works

      That's income transferred to a foreign subsidiary corporation and not transferred back to the US-based parent that isn't taxed. It only works for corporations.

    58. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Yea...Mercantile Corporate Cronyism. It's the way our government works. The Neocons love it, use it and don't hide it. The democrats love it, use it and then blush when somebody points out the hypocrisy.

      The whole damn thing is going to come crashing down at some point (financially). "When" is a good question.

      The country needs to realize that the problem is not politicians, they are humans and act the way humans do. The problem is institutionalized governmental power. It's aggregated, enabled and USED by corporate interests. More government gives more power to corporate lobbys and big special interests.

      The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible. That will not STOP consolidation, but it will slow it down instead of the current idea which is to pour gasoline on the fire.

    59. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by kurokame · · Score: 1

      More plausible option: there exist rich government officials.

      The rest of this is a sociopolitical rant. Feel free to tl;dr at this point.

      It would be interesting to see statistics on how the income and assets of politicians measure up to those of their constituents. But I don't know enough about finance to know the right terms to pin down a mostly honest answer. What are we looking for here, net worth? And how do you account for less substantial factors like political power and connections?

      I can guess at this much...there are probably no homeless or unemployed congressmen. BLS.gov currently puts national unemployment at 9.6% - and remember, that's just people who fit a narrow criteria. There are numerous approaches taken to effectively hide people. It doesn't count people who have given up, or part-time students, or people flipping burgers 10 hours a week who can't get a better job or enough hours to live off of. It doesn't count the homeless, the indigent, the undocumented immigrant, the prisoner...there are countless ways to shrink this number. What's the real statistic, if the published version is 9.6%?

      Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included as unemployed.

    60. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MattW · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Google could not exist without a free and educated society. Maintenance of a free and educated society requires a social framework that includes education and social services. Those things must be paid for. They should be paid for by all, but to the extent that collection of the funds required represents a significant burden, that burden should be shifted towards those upon whom it has the least impact.

      A laissez-faire society where everything is a purchase is a recipe for darkness, ignorance, slavery, and chaos.

      Note: none of this is actually to argue that there should be a corporate income tax or a punitive one, which based on everything I've seen, there probably should not be, or it should be much, much smaller. But the idea that a fee-based society would function is preposterous.

    61. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      I don't know. If I have a stock pile of cash, I would be pissed as well if _ANYONE_ forced me to give up 35% of my wealth earned every year.

      Just to put another spin on it, if you base your purchases by the level of return you get, you too would be pissed if you had to give up millions of dollars when your Govt give you back nothing near what you put in. Alas, the Govt gives you many tax breaks with the promise to continue to build industry of some kind in the US to support US jobs. Tax breaks can be used to promote economic growth. (I'm sure we've heard this from someone before......)

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    62. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'd be registering my boat, plane, etc. in Bermuda.

    63. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      More in absolute terms, but proportionally much less. Sales taxes are regressive - they make poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. A poor person can't afford to save, they spend everything that they earn on essentials. A rich person has numerous investments and savings that would not be taxed - they spend a much smaller proportion of their income.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    64. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's just the point. Corporations are ethics devoid legal constructions. They don't have emotions, they don't have feelings, and while the people which run them, and the people that work for them have these things and more, corporations do not. There are two things corporations count as good in this world. Less liability and more profits.

    65. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to connect the dots a little better.

      If it costs X amount of dollars to build a road, and that money has to come from the collective pool of taxes, and the system is designed so that a good portion of that money is taken from corporations making massive profits, and the rest is evenly distributed amongst the rest of the people - but the corporation doesn't pay its share, that means 1 of 2 things will happen. More of the people's tax money has to go into the road, or the road doesn't get built.

      Essentially, corporations not paying their taxes are either stopping the production of services normally provided by the government, or pushing the costs onto other taxpayers. Thing is, a lot of services we can't simply "Go Without" - many people take advantage of the Garbage pickup in their neighbourhood. In Canada we sure do like the roads cleared of snow. Things like that.

      If your idea is "Why should Google have to pay those taxes to cover those services?" - it's because the elected representatives created those laws and thats the cost of doing business in that country. If you want to Operate in America, where you have a lot of consumers that have a lot of money to spend, the laws dicatate you have to support that system.

      I know its not just Google working these kinds of loopholes - but the fact of the matter is that all these corporations are ripping off the system. I just read your sig now that says Taxation is legalized theft, well - it really wouldn't be so bad if everyone did their part. I understand where you're coming from, why should you have to pay for a service you may not use? There are plenty of countries out there where you can escape paying taxes if you want, see if you enjoy the quality of life provided by a country that doesn't provide those basic services.

    66. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking strictly about federal income tax, here's a fun fact:

      The bottom 40% of wage earners in the US pay zero federal income tax. In fact, as stated elsewhere, if you're really on the skids you can use the EIC to treat the IRS like a paycheck: that's right, the IRS will pay *you* if your income is low enough, instead of the other way around.

    67. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".

      Yeah... you'd be caught with a lower tax bill.

      What these companies are doing is completely, perfectly, entirely legal. If you had the wherewithal, you could do it, too (assuming it made sense for your income level), and there would be no legal or financial repercussions. In short, the system is working as designed.

      Don't like it? Elect a government that isn't in bed with the corporations. *shrug*

    68. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What've the Romans ever done for us?

    69. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most people pay no taxes at all. The diminishing middle class is increasingly being held to pay the bulk of taxes. Rich can avoid taxes, the poor don't pay any, and the rest is screwed.

      This is why INCOME taxes are evil, especially the progressive income tax structure we have now. For corporations, we need to have wealth transfer taxes instead of income taxes. Dividends are taxed, shifting "fees" and "payments" to foreign (offshore) corporations are taxed, payments for imported goods are taxed etc. Anytime money is transferred there is a "tax" upon that transfer (corporatations).

      And, if we understand corporations are creations of the state, we'd better understand their role. However they aren't treated as creations of the state, but rather as "non-person entities" which erode the liberties of people, which is a huge problem.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    70. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wich just goes to show how messed up our legal system is. If you can't learn all of criminal law (that applies to individuals not acting on behalf of someone else) in a one semester class in high school, it's merely a tool for oppression. If the government doesn't teach you those laws in the government-run (aka "public") high schools, WTF?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    71. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the rich owe so much in taxes? Are they driving on more roads? Using more libraries? Is it really that much more usage than us that they have to pay billions of dollars in taxes? I don't think so. I think we are taking their money because we can and because fuck them, their rich and we're not so we're jealous assholes about it. How about we get rid of all taxes and start paying for things we use or just do without?

    72. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Oh, BS. This meme is stupid, and can be disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:

      http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf

      That's the Congressional Budget Office's compilation of effective tax rates and percentage of taxes paid by the various income quintiles in the US from 1979 to 2007. They also provide numbers for the top 10%, top 5%, and top 1%.

      The effective individual income tax rates for the lowest 40% has been negative since 2002, as the methodology includes low-income tax credits. However, once you add in the other types of federal taxes, it's no longer negative, but the lowest quintile's share of total federal taxes was less than 1% in 2007.

      In contrast, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.

    73. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because Y pays less income tax does NOT mean Z must pay more income tax. That's just one form of tax that businesses pay.

      We're talking about taxation and it is a zero sum game. Whenever there's a revenue shortfall, a government has to make it up somewhere - either reduce expenses or get the money somewhere else. And since we the people have very little real power, the powerful elite make sure that the tax code favors them.

      The Golden Rule is whoever has the gold makes the rules,

      -Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad author)

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    74. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What they did was perfectly legal.

      There was a time when it was legal to deny serving or employing someone due to their race. Did that make it OK? Sorry for the strawman, but come on...just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right (and vice versa, naturally.

      Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.

      Ok? Sound reasonable so far?

      Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.

      Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?

      You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?

      You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?

      Any bells going off yet?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    75. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Depends if you count providing services to the employable population as "doing something" for Google.

      The last time I checked, I had to pay taxes. A shitload of taxes. If we are going to charge corporations for taxes which will end up being passed on to its consumers, I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

      It doesn't take a lot of money to keep people safe. I would have no problems paying taxes if thats all it goes to. But it doesn't. It gets wasted on trivial things.

      The only sane method of having taxes is having them be just like going to the store or buying any other good or service. When I go to Wal-Mart and buy a gallon of milk, they don't force me to buy 3 liters of soda for their employees for the company party. Now, they can increase the price of milk to pay for some of that, but I am also free to go to any other store for the gallon of milk and find the best/cheapest. But that is exactly what our current system of taxation is like, you only want the gallon of milk and yet the government is forcing you to pay for unneeded, unwanted things.

      When people avoid paying taxes they get an unfair competitive advantage by taking from that work force that other people paid to keep safe, healthy, and educated.

      No they don't. If taxes were sane and you paid for what you used along with a small fee to pay for things like defense and to keep the court system going they gain no advantage.

      It comes back to the main question, why do we deserve the income from someone else? Our tax code needs to be reformed so Google, you, me, Microsoft and every other person and corporation pays for simply what they use.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    76. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the grand scheme of things, Google pays taxes on all their income. They just shift income around so that the majority of it falls under the lowest tax rate.

      It makes perfect sense: Why should anyone pay American taxes on money sitting in Germany? Shouldn't they pay German taxes on it?

      I have some German heritage, so is Germany entitled to my income taxes?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    77. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Not true. Only middle class and moderately rich pay the taxes. The bottom 47% don't pay any income taxes. The top 1-2% are rich enough to hire lawyers to work out these kind of loopholes (and to afford a residence in Cayman Islands or whatever).

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    78. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off.

      The purpose of an income tax is the use of carrot-and-stick methods to (financially) control behavior. It represents a lot of power. Unlike say criminal law, it can both reward and punish specific behaviors. This is why the income tax is so dear to the politicians and why they would fight like hell to avoid giving it up. It's also why the tax law is enormously complex: it's the product of many different special interests, politicians, lobbyists, all vying for special treatment.

      It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that "funding the operations of the U.S. Federal Government" is only a secondary purpose. It's really a system designed for the handing out of favors and the manipulation of behavior. The U.S. Federal Government managed to fund itself just fine prior to the establishment of an income tax.

      That great complexity is why there are such loopholes. It's a little like a computer program. The larger and more complex a program is, the more bugs it is likely to contain. The larger and more complex a law is, the more loopholes it is likely to contain.

      They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      That's not the self-contradiction you seem to think it is. They pull crap like this because they perceive that so much of their wealth is being taken.

      It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes. Now, if we want 40% of the entire population to be on some kind of welfare, then we can discuss the merits of that position, but first we need to call things what they are.

      At any rate, somebody has to pick up the tab that those 40% are not paying. Whether it's popular or not, a lot of wealthy people feel that they are paying their own fair share plus someone else's. And the numbers back up that position. Of course they're going to look for ways to avoid that. This is basic human nature, a predictable pattern. It's true no matter how much you hate or love "the rich".

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.

      I believe this is just like the War on (some) Drugs, where collectively we just don't want to admit that it doesn't work and that it's time to try something different. Of course by "we" I mainly mean political forces which would lose power if either the War on (some) Drugs or the tax code were radically changed.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".

      Probably. The federal income tax code is something like 3.7 million words. That's an awful lot of legalese to sort through and figure out exactly how it might apply to you. You probably wouldn't hire the accountants or tax attorneys necessary to do that job competently. It would be prohibitively expensive. However, if you're Google and there is a billion dollars at stake that you can save, then you'll hire them. Almost any price they charge would be a bargain if it lets you save a billion dollars.

      I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      Yes, the loopholes are due to the sheer mind-bog

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    79. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on - where's the evil in this? Since their guiding principle is "Do no evil" it must be fine.

    80. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Rich corporations always get out of paying taxes. I've read that IBM and Kodak actually get more from the US government than they pay in, because of grants, writeoffs, credits, and such, as well as the offshore loopholes (which IMO should be illegal).

      Meanwhile, a guy who wins $70k playing the stock market casino pays far less tax than a roofer who risks his life creating wealth for that same $70k, due to the fact that the gambler pays capital gains tax and the roofer pays income tax, and capital gains tax is lower.

      And the guy cleaning toilets pays a higher percentage of his income in combined taxes than the CEO. This is just WRONG.

    81. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by blair1q · · Score: 1

      foreign profits

      And I don't actually have a problem with this. If they made that money externally and they keep it external and they spend it externally, it's not really any of our business.

      What's really fucking us over is the massive break W gave corporations on outsourced payroll. It exported jobs as well as cash, and gave us nothing in return.

    82. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously don't know what you are talking about. because the poor in this country pay no taxes where the top 10 percent of earners pay about 79% of all money collected in taxes. the wealthy not only pay more in taxes but the pay a larger percentage as well.

    83. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its perfectly legal, and they paid all the required taxes in the country where it was earned. No laws were violated.

      So what's your beef?

      That was my entire point...it shouldn't be legal, and when a company does this, laws should have been violated.

      Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.

      Ok? Sound reasonable so far?

      Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.

      Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?

      You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?

      You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?

      Any bells going off yet?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    84. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PRMan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    85. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Law is designed in an attempt to be fair, not in an attempt to be self-justifying.

      The attempt often fails, but that's the noble purpose.

    86. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The taxes they are avoiding paying would be used to pay for infrastructure, services, etc, so, in a very real way, it *is* his money because without those taxes, the system is not as well funded and projects/services/infrastructure have to be cut

      It's not only that. It's even more his money, because if corporations/the rich weren't avoiding having to pay taxes, less would need to be taken from everyone else. He would have more actual real money in his pocket, not just access to more infrastructure and services. Of course, you could take this reasoning even further; if the corporations had to pay more taxes, they would have to charge more for the products/services and you would be paying more and then have less money.

      I can't claim to know enough about taxes and money to argue where you say it all comes out in the wash, but I think it's fair to say it's at least ethically questionable.

    87. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Kagato · · Score: 1

      I think the Rich do pay these taxes. The Wealthy on the other hand do no. What's the difference?

      The guy who gets a million dollar bonus, he's Rich. The guy who writes that paycheck? He's Wealthy.

    88. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another option: loopholes are there because the rich bribed government officials to put them there.

      It is called regulatory capture and is why large centrally focused governments do/will not work.

    89. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Law is designed in an attempt to be fair

      Thus if you don't break the law, you are being fair.

      QED

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    90. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What these companies are doing is completely, perfectly, entirely legal. If you had the wherewithal, you could do it, too (assuming it made sense for your income level), and there would be no legal or financial repercussions. In short, the system is working as designed.

      Why would I emulate an act that I hate? I realize that some tax dollars are wasted, but not all of them are. I like driving on paved roads. I like having a police and fire department. I like having a military. I like having all the services that a modern government could and can provide.

      What I don't like are people cheating the system, making that government more expensive/more corrupt by not only breaking the system, but gloating about it and night encouraging the behavior.

      Don't like it? Elect a government that isn't in bed with the corporations. *shrug*

      The very nature of politics and business in this country prevents that from realistically happening.

    91. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      And corporate status is available to anyone.

      Oh, and foreign subsidiaries are available to anyone willing to make the investment and do the work.

      So again, I just don't see the problem here.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    92. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware: Fox News meme.

    93. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Informative

      The rich still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, but that percentage has dropped quite a bit over the past few decades.

      The tax rate may have dropped, but the share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1% has increased: from 15.4% in 1979 to 28.1% in 2007. The total share paid by the top 20% has also increased, but not as dramatically: from 56% to 69%

      In contrast, the share of all federal taxes paid by the lowest 80% has steadily declined in the past two decades. See the first table on page 4:

      http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf.

    94. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Gkeeper80 · · Score: 1

      TFA says that their overall tax rate is over 22%. This loophole is only being used for taxes on income earned over seas. Granted, the marginal tax rate for companies is supposed to be 35% but there are always loopholes when laws from different countries don't quite overlap. Its practically impossible to control everything without draconian measures.

      This story is a textbook example of using a shocking statistic out of context and a popular name in the title to evoke undeserved outrage.

    95. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by izomiac · · Score: 1

      In 2008 the poorest 50% of the population paid 2.7% of the income tax revenue. The next 25% paid 11.0%. The top 10% paid 69.9%, with the top 1% contributing 38.0%.

      In other words, poor people hardly pay any income tax. Sales tax and such depends on how much you spend, and since poor people can't buy as much I highly doubt the figures are much different there. Living in America is 700 times more expensive for a wealthy person than the average person. (I'm not saying that's how it should or shouldn't be, just pointing out that rich people do pay taxes.)

    96. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but once a rich person buys a $20m yacht, they pay the same portion in sales tax as a guy buying a $2000 90s Honda Civic. If they choose to consume, they will be taxed. If they choose to save perpetually, they perform a small service to the rest of us by deflating the dollar.

    97. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Informative

      The average person starts off with a base non federal (mostly state) tax rate of over 10%. That ignores state income tax- its just school tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, phone tax, car license tax, toll road fees.

      That tax rate is fixed (if you have a cell phone, your taxes are about $30 regardless of if you are rich or poor).

      That means the effective tax rate on the wealthy is .03% for the same taxes.

      After that you have social security tax. 7.5% on people making up to about $100k. (but a "hidden additional 7.5% you don't see). Not paid by the wealthy again.

      This means people making $50k to $100k pay a higher portion of their income in taxes than people making much more. Federal income tax is just a red herring. but even there, the wealthy can structure their "income" as "dividends" and other tax advantaged income and pay a much lower rate on their income than everyone else.

      It's broken. The top .5% are getting about 20% of the income and have about 40% of the wealth. They should be paying about 20% of the income taxes and 40% of the property taxes.

      When you include the tiny amount for the bottom 20%, the wealthy should probably pay a little bit higher taxes than that too. They don't.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    98. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who rallies in the street to keep poor people paying taxes? This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever modded 5 Insightful.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    99. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Surt · · Score: 1

      Roads leading to Google HQ in mountain view. Google would not exist without them.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    100. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Kagato · · Score: 1

      You're making an assumption it's legal. Many tax loopholes are based on moving money and doing the accounting overseas where the IRS cannot get to the information to prove what's being done it illegal. Hence, when UBS gave up Swiss Bank holder names and transactions the IRS had enough to hammer a number of very wealthy tax cheats. Too bad UBS is just the tip of the iceberg. And that doesn't cover any of the Cayman island tax cheats.

    101. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paiute · · Score: 1

      I do begrudge people from demanding that the rich pay even more taxes.

      With that said, I do begrudge the rich (companies included) that use tricks to hide their money from the government. That's what this is: hiding money. It should be illegal.

      Don't tax you, don't tax me. Let's tax that fellow behind the tree.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    102. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by inhuman.games · · Score: 1

      As the sole proprietor of a small software company I pay 15% business tax. I have to compete with large software companies that who pay less taxes? Isn't it enough that the large companies have dominate market share? Small companies should pay no tax and large ones should pay high tax -- because the large companies (whether intentional or not) use their power to against smaller companies.

    103. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Surt · · Score: 1

      There are lots of legal ways to shaft people. Those are two.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    104. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BStroms · · Score: 1

      Correct. Also, as an added note, there's a law stating that if you give up your US citizenship just to get out of this tax, you're banned from ever entering the US again. Of course everyone will give another reason for why they're giving it up, but that's a very harsh punishment if the courts don't buy it.

    105. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simplistically speaking, if everything you buy is taxed at, say, 20% and you spend all your salary on taxable goods & services, then you are paying 20% on your income. This is true whether you earn 10K or 100K.

    106. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Nimey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a word, teabaggers.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    107. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      The average tax return from people under the median income usually garners a rebate. That means they get money back they didn't pay in to the system. The people getting shafted are the medium income earners, not the poor. Its called "wealth redistribution".

      Your typical income earner under the median income has all of their taxes deducted out of their pay-check. Come tax season, their rebate is simply the return of some (or all) of that money. At no point will the IRS 'rebate' more money than was paid. A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.

      I'm not sure if that was your point, but I thought I should clarify.

    108. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just so you know, a tax rebate is simply when tax paid is greater than tax owed. Most tax filers who get rebates are getting back some fraction of the money that they already paid through withholding.

      The income at which a family can manage to pay zero tax (that is, their rebate is equal in size to the total withheld) is roughly the same as the median income (which in turn is about twice the poverty level). About 36% of income tax filers paid zero or less tax, although of course there are many cases where you are not required to file income tax forms at all.

    109. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by FooAtWFU · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make it his money. It makes it someone else's money that he was planning on having taken for his benefit. While there are many practical benefits to this, there needs to be a limit to the intensity of the Moral Outrage / I Was Entitled To It angle.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    110. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And Google pays no property taxes at all? Plus I'm sure the 2.4% they pay more than covers the maintenance on the roads. Think harder.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    111. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What utter nonsense.

      The wealthy pay a profoundly disproportionate share of taxes; the majority of the population essentially freeloads. Here are some numbers from the US:

      - the top 2% of all earners contribute 43.6% of all federal tax dollars. Yes: 2% carry nearly half the load. This 2% only earn 24.1% of all income.

      - the bottom 50% of all earners contribute 3.3% of all federal tax dollars. They earn 13.4% of all income.

      - that leaves the portion between 50% and 98%, who contribute 46.9%. They earn 62.5% of all income.

      I get that it appeals to populist sentiment and class envy, but the system outlined above transfers mammoth amounts of wealth from the top (read: most productive) to the bottom.

    112. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yes, and a good chunk of them are rallying on the streets every day to try and keep it that way.

      To be fair, they are saying what the elites are coaching them to say, and they don't realize it only because they only get their news from the elites. When you change "religious leaders" or "royalty" to "rich people and corporations" you realize that this is nothing new. At least elites today don't wear as much ridiculous clothing.

    113. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by UCSCTek · · Score: 1

      I could see the response to a federal sales tax being the drive to a cash-based market where things are off the books. You either pay a big markup, or if you pay cash then you get the better deal because the seller doesn't record the transaction. It happens where I live all the time. If you were up against paying 20% sales tax, the incentive would be pretty big.

    114. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PRMan · · Score: 1

      But you can. This is not like the kids in Netherlands who are getting shafted for writing a better stock robot.

      1. Set up corporation overseas.
      2. Make money overseas.
      3. Transfer money to account in island country.
      4. ???
      5. Profit.

      Note how in all of that, the money was never on US soil. Therefore, why should the US government get any of it?

      Moral of the story: If you are going to set up a huge advertising network business on top of your successful US-based search engine, make sure that you set it up in a country with favorable tax laws, and that the money from THAT corporation never hits US soil.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    115. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      That's a great sound-bite but doesn't hold up so well when we look at the actual data and dollar amount (instead of playing the tax-rate percentage game that everyone loves when it comes time to bash "the rich") we see that the top 5% of income earners paid about 600bn in taxes, which was over half of the total income tax taken in for the entire rest of the population in 2008. That's right - 5% of taxpayers contribute more in tax dollars than the combined tax payments of every other individual in the country. The top 10% pays nearly 2/3rds of all tax dollars.

      The "poor people" you refer to - which we'll generously define as the half of the population who make less than the other half -- paid a total of ~28bn in 2008. Compared to 600bn paid by "the rich" and 400bn paid by those in the 50th to 95th percentile of taxpayers.

    116. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Too+Late+for+Cool+ID · · Score: 1

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I "[Y]et they pull crap like this." They don't like their wealth being taken, so they take steps to keep it. How is that any way contradictory?

    117. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 0

      It should also be noted that the official position of the government and the IRS is that tax avoidance, which this is, if done legally, which this is, is perfectly fine.

      It's more than perfectly fine. It's something they count on and hope for.

      Politicians use the income tax to make "desirable" behaviors less expensive by awarding tax credits for them. All forms of taxation cause the government to receive money. Its unparalled ability to manipulate behavior is what makes an income tax different from a sales tax or an excise tax.

      The rest is simplicity itself: if people do whatever they want to do no matter how much you try to reward or punish them for it, then politicians lose the ability to manipulate behavior. They really like the ability to manipulate behavior. Of course they are going to encourage people to avoid doing things that carry a higher tax. Now if they want less of a thing, they merely tax it more. It naturally follows that most people want to save money and are more likely to do those things that are taxed less. It's basic carrot-and-stick.

      This is speculation but for what it's worth, I am fairly sure that the Founding Fathers knew what an income tax was. If they did, then there's good reason they did NOT include income taxation as one of the government's enumerated powers. We, of course, ignored their wisdom during WWII and accepted a Constitutional amendment as a "temporary wartime measure" to grant the government the ability to tax income. Sigh.

      Ben Franklin said we have "a republic, if you can keep it". That "keeping it" part isn't looking so good ever since the 1900s.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    118. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    119. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice of you to believe that, unfortunately, while in practice often true, it is not the way the tax code works. US citizens living "semi-permanently" abroad (usually defined as "planning on staying more than 18 months" I believe, although you could argue that you returned earlier than expected), are required to file tax returns including all of their income US and foreign. A yearly deduction of 80000 dollars is provided for the foreign income only, so only if you earn significantly above that do you pay any significant amount of taxes. Not filing, however, remains illegal. As for enforcement, it depends on which country you are in. A number of countries have treaties with the US designed to avoid double taxation. This may affect your us tax filing, and it may affect enforcement since the treaty may include provisions for information sharing. Many people simply assume they don't have to file when they live overseas, and don't. Often it probably never catches up to them, but the IRS is notorious for ridiculous fines and penalty interest rates, so... you know YMMV.

    120. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement is wrong.
      2009:
      The economically lowest 41% of the US pays zero or negative federal income tax bills.
      Couldn't find top 5%, 1%, .1% numbers for 2009, but didn't look very hard either.
      2008 numbers:
      The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), paid far more than the bottom 95 percent.
      The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
      The average income for a tax return in the top 0.1 percent was $6.0 million, while the average amount of income tax paid was $1.36 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 22.7 percent.

      Keep in mind, a business owner pays 1/2 the social security tax for each of his/her employees, and varying percentages of other PR taxes based on the state (s)he lives in (or business is based).

      The tax loophole these large corps are using should be plugged; but the current tax system doesn't punish the poor as you claim it does.

    121. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paiute · · Score: 1

      Just to put another spin on it, if you base your purchases by the level of return you get, you too would be pissed if you had to give up millions of dollars when your Govt give you back nothing near what you put in.

      Your Govt spends a lot of time and effort making sure the Russians and Chinese don't come walking in and take your millions.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    122. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      1) You apparently can't read. That had nothing to do with what the original poster said. Essentially he got modded troll because someone disagreed with what he did post

      2) Your "earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas" is crap. Read TFA:

      "Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda"

      So, they shift income from countries where they really made their earnings to countries where they did not... just to avoid taxes.

      Legal. Apparently. Wrong. Yes. So unless you think "Good" means "Complying with the law", this is not right.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    123. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The top 10% of taxpayers may have paid 55% of the taxes, but they also earned just about 50% of the income[1]. It seems only fair that they pay around 50% of the taxes.

      In fact just over 50% sounds fine to me, since the top 10% probably have a little more to spare after food, shelter, and clothing than the bottom 90% and can better afford to help support shared infrastructure, war, et al.

      [1] http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

    124. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... that one falls into the "not even wrong" category.

      Just so you know, if you get a return, that's money that you *DID* put into the system. You had too much withheld so that you wouldn't have any tax liability at the end of the year, and have effectively given Uncle Sam an interest-free loan... and you probably could have invested that money better elsewhere.

    125. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's something you could be imprisoned for doing wrong then maybe you should get that equivalent two-year degree? I've paid my own taxes since I was about 19 years old, including dealing with 401k disbursements, buying a home and a million other things that have affected my filings. Yet somehow I manage to file every year, and somehow, as a single white male (making more than I should, to be quite honest) I manage to get money back every year. Well, my money back anyway :)

    126. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off
       
      The existance of taxes for companies should really piss you off. No company has ever paid a single penny in taxes of their own money. All their taxes are built into what they charge for their goods and services. At 35% income tax level, every $100 you spend at the store means you paid $35 of corporate income tax. Any company who can find a way to wiggle out of some tax quickly uses the savings to undercut their competitors' prices.

    127. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so, at one point, but I think we'd see a huge increase in the amount of under-the-table transactions, and, if we're not monitoring incomes, it would be difficult to connect the dots as to who's not paying their share.

    128. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      "Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda"

      They avoided US taxes. Read the article.

      "earned overseas, and kept overseas and spent overseas" is not crap, its the central facts of the case.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    129. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.

      How about secret agreements with the IRS? From the article:

      "After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn't discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter."

      The "secret" part of the agreement is how much Google set in licensing fees when licensing its IP to the Bermuda company. It's a contract between the parent company and the subsidiary, and would normally be kept secret, even from the IRS. However, because the money's going overseas, the IRS wants to make sure it's not a sham. For example, if Google US said, "Hey, Bermuda Google, I'll sell you an eternal license to all of our patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other IP for one dollar," then that would be a sham transaction and the IRS would correctly scream "tax cheat!"

      So, they get to look over the transaction and make sure that Google is setting a reasonable (low, but at least in the realm of reasonable) price for its IP.

      So, why is this secret? First, because if other companies found that Google licensed all of its IP for, say, 1 million a year, then they might start trying to buy it for the 1 million and whining about antitrust when Google doesn't sell to them at that price. Second, if investors found that Google licensed its IP for 1 million year then they might start wondering if Google US isn't worth only 1 million a year, causing the stock price to drop. And finally, it's secret because there's no requirement that contracts be public, whether you're hiring someone to paint your house or you're making a nonexclusive license agreement of a trademark.

    130. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that the places Google really does business has a weighted average tax rate of 2.4%? You really believe that?

      No one is saying that Google should get double and triple taxed. But effectively they are not playing taxes at all. It is not like they are getting the majority of their revenue in countries with no corporate tax, they are simply reassigning revenue to these low-tax rate countries.

      Quit the apologetics.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    131. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      The government and IRS are well aware of these tax loopholes. The court system is also, and landmark court cases have established precedent that essentially says, "Taxpayers(corporations in this case) will not be blamed for trying to minimize their tax exposure." the remainder of the judge's opinion explained that you only have to pay the taxes you owe, and the taxpayer has no obligation to pay more than that. This is essentially placing the responsibility of extracting additional tax revenue upon congress. If Congress wants companies to pay more taxes, they need to structure the tax code such that more taxes will be due.

      But Congress knows how much money it's getting, and how much tax is being avoided. The only part that matters in the end is how much tax revenue collected. If Congress wanted to stop these transfer payments, they could simply legislate tax law to do so. As noted in the artcile, google filed this tax plan in advance to get pre-approval for it (a common practice for companies getting into these complex transfer price structures).

      Closing a tax loophole is effectively equivalent to an increase in tax. Congress would never close all of them at once without simultaneously lowering corporate taxes to achieve either an equivalent or similar effective level in the end. Otherwise, there would be a corporate exodus as taxes rise suddenly and astronomically. (How high taxes ought to be is a separate issue)

      Essentially, the tax loopholes are not secret escapes, but just another part of the unnecessarily complex landscape of tax code that is due for new reform to ensure sensible and clear tax application.

    132. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The real question you should be asking yourself is; why do we (and I mean everyone, rich and poor alike) need to pay so much to a government that simply wastes that money, for the most part.

      But is that really true, the government wasting most of it? OK, no organization can be perfect. I accept that. But if there were no government spending on promoting the "general welfare", you might actually be less prosperous than you are now, despite your lower tax burden.

      This may seem counterintuitive. Governments, at various levels, can provide roads and an educated populace, to name just a few of the more apparent benefits. These work to increase the value of the people's labors. When you can sell your widgets across the state, the nation and even the world, then you can potentially sell more widgets. When you can hire employees that already know how to read and you don't have to teach them, that's a direct benefit to your business.

      But you don't have to believe me or even accept my explanation that taxes collected and spent reasonably actually increase prosperity. Look at data from the World Bank, or the CIA Factbook, or the WTO or wherever you like. Compare the GDP per capita of nations to their effective tax rate. Notice that once your tax rate gets outside the approx. 20-45% range your GDP per capita drops. (There are exceptions to this, of course. Countries with huge resources w.r.t. the size of the population do just fine at any tax rate -- Kuwait's a good example of a country with low tax rate due to their large oil wealth.)

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    133. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Combatso · · Score: 1

      They buy the yacht in a private sale down in the tropics (becuase they can afford a summer home) and dont pay a dime of your federal sales tax.. We've got those taxes here in canada.. Federal sales tax, provincial sales tax and our income tax is still huge.. sales tax taxes the poor, not the rich.. they are much easier to get around...

    134. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      Statistcally speaking, poor people have no savings, and thus pay 20% on all income. Rich people can save, say half of their income or invest it. Thus they pay 10% of their income on taxes, and make profits on the other 10% that poor people have to pay, rather than make a profit on. Please for the love of god read ~5 pages from any basic book of economic theory. This is extremely basic stuff here.

    135. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      At no point will the IRS 'rebate' more money than was paid. A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.

      The grandparent was apparently referring to the Earned Income Tax Credit. I don't think it's accurate to say that you get it if you are under the median income.

      You can get more than you paid in individual income taxes. But, I don't believe it will be more than you paid in Social Security taxes.

      EITC Home Page

    136. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught".

      You can't get "caught" if you're doing something perfectly legal. That you are too lazy to research it and do it is something else, and goes a long way towards explaining why you are poor.

    137. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BStroms · · Score: 1

      By default sales taxes are regressive, but they can be manipulated to be so to a lesser degree. It was already mentioned that food, basic clothing, etc can be make exempt, so the poor would pay next to nothing. You can also have higher rates for luxury items. If you haven't guessed already, I'm also a fan of replacing income taxes with a National sales tax. It's easier to enforce at retail locations than for every individual, so fewer people are able to evade taxes. There are also fewer loopholes to legally pay less than you really should be.

      Don't forget too that money in a savings account/investment fund is being put to use, generating revenue that will be taxed. The largest benefit of a national sales tax, however, is making domestic businesses more competitive. Income taxes add to the cost of domestic goods, but not foreign goods. Sales tax adds to both evenly. So domestic goods become cheaper compared to foreign alternatives, both domestically and when sold abroad. This is a huge benefit to businesses that would help businesses and create jobs. At least until every country makes the same change. But I'd rather be on the front end of that shift than pulling up the rear.

    138. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.

      Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

    139. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.

      Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      Then the rich who make more than they spend would pay even less tax.

    140. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Surt · · Score: 1

      Go poll how people get to Google HQ, and see if any federal projects are involved, and then think yet harder again.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    141. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BlendieOfIndie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Clearly you have never reviewed the IRS' Statistics of Income. I'll quickly fill you in. People making less than 40k per year pay less than 5% of all personal income tax. That is 57% of ALL tax files pay 5% of ALL individual income tax. If you don't believe me, look it up. Now, I realize that federal income tax is only a portion of the taxes everyone pays, but PLEASE don't keep spreading the BS that you're spreading.

      IRS Statistic of Income

    142. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, it's refreshing to hear some reason in these arguments.

    143. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by gothzilla · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hate to break it to you but the tea party formed way before any politician or media outlet even knew what it was. The original organizers even banned Republican politicians from speaking at the first meets.
      Not sure what universe you're living in if you think people who are opposed to our government wasting our money need to be told what to think and say.

    144. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jgagnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All of this depends on your definition of "poor". According to some, if you make $50000 per year you are poor. According to others any household making under $100000 is poor. Then there are those that look at either number and classify people making that much to be rich.

      Everything is relative, so to speak.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    145. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We (largely) have that in Europe. If you think gas is expensive in the US now, just wait to see what happens with the system you propose.

    146. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by magarity · · Score: 1

      it's basically impossible for a productive citizen to know what's legal and what's not
       
      Are you talking about taxes or the security rigamarole at the airport?

    147. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mr.+PJR · · Score: 1

      Now, if Google had an army of lobbyists in Washington pushing to extend those loopholes or create more of them, that would be evil.

      How about secret agreements with the IRS? From the article: "After three years of negotiations, Google received approval from the IRS in 2006 for its transfer pricing arrangement, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The IRS gave its consent in a secret pact known as an advanced pricing agreement. Google wouldn't discuss the price set under the arrangement, which licensed the rights to its search and advertising technology and other intangible property for Europe, the Middle East and Africa to a unit called Google Ireland Holdings, according to a person familiar with the matter."

      Let's be clear, the term "Secret Agreements" is misleading. The APA process is transparent to the US Government, but the results of APA filings are confidential. The reporter wouldn't have been able to get a copy of the ruling, but that doesn't make it a secret.

      Here's how the APA process works; the Company provides detailed economic and tax data for the transaction to the IRS, along with a detailed economic analysis that calculates the income they will generate in each country that is subject to the APA. They do the same with the foreign country's tax authority.

      The foreign country's tax authority and the IRS then negotiate over the terms of the APA. If the IRS doesn't like the terms, they are free to not agree to the APA.

      The IRS has a lot of experience with APAs. They have a dedicated full-time team of lawyers, economists, and CPAs who have negotiated these contracts with hundreds of large companies, and Congress regularly reviews the results of APA negotiations.

      Once the IRS and the foreign tax authority have reached a mutual agreement, the client is bound by those terms. The Company filing for the APA isn't party to the negotiations, by the way.

      A large majority of large taxpayers enter into APAs; it gives them assurance as to their transfer-related tax payments for 5 years. Without an APA they would be subject to audit and restatements, and they don't like the uncertainty.

      --

      --
      It is the last resort of the fading intellectual: to accuse your public of stupidity.--Sullivan
    148. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      Actually small businesses are big tax dodgers as well; look at what the typical small businessperson deducts as a business expense and you'd be shocked and offended.

    149. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because it seems every time there are tax cuts, they somehow benefit the people (or corporations) making the largest amounts of money the most. See "trickle down economics" or "voodoo economics". The middle class pay the greatest percentage of their income to taxes. The ultra-rich generally pay very little, unless they are honest.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    150. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by singingjim1 · · Score: 1

      This is the FOX News way of writing headlines. Just enough truth to keep the lawyers at bay, but hardly accurate.

    151. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      So you think it is perfectly okay to shift revenue earned in one country to another country to avoid taxes?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    152. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid or loop holed their way out of 60 billion google alone read the fucking article their not the exception but the fucking rule moron.
      Every buck they skip out on is balanced on the back of the poor.

    153. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax."

      This idea will never go away, and it's incredibly naive. The UK applies a 17.5% VAT on everything sold in their country and yet it still only accounts for 15% of total revenue. You can not cover federal budgets with sales taxes alone. It sounds simple and straightforward in theory, but has serious ramifications on peoples spending habits which in turn affects the governments ability to generate revenue.

    154. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the top 10% paid 55% or the total income taxes in 2007?

      Ok, what percentage of the national income went to the top 10% in 2007? Cause I am willing to bet it was a lot more than 55% of the income that went there way.

      Paying in 55% of the taxes sounds like a lot until you take into account that they are also bringing in significantly more than 55% of the money leaving the bottom 90% of the population fighting for the rest that slipped through their fingers.

    155. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Polumna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speaking of stupid memes (reference to your other post) what on Earth do you believe the relevancy of the percentage of total tax revenue to be?

      6th grade math: if the tax rate on rich people goes down and the percentage of total income tax revenue from them goes up, what does that imply about the relative worth of all groups? The rich are getting richer. A LOT richer. Despite all this economic downturn I've heard so much about.

      1st grade logic corollary: given that money is an imaginary metric with a constantly changing but constantly FINITE global quantity, the lower and middle classes are paying for it.

      Raising the tax rate on the rich would not be starting a class war. It would be the bottom 90% finally getting around to fighting the class war that the rich started long ago. I know, I know, I'm a heretic, Reagan was the best president ever, and deregulation makes everything all better.

    156. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:
      If you actually believe the government's own publications, I just don't know where to start with how willfully obtuse you've chosen to be.

      I suppose you believe the unemployment rate is between 9 and 10% too.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    157. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the 250k+ crowd, while the opposition only wants to extend it for the >250k crowd. Also, they want to change the payments for the lowest bracket so they're greater than 0%.

    158. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      There should be a spelling and grammar tax. ?-)

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    159. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be pissed at those who create the system... not the players forced into it. It's because of high taxes they have to go out of their way to do this in the first place. If they don't their competitor will. The system is rigged. And obviously they encourage it because it's in their best interest to do so. These aren't "loopholes" in that they were unintended. The people who write and pass law certainly have the time and resources to make them exactly what they want.

      I'm happy when individuals (and to an extent businesses) get out of paying taxes. It's their wealth. They should keep it. I'm not going to wish harm on them for getting away with something I haven't. That's just victim blaming.

    160. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Yakasha · · Score: 0

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Oh, BS. This meme is stupid, and can be disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:

      http://cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf

      That's the Congressional Budget Office's compilation of effective tax rates and percentage of taxes paid by the various income quintiles in the US from 1979 to 2007. They also provide numbers for the top 10%, top 5%, and top 1%.

      The effective individual income tax rates for the lowest 40% has been negative since 2002, as the methodology includes low-income tax credits. However, once you add in the other types of federal taxes, it's no longer negative, but the lowest quintile's share of total federal taxes was less than 1% in 2007.

      In contrast, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.

      The problem with that publication and your post is that it doesn't tell the whole story.

      Yes, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of the total federal taxes collected. However, they (Google being the example in this article) paid the smallest percentage of their income in taxes.

      Nearly 40% of my paycheck goes to income tax alone. Google pays just 2.4%. That is the basis of the statement "only the poor pay taxes." We can't afford accountants to help us benefit from those juicy tax evasion policies in the Netherlands and Bermuda.

    161. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by SoupGuru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These are the great weasel-words that appear in every tax debate. "10% of taxpayers". When it comes to wealth distribution, 80% of wealth in the US is held by only 10% of the population. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html I don't have a whole lot of sympathy.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    162. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Your arguments are invalid. Under FairTax, necessities such as food, medicine, etc wouldn't be taxed, thus deflating the claim that truly poor people (you know, the ones who can't afford big screen TVs and new cars) will not be taxed much, if at all. The rich will still be paying a much larger portion of their expenses on taxes, since they buy large, luxary items. Stuff like boats, secondary homes, sportscars, will be taxed at a much higher rate, thus forcing them to buy a larger percentage of their income on taxes than the poor, that is, unless rich people will just buy stuff they need, and just sit on rest forever (unlikely).

      Money in savings will inevitably be spent. Investments shouldn't be taxed anyway, since they benefit economy as a whole and spur job creation and industry better than any government program.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    163. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never got why someone who makes less than $250K/yr would vote/support republican policies. If you make under that amount, *you're interests are not aligned with theirs*.

      /business owner
      //doesn't make $250K/yr

    164. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      Of course, let's look at it another way.

      "Although the tax rate for companies in the USA is allegedly 35%, there are many rules that companies can follow in order to avoid paying rates even half of that."
      Or how about this:
      "Citizens outraged about the fact that businesses are using completely legitimate and legal strategies to avoid giving huge sums of money to the government"

      This is ridiculous. You might as well bitch about the fact that you persons can deduct donations on their taxes. I mean, they're donating and therefore they're AVOIDING PAYING TAXES!!!!! THEY'RE COSTING THE GOVERNMENT MONEY!!! OH NOEZ!!!

      Do I think that there should be loopholes like this for companies? No.
      Do I fault a business for acting in their best financial interest while using only legal and ethical means? Of course not.
      Is it unethical to use a widely known "loophole" to save money? No.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    165. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Who gets back more money than they paid? Certainly, when I was young and poor, I got money back at the end of the year, but never more than I had paid in withholding. I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      No one I know vilifies the rich for being successful. In fact, people tend to idolize successful achievers. IF they deserve that success. People love it when smart, plucky, hard working go-getters make it big, but they hate it when conniving sociopathic weasels do. And quite frankly, for every one upstanding rich man who made it big without stepping on anyone along the way, there are ten selfish, amoral pricks who fucked anyone and anything that got in their way. It's not the bad apple that spoils the rich bunch, it is the one lone good apple that somehow resists the all encompassing rot.

      Now look at the people who really make a difference, the scientists and engineers who actually make the world a better place. Despite the fact that there work is infinitely more important than that of so called 'industrial leaders' who are mere paper pushers adding nothing of benefit to human society, these scientists and engineers are almost never rich, unless they come from a rich family, or happen to be sociopathic enough to stab their friends in the back when the time comes.

      Remember, if you are making a quarter of a million dollars nowadays, you are barely upper middle class. "Rich" doesn't start until you hit eight figures. I know a lot of middle class Americans think they might become rich someday. They won't.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    166. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points so I could mod you up, the only difficulty would be choosing between Informative and Insightful.

    167. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would give my left nut to make 50k again.

      I will cut it off myself.

      Anyone Hiring?

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    168. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      47% of households paid no income tax last year. The IRS certainly does rebate more money than they were paid -- through refundable tax credits that are essentially a negative income tax.

    169. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Myopic · · Score: 1

      s/yet/thus/

    170. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Samalie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obviously this is a little over your head....

      Individual "poor people" pay minimal taxes. The problem is, right now, that millions of poor people paying very little + millions of middle-Americans paying a little more then very little collectively are paying WAY MORE tax proportionatly compared to these giant corporate entities that fuck their way out of paying billions of dollars a year.

      The thing is, these teabaggers are also advocating essentially no regulations on business, that the "free market" will ultimately fix itself & rule all. They would never even remotely consider passing anything which would result in corporate America paying more taxes...which means either massive deficit spending like today or no tax cuts for us poor people either.

      Basically, they're a bunch of fucks paying the lowest tax rates in decades pissed off that taxes are too high & that corporate america is the holy mother of all. NOT a good combination.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    171. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The tea party is a name for the majority of americans who oppose the wasting of over 3 trillion dollars now by our government. It's not an organized group. There is no leadership. People in the tea party are just as angry at Republicans as they are Democrats, just the Dems more so since they are the ones responsible for the stimulus wastes.

      Puh-lease. The tea party is the name for a group of people who have been led by the nose by millions and millions of dollars poured into "grassroots" network efforts by the extremely wealthy people who stand to benefit most from the anti-regulatory, anti-tax policies the tea party supports.

      Please explain why you support the government wasting over 3 trillion dollars of borrowed Chinese money, and then please explain why people opposed to that make you so angry.

      No need, as I don't believe the money is wholly wasted. What makes me angry is the 4-7 trillion dollars we've spent and have accrued liability for with pointless boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people who blindly support those "wars". But that's beside the point.

      The simple fact of the matter is that spending and tax reduction during economic downturn has been shown to be ineffective at best (the Hoover presidency shows how bad it can be). If you cut spending on programs that have domestic impact, you end up *further reducing* government revenue due to contraction... which makes the deficit even worse. Stimulus spending is an investment. Properly done ( national infrastructure, aid to local and state governments), stimulus spending, even if financed by debt, is the right course of action.

      People who advocate government austerity in the face of a deep recession are asking for the recession to deepen, and for the deficit to get worse.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    172. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CasperIV · · Score: 1

      It is only a problem because of the incredibly complicated tax codes we have implemented. If the tax was a simple, flat tax rate with no dedications or special escape clauses applied to every person living in the country, it wouldn't be a problem. Of course, you can't feel too shafted unless you are quite wealthy. The upper 10% of income earners pay approximately 70% of all taxes in the country. My guess is you are still not in that 10%.

      What we really need to do is stop playing the "well they can afford it" class warfare game and make the tax brackets a fixed percentage for everyone equally. Then it would really be fair and hard to escape with loopholes. You might also want to consider that while a corporation like Google only pays 2.4% tax rate, they are also paying taxes indirectly through the employees and salaries. This only accounts for income taxation and does not account for other dedications they might be utilizing.

    173. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.

      In 2007, the top 10% of the population owned 73% of total assets and 83% of financial wealth in the US. If they're only paying 55% of the total taxes than the adage that "only the poor pay taxes" does in fact ring true.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    174. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Favorite Teabagger Quote: "Keep government away from my Medicare!" FACEPALM

    175. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that as a publicly traded company they are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. In this situation ethics and legal obligations are divergent. If you take the position that it is ethical to follow the law you are looking at a conundrum.

    176. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      "The people getting shafted are the medium income earners, not the poor." -- and any attempt to reduce their burden (which is proportionately higher than that of the rich as a function of income) by lightening the tax burden of the middle class and increasing taxes on the wealthy (even if only to the point that they're both paying out a similar amount relative to income) is evil socialist wealth redistribution that will vastly increase their taxes (while leaving out the "If you net over a quarter million a year"[or whatever the mark is in this case] part). Or at least that's how it gets described by the assorted talking heads that fall into the group that would be penalized by it when persuading the much larger group who would benefit from it why it's a terrible idea and they should vote against anyone who even suggests it.

      I'm starting to wonder if that "1% on all banking transactions and eliminate income tax" idea would really be so bad, assuming it would net the kind of total income that's been claimed it would.

      "a government that simply wastes that money" -- this is a huge problem, and I don't see a good solution without the gov't completely changing how they hand out funding. It encourages being wasteful rather than encouraging thrift.

    177. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      We don't mean "eat shit out of the garbage" poor. More like "living hand-to-mouth" poor. "Paycheck to Paycheck".

      Also, try looking at all the other taxes besides income taxes. Like payroll taxes...that are capped once you earn so much.

      And that "bottom half pays no income tax" crap? You're full of it. I'm right around the median income in the US and I most certainly pay a significant income tax.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    178. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PunXX0r · · Score: 1

      This statement is moronic. The bottom 1/2 of all earners in the US pay NO taxes, while the top 10% pays 50% of all of the taxes. The top 1% pays 21% of all taxes. Please don't mod dimwitted political agendas up because you don't have the time to research their truthfulness. http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html

    179. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pinkocommie · · Score: 1
      Straight off the bat, yes that does sound insane but you're not factoring in what they're paying taxes on

      From wikipedia

      The bottom 25% have no net wealth
      the middle 50% (25-75) have 13% of America's wealth
      While the top 25% control 87%

      From another source, the top 10% control 70% of the wealth while only paying 55% (from your figures) while those holding 30% of the wealth pay 45%

    180. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative
      Because it seems every time there are tax cuts, they somehow benefit the people (or corporations) making the largest amounts of money the most.

      Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with. If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.

      It is impossible to enact a tax cut for people who already pay no taxes, and that's nearly 50% of the people in the US already.

      Your statement is a tautology. A 5% across the board tax cut will save 50% of the people -- the poor -- nothing at all, while it will save those who pay a lot of taxes a lot. And those in the middle save in the middle.

    181. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or more accurately "douchebaggers"

    182. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tax rate may have dropped, but the share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1% has increased: from 15.4% in 1979 to 28.1% in 2007. The total share paid by the top 20% has also increased, but not as dramatically: from 56% to 69%

      In contrast, the share of all federal taxes paid by the lowest 80% has steadily declined in the past two decades. See the first table on page 4:

      This says one thing very clearly:

      The top 1% (and to a smaller extent the top 20%) are getting MUCH richer. The poor are getting much poorer.

      In other words, even though the tax rate has dropped for the rich, they still pay more at the new lower tax rate than they did before. That means their total income has skyrocketed.

      Because their incomes have been stagnant (and fallen, really), the poor are paying less total income, because that income has been shifted to the top 1%.

      Or put one final way-- the higher total taxes paid by the rich reflect higher profits for them even though their tax rates have declined. This is what I call "income redistribution".

    183. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethically, they should be paying their fair share for that infrastructure, not exploiting loopholes to avoid it.

      Maybe they're doing both. Despite the loopholes, Google still pays a lot more tax than most people do. Have you looked at what Google costs society (through "building wealth on the backs of American infrastructure"), compared it to the tax they've paid, and found a deficiency? Show me the numbers before you complain.

      Maybe exploiting loopholes (i.e. doing what we the people elected congress to pass laws to try to encourage/discourage certain activities) is what causes (rather than prevents) the tax they pay to be fair.

      In my state, you don't have to pay sales tax on groceries, and in my country you don't pay income tax on income that you spend on mortgage payments. These are loopholes, but the loopholes are popularly supported as being "fair." Yet for any loophole, there are good arguments that it's bullshit. (e.g. Why do mortgage bankers get this indirect subsidy -- the tax code encourages people to do this type of business -- but IT consultants don't? Why is buying a can of spaghettios tax-free but hiring a chef to heat it up and mark up the price isn't?)

      It's just fine to bitch about the tax code, but WTF is "unethical" about people conforming to it and adopting the things that it tries to encourage? If you're going to say Google is unethical for moving their money to Ireland as Congress intended them to, I'm going to say you're unethical for spending your income on a mortgage or student loan, you tax-dodger.

      Of course, I would be full of shit for saying that, but you are too. The tax code is arbitrary. Strategies for conforming to it, are not And being forced to conform to it, isn't any more "unethical" than failing to overthrow your government for having a wacky tax system, is. Google is doing just what you do, Mister Ethics.

    184. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you think it is perfectly okay to shift revenue earned in one country to another country to avoid taxes?

      As long as it is done legally, yes.

      That's the perfect definition of "okay".

      Would you have some other rules you would like to apply, and are you willing to accept the rules I dream up in return?

      We have laws precisely to reign in people like you.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    185. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the rich person will simply choose to buy his $20m yacht from a shipyard in Europe or Asia since it will be substantially cheaper than one produced in this country. The guy buying the $2000 90s Civic won't have the option of purchasing it abroad.

      Rich people will always take advantage of loopholes in the system. And there will always be ways to take advantage of the differences between the laws in various countries. One of the reasons the US tax code is so complex is because the government has had to respond to all the ways that rich people try to avoid paying taxes. That's the way that the system works...the rich people hire intelligent people to figure out loopholes that allow them to keep more money, they use it for a few years, and then the government wises up and passes legislation to close the loophole. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Making the system simpler holds a lot of appeal, but it will just make it that much simpler for the rich to find loopholes. It's like doing a complete re-write of long-lived software. In theory, it sounds great to simplify the code and make it cleaner, more efficient and easier to maintain. But in practice, you're throwing away years of experience learned from discovering bugs in the original system. In many cases, the code has evolved to become as complex as it is because there's a reason for it. Starting from scratch just means that you have to work your way through a lot of the bugs that you'd already dealt with in the old code. This is not to say that it never makes sense to do a re-write, just that it often feels like it makes sense when it really doesn't.

    186. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well, the top 10% paid of the total taxes. But how much they should have paid?

    187. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Citation needed, the rich didn't become rich based upon the sweat of their brow, they became rich by utilizing somebody else's labor. Asking them to cough up an equitable amount of tax is hardly unreasonable. We're not talking about taking the tax rate back up the the 70+% like it was when Regan took office.

      But then again, let's pretend like this is a matter of hard work rather than the rich screwing over the poor so that they can't work their way up. I mean hell it's not like investing takes any spare money.

    188. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because it seems every time there are tax cuts, they somehow benefit the people (or corporations) making the largest amounts of money the most.

      If you look at the absolute numbers -- that's true, because the people making the largest amount of money pay most of the taxes (the top 10% paid 55% of all federal taxes in 2007). However, if you look at it in percentage terms, the burden is disproportionately on higher incomes.

      For example, if taxes go up as currently legislated in 2011, the federal government will get an additional $3,700 billion over the next 10 years. But, if they only let taxes go up for couples with incomes over $250,000/year (or singles over $200,000/year), the government will get $700 billion.

      Consider what would happen if taxes were to remain as they are now (in 2010). The "rich" would get $700 billion more over the next 10 years, and everyone else would get $3,000 billion more. That means that the "rich" would get 19% of the total (700/3,700).

      But, this definition of "rich" paid about 44.3% of all federal taxes in 2007 (and 61% of federal individual income taxes). So, they would be getting less than half of their "share", if that money were spread proportionally (according to all taxes paid).

      FYI, I'm estimating that the 250K/200K cutoff separates the top 10% from the bottom 90%.

    189. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NoSig · · Score: 1

      In Denmark sales tax is 25% on every kind of good, and sales tax evasion isn't that big of a problem.

    190. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hate to break it to you but the tea party formed way before any politician or media outlet even knew what it was

      But not before people of extreme wealth were funding groups intended to spark something like the tea party. These are the elites who instigated and control (inasmuch as there is control) the tea party.

      You're deluded if you think the tea party is pure grassroots. It's not. And if you consider yourself a tea partier, please ask yourself why people like the Kochs are willing to spend millions astroturfing a group you consider yourself a member of.

      And as for the banning of Republican speakers... did that ont serve its intended purpose? Making the Republican party go hard right economically, to the eventual benefit of people like the Kochs?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    191. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As long as it is done legally, yes.

      The robber barons of the 20's were doing things perfectly legally. So they were moral. The Chinese kill dissidents. Perfectly legal. Companies used to pollute rivers before EPA laws were passed. Perfectly legal. In your mind this is all fine and good because no laws were broken.

      We have laws precisely to reign in people like you.

      Go fuck yourself you smug little prick. And you shouldn't have a problem with me saying that as it is perfectly legal.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    192. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'd be registering my boat, plane, etc. in Bermuda.

      And every plane ticket you pay for to go see it you will be taxed on. I think you'll be losing money in the end.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    193. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BooRolla · · Score: 1

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      In contrast, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.

      That sounds awful, but that is because the top 10% own all the money. Really, a proportional tax would have them pay even more of the tax burden because they control that much of all the money in the US. Let me introduce you to the L-curve: http://www.lcurve.org/

    194. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sorak · · Score: 1

      Do you know of any country on earth whose laws are not that way?

      I would assume the opposite to be true. The fewer laws in place, the more power exists in the hands of a few individuals, governing bodies, and/or corporations.

    195. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Moses48 · · Score: 1

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Is that why the top 10% of our country pays 70% of all income tax? and why the bottom 50% of the country only pay 2.5% of all federal income tax?
      Source: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

      Tax evasion is still tax evasion and we shouldn't put up with it.

    196. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      Even with your helpful correction I have trouble judging the magnitude of these numbers. Could you rephrase your answer using Halliburton units?

    197. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to give more money to this corrupt government? So they can waste it on a "stimulus" package that doesn't work? So the Senators can fund their
      pet pork projects? So the Pentagon can waste it on some useless defense contracts?

      If you want to give more money to the government, you are free to write them a check. But, like all liberals who love taxes, they never seem to write
      out personal checks for more do they?

      This government needs to be starved of funds.

    198. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mmustapic · · Score: 1

      Dude, government officials belong to the "rich people" group. They're the same!

    199. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All races? Really?

      The only black person I ever saw at a teabagger rally was the one guy the guys in the long white robes & matching hoods were lynching...

    200. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jonhorvath · · Score: 1

      That is corporate Income Tax... Only income is taxed. We should assume that a corporation earns $10 on every $100 in revenue. That would calculate to $3.50 of every $100 you spend.

    201. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Statistcally speaking, poor people have no savings, and thus pay 20% on all income.
      Rich people can save, say half of their income or invest it. Thus they pay 10% of their income on taxes, and make profits on the other 10% that poor people have to pay, rather than make a profit on.

      Please for the love of god read ~5 pages from any basic book of economic theory. This is extremely basic stuff here.

      So is the money saved for ever? Does it sit in a savings account earning .05% for all eternity? Or does it eventually get pulled out and spent at some point?

      As for the capital gains you mentioned, what happens to that money? I'm willing to bet that eventually, it will be spent on something.

      So, unless they cash out their investments and burn the cash to heat their homes, they will be paying taxes on ALL of their money eventually.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    202. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the most part, it is very obvious what is illegal and what is not. Many of the complications are there to ensure that the punishment is just. You would not like a system that was teachable to high school students in a semester.

    203. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, you can just buy Google stock and do it legally.

    204. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nsfw · · Score: 1

      [citation needed] Not sure where you get your info but according to the IRS, the top 1% (the info is not broken down to your 0.5%) pay 40% of the income tax revenue. The top 10% pay 71% of income tax revenue. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/top10-percent-income-earners-600.jpg

    205. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Muad'Dave · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is impossible to enact a tax cut for people who already pay no taxes...

      Funny you should say that - with all the tax 'credits' you can easily end up getting free money from the government through your TAX return. If they're gonna sneak in more welfare, at least don't use the IRS to funnel it.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    206. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by anwaya · · Score: 1, Informative

      All of this depends on your definition of "poor". According to some, if you make $50000 per year you are poor. According to others any household making under $100000 is poor.

      The problem is that the Teabaggers and GOP appear to think that anyone making upwards of $250K is poor, and can't afford to pay taxes.

    207. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a phrase, the cancer that is killing all hope in humanity.

    208. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say I made 1 million dollars of taxable income last year, and you made $40,000. Lets say I paid 50% taxes on my income, and you paid 25%. Who is going to have easier - me living on my $500,000 or you living on your $30,000? Even though technically I paid more taxes than you, I doubt I will be barely scraping by. You are aware that the 85% of wealth is distributed among 10% of the population, right?

    209. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why you support the government wasting over 3 trillion dollars of borrowed Chinese money, and then please explain why people opposed to that make you so angry.

      Straw man arguments are lies.

    210. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    211. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's cute until you get audited.

    212. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but that's just the thing - by what standard do you get to claim they're "cheating" the system, when they are following the rules that are written? I take a deduction for mortgage interest; is that "cheating" becasue it reduces what I pay, or is it just making use of the favorable (to me) provisions of the law? If it's the latter (and I fail to see how it could be otherwise), then how is what Google is doing any different?

      If the IRS doesn't intend this to be legal, then they need to change the statutes and/or regulations; otherwise any money "lost" in this way is their fault.

      At least to me, TFA's mention of the rather large budget gap faced by the U.S. backfired. I suppose it was meant to say "why are they avoiding making payments that are so badly needed", but what it really conveys is "this is a meaningless drop in the bucket compared to the overall problem, and the government needs to focus on the real issues that have it so short-funded". I mean really, if you subtract 60B from 1.4T, do you know what you get? You get 1.4T.

    213. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      Well in that case, I'm offended that you're taking away my money by claiming your home mortgage deduction.

      How dare you not pay the maximum possible under the IRS code!

    214. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people pay no taxes at all.

      Citation needed.

    215. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Not just pay folks who know how to exploit, no, they can pay folks who actually write the tax code! (congress) Look at the tax code, there's all sorts of crap like "15% deduction for drilling oil wells between 1003 and 1047 feet, in fartknock county, oblivia..." The tax code actually fills several rooms.

    216. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by KingFrog · · Score: 1

      You think Republicans are all rich people who want the poor to stay poor? No, they are people who want the poor to become rich, just like they are. The Democrats have the poor as their "slaves", effectively, dependent upon their entitlement programs for survival. You think the DEMOCRATS want those people to succeed? It's not in their interests.

    217. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Ok, lets take your (implied) assumption, that Google should pay taxes on its world wide earnings regardless of the country in which it was earned.

      Ok? Sound reasonable so far?

      Considering that is *exactly* what I must do? Yes, sounds reasonable that we should all follow the same rules.

      Now, google has to follow the law in every country where they have an office and a corporate structure. So same rules apply to all those countries. Earnings in France, US, Japan, etc, all have to have taxes paid in Britain, and again in Norway, and again in China. Never mind that the money was earned in, and kept in the USA.

      That is not what he is saying. Nobody should have to pay taxes on the same income more than once. The problem is explained below.

      Has the flaw of your assumption dawned on you yet?

      You earn a dollar in the US, and just because you have a post office box in Australia you have to pay their taxes too?

      You drove thru another state on your summer vacation. Are you going to file income tax in that state? You used their facilities, roads, etc. How bout paying your fair share?

      Any bells going off yet?

      Google is using loopholes to pay no taxes on their income. They keep their headquarters in USA, their primary work force is in USA, their primary income source is USA, etc. Not Bermuda. They do not have anything other than a 1 room office with a single janitor in Bermuda. They have that there, and transfer all their money there because Bermuda, for the most part, does not tax businesses. This allows them to claim in the USA "our income has already been taxed according to Bermuda's tax system" and exempts them from paying taxes in the USA on the basis that they don't have to pay taxes on the same income twice.

      Meanwhile, Google still users our: roads, patent system, laws, schools, people, land, etc... but doesn't pay for it.

    218. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by slycrel · · Score: 1

      According to the IRS last year, I made just over 90k last year (gross) and I was in the top 15% of income earners in the U.S. So the top 10% might be lower than you think.

    219. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mangu · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is this 35% corporate income tax. Isn't income tax supposed to be progressive, i.e. those who earn more pay a higher percentage?

      A corporation is not a physical person, ultimately all the profits either go to reinvesting or get paid as dividends to people.

      How do they account for the different shareholders? This means Bill Gates has the same 35% tax subtracted from the amount that go to his dividends as some poor widow whose only income is from a few shares her late husband left in his will.

    220. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Political movements often get hijacked. It happens, and in this case, has happened.

    221. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shafting happens in the double taxation of income by the government. All profits that are distributed to shareholders will get taxed AGAIN as income. This is why corporate taxes need to be be eliminated.

      If they choose to reinvest the income and create more jobs (and income taxes that way), then what's wrong with that?

    222. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by huckamania · · Score: 1

      Huh, what?!? Who ever said anything about changing the lowest brackets so that they're greater than 0%?

      I think most Tea Partiers would be happy if the taxes for the bottom 50% were at 0% but then a lot of people would have to stop getting payments from the government for that to be the case. Most Tea Partiers would like to see the government stop paying farmers not to grow, stop paying artists to piss on crosses, stop paying toll booth workers 6 figures, stop paying for Brazil and Mexico to drill for oil, stop choosing winners and losers, etc, etc, etc. Most Tea Partiers would like to see the government start spending less then it takes in, start reducing inefficiency and graft, start defending our borders, start favoring it's own citizens just a little, etc, etc, etc.

      Personally, I would like to see a tax starting around 1 million that taxes all income above that point at a higher rate. This tax should apply to individuals and corporations. Add another at 10 million that adds another couple of percentage points to the 1 million tax. It would be better then what we have, and yet I'm sure there will be many people complaining that even this is not fair.

      As my Commander in Chief once said... "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

    223. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by valnar · · Score: 0

      Yah, but Google and Facebook are two of the biggest Liberal tech companies in the world. And they are evading taxes.

    224. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      edit: has happened one way or the other, I dispute that it was ever anything as noble as reducing the tax burden for the middle and lower classes.

    225. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      Well if you actually HAD foreign income and foreign subsidiaries, why would an audit scare you?

      If you don't have foreign earnings of course, trying this will get you in trouble.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    226. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Individual "poor people" pay minimal taxes. The problem is, right now, that millions of poor people paying very little + millions of middle-Americans paying a little more then very little collectively are paying WAY MORE tax proportionatly compared to these giant corporate entities that fuck their way out of paying billions of dollars a year.

      The actual numbers contradict you. The upper income brackets pay much more proportionally than the lower ones. The lowest brackets pay ZERO -- and then get welfare payments called "EIC" or other credits so they actually get money.

      The thing is, these teabaggers are also advocating essentially no regulations on business,

      That's a lie.

      Basically, they're a bunch of fucks paying the lowest tax rates in decades pissed off that taxes are too high

      That the rates might be the "lowest in decades" doesn't mean they aren't still too high. And most of the "fucks" pay nothing at all already and still complain about taxes. The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.

    227. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You're aware the US economy functions solely because of income inequality, correct? If everyone makes $100K/yr, than there is no value, as everyone has the same buying power. Not everyone can be rich, you'll always need a lower tier of society. The choice is between having a pie and everyone getting a piece, or having a bigger pie where a few can get huge pieces leaving scraps for the lower and middle classes.

    228. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by saider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most tax returns are because you have overpaid, not because you are getting net income from the government.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    229. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      The top 1% (and to a smaller extent the top 20%) are getting MUCH richer. The poor are getting much poorer.

      No, it doesn't. It says that the tax burden is shifting to the higher income taxpayers.

      In other words, even though the tax rate has dropped for the rich, they still pay more at the new lower tax rate than they did before. That means their total income has skyrocketed.

      Or they stopped engaging in various tax avoidance schemes, because it wasn't cost-effective at the lower tax rates.

      In the same citation from the CBO, you can see exactly how share of income is changing. It's on page 8. The share of pre-tax income is shifting, but not as dramatically as you claim.

      Because their incomes have been stagnant (and fallen, really), the poor are paying less total income, because that income has been shifted to the top 1%.

      Sorry, no. If you look at the average income table (in 2007 dollars) on the page 7, you'll notice that it's climbing for all quintiles. The rich may be getting richer at a faster rate than the poor, but the poor have getting richer, too.

    230. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They may have paid 44.3/61% percent of the taxes, but THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH. The way I'm looking at it, I'm still getting screwed. They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. Hell, I'd be satisfied to go back to the way it was under Reagan, when they paid 70%. But this 44% is bullshit.

    231. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Curien · · Score: 1

      >At no point will the IRS 'rebate' more money than was paid. A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.

      You're wrong. There are three types of tax breaks: deductions, credits, and payments, and there is a separate section of the 1040 for each of them. Deductions reduce the amount of your income that's taxed, and credits reduce the amount of tax you owe to not less than 0. But *payments* (lines 61-70 on the 2010 version of the 1040) can result in the government owing you more money than you ever paid in. A tricky point here is that several things referred to as "credits" are really payments. For example, the Earned Income Credit, the Additional Child Credit, and the First-time Homebuyer's Credit are all actually payments.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    232. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:
      If you actually believe the government's own publications, I just don't know where to start with how willfully obtuse you've chosen to be.

      I suppose you believe the unemployment rate is between 9 and 10% too.

      Well, if you can't consider the IRS' own tax numbers as a valid primary data source, then whose numbers do you propose we use? The parent provided valid links to a US government organization that, consistent with its charter, collected and analyzed data and then provided that data to the public. You provided anti-government opinion-only crapola that's one step removed from a total conspiracy theory.

      Gee, I wonder which post I should trust more?

    233. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      And corporate status is available to anyone.

      Not always free of charge.

      Oh, and foreign subsidiaries are available to anyone willing to make the investment and do the work.

      Yeah, so there's a cost there.

      And its not always possible to arrange it so that your personal foreign income instead belongs to the foreign subsidiary of your domestically-chartered corporation. (This is fairly trivial with income earned from foreign investment assets, it may be difficult with other foreign income.)

      So, no, the corporate loophole at issue isn't equivalent to the stated rule that "the US does not charge tax on income you earn over seas and never bring home."

    234. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it is when they use the State governments to subsidize their roads, their employees, US Government, the lawyers, the State Dept., and possibly the military to defend the company and their property.

    235. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement is completely false since 'tax credits' (or rebates or redistributions etc) have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. You could make people pay 100% of their salary in tax and have them pay a net of 0% by refunding 100%.

    236. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Well, if you can't consider the IRS' own tax numbers as a valid primary data source, then whose numbers do you propose we use? The parent provided valid links to a US government organization that, consistent with its charter, collected and analyzed data and then provided that data to the public. You provided anti-government opinion-only crapola that's one step removed from a total conspiracy theory.

      Thank you, I couldn't have said it better.

    237. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well shit, since you're only concerned with the redistribution of wealth for fairness sake, fuck this whole market determination of prices. We can have the government set prices for goods and services! And it'll be perfect.

      Or.. maybe we could have a government that wasn't completely out of touch with reasonable spending levels so that people earning 40 thousand didn't need to cough up a quarter of their paychecks to people who smugly believe they know how to wastefully dispense your money better than you do.

    238. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They don't transfer "all their money there".

      They transfer their foreign earnings from SOME countries there AFTER complying with the tax laws of those countries.

      If Ireland doesn't like this, Ireland can change its laws.
      But if Ireland is ok with this, then what is your problem?

      Should google pay Ireland more money than their tax code requires? How much more? How should they compute it?

      Google pays all the US taxes they are obligated to pay. READ THE ARTICLE. This is about earnings overseas, which are kept overseas, not about earnings in the US.

      How much additional taxes, above what is required by law, did you contribute last year?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    239. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you remembering to include the social security tax?

    240. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by gorzek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It sure is convenient to forget the existence of sales taxes, state income taxes, and the various payroll taxes that everyone collecting a paycheck pays. Poor people actually pay quite a bit in taxes, and it tends to hit them a lot harder.

    241. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by similar_name · · Score: 1

      I'm opposed to the government wasting our money and would never associate myself with the Tea Party. While there are some grass roots elements in the Tea Party much of the press and orginazation is led by Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Most funding for Tea Party events is provided by lobbyist with an agenda. I haven't seen too many bake sales to raise money for the Tea Party. Where do you think all of the money to fund the organization comes from?

    242. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."

      Since I'll be retired and have zero income, and will be able to take advantage of the zomg-socialist benefits in Europe like universal healthcare, I think it'll be just fine. And my dollars will go about 30% farther, since thanks to your plan, I won't have paid income tax earning them.

    243. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      Well, that actually makes sense. They don't like the tax rates, so they do what they can to avoid them. At least they occasionally advocate for the little guy like me, even if it might just be lip service.

      What grinds *my* gears are the liberal rich folks who do the same thing, and then complain that *I'm* not paying enough taxes. Now *that's* a hypocrite.

      we would almost certainly be "caught".

      Of course, but that's true across the board. If I get caught banging an escort, I could get arrested, lose my job, some places print your picture in the paper. Elliot Spitzer, hypocrite crusader against prostitution does it, gets caught because his account transfers triggered an investigation into possible bribes, *admits* to it, and gets a TV show on CNN.

      Welcome to the world, kid. Without a lot of money and/or fame, it fucking blows. Even being wildly infamous gets you the golden ticket and get out of jail free card.

    244. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Nearly 40% of my paycheck goes to income tax alone. Google pays just 2.4%.

      Don't interpret my post as a defense of Google. But, it's just flat wrong to claim that only poor people pay taxes. In the US, the bottom 20% pay nearly no taxes at all -- at least to the federal government.

      The CBO allocates corporate taxes to households in the numbers that I cited. The explanation is in a footnote at the end:

      Corporate income taxes are attributed to households according to their share of capital income.

    245. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are correct. Every day this week I hear about corporations making bigger than expected "beating market expectations" profits, and similarly, I hear about state and local governments being either close to bankruptcy or running a deficit, or in general not able to meet obligations and expenses and therefore having to lay off staff. Americans don't want big government, and that includes not money for roads, no money for schools, no money for clean water, no money to operate the courts, no money for police, no money for fire. If you are will connected to a corporation, you get the corporate car, drive on corporate roads, you kids attend the corporate school (the corporation is always good there), you get corporate health care, corporate security keeps you safe, and corporate doctors will take care of you (all varying of course, on your value to the corporation). If you are not in the corporation, are you at least a customer? No? If you aren't even a customer, are you at least a consumer who could become a customer? No? Sorry, if you aren't even a consumer, then you are a waste of the corporations time and resources. As a consumer of at least the resources to live, you are in even a minimal way in competition with the corporation for those resources. Therefore you must die (just keeping to the best interests of the company, no malice).

    246. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, they don't.

      And of course the Slashdot brain trust mods it Insightful. That's just embarrassing.

    247. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Spoke · · Score: 1

      Your typical income earner under the median income has all of their taxes deducted out of their pay-check. Come tax season, their rebate is simply the return of some (or all) of that money.

      If you consistently collect a big rebate check every year, you should reduce your withholdings so that you keep that money in your savings account instead of loaning the money to the govt.

    248. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Red Flayer, spending for stimulus and healthcare has gone so well...

    249. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they should be. When you willfully deny taxes you should be paying, that is definitely evasion. /realist

    250. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

      Federal taxes only.
      It shows part of what you are saying-- the wealthy pay more than their share of the federal tax bill.

      In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively.

      The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

      However, not so fast.
      http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
      uses the same data to produce different results.
      Reason- the wealthy successfully hide their income in capital appreciation, holding stocks which they do not realize profits on, equity in businesses which they are not taxed on and trusts.

      In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%,
      Also...
      in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
      ---

      And none of the above addresses SStax. A 15% tax on most of us but not on the top 5%.

      Doesn't address state tax. That's a separate PDF that I saved -- google it yourself- "tax rates by state". it breaks out all 50 states and the rates people pay. typically the wealthy pay .03 to .05% while the bottom 20% pay about 10 to 12 % of their income for the fixed state and local taxes and federal user fees.

      ---
      We are sliding into an oligarchy.
      And on top of that, automation and robotics are going to destroy an enormous amount of jobs over the next two decades. We may reach a point where many can't find a job. What do we do? Let them starve?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    251. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No way!

      The people who pay more taxes are benefit most from tax cuts.

      Next you'll claim a reduction the price of gas benefits people who drive their car to work more than those who ride a bicycle.

    252. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever modded 5 Insightful.

      Remember this is Slashdot, where dismissing people with schoolyard labels passes for deep geopolitical analysis. You mean "This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever modded 5 Insightful in the past half hour".

    253. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      So who do you support then? Republicans? Democrats? They both support the wars, look at the voting record. Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.

    254. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 1

      This solution of relying on sales tax only works if the rich spend a proportionate amount of their income within the country. All of those luxury cars/watches/shoes/yachts/villas are not putting money into the system. The top 1% could easily live outside the US while still making their money here.

      I'd advocate the opposite; only have an income tax. If I make 100k per year, I have significantly more disposable income than my friend who makes 25k per year. Even if I'm paying 50% of my income as tax and they're only paying 10%, I get to live a 50k lifestyle vs. their 22.5k lifestyle. I think that we should have an aggressive income tax without exemptions/credits/loopholes and no other taxes. A person is taxed on the money that they make and, if they have been clever enough to be prosperous and earn a lot of money from our countrymen, they can afford to give some of it back to the country that offers services and support to those same people. The common argument against this of "why penalize me for making money" is a fallacy as there is no possible way that earning more money could result in less in your pocket.

      Add to that a sliding scale like we currently use (where a basic cost of living would be taxed at 0% and scaling up from there) and we have a solution that ensures that the people may afford a basic lifestyle while still funding the government and rewarding those people who work hard to be successful.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    255. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Roads, intrastructure, and education I can get behind. What about all the other shit they waste money on?

    256. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by daeglo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, I would say about 1/3 of people with 0 tax liability see a net income from the government.

      Of the 42.5 million tax returns that pay no income taxes, 52.9 percent received some form of a refundable credit...

    257. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But not all. If you qualify for some tax credits and they are more than your total income tax then you get more than you paid back.

    258. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      In the US, the federal government assess taxes on income, rather than property. There was an estate tax, and will probably be one after this year.

      If you want to advocate a new system of taxation to redistribute property, knock yourself out. But, it's still disingenuous to claim that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share of income taxes.

    259. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the actual report that goes with those tables:

      http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/AverageFedTaxRates2007.pdf

      In contrast, the top 10% of taxpayers paid 55% of total federal taxes in 2007. The lower 90% of taxpayers paid the other 45%.

      Top 10% has a median income of $394,500, top 5% has a median income of $611,200, and the top 1% has a median income of $1,873,000.

      Within that same report you quoted, people earning less that $138,800 per year paid 55.2% of the total federal tax liabilities.

      In order to be included in the top 1% of income earned, you had to make at least $341,800. All people making less than that paid 71.6 of the total federal tax liabilities.

      The effective individual income tax rates for the lowest 40% has been negative since 2002, as the methodology includes low-income tax credits. However, once you add in the other types of federal taxes, it's no longer negative, but the lowest quintile's share of total federal taxes was less than 1% in 2007.

      To be in the lowest quintile, you can't make over $19,400 per year, and to be included in the second quintile you can't make over $33,000 per year.

      The millionaires always claim that they pay the majority of the taxes and therefore deserve some kind of tax relief. But according to the CBO report, the group which they associate themselves with (over $341,800) only pay $28.4% of the total bill. Unfortunately the CBO hasn't updated their brackets so we can't really know what percentage the millionaire segment actually pays.

      The problems with this report is that it only includes income reported as taxable, so if an individual had a trust that handled their wealth it wouldn't necessarily show up here, and the report only includes realized capital gains not actual capital gains (market worth).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    260. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Agnapot · · Score: 1

      See, what I read from what you say here is that if income was distributed more equitably then taxes would be spread more equitably. You can't deny that for the past at least 20 years the gap between the rich and poor, or even rich and middle class, has been growing at an alarming pace. If wages went up and people made more then they would pay more into taxes. So, the fact that the highest 10% pays 55% of taxes tells me that they're making at least 55% of the income (if not far more since, as this article points out, the very wealthy have ways of hiding income and shuffling money through loopholes reducing their tax rate). I think we should close the loopholes so the very rich have to actually pay the tax rates that they're supposed to. This would mean they'd probably pay a ridiculous amount more in taxes, which I think would be great since I'm not super rich, but which might be seen as a problem to... I dono, the very rich's apologists? What it might also do is have the effect of making the very rich spread the wealth on their own, perhaps via higher wages to avoid paying those higher taxes. I don't exactly know how rich people spend their money actually. Investing in things is good, but investing in the middle class is better. Unless you want to continue the class warfare that's been going on.

    261. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The top 10% of taxpayers control 71% of the total wealth, though. So their overall taxation is much lower as compared to the power and income they command.

      Pulling out big numbers sure sounds impressive, but they're paying much less than the lowest groups pay relative to the income. They should pay paying the same, if not more than the middle class. They obviously aren't, because that "lower 90%" that includes the people with negative income tax is made up otherwise with the middle-class who are shouldering a much heavier burden relative to their income and wealth.

    262. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to make any sense. They only need to appeal to your feelings while trying to bypass your sense of logic.

    263. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Ok smartass pedant, the wealthy seem to enjoy a disproportionate benefit from tax cuts than the middle class do.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    264. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by daeglo · · Score: 1
      * Correction,
      • over 1/2 of people with 0 tax liability
      • about 1/5 or the total tax forms filed

      I screwed the fractions together in my head when writing

    265. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the difference may also be stated as

      Tax evasion: illegal, not paying tax you owe.
      Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and comes from bribing government officials.

      people need to understand that the 2 are not the same.

      There. Fixed that for you.

    266. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Its not his money if he is an American. The money was earned In Europe and was then taxed in Europe. In what moral, ethical or legal sense should that money be taxed again and in the US? It has nothing to do with the US.

    267. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Funny all the poor people I know are getting earned income credits,child credits and so on.. They get back a couple thousand more than they paid in..

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    268. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 1

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Oh, BS. This meme is stupid, and can be disproved in moments with the US Government's own publications:

      It's not a meme...it's a direct quote from Leona Helmsley.

    269. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      If they're using loopholes and not actually paying those taxes, what exactly is it that they're complaining about? Complaining when you're not paying does tend to bring such things to light.

      * Having to pay for accountants and lawyers to make such things possible
      * Having to 'outsource' part of their operations to tax havens to make such things possible

      Those are the two things I see. Since the corporations aren't going to be paying the taxes anyway, why not just get rid of them and level the playing field? Make it a sliding 5-10% (lower percentages for higher-income corporations). Since the corporations obviously want to stay in the US, paying that premium would likely be low enough to make the offshoring operational costs redundant, while at the same time resulting in higher corporate tax income for the government.

      It's called an opportunity cost. You make them every day, constantly: you lose 5 minutes checking facebook or 10 posting to slashdot, in exchange for what you receive (unquantifiable, in this case, unless we're talking about social oneness and/or a feeling of superiority). It's only reasonable that a corporation would do the same to save a mere couple billion.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    270. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."

      Since I'll be retired and have zero income, and will be able to take advantage of the zomg-socialist benefits in Europe like universal healthcare, I think it'll be just fine. And my dollars will go about 30% farther, since thanks to your plan, I won't have paid income tax earning them.

      Well, I assume you pay for stuff now. You do drive a car and live in a furnished house, so you will be paying taxes on that stuff. But if you want to leave your family and friends to avoid paying a few percentage points in sales tax, I guess that will be your right. Actually, you'll still be paying the VAT in Europe... so, enjoy. Be sure to watch out for union backed protesters trying to take your stuff and blocking heating oil and power from getting to your new home.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    271. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Also, as an added note, there's a law stating that if you give up your US citizenship just to get out of this tax, you're banned from ever entering the US again.

      Er, not quite. They might be barred from entering the U.S. The relevant information from the State Department: Section D

      You would have to apply for a Visa just like anyone else from a foreign country or be granted a waiver from the Visa program. The relevant portion about being barred is:

      If found ineligible for a visa or the VWPP to come to the U.S., a renunciant, under certain circumstances, could be barred from entering the United States.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    272. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope you realize that taxes on corporations are also taxes on individuals, namely shareholders, employees and customers. What are the pros and cons?

      Pros: government gets more money for its spending programs. Some poor people get a handout, some unemployed get an unemployment check, some perfectly good road gets resurfaced because the contractor's wife has a cousin in the local government etc etc. Government bureaucrats in charge of that extra money don't really have an incentive to be as careful as with their own money, hence the legendary government inefficiency and corruption, so a lot of the money gets wasted.

      Cons: there is less money for the shareholders so there is less investment money available overall (fewer jobs), there is less money for the employees so some of them get laid off (fewer jobs) and customers have to pay more for goods, which means inflation, which ultimately means fewer jobs as well.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    273. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      It actually won't be spent, and it puts a much higher burden on the poor (and even the middle class) just like there is now. The poor spend a much higher percentage of their money than the rich do, period. So you will be putting most of the tax burden on them, even if the rich pay more for luxuries, it will still be skewed very unfairly against those who can least afford the extra tax.

    274. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The tax rate may have dropped, but the share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1% has increased: from 15.4% in 1979 to 28.1% in 2007. The total share paid by the top 20% has also increased, but not as dramatically: from 56% to 69%

      That's misleading information It does not include relevant figures for the share of income or share of wealth for the top 1% and top 20% of earners.

      The top 1% has seen their share of taxes go from 15.4% to 28.1%... sure... but they still have continued to increase in their share of wealth over the same period (20.5% of all wealth to 34.6% of all wealth). And as for income... for the same period, share of after-tax income for the top 1% went from 7.5% to 17.1%.

      Boo-hoo, cry all you want to for the plight of the richest 1%... but realize that even with them paying a higher share of the income taxes in this country, they still more than doubled their share of after-tax income over that period. FWIW, the rise in their share of taxes paid is less than the rise in their share of after-tax income.

      I failt to see any way you could consider the richest 1% worse off now than they were in 1979.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    275. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are conflating federal income tax with taxes as a whole, which is wrong because federal income tax is the only progressive tax system in the country.

      Once you start looking at sales tax, state taxes, etc. you end up with a very different picture. When it comes to a percentage of income, poor people pay a lot more in taxes than rich people.

    276. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's not. It just means that you get fucked because you aren't as big as Google.

    277. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @Red F. - Move to Europe you Socialist. Big Government is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. Especially, something as large as an economy.

      Reducing the tax rate has been proven time and time again to create a major upturn in the economy. In fact those countries with the lowest corporate tax rates trend to have booming economies and faster recovery rates. Check where the stimulus when and you'll find it didn't really go into infrastructure and in many cases the Local and State government didn't get what they were promised. Most of it went into useless pork projects that created zero sustainable jobs.

      Then again, your world view is so warped at this point that you believe that million of individuals joining a movement for Limited Government is actually sponsored by wealthy people. If you'll buy that line instead of knowing that the majority of Tea Party funds come from individual non-wealthy members, unlike the paid shills of the latest "anti-TEA party" movements that were mostly union members bussed in and given t-shirts, hats and signs, then you are a lost cause.

      We don't need any more Red here, Thanks. Europe might have caved into Socialism/Marxism of the Reds/Greens but here in the US of A - We the People have had enough.

      T - axed
      E - nough
      A - lready

      Thank you.

    278. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the IRS last year, I made just over 90k last year (gross) and I was in the top 15% of income earners in the U.S. So the top 10% might be lower than you think.

      The CBO documents their methodology in the URL that I cited earlier. They include some sources of income that the IRS may not include.

      For 2007, the minimum adjusted income for the top 10% was $102,900 for a single person household. To calculate the number for multiple persons, multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household.

      So, it's not likely that the CBO's methodology and the IRS's methodology line up exactly. But, I think the top 10% is close enough to the $250,000 threshold for couples with two children.

    279. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Really? Last I checked, "poor" people didn't pay taxes. Poor people:

      * qualify for free food
      * get more money back when they 'pay' their taxes than they put in (a 'refund' they call it)
      * qualify for subsidized housing

      The people who are getting fucked by taxes are the middle class - IE, the people who are contributing to the social and economic prosperity of the country directly, instead of just filling a shift. They're the ones with degrees, families, and responsibilities within their communities as the result of both.

      What world do you live in where the poor actually pay taxes? I understand if you're talking abotu things like sales, liquor and tobacco taxes having a disproportionate impact on the poor; this much is true - but the same can be said for every other purchase or economic decision they make. Having less money means it takes less to impact the bottom line.

      I feel for the people who are making just above the "impoverished"/"government assistance" income line. They're likely worse off, economically, than people making 20-30% less than they are due to the tax differences and lack of "free" government help. (For a family of 4 or 5, this is right around $54k/year. So if you're a professional bread winner, so your spouse can stay home with the kids, chances are you're getting hit in the pants the hardest. Interestingly, this demographic is fairly likely to vote Republican/conservatively.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    280. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tea party is the name for a group of people who have been led by the nose by millions and millions of dollars poured into "grassroots" network

      [CITATION NEEDED] However, we DO know that Media Matters Inc. IS funded by a single man with an angenda to control the world cash flows, known as George Soros who recently directly donated a million with a specific agenda [CITATION].

      4-7 trillion dollars we've spent and have accrued liability for with pointless boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan

      [CITATION NEEDED]. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars under the Bush administration cost around $200 billion, but the Obama administration recently granted $390 billion for the same wars (NOT including the stimulus and health care bills) [CITATION].
       
      No, you are just severly misinformed.

    281. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      the rule of thumb is that about 2/3rds of income goes to the top 20% of the population, who have about 80% of the wealth. I think the top 1% get about 20% of the overall income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html) but that's before the economic meltdown. I'm not sure if one is best looking at 'typical' income/wealth/tax numbers or recent ones. The numbers from the CBO are only for income tax filers which is a slightly different calculation than population though (remember ~20% of the population don't need to file taxes because they are minors and earn no income).

      To answer your question in specific, from the same source i just linked. In 2007 the top 10% earned 48.05% of AGI, (in 1980 this number was 32.13%). That number is the highest since 1980, and it was down to 45.77% in 2008. The bottom 50% get about 12.26% of total income as of 2007 (compared to over 17% in 1980). Note that the link I have puts the top 10% as paying 71.20% of all income tax (the top 5% pay 60.61% of total). I'm going to guess the difference is between IRS which is income tax focused, vs CBO which is more general.

      So on one hand I would dispute your assertion the top 10% get more than 55% of the income, that simply is not, and has not been the case for at least 30 years. What percentage of national wealth they have is another matter.

      Then you have to ask what is a 'reasonable' distribution of wealth. As people gain experience and or education they earn more money. I'm canadian so I've only ever really looked at this figured for canada, but a few years ago the 'top 10%' was basically masters degree +25ish years experience (which for 2008 using the link I quoted is about 113k/year). A bachelors in a high paying field (engineering comp sci etc.) and you got there a bit earlier. I'm not sure that's too far off reasonable. To get to the top 10% of AGI you, on average, need a decent education and some years of work experience. You would expect that the top wage earners would be close to retirement, with significant education, and houses paid off. Once they retire their incomes tank, and before that they spend a lot of time paying relatively low taxes. Are there people outside that mold? Certainly, and is the overall share of the wealth for the top 10% too high? Probably. But I'm reasonably comfortable with the idea that in a society where people who work for ~40 years that the top 10% are people towards the end of that, with decent education. I'm a computer scientist, not an economist so one of them could probably discuss in detail where exactly that point would be in various scenarios.

    282. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You know... people grumble about it, but the flat sales tax solves all that and everyone pays proportionality the same percentage for purchased items and it gives the poor an opportunity to actually save money by cutting back on some things (like smoking) and buying generic foods where the rich would most likely seek out brand names. It offers a tremendous amount of personal control over money and I think that's why it has such a hard sell. Even if you include hoarders... their kids will likely spend that money on expensive cars, homes, etc. The money will get spent.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    283. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "Fair Tax"... isn't.

      Of course, you have to define what "fair" means in the first place. Regardless, the "Fair Tax" and all other forms of consumption tax are pretty regressive and don't address the true problems with tax burden. If you really want to tax the wealthy, you have a savings tax (negative interest rate) which discourages keeping large sums of wealth (note that property tax is a kind of negative interest rate because it's a fee you have to pay on the "stored value" inherent with owning a piece of real property).

      There's some devil in the details there, though, because you don't want to encourage zero savings, because that makes for a fragile economy - a better system than the fair tax would be to have zero income tax, then tax all property (including deposit accounts) valued at more than some threshold (say, $1M, indexed to inflation of course) at some fixed rate. This way, people with a modest home, vehicle, and reasonable cash savings would have no tax burden, but entities that tried to maintain large piles of wealth would have to pay. You could still get richer, but it would eliminate one of the institutional reasons why it's hard for the poor to become middle class.

      This is also much simpler to implement than the Fair Tax, which has complex bookkeeping and exemption mechanisms.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    284. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      The average tax return from people under the median income usually garners a rebate. That means they get money back they didn't pay in to the system.

      No, that means the PAID MORE than the NEEDED to pay automatically from the paycheck, in effect giving the Government a 0% interest LOAN on the money. The Government simply pays them back what they over sent in the first place (not plus interest).

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    285. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Samalie · · Score: 1

      That the rates might be the "lowest in decades" doesn't mean they aren't still too high. And most of the "fucks" pay nothing at all already and still complain about taxes. The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.

      Right...now I understand.

      The teabagger movement is a front put up by rich white republicans who are using the poorest and stupidest people in America, who already pay no taxes, to support the extension of a tax cut which has no effect on said poor and stupid people to the benefit of the rich republican corporate overlords.

      Well shit, sign me up!

      (And for the record...the Obama administration has no issues with extending the "tax cut" - to middle americans (250K/year) but wants to remove it for the "rich folks" - which, lets face it, there are no "normal" Americans in the teabaggers that are remotely effected by this plan. But hey, like the rest of the morons, don't let fact get in the way of a good political rant.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    286. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

      Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this

      The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7.. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

      So, that’s what they decided to do..

      The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

      The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

      They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

      So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

      Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

      “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,“but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

      The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

      And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    287. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 1

      Totally agreed. Corporations play so many games to reduce their tax burden, it's not worth it. We should just eliminate corporate taxes altogether and replace them with VAT and income taxes. Corporations waste a lot of resources playing these games, so they would become more efficient. Just think about the complexities of just calculating depreciation expenses. And imagine how many corporations would move back to the U.S.!

    288. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you but the tea party formed way before any politician or media outlet even knew what it was. The original organizers even banned Republican politicians from speaking at the first meets.

      That's why former house majority leader Dick Armey is their leader.

    289. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In the US, the bottom 20% pay nearly no taxes at all

      What freeloaders! Obviously we should raise taxes on the poor. They've been stealing food off of the table of this nation's rich for far too long.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    290. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Taxes are on money flow, not on previously-amassed wealth. You can't be charged twice for the same crime; why should they be taxed twice on the same money?

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    291. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by David+Jao · · Score: 1
      The foreign tax credit is not as straightforward as you claim. It only really works that way if you live exclusively outside of the US and earn all your income abroad. If you earn a portion of your income within the US, and a portion abroad, then the amount of the foreign tax credit is capped -- it cannot exceed the fraction of your US tax liability corresponding to overseas income. Your income taxes, on the other hand, are not capped -- you have to pay taxes on all your income, regardless of where you earned it. In such situations, you really can get taxed twice on the same income.

      Sadly, I have personal experience with all of the above. I (literally) have a Ph.D in mathematics from Harvard, and even I had a very hard time figuring it out.

    292. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Huh, what?!? Who ever said anything about changing the lowest brackets so that they're greater than 0%?

      Lots of tea partiers complain "Oh noes, X number of people pay no taxes! That's not right! That's unfair!"; that's not in dispute. The obvious followup action to that attitude is to change the bracket from 0% to something higher.

    293. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      I do the taxes for my kids who are in their mid twenties and a number of their friends. Almost all of them get back more than they paid. In some cases it's thousands of dollars more. Pretty much anyone who is married with children and has less than $40K in income gets back more than they pay.

    294. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by xero314 · · Score: 1

      No, they are people who want the poor to become rich, just like they are.

      So close yet so far off. Economic conservatives want people to try to become rich because this causes lots of spending that can be funneled to the actual rich. For you to attempt to set up your private business you will have to shift what little capital you might have into the hands of those that control the overwhelming majority of the capital.

      The really funny thing though, is that Republicans and not Economic conservatives, but they want to believe they are. Republics, or more accurately the top capital controllers, support and collect more government hand outs than anyone. Even Social Security is simply a way to funnel more funds back into the hands of those controlling capital.

      There where a number of bright people around 200 years ago that started writing about this, but sadly their terminology was usurped by power hunger people who made a mockery of their ideas and have caused everyone to dismiss the actual concepts based on name alone.

    295. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

      Okay, slight exaggeration using "Most", as some of the bottom 50% do pay income taxes. The trend has been ever increasing plurality pay no income taxes, and within a few years will be the majority.

      However my point remains.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    296. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that the spending is almost never properly done.

      Which is why we have stimulus work packages that pay people to install stop signs .. in front of stop signs. It is makework that doesn't do anybody any real good, and it does so at great expense.

      And it is why we had bailouts of massive sizes to no end. There are numerous other companies that would have happily purchased GM's facilities and (grudgingly) employed GM's union labor to build vehicles for sale in the US. The reason they don't build those facilities and make those vehicles now is because GM still occupies the market. They are not too big to fail. But we sure spent a whole lot of damn money chasing bad money with perfectly good.

    297. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by dwandy · · Score: 1

      This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax.

      I'd suggest The One Tax should be Property Tax.

      Anything that is artificially expensive generates a black market for the same thing at it's "true" cost.
      For example, income tax creates a black-market for labour: People start to do work for cash to avoid paying the taxes.
      Here in Canada we have significant alcohol and tobacco taxes which creates significant smuggling from the US.
      Furthermore, anything which you add a tax to you discourage (obviously anything you subsidize you encourage...)
      So since we live in a consumer-based economy, the last thing you want to do is discourage people from buying things.
      And if you tax income/revenue then you start to have corporations that move their revenue to the lowest rated region.
      This "black market" effect is one reason we so many kinds of taxes: the more you raise one type, the more of that activity moves under ground, the less tax revenue you generate. It has always been a balancing act; trying to find a tax rate where most people don't bother to work in the underground economy and choose instead to contribute to the tax base.

      But none of this applies to physical property, aka: Land.
      Everyone needs somewhere to live, work etc.
      Every contributing member of our society needs land on which to exist. This is true whether person or corporation.
      While corporations might look to minimize their physical presence, it is really difficult to effectively do business in another country if you have no physical presence there.
      So that means that everybody pays.

      Another possible fringe benefits might include more virtual-type offices, reducing travel (reducing energy consumption, pollution, congestion, etc)

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    298. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      At least elites today don't wear as much ridiculous clothing.

      Really? I see a lot of them wearing suits when it's 35C/95F or hotter. Sure seems ridiculous to me.

    299. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Samalie · · Score: 1

      You think ANYONE wants the "average person" to succeed either?

      What a fucking joke.

      My boss (a hardcore Repub in this case) doesn't want me to get rich...because then he immediately loses me as his "servaant" in exchange for the annual salary he provides me. He wants to pay me just enough to keep me just happy enough to continue working 40+ hours a week making him richer.

      Worse...if I were to somehow magically become rich, I can become a threat to him...since assuming he's a successful businessman, I could easily have learnt more than enough to copy what he does, enhance and refine it that little bit, and drive him out of business.

      Anyone who thinks any other "rich" person thinks differently is a fucking fool. THis is why the poor stay poor and the rich get richer...because they have zero incentive to see me "succeed" in any way that doesn't further their own wealth over mine.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    300. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax evasion: illegal, not paying tax you owe.
      Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and is where you don't pay tax you're not required to pay.

      people need to understand that the 2 are not the same.

      Very good point!

      Likewise, "legal" and "just" aren't the same thing.

      The legality of an act or behavior and its goodness or rightness are only vaguely or loosely related.

      It seems to me that it's best to think of them as not being related at all.

    301. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No need, as I don't believe the money is wholly wasted. What makes me angry is the 4-7 trillion dollars we've spent and have accrued liability for with pointless boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people who blindly support those "wars". But that's beside the point.

      Quite right - it is besides the point. It's also wrong, but that's besides the point too, I suppose?

      Since 2001, there have been expenditures less than $1.1 trillion. This information is readily accessible for anyone to examine.

      Where exactly are you getting 4-7 trillion? The only thing I can figure is you're taking the entire DoD budget and aggregating them. And even then, you're off your rocker: as a percentage of the GDP (and not even considering inflation!), the DoD has received roughly .5-4% less in the last decade, per year, than under "the peaceful President", Bill Clinton (per year).

      In fact, DoD funding receipts in 2004 were the lowest (as percentage of GDP) since 1959. So kindly shut the fuck up.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    302. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "But is that really true, the government wasting most of it? OK, no organization can be perfect. I accept that. But if there were no government spending on promoting the "general welfare", you might actually be less prosperous than you are now, despite your lower tax burden."

      http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/the-government-is-wasting-your-tax-dollars/article50629.html
      http://www.cagw.org/
      http://www.organizedrage.com/2010/10/government-waste-is-shocking-says-tax.html
      http://www.wastewatchersinc.org/
      http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/916209-government-waste-tax-dollars.html
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste

      I also reject any notion that a country can tax itself into prosperity. Its illogical and doesn't make sense. Look to Europe as an example of how well it works.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    303. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      The rich get in excess of 50% of their personal income (not to be mistaken for business income, which is owned by a business, not a person) taken in taxes. How much would that annoy you? There are also some ownership arrangements for small businesses, which make the business income appear on paper, to be the owner's income. This often results in a person having a real personal income below $50,000 a year, but being taxed for an income in excess of $250,000 a year. Sometimes the apparently rich, only appear rich on paper.

      Large corporations use these loopholes to retain more of their money, which they have earned through lawful exchange of goods or services. They use these savings to pay employees, purchase supplies from suppliers who also have employees, pay for their facilities where their employees earn their wages, and expand, so they can hire more employees. They do all of this, while producing some good or service that someone wants or needs, which they will, in turn, exchange at a carefully considered rate, and start this whole process over again. By using these loopholes, they have more means available to them to give those involved the things which they are looking for. If the tax rates in this country were more reasonable, corporations wouldn't be so quick to seek tax shelters, and more of the aforementioned people involved would be in our own country.

      Corporations aren't evil. Bad government policies are evil.

    304. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      by virtue of their salary government officials are immediately in the top 10% of wage earners (federal anyway). They also get healthcare and so on as part of their benefits so it's hard to pin down their exact equivalent wealth. Though I'm not sure you want poor people in government. The virtue of the house of lords is that by definition they're there because they're rich. No one needs to bribe them, they're looking out for money anyway. It also acknowledges that rich people pay a lot of the taxes, and will have, whether we like it or not, influence on government.

      Elected officials are different. They are bought and sold by campaign contributions, cushy job offers when they finish, special perks and so on. Even if they can resist those temptations they are (in the US) basically 535 politicans who manage 3.5 trillion dollars in spending, about 6.5 billion dollars each, per year (yes I realize it's not organized that way, but on average that's about what spending works out to). Which is WAY more money than they can even really understand let alone effectively manage, and it's so much money compared to their salary that it's very hard to see a scenario where a million dollars here or there, which is nothing compared to 6.5 billion, wouldn't influence someone who makes 150k/ year. But the less money they make, the lower the barrier to bribery is, and the easier it is to hide.

      And, lets face it. Rich people can afford to leave, at which point you'd get nothing. A billionaire living in switzerland pays no US taxes after all. They are trying to build a system that keeps the US a competitive place to live for the wealthy, otherwise they'll go to elsewhere.

    305. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      What I don't like are people cheating the system

      So apparently you define "cheating the system" as taking advantage of tax breaks.

      I take it you don't claim any tax deductions, whatsoever, during your yearly filing?

    306. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nschubach · · Score: 1

      The top 10% of taxpayers may have paid 55% of the taxes, but they also earned just about 50% of the income[1]. It seems only fair that they pay around 50% of the taxes.

      In fact just over 50% sounds fine to me

      So you are seeking a 5% reduction in taxes to the top 10%...

      , since the top 10% probably have a little more to spare after food, shelter, and clothing than the bottom 90% and can better afford to help support shared infrastructure, war, et al.

      [1] http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf

      From the sound of the second part, it sound like you want to raise taxes: "[since they can afford it]"

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    307. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor people who pay no taxes are also the ones who own approximately nothing as a percentage of total assets of the country. The richest 1% owns 2/3 of the assets. They take in a hugely disproportionate amount of net national income. Since the wealth of the nation is so concentrated among so few people, it is not hard for them to use a modest amount of organization and a small percentage of their wealth to pay off all the right people to insure that they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

      It's not a conspiracy, it's just human nature. If you had billions to lose from minor shifts in tax and regulatory policy, you would be paying a lot of attention to the policy makers too. Your natural inclination would be to make sure they were on your side. When you have enormous wealth at your disposal, it's easy to make friends--including friends in government.

    308. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      Broadly on the ball here. The poorest pay little or no tax, the middle classes get hammered and many of the richest are in a good position to be, uh, efficient with their taxes*1.

      It's still naive analysis though. The poorest also directly take the most from the state both in terms of money benefits and services used. If you only look at direct tax revenue and expenditure there's a huge chunk of people who are by far a net cost, even before considering expenditure that everyone benefits from indirectly e.g. defence. The more money you make the more tax you pay and the less benefit you receive and you move into being a net contributor. Rich folk who pay their taxes shell out a ton of money and get back almost nothing.

      On the other hand... The richer you are then usually the more you benefit indirectly, that is through the benefits other people (employees, customers, etc) get. Public transport is an easy example. If the state heavily subsidises a good bus service then your employees get to work cheaply and since they're spending less on transport customers have more money to buy stuff from you (pus there's more room on the roads for your limo).

      *1: From experience (I'm a practising accountant in the UK) say you have a sizeable random sample of self-employed people, and categorised them into 3 groups making "poor", "decent" and "great" profits. I'd place money that:

      - at least 1/4 of the poorer guys are outright evading tax (usually by significantly underdeclaring income). It's amazing how little some people can live on while still having a decent address, car and clothing - and how dedicated they are in choosing to stay self-employed when flipping burgers pays twice as much.

      - most of the decent profit-makers are only doing basic legit tax-reduction steps and at most 5% of them are actually cheating (most of them not by much, though I might be under-representing by counting the biggest cheaters as "poor" profit guys);

      - all of the rich guys are making a significant effort to be legally "tax efficient" and maybe 1% will be actually evading tax illegally (though it would be by a lot).

      Employees on the other hand will be hammered for tax, basically the only cheating you get is a handful of people taking cash in hand and not declaring it. These people are probably at highest risk of being caught too.

    309. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I'm not paying that maximum either. I can't afford to be that stupid. And simply tossing up your arms and making such an excuse for a very heavy and overly regulated system is simply stupid. The ONLY reason I accept this situation is because they have guns and have passed laws making it very difficult for me to own them as well. So they win. For now.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    310. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      No sorry, to be correct, Only the Rich pay taxes!

      It is a Marxist(Progressive) tax after all.The IRS data in 2009 showed that 84.6% of all federal income taxes were paid by the top 25% of income earners and 96.70% of all incoming taxes were paid by the top 50% of income earners. This is a trick of the left to divide the rich and poor and create class warfare. Then they convince the masses that they are entitled to free retirement, healthcare, food, daycare, school, cigarettes and the litany goes on. Of course no one in the ruling class links this to *buying votes* with the money extorted from the same "Rich" people that the leftists are demonizing. They do this to get fools to vote for them and with the expectation of a free ride. All this works out just great until you run out of other people's money and then collapse, violence and in many cases ultimately dictatorships.

      Which if you could know the truth of who is usually behind these movements, is exactly what they want. Ultimately, to rule the world and have ultimate power of all mankind but don't worry they have the solution to all of our problems. I mean after all, they are the ones who created most of them to begin with. It'll all be good once you give up your freedom and live on only what they provide.

    311. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by KingFrog · · Score: 1

      Actually, over 80% of millionaires are first-generation millionaires. That is, they made their money themselves. Better than three-quarters of million-dollar inheratances are GONE within three generations. That is to say, the average rich person's great-grandchildren are middle class. It is a fallacy to say "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" without realizing that on the rich side - it isn't the same rich people.

    312. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by will_die · · Score: 1

      You better do some research.
      I am an american who works in europe and have some american friends who are looking to retire and stay over here.
      Theses are the generic rules but change per country.
      You don't get those benefits without paying a yearly fee, and that is required for the right to stay for an extended time. However you are not a citizen so certain senior discount will not apply to you. You cannot do any work, yet have to show enough income to support yourself. You will have to pay VAT for everything, currently around 19%. If the money you are talking about tax deferred accounts you will still have to pay US income taxes. Also those medicare taxes you have been paying, you get no Medicare benefits if you live outside of the USA.

    313. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by KingFrog · · Score: 1

      Wow. Paranoia has a new name...

    314. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      What is your definition of "poor"?

      * Not a property/asset owner?
      * Unable to feed and house self month to month?
      * Unable to meet all financial obligations with excess?

      You can stretch it to mean whatever you want, but instead of saying "poor" saying "the upper 60% of income earners pay all taxes, with the lower 50% of that high end paying approximately 1/7th per capita as the upper 10%" is slightly more honest (even if slightly mathematically incorrect).

      By your statement, one would think that people working minimum wage and not making enough through their efforts were not poor. Because that's how the numbers work out.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    315. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by codepunk · · Score: 1

      What makes me more pissed is why the corporate tax rate is 35% in the first place. That is 35% that could be used for providing real value such as jobs and growth. Because it is so high now there is a problem introduced where the money is being funneled out of the country where not only will the govt not get it but will drive no growth here.

      --


      Got Code?
    316. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd love it if I was only taxed twice.

      1) I get paid, they take taxes.
      2) I buy something like a house, I pay sales tax.
      3) Then continuing to own that house, I pay a % of value on that house as a tax every year.
      3.5) if I sell the house, and make a net profit over what I paid, I pay a tax on that profit as income"
      4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.

      It's a great system....if you're a government.

      I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction. Why, again, are they entitled to that?

      --
      -Styopa
    317. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BStroms · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well, I managed to find the old article that gave me the impression of what I said, and this is the relevant text:

      In 1996, Congress tried to address a wave of tax-driven expatriation by the wealthy by requiring former citizens to file tax returns for a decade and forbidding Americans who renounced their passports for tax reasons from visiting the United States.

      The article does go on to say that it's not generally enforced, and it doesn't bother to link to, or even name the law they're basing this on, so it could simply be inaccurate. However, it is from the NY Times, so I'd like to hope they'd done a little fact checking.

    318. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read the fucking article. that's $60 billion by all US companies. Not google alone. Fucking moron.

    319. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by $1uck · · Score: 1

      The so called "fair tax" is rather regressive. People with less money spend a greater percentage of their income on stuff, and will be taxed at a much higher rate.

    320. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Pulling out big numbers sure sounds impressive, but they're paying much less than the lowest groups pay relative to the income.

      No, they aren't. Read the "big numbers" in the URL that I cited. The first table documents the effective tax rates, and it's highest for the top 1%, and lowest for the bottom 20%.

      You sound like a smart guy. How about reading the data and interpreting it for yourself, rather than spouting someone else's taking points?

      You (and others) also seem want to shift the discussion to "assets", rather than "income". In the US, we don't have an "asset" tax at the federal level (unless you count the estate tax).

      Assets are less volatile, but aren't necessarily income-producing. In states with no income taxes, retired homeowners have to pay large property tax bills on homes they own outright, even though they may have little income. Their only recourse is to sell the home, or borrow money against the home.

      Are you sure you want to tax assets?

    321. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It remains to be seen what will happen after the next election, but the idea that Republicans are responsible for deficits and debt ignores the fact that it was a Republican congress that balanced the budget in the first place and that it was a Republican president ("Read my hips") that signed off on the tax increases that made it possible.

      Notice that I made no mention of political parties or individual politicians other than Hoover. I don't think Democrats or Republicans can fix the current economic problem -- but I'm damn well sure the tea party platform can't.

      Your accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is way off. Maybe you should spend some time outside of the echo chamber.

      Or, you know, you could bother to get educated about the subject. Stiglitz & Bilmes estimated the cost (originally) at 3-5 trillion; Stiglitz has revised the cost to 4-7 trillion based upon their original underestimation of the number and cost of disabled veterans returning to the US, among other things.

      If you haven't read any of Stiglitz's work on the subject, or any of the papers published in their wake, maybe *you* need to spend some time outside the echo chamber.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    322. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.

      Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...

      But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.

      PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.

    323. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Why would I emulate an act that I hate?

      If you have some legal method to reduce the amount of tax you pay to the government and you do not take it, this makes you a fool, not a taker of the moral high ground. Let the government figure out how much money it needs. That is not your job -- it's why we have elected officials.

      "[...] the motive of the taxpayer thereby to escape payment of a tax will not alter the result or make unlawful what the statute allows [...] The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." -- United States Supreme Court, Gregory v. Helvering

    324. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by digitalbeing · · Score: 1

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.
       

      I absolutely agree with your last statement. But you are misidentifying the cause. We've been doing the progressive taxation thing well since the New Deal, and it worked fairly well until Reagan started drastically lowering taxes. The top marginal tax rate has fallen from 90% to ~36%, it averaged 70% from 1930s-1970s. The widening inequality between uber-rich and poor and the shrinking of the middle class is a direct product of Reaganomics, and was a completely predictable outcome.

      As far as I am concerned the two worst financial decisions made by the US government in my lifetime were lowering the top marginal tax rate drastically beginning in the 80s and weakening/shredding the Glass-Steagall act in the 90s. The former started a 20 year trend of rapidly growing income inequality and the latter lead us to the Great Recession within 10 years.

    325. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MrFrank · · Score: 1

      It is called the Federal INCOME tax for a reason. Not a federal asset tax.

      In 2006, the top 20% of income earners had 61.4% of income, sorry the page you referenced didn't supply a break down for the top 10% of income earners.

      I agree, corporations and the super rich have many more options to hide wealth than a majority of people, and that needs to change. But it annoys the HELL out of me when people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates complain that they don't pay enough taxes. Here's a solution, tell you accountant to quit taking all the extra F'ing deductions, stop hiding income, and pay more taxes. What that tells me is that they want to screw everyone else, but be leave me alone. Frickin' hypocrites.

    326. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      So you'll end up spending more in European taxes to avoid spending less American taxes. Enjoy your European retirement. Your dollars will go so much further over there. Allow me to quote you and say, "That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read."

      Since I'll be retired and have zero income, and will be able to take advantage of the zomg-socialist benefits in Europe like universal healthcare, I think it'll be just fine. And my dollars will go about 30% farther, since thanks to your plan, I won't have paid income tax earning them.

      Well, I assume you pay for stuff now. You do drive a car and live in a furnished house, so you will be paying taxes on that stuff. But if you want to leave your family and friends to avoid paying a few percentage points in sales tax, I guess that will be your right. Actually, you'll still be paying the VAT in Europe... so, enjoy. Be sure to watch out for union backed protesters trying to take your stuff and blocking heating oil and power from getting to your new home.

      Sure, I pay for stuff now, but not that much. Maybe 10-15% of my income annually? I don't have that much time to buy lots of stuff, the way I will in my early retirement, thanks to you. The rest, I can save, save, save, under your plan.
      Additionally, it wouldn't be leaving family and friends to avoid paying "a few percentage points in sales tax". Under sales-tax-only, no income-tax systems like the one you're proposing, sales tax is typically between 23-35%.

    327. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by $1uck · · Score: 1

      You're not to hip on how wealth accrues are you? Yes that money will be sitting in the bank forever (being invested). Or do you propose that the national sales tax be applied to investments?

    328. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by FriendlyPrimate · · Score: 1

      If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then Z must pay more. And having one of the richest companies in the world pay 2.4% when most of us are paying an order of magnitude more lacks justice.

      That's only if you anthropomorphise a company. You could equally say that it's not fair that my wallet isn't taxed even though it's always flush with cash. Corporations aren't people. There is no fairness in whether they should or should not pay taxes. Corporations are simply collections of people. As long as the people that make up that corporation are taxed, then there is no injustice. IMHO, it would probably be better to eliminate corporate taxes altogether and replace it with a VAT and income taxes. Then you would eliminate a lot of these loopholes.

    329. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      It's not a meme...it's a direct quote from Leona Helmsley.

      Leona Helmsley said: "Only little people pay taxes".

      And she was stupid, too.

    330. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So who do you support then? Republicans? Democrats?

      Since we only really have the choice between two evils, I choose the Democrats.

      Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.

      I disagree. The tea party is an astroturf for the very wealthy, they are people being led to advocate for policies that aid the extremely wealthy. They have also aligned tightly with the Republican party, which means that any usefulness in re: 3rd parties is gone.

      While I agree it would be better to have a multi-party system, they are not the kind of party I could support. Furthermore, given our current political system, we will not ever have a viable third party. So the best option is to throw your lot in with the party that better represents your views, and then work to make that party more closely aligned with your views.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    331. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes.

      First, as a matter of principle, why? In what way are you and I part of a some borg like organism that means I have some kind of duty to support you just because I have more money than you? Secondly, as a practical matter, who do you think will provide investments that create jobs if you tax the rich at 90%? Government? Who will you go to for financing when you want to start a company? For that matter, who will provide the funding for any kind of opposition to the government? Government itself? You do realize that just about every liberal cause that made any success was financed by billionaires: Vandebilts, some Rockefellers (not the ones who created the wealth) etc in the past, more recently Soros.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    332. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not true. The poor spend everything they make, many living paycheck to paycheck. They pay consumption taxes on almost everything they make so at a minimum they pay 10% of their earnings in taxes. Way more than the typical rich person that saves the majority of their earnings and then cheats the system with tax loopholes.

    333. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up for being dead on the money.

    334. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well said. Red Flayer is incredibly ignorant. The "stimilus" has been an utter failure, except for union cronies and Maobama's gov't buddies. The true astroturfing is not with tea partiers, it's with Daily Kos and other George Soros funded orgs.

    335. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      You better do some research. I am an american who works in europe and have some american friends who are looking to retire and stay over here. Theses are the generic rules but change per country. You don't get those benefits without paying a yearly fee, and that is required for the right to stay for an extended time. However you are not a citizen so certain senior discount will not apply to you. You cannot do any work, yet have to show enough income to support yourself. You will have to pay VAT for everything, currently around 19%. If the money you are talking about tax deferred accounts you will still have to pay US income taxes. Also those medicare taxes you have been paying, you get no Medicare benefits if you live outside of the USA.

      First, bear in mind we're talking about retirement - no need for income.
      Second, bear in mind we're talking about a very wealthy retirement - and every country fast-tracks citizenship for investors. So the senior discount will apply.
      Third, bear in mind that this is in the context of a hypothetical sales-tax-only system in the US, so disregard the US income taxes and medicare taxes you mention.

    336. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes

      You're looking at this like a fixed pie. Maybe if you changed your mindset you still wouldn't be "getting screwed" by this 90% of wealth not suddenly showing up on your doorstep.

      To be consistent I hope you are protesting in front of post-doc colleges as they are screwing the 99.5% of other people that aren't in them.

    337. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you're now the arbiter for what is and isn't "waste"? Let me guess, you don't use medicare, so it's waste? Same with unemployment benefits? What about the FDIC? Or the military? How about NASA or DARPA?

    338. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need any radical solutions. All we have to do is bring back the federal tax codes of say 1952 (corrected for inflation of course) when the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. Note that these tax rates produced the greatest growth and productivity increases we've seen since.
      It is remarkable that so called conservatives who profess to revere the past would scream socialism, communism and the end of civilization as we know it if such a proposal were seriously made.
      Sadly both corporations and the wealthy have discovered that investing money into bribes (or campaign contributions if you prefer) yields a far higher ROI than investments in practically anything else.

    339. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, a fair number of people get net income from the IRS because they get "refundable tax credits" and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Most tax credits either reduce your taxable income or reduce the amount of tax levied, but in any case, you can never end up with anything less than $0 on the "tax owed" line, so you simply get all of your withheld money back. Refundable credits and the earned income tax credit actually let you end up with a negative figure for "tax owed" so you get a refund in excess of what was withheld from your paychecks- in other words, net income from the IRS.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    340. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ah yes, corporations just last year got the idea that they could mobilize millions of people to elect representatives favourable to their policies. It's amazing it took them so long.

      Herbert Hoover *increased* spending massively; it only appears small in light of how much FDR increased it, but FDR campaigned in 1928 on the idea that Hoover was spending too much.

      I think there must be a rule that someone who begins a post with "Puh-lease" is almost guaranteed to know nothing of what he writes about.

    341. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      $50k/year is around the median household income. You can only get out of all federal taxes at that level if you qualify for every possible credit; most people don't. (You also still don't get out of social security, IIRC, which is, what, a little over 6%? Oh, wiki says it's 7.65%) Calling the median income "poor" reveals that someone has an inherently skewed viewpoint.

      Quotes from that article like "it is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government" also reveal a certain bias (whether through ignorance or malice). Quotes like this are often used to claim unfairness in the tax structure, in the sense that the rich always cry that their taxes are too high... but the top 10% of US earners are making MORE than 73% of the money (closer to 83% back in 2007, after googling up some charts). Under a perfectly flat tax structure, they'd be paying the same proportion as what they earned, and under a progressive system they'd be paying at least somewhat higher.

      The *truly* poor are paying very little in federal taxes. The gap created by the poor not paying much, the corporations not paying much (often they only actually pay single digit percentages, and that's only against the profit, whereas actual human beings are taxed against their total revenue), and the rich not paying much? It comes out of the middle class (especially those just above the median income... the 50k-100k group), and out of debt (which, because the rates are skewed, will also disproportionately come out of the middle class, just not right this year). That's basically how you know if someone advocating a tax change is sane or not; does their plan address this problem, or is it just a politician asking to make the wealth gap between the CEO class and everyone else a little larger?

      (It's really informative to see the occasional article asking actual economists what the top tax bracket should be. When you can get them to actually give a number, or at least a range, you tend to get answers of 60% or higher... not today's 35% on income, 28% on stock, and you can get as low as 15% on some other investments even if it's millions of dollars worth...)

    342. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not terribly concerned about income vs assets. If you're sitting on a fat sack of cash and not earning anything, but enjoying the stability and convenience of our great nation, you should be paying your fair share.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    343. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Now go look up what percentage of the money made in this country was made by the top 10% of the taxpayers in 2007.

      Nevermind, I'll do it for you. They made 42% of the money in the country. Which means they pay roughly a 30% heavier share than the average person. This only includes federal taxes, and not state or local taxes, which tend to be things like regressive sales taxes.

      The other supercool thing you notice about those figures is that the top 1% of people in the country make 19.4% of the income in the country but pay 28.1% of the taxes, which accounts for almost the entire disparity in the oft-cited top 10% or quintile figures. If you start adjusting for property/sales taxes after that, you end up with a disturbingly flat tax burden from about the 45th percentile up to the 99th, depending on the specific municipality.

      The saying may be an exaggeration and really apply to the middle class rather than the poor, but I always want to get out the world's tiniest violin when I hear people start whining about how much tax rich people pay. I say we go back a few decades and put a ~80-90% marginal tax rate on the top half a percentile or so. Then people would have a reason to whine.

    344. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really not suggesting anything. I'm just pointing out that 55% isn't overwhelmingly disproportionate to their income, and that it's possible to justify the proportion they're paying.

      I do have opinions about progressive taxation, but mostly I wanted to point out the fallacy of the parent's use of the numbers he cited to claim that the rich pay too much in taxes.

    345. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the idea of fairness here is very simple: business should be taxed once where it happens. Does Google get taxed that way? Maybe they got lucky and and all their business actually happened in a tax haven, but I kind of doubt that.

      Your strawmen have nothing to do with this.

    346. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not ethically wrong; morally wrong. Ethics is a set of rules mandated to a group; for instance, it's unethical for a physician to have sex with a single patient but not a married non-patient. Adultery is immoral, but not unethical unless your organization forbitds it.

      If Google's code of ethics says it's ok, then it's not unethical. Unethical behavior (breaking ethics rules) may be the right thing to do, in which case acting ethically would also be acting immorally.

      Legal, moral, and ethical sometimes agree, but they're not synonyms.

    347. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      @Red F. - Move to Europe you Socialist. Big Government is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. Especially, something as large as an economy.

      No, corporate mon/oligopoly is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. And that's the alternative to big government.

      Reducing the tax rate has been proven time and time again to create a major upturn in the economy.

      No, this is not true. Reducing the tax rate has been proven time and time again to have a positive effect on the economy when coupled with deficit spending. Reducing the tax rate AND government expenditures has been shown time and time again to further depress the economy.

      Then again, your world view is so warped at this point that you believe that million of individuals joining a movement for Limited Government is actually sponsored by wealthy people. If you'll buy that line instead of knowing that the majority of Tea Party funds come from individual non-wealthy members

      Who pays the organizers of the events? Who paid to train those organizers? Who paid for the advocacy institutes that the "educated" tea partiers use to justify their beliefs?

      You just don't want to believe that you've been had. Well, you have been had. You're dancing to the tune of millionaires and billionaires who are laughing their way to the bank as they are seeing limitations to their amassing of wealth disappear.

      You know what the saddest thing is? That you don't even realize that the policies you advocate are detrimental to YOU.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    348. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Cosmo+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      The table also shows the top 10% earn 42% of all income so paying 55% of all the taxes isn't really such a big sacrifice.

    349. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Apocryphos · · Score: 1

      Not if they only spend the interest. There are investment options available that earn decent percentages. It is feasible.

      Though it is not feasible for paycheck-to-paycheck dude.

    350. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      By your statement, one would think that people working minimum wage and not making enough through their efforts were not poor. Because that's how the numbers work out.

      I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you implying that minimum wage earners don't pay taxes?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    351. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich corporations always get out of paying taxes. I've read that IBM and Kodak actually get more from the US government than they pay in, because of grants, writeoffs, credits, and such, as well as the offshore loopholes (which IMO should be illegal).

      ...and not counting all the overlapping taxes (income, sales, etc) their employees pay with part of that money. I'm not saying all the things you list are good things, just saying that it's a bit dishonest to count all the money they get, but only part of the money that gets paid back.

    352. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      If it costs X amount of dollars to build a road, and that money has to come from the collective pool of taxes, and the system is designed so that a good portion of that money is taken from corporations making massive profits, and the rest is evenly distributed amongst the rest of the people - but the corporation doesn't pay its share, that means 1 of 2 things will happen. More of the people's tax money has to go into the road, or the road doesn't get built.

      Which makes no sense.

      What makes sense is that if you drive on the roads, you pay for the upkeep on the roads. Similarly, corporations who use roads must pay the same proportional to their use of the roads (for example, a semi-truck that is nearly constantly on the road and is large is going to cost more to be able to use the road than someone in a SUV or car) which they can then use to pass the cost of that to the consumers.

      If you don't use the roads, you don't have to pay, however, when you use a service that uses the roads you pay a bit there too. This makes sense because someone who doesn't drive, doesn't use public transit that uses the roads is paying a lot less than someone who, say, runs a trucking business.

      Thing is, a lot of services we can't simply "Go Without" - many people take advantage of the Garbage pickup in their neighbourhood. In Canada we sure do like the roads cleared of snow. Things like that.

      Garbage pick up can, and should, be provided by a private company with contracts to either the city or the residents. If you don't pay your fee, you don't have your garbage picked up. If you want to take your own trash to the dump yourself, recycle your trash separately or use a different service, you are free to.

      Same thing with roads being cleared of snow, if you use the roads, a portion of that "tax" charged to all cars and the like in licensing would be used to provide for the removing of snow.

      If your idea is "Why should Google have to pay those taxes to cover those services?" - it's because the elected representatives created those laws and thats the cost of doing business in that country. If you want to Operate in America, where you have a lot of consumers that have a lot of money to spend, the laws dicatate you have to support that system.

      But that doesn't dismiss the fact it makes no sense.

      People should pay for the services that they use, those who wish to use a lot of the services should have to pay a lot more than the people who rarely if ever use the service.

      This idea of taxes based on income makes no fiscal sense, the roads are going to need the same level of upkeep if you have an armored car carrying gold bars and making a lot more money, or if there was the same size of cars with the same level of traffic on the bars carrying close to worthless lead bars.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    353. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Could you afford a vehicle if it cost 30% more? Because that would be the result (if not higher) of every corporation paying "exactly" 35% (or whatever) of their income.

      Could Google afford the level and breadth of services if their cost was 30% higher? What about the cost for an OEM PC - does $800ish instead of $600ish sound good to you (for the same thing)? In all likelihood, it'd be higher still, on account of cascading taxes and the need to raise revenue at each level appropriately, so as to not lose out in stock prices and the like.

      Assuming no costs:

      Now: A corp sells widget X for $100. After taxes and loopholes, they make $95. B corp buys the widget, adds some modifications, and sells it for $150. They make $47.50.

      With 30% tax: A corp sells widget X for $100. After taxes and loopholes, they make $70. B corp buys the widget, adds some modifications, and sells it for $150. They make $35.

      But A corp and B corp can't do that; they've got to maintain revenue. A sells for $118.75 and B corp sells for $178.15.

      This is also called inflation.

      Just as this tax evasion is stupid, a 35% corporate tax is stupid. Incredibly stupid. In fact, it helps the established corporations: it hurts the domestic economy and slows growth and stifles competition at the higher levels (ie the developing corporations which don't have the capital to float off-seas operations).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    354. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      Look, everyone agrees this is legal. Many are just saying it's not right -- not for people who claim to do no evil at least.

      You are looking at the technical details of the tax evasion and concluded that it's perfectly legal, while others are stopping to think "that shouldn't be how it works..."

    355. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      It's really because the big guys pay the politicians to write laws in their favor. Hell, sometimes the big guys just write the law the way they want it, and hand it off to the appropriate legislator for inclusion in the next bill to which it can be quietly affixed.

    356. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative
      your first citation: where have you been? It's all over the fucking place. JFGI.

      However, we DO know that Media Matters Inc. IS funded by a single man with an angenda to control the world cash flows, known as George Soros who recently directly donated a million with a specific agenda [CITATION [indyposted.com]].

      So? It makes it worse that he's open about it, instead of doing it in secrecy like the Kochs? And Media Matters is NOTHING like the tea party.

      [CITATION NEEDED]. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars under the Bush administration cost around $200 billion, but the Obama administration recently granted $390 billion for the same wars (NOT including the stimulus and health care bills) [CITATION [wikipedia.org]].

      Oh, you fucking tool. $200 billion under Bush? That figure was an estimate in 2003, and it was *laughed at* because everyone knew it was extremely lowball. Here's the first citation... written by a Nobel prize-winning economist: Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict wherein the estimated total cost is 3-5 Trillion... and Stiglitz has subsequently published that they underestimated some of the costs, especially the cost of caring for the disabled vets returning home (to the tune of an additional 400 billion), and that the revised estimate is 4-7 Trillion dollars.

      If there is anyone misinformed here, it is you. Because you disregard costs other than budgetary, which any economist knows is invalid.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    357. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to mode this up.

    358. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

      Most of those households paying no tax have incomes that are too small. That isn't exactly an good endorsement for the current system, which has seen a massive growth in income inequality since 1950.

      Some tea party folks may be calling for lower taxes overall, but the candidates that will end up getting elected by them will continue with Bush and company tax policies, which are easily shown to greatly benefit the rich vs the middle class.

      It isn't really surprising when you look at who is funding the 'tea party' events, providing free buses to events, etc.. that they turn out to be millionaires and billionaires. For example, the Koch brothers.

      The tea party may represent real frustration, but that frustration is being manipulated by the wealthy for their own advantage.

    359. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by gander666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.

      Somehow, I suspect that the number of small business owners among this group of ~1700 odd households is a tiny fraction of the overall.

      2005 census data : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    360. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tea party is a name for the majority of americans who oppose the wasting of over 3 trillion dollars now by our government. It's not an organized group. There is no leadership. People in the tea party are just as angry at Republicans as they are Democrats, just the Dems more so since they are the ones responsible for the stimulus wastes.

      That's why the Coffee Party, a real grass-roots organization that is not connected with corporate funding (like George Soros) is so successful! It's real people, not astroturf!

    361. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Corporations are simply collections of people. As long as the people that make up that corporation are taxed, then there is no injustice.

      The people who get the profits and the people who comprise the company (in the sense of doing the work that makes it the profit) are usually quite different.

      So who or what would you tax to make up the difference? Taxing profits from investments seems fairer than taxing income from selling your labour, as the former is is money obtained by exploiting your wealth, not by working - though I'm aware that it may have practical issues as investment is pretty fundamental to our economic system.

    362. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      What the hell does that mean? Most people who make it big end up with cash reserves that they keep until they die. How is that spent "eventually"?

      A federal sales tax is regressive. Rich people will still pay more on an absolute scale, but they will pay less as a percentage of their income. The statistics on the regressiveness of a sales tax aren't that hard to find. Just read something other than your ultra-conservative voodoo magic economics blogs.

    363. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am.

      They loan - with interest - money to the federal government.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    364. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mnrasul · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

      I think you are confusing different forms of taxation.

      If you are talking about income taxes, then yes, on average, the poor may pay little, however that can also be debated. There are also consumption taxes. Sales tax, or value added are examples. Poor have no choice but to pay them, and for rich they are peanuts (example of regressive taxation).

      Suppose there are 2 people with incomes 100 (poor), rich (10000). poor man buys essentials and assuming sales tax is 15%, he can buy 85$ worth (for argument's sake as actual amount is slightly higher). rich man, buys the same essentials, and pays 15$ in taxes and has disposable income of 9900.

      for the rich man, he pay 0.15% based on his income, while poor man pays 15%.

      Poor man probably works for someone, hence pays income taxes too. Suppose on average 20%. Hence his real disposable income is 65$ not 85.

      Rich man, probably has smart dudes working for him to minimize taxes. His corporations probably give him dividends (15%) or tax havens or double irish dutch sandwich (2-3%).

      The way i see it, poor man does get screwed.

      Poor may pay little in absolute terms, but compared to what they earn and need to stay alive, it is a significantly higher percentage.

      Also, poor probably have to go about things more inefficiently than the rich. Poor have to deal with pay day loans (hefty %), transport (spend 2-3 hours on the bus to commute/shop) whereby a car would be faster. ... and so on.

    365. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Give me some examples of the "kickbacks".. The stimulus is all spelled out at the governments website.. The thing about it, is that it is money spread out over time, so the impact is not immediate.. however, many of the projects such as "building things", can not be done at a drop of the hat regardless of how nice it would be.. planning, and responsible management of funds has to be done.. otherwise it would be a government waste that everyone would love to bitch about... The sad thing is, that all the people whining about the bailouts (started by Bush), and the stimulus, don't even stop to consider what the country might be like if they had not been done.. I wonder about it.. and although I don't like that these things were done, I suspect that it would have been a crapstorm if they had not.. We'll never know really.. but that people don't even consider what things might have turned out to be like, is just sad, and shows that the majority of the public has small minds.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    366. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Where exactly are you getting 4-7 trillion? The only thing I can figure is you're taking the entire DoD budget and aggregating them.

      Stiglitz & Bilmes, and further papers by Stiglitz.

      The problem with your tally is you're only considering current and past costs, and only budget costs. Lost productivity, costs of providing care to disabled vets, etc. And that's not even considering opportunity costs.

      It's ridiculous to not consider the future costs we've been accumulating from these conflicts.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    367. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The system is complicated because of all the loopholes in the system. The rich/powerful put those loopholes into the system for their own advantage. They make them complicated to use so the poor people won't/can't use them. There is no advantage to the rich in simplifying the system, so they don't. This is a classic example of the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.

    368. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are based on income (mostly) not on assets. Property taxes are generally much lower percentages.

      If "poor" people saved more, not only would they not be as poor, but they'd also contribute to evening out this supposed imbalance.

      But "poor" people are wasteful (in general), because many of them don't value what they get since they get it for free, living off welfare and other social programs funded by the people who do pay taxes, the so-called "rich".

    369. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 3, Informative

      And it has been getting steadily worse
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

    370. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Note that I said tax CREDITS, not refunds. I know the difference.

      From the IRS website: "...some credits, such as the EITC and the child tax credit, can actually exceed your tax."

      That's welfare, pure and simple.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    371. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Low taxes worked alright for Ireland, a corporate tax paradise for all that matters, until the recession came and now they're having the toughest time to recover among all Western Europe economies. Once your taxes are bottom low, what's your next move if you're still in the hole?

    372. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Why not raise taxes on the poor as well? Not a lot, but enough that everybody has a financial stake in the government. I think it's a bad situation when you have a large class of people who pay nothing, receive benefits, and vote.

    373. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Individual "poor people" pay minimal taxes. The problem is, right now, that millions of poor people paying very little + millions of middle-Americans paying a little more then very little collectively are paying WAY MORE tax proportionatly compared to these giant corporate entities that fuck their way out of paying billions of dollars a year.

      The actual numbers contradict you. The upper income brackets pay much more proportionally than the lower ones. The lowest brackets pay ZERO -- and then get welfare payments called "EIC" or other credits so they actually get money.

      The thing is, these teabaggers are also advocating essentially no regulations on business,

      That's a lie.

      Well, if not teabaggers, per se, then definitely libertarians. What do you think that whole "the market will regulate itself" and "keep the government out of business" thing is about? I mean, their entire premise is that the market (i.e. business in a capitalist system) regulates itself. I'm not validating the argument, just pointing out that they are, indeed, advocating for a lack of regulations.

      Basically, they're a bunch of fucks paying the lowest tax rates in decades pissed off that taxes are too high

      That the rates might be the "lowest in decades" doesn't mean they aren't still too high. And most of the "fucks" pay nothing at all already and still complain about taxes. The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.

      Who "provide the jobs"? Notice that the Bush tax cuts were in effect for a while before the housing bubble burst, and yet there was minimal (if any) job growth. Does seem to punch a big hole in that "if you don't tax the wealthy and corporations, they'll rain down a bounty of jobs on you" bullshit you're preaching.

    374. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must never have actually been to Europe. There's a little thing called a VAT tax. Look it up.

    375. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      If you want the people with the most money to pay the most taxes, then perhaps you would be interested in supporting a flat tax. Then nobody can gripe about class warfare. Also, if you aren't happy with your current income, then start busting your ass and find a way to make more.

      I'm 100% in favor of a flat income tax, or a flat sales tax. Everyone is treated equally that way. I don't believe that successful people should be punished.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    376. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      But are you suggesting that it's somehow unfair that the very small rich minority that control 90% of the wealth pay the lion's share of taxes? After all, they're the ones benefiting most from it. Here's our federal budget:

      Top Items:
      * Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and other entitlement programs - Sure, these are payments to the poor (save a good chunk of social security, which pays those who made more during their careers a bigger sum), but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying the military/police force that would be needed to keep the poor from simply taking what they want from the rich, which is what would happen if the poor were just left to starve and freeze and watch their families die of curable diseases because they couldn't afford medical care.
      * Military - If we were invaded, how would life change for the poor? Not too much, probably. But the invaders would probably take everything from the rich folks. Since they have the most to loose, they should pay the bills. And our military keeps the climate for international business favorable to the US. We can ship our goods worldwide with minimal direct security costs. We can get cheap oil for industry. Who benefits most from this? Rich CEOs, stockholders, and the like.
      * National Debt - We could always just default (or print lots of money, same difference). But that would devalue the dollar. Would the poor care - no they have no dollars and therefore loose nothing. But the rich have lots of dollars and hold lots of debt that will be repaid in dollars. In that light, doesn't paying taxes to fund the national seem cheaper than having the value of your other assets plummet?

      So pay up and shut up rich folks, you got no cause for complaints. Remember, capitalism works well when there's plenty to go around. Those who are smart, hardworking and lucky get more, but those who aren't get enough. When there's not enough to go around, we'll have to resort to either communism to evenly distribute limited resources or civil war to thin the population until there's enough to go around. (Given the choices, I think I'd take communism.)

    377. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income.

      Poor people pay lots of taxes, just not income tax: they pay sales tax, real estate taxes (directly or indirectly), gas taxes, government fees, and various mandatory government plans and insurances.

    378. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Wealth != Income.

    379. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called the Earned Income Tax Credit. You wouldn't have seen it if your parents were listing you as a dependent. It's also significantly larger if you have children.

    380. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by spun · · Score: 1

      Is this new? When did this start? I mean, I used to get money back, but never more than I paid. I don't have kids, though, maybe that is the difference?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    381. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, corporations just last year got the idea that they could mobilize millions of people to elect representatives favourable to their policies. It's amazing it took them so long.

      They've been working on it for ages, since the 80s. Only now were the conditions right (bad economy, democrat in office, fruits of earlier labor ready to be harvested).

      Herbert Hoover *increased* spending massively; it only appears small in light of how much FDR increased it, but FDR campaigned in 1928 on the idea that Hoover was spending too much.

      Hoover increased spending, until he reduced it partly in response to Roosevelt's campaigning. *That* is the austerity I'm referring to, and it's the one that tilted us further into the Depression.

      I think there must be a rule that someone who begins a post with "Puh-lease" is almost guaranteed to know nothing of what he writes about.

      I think there must be a rule that someone who begins a post with "Puh-lease" is almost guaranteed to know nothing of what he writes about.

      I think there must be a rule that anonymous cowards who lack both critical thinking abilities and a real knowledge of US economics are almost guaranteed to write drivel that does nothing but display their ignorance.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    382. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You consider a % of wealth fair, some consider a % of income fair, some consider a straight % fair.

      It is called an income tax, so maybe it should have something to do with income.

    383. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mccrew · · Score: 1

      Until such time there is tax on wealth instead of income, your point is interesting but irrelevant.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    384. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stdarg · · Score: 1

      They paid income tax while accumulating that wealth.

      Or they made/improved the assets themselves, and will pay taxes when they sell them to get actual cash.

      You should be thanking them for helping make the nation great, not claiming they somehow owe you something.

    385. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by spun · · Score: 1

      Uh, I just looked this stuff up, and I think maybe you are cheating on your kids taxes. Married with kids and a 40k income pays ~$3,000 in Federal taxes annually. You should maybe hire a tax professional, I think you might be in for an audit.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    386. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheSync · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is this 35% corporate income tax. Isn't income tax supposed to be progressive, i.e. those who earn more pay a higher percentage?

      US corporate income tax rates start at 15% and max out at 35% once you get over $18 million in net income.

      A corporation is not a physical person, ultimately all the profits either go to reinvesting or get paid as dividends to people.

      Indeed, the income is double taxed, once by the corporate income tax, then again by the personal income tax of those receiving dividends or personal capital gain taxes of those selling shares. If it is taxed by more than one country (which is what will happen if the foreign subsidiary income tax "loophole is fixed"), the income would end up triple taxed!

      How do they account for the different shareholders?

      They don't, the corporate income tax rate is set by the net income of the corporation as a whole.

    387. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]I mean really, if you subtract 60B from 1.4T, do you know what you get? You get 1.4T.[/quote]

      Well, mathematically, you get 1.34T, which would round to 1.3T. So, by subtracting 60B from 1.4T, you actually get 100B difference after rounding.

    388. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bored · · Score: 1

      For corporations, we need to have wealth transfer taxes instead of income taxes. Dividends are taxed, shifting "fees" and "payments" to foreign (offshore) corporations are taxed, payments for imported goods are taxed etc. Anytime money is transferred there is a "tax" upon that transfer (corporations).

      Fantastic, idea, except it will _NEVER_ happen. Can you imagine what will happen to the banking industry (still roughly 25% GDP) if they were taxed when they moved money around? They might actually have to behave like bankers, which would totally kill their profits

    389. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    390. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a strange way of doing math.

    391. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I make $19K/yr, well less than the median, and pay plenty of federal income tax. Is it the middle class who don't get taxed while the lower class does, or did you just make up that stat and give a dead link as a source?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    392. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statements are misleading:
            "Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income"
      followed by:
            "Bottom half pays no income tax at all"
      would lead one to believe that 50% of the US pays no taxes. That is wrong.

      The lower 50% of US earners still pay a very large amount in payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, excise taxes, etc. Meanwhile, upper income earners get a break on payroll taxes above a certain level because those taxes are capped.

      You almost convinced me get a Slashdot account after all these years so I wouldn't have to post as AC.

    393. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      How will roads ever get built if no one is going to pay for it?

      A private company contracted for building roads?

      Can someone come and build a road into my backyard even if I don't want them to? Can I contract someone to build a road straight from my house to Vegas?

      Now that the road is built, who owns it? Do I own it? Do I maintain it? Who is responsible for it? If someone gets into an accident on my road, due to poor maintenance, am I responsible? Can I collect the money for maintaining it without actually maintaining it?

      This system is full of WORSE scenarios than the one we live in, and would be a legal nightmare. I think what you want is a tax reform where people still pay taxes, but only for the services they wish to use. When you privatize it, you get issues where people take the money and keep it - Like corporations funneling money to avoid taxes, you can't trust whoever built the road to maintain the road, even after paying them to maintain it.

    394. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just saw an episode of 'lockdown', you know, one of the many profitable commercial stuffed television programs where the poor saps inside our evil crime colleges are filmed like some 'entertaining' soap opera or nature documentary. Well one of the inmates damaged a fire sprinkler in his cell, causing a small flood. The guards were like 'oh, um, that was tampering with fire equipment; that's a felony'. Is chewing gum a felony? Maybe, I better not do it. You don't even have control over ending your life in such a hell if you're put on some sort of suicide watch. And apparently, authorities might bust through your door right... NOW! and throw you in there for chewing gum.
      Why do I bother writing stuff here; it'll just be completely hidden as anonymous coward, especially since slashdot replaced classic mode with cumbersome web 2.0ish 'levers'.

    395. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paulhar · · Score: 0, Troll

      They do not control over 90% of the wealth. They earn over 90% of the wealth. If you do not like it, go earn some wealth.

      I would also suggest you read Atlas Shrugged...

    396. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I wonder if sometimes that's not good enough. Certainly it's possible to owe more property tax than what you make in income.

    397. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      It's true. Welcome to America.

      google "red states"

      --
      mod me funny
    398. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Jason+Earl · · Score: 0

      You'd probably feel differently about the subject if you fully funded your 401K. Getting into the top 10% of wealth holders is basically a function of regular savings and living long enough.

      Or you can complain about the current situation and watch the wealthiest people move their investments to countries where they get to keep more of the money they earn.

    399. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Confusador · · Score: 1

      GP's statement was incorrect, most people only get a refund of what they paid. It's very possible to be paid by the government quite apart from welfare, though. If you were over 25, working, and still poor (and I mean, really poor), you missed out on the EITC. It's hard to actually get money back on it as an individual, but if you have 2+ kids and make less than about $30,000 it's not hard for the credit to be more than you owe in taxes, and they will cut you a check for it. As posters below have shown, that includes quite a few people.

    400. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      Look, everyone agrees this is legal. Many are just saying it's not right -- not for people who claim to do no evil at least.

      No, that's not at all what people are saying. Read the replies in this thread.

      People are actually suggesting google should pay taxes it is not required to pay, just because they are google. They should just make up some huge number and mail in a check, and never mind what the tax codes in these countries actually require.

      What google did is both LEGAL and RIGHT. If it weren't Ireland would be all over google's case. If google just decided to dump huge piles of cash on Ireland their share holders would have been defrauded.

      The law is what we as a society AGREE is RIGHT. The law defines what society AGREES is JUST.

      When Ireland no longer feels its JUST or RIGHT they will change their laws.

      Google gives back to the community great deal. Far more in total than any company I know of. In addition to free services to everyone in the world, financed out of advertising revenue, they have their own Philanthropy.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    401. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Funny how big corporations, in response to lowered taxes, discover that they can make a higher profit through a larger workforce as a direct result of lowered taxes, and yet the additional hiring rarely gets recognized in /. comments as a benefit to anyone but the corporations that do the hiring.

      The way I prefer it? If I want to go get rich, I am allowed to do so, but not helped or hindered by the government on my way to that goal. If someone else wants to get rich, good for them. If someone wants to sit on their butt and do nothing and get paid for it at the expense of honest taxpayers, I see a major problem. Such people are causing much larger carbon and financial footprints during the course of their lives than those of us who, by virtue of honesty, don't lie about our ability to, and the availability of, work, no matter how demeaning, and endeavor to hold their own weight.

      1:get rid of minimum wage, and suddenly people will be able to find jobs. working for almost no pay is better than sitting on your butt and forcing your neighbors to carry your weight. Plus, you know all those jobs that have been sent overseas? They send them overseas because they can't afford to keep them here. They LOSE money if they keep them here, because the government rigged it that way so they could point their fingers at "Evil Big Business." Lower Minimum Wage = jobs come back home = lower unemployment rate = less welfare money wasted on slobs.

      2:lower taxes. Once that happens, big, evil business will give you a job, and maybe you'll even be able to work your way up the business management chain, if you're a good employee. If item one is implemented as well, there's a good chance that you'll even get paid more than what minimum wage is now. Depending on if your job requires any skill that you worked for, you might even get paid a lot more than you would have normally.

      3:eliminate unneeded government programs. Put charity where it is supposed to be, and put government where it's supposed to be. Suddenly, you have a huge surplus of tax revenue because more people make enough money to pay taxes. One cent spread across several million new taxpayers makes a lot more than a five percent increase in big-business taxes. That money goes initially to pay off debts, and when that's gone, it goes to improving the "infrastructure" that *some* officials want to jump the gun on improving right now.

    402. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by magical+liopleurodon · · Score: 1

      bare necessities could be tax exempt. No sales tax on food, some clothing, etc. That would solve that problem.

    403. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by zonex · · Score: 1

      The "Fair Tax"... isn't.

      Of course, you have to define what "fair" means in the first place. Regardless, the "Fair Tax" and all other forms of consumption tax are pretty regressive and don't address the true problems with tax burden.

      How is the Fair Tax regressive? Or you just prefer not to mention a key component, the prebate. The other point where your argument falls to pieces is that the sales tax replaces the embedded income tax. The "poor" already pay that tax. What used to cost $100 before implementation of Fair Tax would continue to cost about the same since the cost of the product would fall to $77 with about $23 in the new sales tax.

      If you really want to tax the wealthy

      Ah, now we get an idea of where you want to go...

      a better system than the fair tax would be to have zero income tax, then tax all property (including deposit accounts) valued at more than some threshold (say, $1M, indexed to inflation of course) at some fixed rate.

      Of course, your plan would work just fine and dandy too. Just depends on your goal. Fair tax will grow the total wealth in the nation. Your plan sets out to make the rich, well, less rich.

      This is also much simpler to implement than the Fair Tax, which has complex bookkeeping and exemption mechanisms.

      No IRS, no filing any tax forms. Yep a mountain of bookkeeping here.

      Methinks you're going to vote Dem.

    404. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, of all the things you mention, only the military is a federal issue, and the article is about federal income tax...

      (heh. CAPTCHA is distorts)

    405. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Or an even simpler option: loopholes are there because the rich government officials put them there.

      If you didn't already have money, you couldn't afford the campaign.

    406. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by spun · · Score: 1

      I just looked up the EIC, and it only applies to people making under ~$21,000. Back when Reagan first implemented it, which would have been about the only time it would have applied to me, it was tiny.

      Well, it is nice to know we are doing something to help the poor, but I think a single payer health care system would be a better use of the money.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    407. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheSync · · Score: 1

      . I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      I have done income taxes for a family under the poverty line, and indeed they got back more Earned Income Tax Credit than they paid in taxes.

      You probably didn't qualify because you didn't have enough dependent children. Three kids maxes it out. Then you need to earn a bit, but not too much.

      For example, a single parent raising two children and earning $12,200 is eligible for an EITC refund of $5,036.

      About a third of potential EITC recipients don't realize they qualify for it.

    408. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      Forgot a few slant-I's, did we?

      ...a tax cut which has no effect on said poor and stupid people

      Really? Those "poor and stupid people", as you put it, don't get tax credits (handouts) from the tax revenues paid by the richer ones? They don't have jobs in companies owned by the richer ones?

      Every time the tax rates are lowered, the revenues go up. Even John Kennedy figured this out when he did it.

      Tax cuts are good for the economy as a whole, and for the US government in particular, since it means that the people who earn the money get to keep more of it and the government actually gets more, too.

      ... lets face it, there are no "normal" Americans in the teabaggers that are remotely effected by this plan.

      There are lots of normal Americans in the Tea Party movement, and your insults do nothing to further your arguments.

    409. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by BergZ · · Score: 1

      "No one I know vilifies the rich for being successful. In fact, people tend to idolize successful achievers. IF they deserve that success. People love it when smart, plucky, hard working go-getters make it big, but they hate it when conniving sociopathic weasels do. And quite frankly, for every one upstanding rich man who made it big without stepping on anyone along the way, there are ten selfish, amoral pricks who fucked anyone and anything that got in their way. It's not the bad apple that spoils the rich bunch, it is the one lone good apple that somehow resists the all encompassing rot."

      Unfortunately the sociopathic weasels are very good at convincing people that they're the upstanding, smart, plucky, hard working go-getters.
      I like to use membership on The Giving Pledge to help decide which type they, probably, are.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    410. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have 3-5 kids, and make less than 20k/yr, you'll get back more than you paid. Those probably aren't the maximum bounds, but when doing tech support for a tax company, I saw this all the time.

    411. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ridiculous to not consider the future costs we've been accumulating from these conflicts.

      It's a two-sided coin. There are many benefits unaccounted for as well. Overlooking the actual numbers because of future costs, and ignoring these future benefits, is intellectually dishonest.

      * Hardship in life tends to push a person to greatness: look at how many ex-military folks have done great things afterwards, throughout our country's past.
      * Inventions and expenditures for military applications also have many commercial applications. See: DARPA; The Internet.
      * Military personnel are, if nothing else, disciplined. Discipline in life is very useful: underlings are able to follow orders, and overseers are able to be better leaders.

      I'll grant you that many lives have been lost, and even more have been set back or derailed by injuries. However, if I might direct you to historic recoveries and growth seen in a country after a war, I'd argue that "big picture", the result overall is quite positive, economically. Historic figures prove this out.

      I should also note I'm not arguing for war as a positive force. I'm just saying you're wrong about its costs, both short and long-term.

    412. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "Whether it's popular or not, a lot of wealthy people feel that they are paying their own fair share plus someone else's. "

      Since they have the vast majority of the nations wealth, it is entirely appropriate for them to pay the vast majority of the nations taxes. (Not that they really do, as other posters above have pointed out).

      And yes, I do agree with you that the loopholes are out of control. The rich are the only ones taking advantage of them.

      To say that "we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now" is blatantly false, precisely because of all the loopholes. Capital gains taxed at 10%, the very loopholes as shown in this very article we are discussing, and a horde of other ways that the rich pay lower taxes.

      I won't get into the Fair Tax much, save to say, any sort of sales tax is regressive. Even with that little tidbit of "Oh, we won't tax you for necessities...".

      We need to first close the loopholes. Yes, its complex, but no, the government hasn't really been trying. Occasionally during an election cycle you'll see 1 or 2 closed, but there are hundreds more. The easiest way to do this would be to look at a company/person's income, and see if they actually payed 36%. If they didn't, figure out why, and close it. Every year, until every rich person is paying the actual 36%.

      If that happens to conflict with some rebate that the government wants, too bad. Of course, I'm dreaming. Too many special interests and corporate money involved in politics for that to take place, which is why the only thing I really support in politics is meaningful campaign finance reform. Things like the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United are a nightmare.

    413. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They constantly complain about it, so that you, the uninformed, non-wealthy, average American will believe that it's true, and hate the government for all their unreasonable taxes... Unfortunately the Tea Party is a result of how well it works.

      I feel like we should be able to slap any rich person who complains about taxes, or at least punish them for fraud when they lie to us and say they pay a lot of taxes... It's a lot compared to what us lesser earning folks pay, sure, but not compared to what those clowns make....

    414. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I always knew the Irish were up to no good.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    415. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I doubt you're using the right figure for median income.

      The overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $25,149 in the year 2005.

      Something tells me that hasn't changed much in the last five years.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    416. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Millionaires are not the rich we're referring to, here. I personally know scores of millionaires, and I'm not particularly well connected.

      It's the top 1%, or the top 5%, who are really getting richer as the rest of us get poorer.

      Yes, there is some mobility. But you also have to realize that there have been incredible increases in wealth among the wealthy within the span of a single generation... and that statistics on dissipation of wealth over generations may not apply to now, or the future, since the framework of inheritances, tax rates, etc, has changed.

      Within the context of the last twenty years of this incredible wealth accumulation -- yes, it is the same people.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    417. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the argument, boiled down to its barest essence, is this: if wealth is a measure of success, then if your income class has 90% of the wealth, doesn't that mean your income class reaped 90% of the benefit of living and working in the US?

      In slightly wordier form, all that infrustructure - physical, social, monetary - is what enables the US to exist as it does today, and the businesses that created the wealthy class sits on top of that. They do, in fact, directly benefit from it all - to the tune of having 90% of the wealth! - even though they aren't the ones personally waiting for an unemployment check in the mail this week.

      If the class that gets 90% of the rewards is paying less than 90% of the cost, because they claim that wouldn't be fair... that means that the remainder, who get only 10% of the rewards, is paying MORE than 10% of the cost. How is that fair?

    418. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ryants · · Score: 1

      The simple fact of the matter is that spending and tax reduction during economic downturn has been shown to be ineffective at best (the Hoover presidency shows how bad it can be).

      Post-war USA, Canada, and New Zealand all disagree with you. For example:

      In 1994 government debt was 68 percent of Canada's GDP. By 2008 that number was down to 29 percent. Finance Minister Paul Martin Jr. and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, both of the Liberal Party, are the two unlikely stars in this heroic tale of fiscal discipline.

      By Keynsian logic, during that time Canada should have descended into chaos and civil war with 90% unemployment. Well, that didn't happen.

      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

    419. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income

      Depends on where you like in the US. In states where sales tax is the primary method of raising revenue (i.e. they do not have state income and property taxes), poor people pay a disproportionately large amount of their income as taxes compared to the rich. Other taxes such as social security affect the poor more as a percentage of their income as well since there is a cutoff at well under six figures such that the rich pay an extremely small percentage of their salary towards the program.

    420. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by eh2o · · Score: 1

      IMHO the most fair form of taxation would be only on money that is taken out of circulation, i.e. whatever is *not* spent at the end of the year, the exact inverse of sales tax. Money saved is by definition in excess of what is needed. In the days of commodity-as-currency the limited lifespan of currency was a feature.

    421. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by no1home · · Score: 1

      So many people griping about companies (and rich people) using loopholes, blaming them for their problems. Well, CLOSE THE FAFFING LOOPHOLES. If there are no loopholes to take advantage of, then they will be forced to pat their fair share. Right now, they pay their fair share, which is lower than many would like but still fair due to the fact that these loopholes exist for them to use. Any company NOT taking advantage of them is likely to fail because it become economically disadvantaged compared to its competitors who are taking advantage.

      Simplify the tax system. Close the loopholes.

      --
      I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

      Persecutors will be violated!
    422. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then the public doesn't know about it making it plain old corruption.

    423. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I think people just get tired seeing large businesses and rich individuals receiving special treatment, loopholes, etc... especially considering that income inequality in the US has been growing since 1970, and is currently one of the highest among all developed countries in the world.

    424. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with. If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.

      They may pay no Federal income taxes, but they still pay payroll taxes, State income taxes (where applicable), property taxes, sales taxes, etc. And these taxes still consume an appreciable portion of their income (which is why the Federal income taxes are reduced).

      It is a giant red-herring that anyone living and employed in the United States does not pay any taxes whatsoever. Certainly, not 50% of the population.

    425. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete and udder BS from you, perhaps if the US government lowered their tax rate for repatriated money more of it would come back into the US and be taxed increasing revenue currently lost. As a matter of fact even countries with higher overall tax rates than our have lower tax rates for repatriated monies. Including most of Europe, Japan and Canada.

      Overall everyone should have some "skin" in the game as Obama said, screw this tax credits and deductions. Make it a flat tax across the board or if you must have a progressive tax system lower the overall rates and have do exemptions. The rich will still pay a lot, they won't have ways to exempt money and the poor will pay, but very little. As it stands right now someone in the poor class can get back more money than they paid in taxes with tax credits, and so many pay no taxes what do they care if the tax rate is 95% on the rich. Well they should care no matter what you want to say unless you are industrious enough and hard working enough to start your own business and bring it up to a multi-billion dollar company, which most people are not, then you need the rich both companies and individuals to hire you.

      You think dirt bag liberals don't use every trick they can to hide money from taxes. All the rich do it, get rid of those havens and provide incentives not to keep money out of our economy then you will have growth. Greed drives things, period.

    426. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Er, I've got my own plane....

    427. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I doubt you're using the right figure for median income.

      Look at the title in the GGP. "Nearly half of US households..."

      The median household income is just shy of $50k.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    428. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't pay sales tax on a house.

      You don't pay capital gains tax on real estate profits if you lived there for 2 of the last 5 years, or sold due to certain qualifying events.

    429. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Informative

      In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.

      These numbers have to be wrong, because I can guarantee you there are at least 2000 homes over 250K just because of sports (MLB has 1200 players with a minimum salary of $400K, NFL has 1280 players with a minimum of over $300K).

      I also know that my home makes over $250K/year, and we're in the "poor" neighborhood in our county. There are hundreds of homes that make than we do, just in our county.

    430. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then Z must pay more. And having one of the richest companies in the world pay 2.4% when most of us are paying an order of magnitude more lacks justice.

      This is true for any plausible value of X, so simply saying "there shouldn't be as much tax" is irrelevant.

      I think it would more appropriate to say:
      If X tax revenue needs to be raised, and Y pays less, then who cares about Z, we'll just borrow it from the Chinese:)

    431. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      This is due to ever-increasing inequality. Arguably, it is precisely because the rates on the rich have gone down that they pay a larger proportion of all the taxes: the redistributive function of taxes is disappearing... Redistribution is not a matter of taking money from the rich to give it to the poor. Instead, it is about building an infrastructure and basic services used by all. That way, Society is structured in a way that the starting point in life matters less than how good you are at creating value from the common infrastructure. And you should feel compelled to contribute back to it.

      And that being rich to begin with in necessary to be able to use the common infrastructure does not bode well for the future.

    432. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't be caught, it's legal for you to do too. My family has looked at these before, but the problem is it's so expensive to set it up that there's a bottom line number where it doesn't make sense to do; we're not at that level (your income needs to be a healthy 6 figures and your assets need to be a modest 7).

      I know the average Joe out there likes to talk about "the rich not paying their taxes" and all, it's a nice buzzowrd. In reality this is about corporate taxes, and the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (next to Japan). High taxes means companies won't build or invest in the US, and will move offshore. Lowering the tax rate would encourage companies to invest in the US, create jobs, and keep their money here instead of offshore.

      In Mexico the rate for wealthy folks is in the mid 80's%. Most wealthy people in Mexico do their business through anonymous transactions in tax havens so they avoid paying so much in taxes. Drop the rate, and more would bring it back to the country, increasing revenue to the Government.

      People have options about their taxes; that's the nature of our international system. If taxes are too high they go elsewhere; lower them and some will come back, potentially increasing revenue. The trick is finding the right rate so the Government gets maximum revenue; you don't want to lower it so much that tax revenue decreases.

    433. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by andydread · · Score: 1

      I was a supporter of the Fair Tax before I gave it some thought. First I noticed a pattern. The people who are most passionately for it are the very rich. (millionares and up) Neal Boortz and friends. So that actually made me think some more. The problem with the Fair Tax (consumption only tax) is this. If I make $100 and you make $10 and the tax on a purchase is $1 How much of my income goes towards the tax on that purchase as opposed to how much of your income goes towards the tax on that purchase? See? in this case, only 1% of my income would go towards the tax on that purchase while 10% of your income would go towards the tax on that purchase. So under the Fair Tax the more money you make the less goes towards the tax on a purchase. And this is the part that the purveyors of the Fair Tax does not want you to know. Once i figured this out I realized that they, Boortz and Friends, were squeezing my brain, pulling a fast one on me. So instead of a Flat consumption tax I would support a flat income tax. Therefore everyone is taxed at the same % rate. If its 30% then we all pay 30% of our income. if its 17% then we all pay 17% of our income.

    434. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's income tax. When you look at all tax, which includes sales tax, the poor pay more.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    435. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by eh2o · · Score: 1

      In the case of the US government most of the tax money gets spent on weapons and the military, which has no real benefit to anyone except the defense industry. A little readjustment of priorities would go a long way towards making government spending beneficial to society in general.

    436. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's obvious in this post why we still have problems with copyright and patent law. REALITY is so very difficult for some people to grasp. If you haven't been made aware of it, it's still true that most tea party "members" don't even consider themselves officially "members" and that if they ever do attend meetings, those meetings are paid for in full by locals who want those meetings to happen. Most tea party work is carried out at personal expense. If the tea party needs to start holding meetings outdoors, on dry patches of unused land without shelter or microphones just to prove that they are a true grassroots movement, then what's the difference between "grassroots movements" and "lobbyists?" Obviously, in your definition, there isn't one, unless you agree with what the given movement stands for.

    437. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      So, with an extra ~30% in your pocket, you're not going to spring for anything? Let's face it, that's not a realistic statement for the majority of the population. Sure, luxury items may experience a decline in sales, but commerce will go on. People need cars, houses, furniture, etc. no matter what the tax code says. I can't vouch for such a consumption based tax plan actually working, but I would sure like to see a study done on it.

      As a side note, if you plan to be "frugal' until you retire in Europe, perhaps you should move there now? I hear France and Greece have plenty of respect for dead weight.

    438. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1
      The other factor often carefully "forgotten" is that the poorer pay significant taxes other than federal income tax. In fact, these other taxes are often regressive. If one considers SSI a tax, then the skew is even more in favor of the wealthy.

      When all taxes are factored in (fed income, state income, SSI, real estate, sales tax, vehicle registration) I am paying ~30% of my income to the government through various avenues. I am not complaining about that. But I cannot help but notice that the people complaining the loudest about taxes are usually paying at a significantly lower rate than I am.

    439. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even as a liberal, I think this was a really good analogy. I don't think it was meant to say that the richest people shouldn't pay taxes, it just points out the fact that if we depend on them too much, we might get fucked, because, yes, they can move their headquarters to Dubai, etc a lot more cheaply than if they payed the full corporate tax rate. There ought to be a tax for doing business in the U.S., not for being located here. It's because of U.S. consumers that businesses make their money in the first place. They don't get rich on their own.

    440. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.

      Since I don't know how your citation's methodology compares to the methodology used by the CBO, I'll instead cite the CBO's table in the same URL that I provided earlier.

      The first table on page 7 says there were 11.9 million households in the top 10% in 2007. There 5.9 million households in the top 5%, and 1.2 million households in the top 1%.

      The last table on page 9 lists the minimum adjusted income for the various categories. For the top 10%, it was $102,900 for a single person household. The methodology is on the last page: multiply the number in the table by the square root of the number of family members. For married without kids, multiply by 1.414 = $144,500. For married with 2 kids, multiply by 2 = $205800.

      It's not exactly $250,000 for a married couple, but I thought it was close enough for a rough estimate.

      However, I think you might want to read your own citation a bit more closely. It's not 1,699 households. It's 1,699 THOUSAND households.

    441. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      , who do you think will provide investments that create jobs if you tax the rich at 90%? Government?

      The same kinds of people who created them from 1954 to 1980 when the top tax brackets was 91%.

      Your entire argument fails when I point at the 1954 tax code, signed into law by Eisenhower. There were still rich people. There was still investment. There was still job creation. There was still opposition to the government.

      You're crazier than Glen Beck if you actually think a 90% tax bracket would have any of the consequences you're hinting at.

    442. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      These numbers have to be wrong, because I can guarantee you there are at least 2000 homes over 250K just because of sports (MLB has 1200 players with a minimum salary of $400K, NFL has 1280 players with a minimum of over $300K).

      He didn't read the column header. Those numbers are thousands.

    443. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by maxume · · Score: 1

      So could you do me a favor and explain why these tables do not contradict your statement?

      http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml

      There is room to shake things around because it discusses households rather than individuals, but I'm not sure that is really going to overwhelmingly favor the rich.

      Also, even though the top fifth pay lower rates of social insurance taxes, they still end up accounting for 44% of the total payments there (I would guess because there is no income cutoff on Medicare).

      Now, I don't really feel bad for the rich over the taxes they pay, and I think the arguments that a few percent here or there will make people earning millions work less are a little hilarious (perhaps it has some effect on the margins, but I doubt that the amount of productivity destroyed comes anywhere near matching the taxes collected), but I don't see how you can possibly argue that they aren't paying higher income taxes than other people.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    444. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NickLarsen · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that you have to choose between two evils, your completely misled. Any person with a truly free heart would not see it that way, they would decide what is right, find people who have the same ideas and let the evils know that they will be receive opposition as long they enforce their rule. Seriously man, you align with evil because you do not truly know good in your heart.

    445. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I also reject any notion that a country can tax itself into prosperity. Its illogical and doesn't make sense. Look to Europe as an example of how well it works.

      OK, I will. Wait, that's funny. The countries with the lower tax rates in Europe are generally the worst off economically, while the countries with the highest tax rates are generally the best off.

      Are you sure you're not completely wrong about the impact of taxes on economic prosperity?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    446. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by haystor · · Score: 1

      Wealth is not income.

      We tax income.

      --
      t
    447. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      The table also shows the top 10% earn 42% of all income so paying 55% of all the taxes isn't really such a big sacrifice.

      I don't dispute that, and I don't remember saying that it was.

      What I don't understand is how anyone can believe that the "rich" don't pay any taxes when the numbers clearly indicate that isn't the truth.

      One can argue all day about how much the "rich" should pay. But, it's an outright lie to claim they don't pay a significant share.

    448. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The fact that the rates on the people who provide the jobs are going up because Obama doesn't want to extend the existing rates is, basically, a dishonest way of getting the tax increases he promised wouldn't happen.

      Only if you're retarded. He always said he would raise taxes on incomes over 250k. Which is exactly what he's continued to say he wants to do. There's nothing dishonest about doing it this way--it's what he's always said, in pretty plain English, that he would do.

      So, you must be retarded.

    449. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Are minimum wage earners exempt from sales tax?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    450. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Samalie · · Score: 1

      Yep, a few do get a few tax credits. Some get welfare too. Doesn't mean that the system is fair in any way.

      And jobs in companies owned by the richer ones? Yep...the poor are subserviant to the rich, and the rich have zero incentive for the poor to become rich. That's why the average CEO makes what, 300x the average employee in their company?

      You are right though...reduce a company's tax burden and their revenues go up. Not their headcount...their revenues. Which in turn go to dividends that make the rich investors richer.

      Oh, and there are plenty of Average Americans that are teabaggers. Reading comprehension FTW - I said they won't benefit from the tax cutting proposals of the Tea Party...that in fact, these stupid and delusional masses are directly contributing to their continued servitude to corporate America.

      You know what *I* would support? Flat Tax. Every man, woman, and child pays x% of their income to taxes. Make it so the first $50,000 or so earned is non-taxable entirely, and then you pay. No deductions. No loopholes. No advantage to someone who has a million bucks to give to a tax evasion specialist to find some retarded loophole to avoid paying the same x% as everyone else.

      Thats what we're all bitching about here really...that everyone be taxed fairly. Google paying 2% income tax vs my 30% IS NOT FAIR. There is absolutely no argument that can make it fair.

      But the teabaggers want lower taxes...not fair taxes, lower taxes. Because noting pisses off a conservative with balls in his mouth more than having to give up a goddamned dollar to anyone but themself.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    451. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have paid 44.3/61% percent of the taxes, but THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH. The way I'm looking at it, I'm still getting screwed. They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. Hell, I'd be satisfied to go back to the way it was under Reagan, when they paid 70%. But this 44% is bullshit.

      Taxes are based on income, not wealth. While many think money is money, income and wealth are two distinctly different things, and as such your arguement is moot.

      The way you're arguing might as well support a flat tax rate; everyone pays their fair share. You pay 20% of income, they pay 20% of income, and if they make 100x what you make they pay 100x dollars. As it stands they pay 44% and you pay less (let's assume 22% for simple math), so a wealthy person who makes 100x what you make pays 200x dollars. By the logic you're using, the wealthy are getting the shaft, so be careful how you word things.

      Also, remember the 90% figure is a statistic, the worst form of lying. I could argue that the wealthy control 99% of the wealth if I draw the line low enough, or I could argue that the wealthy control 2% of the wealth if I draw the line high enough.

    452. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      I am a software developer making well above 50k and have not had trouble finding work yet.

    453. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by XanC · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    454. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puh-lease. The tea party is the name for a group of people who have been led by the nose by millions and millions of dollars poured into "grassroots" network efforts by the extremely wealthy people who stand to benefit most from the anti-regulatory, anti-tax policies the tea party supports.

      And who is spending money propagating the idea that Tea Party activists are just unkowing puppets of the Pentavirate? It's a two way street.

    455. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Seriously man, you align with evil because you do not truly know good in your heart.

      No, I align with evil because aligning solely with my heart is idealistic and ineffective.

      Far better that I have limited positive impact than have no impact at all.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    456. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.

      Somehow, I suspect that the number of small business owners among this group of ~1700 odd households is a tiny fraction of the overall.

      2005 census data : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

      -1 Misinformation for mis-reading the table you linked.

      The table says "Households (thousands)". 1.7 million households making over 250k makes a lot more sense to me than 1,700 households (there are more VPs, chief officers, and presidents than this).

    457. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point: I don't make much money. I made roughly $8,000.00 last year. I filed taxes and, sure enough, I had to pay to social security taxes. Most of the taxes I spent last year were hidden in the goods that I purchased throughout the year. After filing, I got a tax return. Because I'm married and have a couple of kids, I got about $1,300.00 from the tax return.

      See that? I lost money on taxes! Wait... But I only had to pay... about $600 including taxes on the things I buy at the store. I don't buy cigarettes, I don't own land that is taxed to pay for school, I don't own a cell phone, and there are no toll roads where I live.

      YAY! I made a profit on taxes! And if I have more kids...

      Note: my brother gets more in his returns than I do, and the government pays for his schooling and for his food stamps, so he makes about ten times as much as I do off of tax programs.

    458. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      My version of the history books disagrees. Hoover did pretty much exactly the same things FDR did. FDR just did them bigger, and he made people feel better about the disaster. All the Austrian economists I've read blame Hoover's interference for turning a fairly minor recession into the Depression and FDR's for making it last so long.

      Considering the fact that we're seeing pretty much mirror-image responses, I'm feeling more than a little pessimistic about the future.

      The 1920 crash was probably bigger than the one that kicked off the Great Depression. Harding backed off, cut government spending, cut taxes, and it was over in 18 months.

    459. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Late to the party, but I wanted to point out an interesting study done by a couple of Boston University economists which found that the all-in marginal tax rate of
      every American is roughly 40%.

      This means all the arguing over progressive income taxes is meaningless because state and local entities simply eat up the would-be tax savings of the lower quintiles.

      References:
      Summary article by Scott Burns
      Study Abstract

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    460. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      The Taxed Enough Already party is rallying to keep their taxes high? That makes no sense.

      As is stated elsewhere, the poor and lower middle class hardly pay any income taxes. I made between $40k and $75k last year and I got money back by doing my tax return. I'm not saying I got my taxes back... I got my taxes back plus extra (due to credits, etc). (If they come after me for this, I turn around and sue the tax software maker for their mistake... I answered the questions honestly.) It will likely happen again this year because of "green" credits on home improvements, I've made.

    461. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I would bet you that if my wife and I tried to do something similar, we would almost certainly be "caught". I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      This is why need to scrap the entire tax code and replace it a federal sales tax. This shifts the taxes not on what people make, but what they spend. Suddenly everyone would pay taxes including the rich, poor, illegal whoever. No one would be taxed for money saved or invested.

      Of course, there would still be loopholes. Medicine, unprocessed food, children's clothes etc can be made tax exempt as to not tax what people need to survive. All other "loopholes" and complexities would disappear instantly. No more extraordinarily wealthy people claiming everything as a loss or business expense in order to avoid taxes on it. If it's purchased, it's taxed.

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      That is quite possibly one of the most stupid and naive things I've ever read. However, as a person whose household income is over $250k, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to make me wealthier. As you note, I'll put all that money I save in the bank, and then it will be spent eventually when I retire in Europe. Spent in Europe, that is. Resulting in 0 sales tax in the US. Cheers.

      You can feel free to do with your money as you see fit. The purpose of taxes are to pay for services needed, that the individual alone could not afford to support. They are not intended to redistribute wealth or empower political parties. If everyone needs to pay $5 to have public transport, then everyone needs to pay $5... if that's a larger portion of the lower incomes total so be it. On average they will consume and use the services more than the upper percentages. Stop playing into the class warfare game, it has been played out since Rome.

    462. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Because that's how we collectively provide services such as the roads you drive on, the testing that ensures the food you eat isn't contaminated, the schools that educated you and the people around you, and the military that protects you.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    463. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by huckamania · · Score: 0, Troll

      Obama put it very clearly. He would raise taxes even if it meant a decrease in tax receipts to the government. Like you, he is more concerned with some perverted idea of justice then actually doing the right thing.

      You are a troll, and not even a very good one. You throw around insults and talk a big game, but you crack under pressure. "Corporate mon/oligopoly is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything". Well who is advocating that straw man position? Oh, that's right, it's the evil millionaires and billionaires that have the unwashed masses dancing to their tune.

      The millionaires and billionaires have a tiger by the tail, not on a leash.

    464. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely amazing.

    465. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will *not* get caught, its legal. except that the cost of setting up your shell corporations will cost you more than your savings.

    466. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      There is no fair tax.

      You have an issue that people need a certain amount to survive. Say it is $10,000.
      At the least then, the tax system would be 23% of all income less a $10,000 deduction per year.

      Problem- all fixed taxes (like cigarette and booze taxes) are a smaller rate-- and it would be grossly unfair to tax a wealthy person the same "rate" for a buying booze. It would also be dumb since they would get a poor person to buy the booze and then pay them a fee for doing that. I.e. The same booze would be $11 for mr. poor but $111 for mr rich. That would be dumb.

      Likewise, trusts, dividends, overseas income, purchasing goods overseas at a low price and bringing it home, setting yourself up as a business and then deducting the cost of your car bill ,cell bill, travel.

      The rich are wealthy enough to redefine their income or to pay for the laws to be redefined.

      Right now, I think the wealthy have won long enough (30 years) and the poor are hurting pretty badly and it's time to stop the process and reverse it.

      As far as estate tax- I strongly believe we need that for other reasons. We need to break up concentrations of wealth before they threaten the nation. A sufficiently wealthy company or person can basically ignore the law.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    467. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's true. The "green" credits from home improvements can increase your return above what you paid with income withholdings.

    468. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      The Households column in your linked chart uses thousands as the unit. Therefore the number of households in the top 1.5% is 1.699 million.

    469. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful? Big tax cuts and Government reductions have boosted this economy numerous times. Just ask Reagan. Or if you don't like the voodoo economics buzzword or Republicans, then ask the posterboy Democrat President JFK; he cut taxes in the 60s and the economy boomed.

      And I'm sorry you're misguided as to the stimulus and war spending. The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, after 9 years of warfare, is at $1trillion, not $4-7 trillion. (nationalpriorities.org) (www.costofwar.com). teh stimulus bill was $787 Billion and according to Recovery.org (which I question their metrics, but it's useful for now) they've created/saved 3,460,000 jobs. That's $227,456/job. I make ok money, more than the average, but not even half of that when you factor in teh value of my benefits. So that doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

    470. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No way!

      In a progressive tax system if you lower taxes those who pay more taxes end up getting a bigger percentage gain then those who are in a lower bracket.

      Income tax cuts will always disproportionarely benefit those with large incomes since they pay most of the income taxes. Non-income tax cuts or tax credits and rebates that have thresholds at which they no longer apply are basically the tax changes that can manage to not do that.

      No matter what tax cut you give to "the middle class" whatever tax bracket it applies to the wealthy have a bigger amount of dollars in. (since they "fill" the bracket) if you reduce taxes by 2% on incomes below $100,000 then the wealthy are getting $2,000 of benefit but those on $60,000 are only getting $1,200 of benefit.
      So you either have middle class welfare or you benefit the wealthy more. Or of course you go to a consumption based tax which will now tax the poorer harder and hence tax cuts will disproportionalely benefit the them.

      Well you could raise taxes by 1% on everything >$100,000 but then you you can't really call it a tax cut. And those people on $200,000 who are self declared "middle class" complain.

    471. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Samalie · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Eliminate minimum wage, and millions of Americans will be put to work...

      At a rate of pay that is insanely undervalued to maintain any quality of life. Rents aren't going down...nor is the cost of food...or anything else. Its all going up-up-up. But you're right, putting George down the street to work for a buck an hour helps him out. Wait, no...it makes Corporate America even richer off the backs of the poor.

      Lower taxes? Fuck man, Google only pays 3%. 3 fucking percent. On profit. I paid 37% last year on revenue. Lets just not tax them at all, that way they can create more jobs...for a buck an hour. Or, more likely, realize increased dividends to their shareholders...you know, the guys that actually have money, not the guy thats working for a buck an hour which at today's stock price around $600 a share would mean the guy would work 75 days to buy ONE share. One fucking share. Great plan.

      Your #3 I can't argue with. Government is very wasteful of our money, and every dollar saved is a dollar they don't have to tax us for. That type of tax reduction I can entirely get behind.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    472. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's "they"? And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you?
      It's not your money.

      I disagree. The taxes they are avoiding paying would be used to pay for infrastructure, services, etc, so, in a very real way, it *is* his money because without those taxes, the system is not as well funded and projects/services/infrastructure have to be cut

      That is incorrect on so many levels. Gas tax pays for most road infrastructure. Power and water are paid on consumption basis as well. Most of the other taxes, nearly 57% go directly to welfare programs and wealth redistribution programs. After that another 18.74% goes to defense spending (military and research). That is 75% of the budget right there. Beyond that only tiny fractions go toward energy, education, etc.

    473. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Me too...I think all companies should just pay a straight across the board fee, which is 20%
      and all the extra profits would make it less demanding on people so they could bring them down to 20% across the board for everyone as well, instead of their higher tax rates. Could you imagine if there was deviating from the straight 20%, it was the exactly the same for everyone.....I guess accountants would be without a job , well most anyways.

      If I could, I would lobby for this in all governments, 20% of nothing is nothing, where as 20% of 10 million is 2 million, so Tom Cruise who has more money then god, would be now helping the ones that are starving by actually PAYING his taxes, instead of giving it to some cult, where as the poor who have no money to eat, would still owe nothing, and be left to figure out how to pay for their food, instead of uncle sam.

    474. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      Because the economic environment that made all of those things valuable is only possible with a government regulating it.

      I hear taxes are low in Somalia, maybe you'd be happier there.

    475. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people who make it big end up with cash reserves that they keep until they die. How is that spent "eventually"?

      By virtue of the fact that when you die your money doesn't magically vanish into the ether. It gets passed on to others via inheritance. Sooner or later someone's going to spend that money.

    476. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are a little confused. I can understand why too, with all the political bantering being tossed around and all over this subject. In fact, all of the supposed studies making the claim that the middle class pay the greatest percentage of their income to taxes confuse lifestyle choices and taxes based around use with income taxes which creates a picture telling a lie.

      The rich still pay more, the differences is in the type of income and shifting income to total wealth. If you had 100 hares of some stock worth $1 (lets say IBM) as your sole source of income, and the shares of the stocks increased by 10 times their value at the beginning of the year but only paid $1 a piece in dividends, then you made $10 regular income, increased your wealth by a factor of ten, and if you sold share, now have a $10 capitol gain but your wealth is reduced to 9 times. The 80 some dollars in increased wealth doesn't count as income until you sell out or transfer the investments.

      The rich have the benefit of their income primarily coming from the sale of investments which is locked in at a 15 or 17 percent taxable rate on the capitol gains with dividend interest going at normal income scale. This is done for good reason too. If you made 2 million a year, or 40k a year in this way, you would be paying the same percentage of tax on the capitol gains. However, when we count normal income from salaries and interest payments, you get screwed in that the progressive tax rates taxes more when you make more on the more money you make. Use taxes on the other hand, taxes like gasoline are not designed to be accounted for against income but with the use of something.

      Lets take the gas tax for instance, it's purpose is to repair the roads and pay for transportation related items based on those that use it. Poor people tend to have second hand cars that get worse fuel economy, sometimes they have to drive further to gainful employment, they use the roads more and pay more. As a percentage of their income, it will cost more. But that's not a fair comparison because it's intent is to be paid by the people using it.

      Now you can call separating that out as voodoo economics or trickle down economics, but in the end, it simply shows that you aren't aware of what is actually going on or that taxes designed to recover costs per use were never intended to be compared to income levels.

    477. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      The free market will ultimately fix itself. The tax code is so overly complex that these loopholes exist. The whole mess could be cleaned up by stating: "Any person earning over X amount pays 10% of their earnings." (Person as defined by law... a corporation is a person). No deductions allowed. That would bring in at least $1.5T (based solely on GDP, which is not all income earned by US citizens).

    478. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top 10% of taxpayers may have paid 55% of the taxes, but they also earned just about 50% of the income

      Not earned, "earned". Those 10% (but you really should be looking at the top 1% or so) aren't superhumans, and they are not somehow so magically super-efficient that their work generates so much money.

      The only reason why they make this much is because they, by owning most the means of productions in the country (one response to your post gave the numbers - top 10% own 73% of total assets - and that figure is even higher today), are able to exploit the fruits of labor of the rest of us. It is the inevitable consequence of the growing divide between the rich and the poor - as rich become richer, they gain more and more economic power over the poor, and that power is then used to exploit the poor more and more efficiently, increasing the profits. Without any outside intervention (i.e. laws and regulations), it is a positive feedback loop, which is why we are seeing the gap grow further with every day with no end in sight.

    479. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be more than willing to have corporations no longer pay income taxes _IF_ they give up personhood.

    480. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'll grant you that many lives have been lost, and even more have been set back or derailed by injuries. However, if I might direct you to historic recoveries and growth seen in a country after a war, I'd argue that "big picture", the result overall is quite positive, economically. Historic figures prove this out.

      Stiglitz considers those figures. Have you read it?

      It's important to note that this war is very different, in terms of economics, than prior wars (and for most of the prior wars, the economic impact is not as clear as you make it). For one thing, the amount of money going to security contractors; for another, the fact that it's the first war we've fought financed entirely by debt.

      As for the R&D benefits, it's not actual wars that drive things like DARPA research -- that research would be happening if we went to war or not.

      I'm just saying you're wrong about its costs, both short and long-term.

      No, you're saying I'm wrong about the benefits. You didn't address costs at all. Please, give Stiglitz & Bilmes a read... it's enlightening.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    481. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      I'll leave the rest of it alone, since we'll just have to agree to disagree about the tea party...and I don't really disagree about the most visible parts of it. But:

      No, corporate mon/oligopoly is the most inefficient way to distribute resources or run anything. And that's the alternative to big government.

      I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other less efficient systems. But I understand and agree with what you're saying about corporate mon/oligopolies (great term, BTW).

      There are plenty of possible other alternatives. The most obvious one is an actual free market. Not the monstrosity that people like Bush and Greenspan promoted as a free market. No bailouts, no safety nets, no corporate subsidies, no preferential tax breaks, no "too big to fail," no hiding behind corporate entities when someone in a company commits a crime. No corporations at all.

      We've tried some degree of central planning for most of our history. It's wound up turning us into a mostly fascist country. Why don't we give the alternative a chance?

    482. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic win.
      Not to mention continually maintaining the public infrastructure necessary for a functioning society, which Google then profits within.

    483. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      But it annoys the HELL out of me when people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates complain that they don't pay enough taxes. Here's a solution, tell you accountant to quit taking all the extra F'ing deductions, stop hiding income, and pay more taxes.

      The primary reason the ultra rich don't pay much in the way of income tax is because the don't earn much income. Instead, they get "compensated" in ways that aren't taxed as much. For example, long-term capital gains tax is about half of the highest income tax rate.

      Then, there's the extreme example of Steve Jobs, who "earns" $1/year, and yet somehow manages to feed and clothe himself. Other executives aren't as bad (e.g., $100K/year income, with $500K/year "total compensation"), but the key is that once you earn enough to keep yourself alive, you can use the tax law to reduce your tax burden while still putting money away for retirement.

    484. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I see. You're right, the article in the GGP conflates household income with personal income.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    485. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      The tea party is a name for the majority of americans who oppose the wasting of over 3 trillion dollars now by our government.

      A government wasting tax money is very different than a man wasting his salary on, say, collectible figures. If the figure has no practical use or resale value, the money effectively vaporized as if he had burned it. Government waste, however, generally cannot just vaporize like that. The money might be given to some corn farmers, some oil companies, or poor people, or old people, or used to pay government employees or contractors. That money, in turn, gets spent in the economy. Even money spent on a bomb dropped in some godforsaken wasteland benefited some defense workers. IOW, the fraction of GDP that gets paid as taxes come right back into the economy, even if some people got paid what they shouldn't have*.

      Now, I understand that by "wasted" you probably more accurately mean "misspent", but it's important to understand that the government did not just burn the $3 trillion you're talking about. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fix misspending, but it does mean that you can't just save $3 trillion as if you didn't buy that figurine. If you cut that $3 trillion in spending suddenly and entirely, a lot of people would be laid off and the economy could suffer greatly.

      * As determined by our personal sense of whether the money is well spent.

    486. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NickLarsen · · Score: 1

      That is completely misguided. You are only ineffective at doing good if you are ineffective at showing why your ideas are better. Clearly thats the case, and instead of trying harder you give up. Believing the options others put out is all that you have is exactly how things got and stay bad. Free people create naturally. The only impact you have by choosing something you don't fully agree with is negative reinforcement. Whether you want to be or not, you really are in control.

    487. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      So is the money saved for ever?

      Yes! It is saved forever. Or until they die. Or gets put into stocks / other investments.

      The point is, their is a fixed amount of "stuff" that people need, even if it is expensive "stuff".

      Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on "stuff" than rich people. It is a simple, extremely well established fact.

    488. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bank uses that money you put in the back to loan out to business and personal loans... the money doesn't just sit in a vault somewhere until you use it. It helps create jobs....

    489. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what universe you're living in if you think people who are opposed to our government wasting our money need to be told what to think and say.

      It's easy to tell. He lives in a Socialist Universe.. Oooops, I mean Progressive Universe. They don't like that term anymore.

      Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the reality that the majority of the Tea Party is made up of a large cross section of average Americans, many in the middle class, hardly rich and that funding for this movement comes from the same people is a Progressive. Fighting to keep the common man from waking up to the special interest big money that has been backing the Progressive movement's astroturf for years. What scares them to death is that this is a real movement of real Americans, not just a bunch of bussed in union members who often don't even know what they are rallying against.

    490. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      As just a flat neutral wording, "the poor" means the entire class of poor people, and money back includes government services received. Taken that way, it's true that there are some who get more "money back" than they paid. The rest is spin for political gain, I think. Personally, I *expect* the poor to get more benefits than they pay in, by logistics and design, and take that as a net win for the nation.

      > Remember, if you are making a quarter of a million dollars nowadays, you are barely upper middle class. "Rich" doesn't start until you hit eight figures. I know a lot of middle class Americans think they might become rich someday. They won't.

      IMO, $250k/year is around the borderline of rich. If you are even marginally competent at managing money, you will be able to have a couple kids and put them through college, have a nice house and cars paid off, and retire with millions in the bank. Possibly that retirement will come early, if you plan ahead right or if you exceed $250k/year in the later years. Not everyone considers this rich, but many do. If we were talking $500k/year, most people would call that rich without any hesitation; that's trial lawyer money, high level administrator money, medium to large company VP money. While $250k/year is enough to be covered for life with planning, $500k/year is enough to hit the point where you're living on the *interest* of your giant pile of money.

      8 digit yearly salaries aren't merely in the "rich" category, they're in the "filthy rich" subset; mere 8 digit net wealth is enough to be rich. Unless it was some kind of fluke year, you were probably already rich before your yearly take got to the high 7 digits range. To take the logarithmic projection further, at 9 digit pay you're rich from just one or two months of work, and at 10 digits you're Bill Gates. I would be set for life on just a one week average of what Gates has made over his working lifetime so far.

    491. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Because counties/states that have lower taxes typically have vice taxes and sales taxes to make up the loss, which disproportionately target poor people. With a flat sales tax, the poor spend more of their money just trying to put food on the table than the rich do and they also are far more likely to smoke, drink and gamble -- all things heavily taxed to make up for less tax revenue from income/property taxes.

    492. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      You say "assuming no costs", but costs are very important - labour costs in particular. A company can't just make a $100 widget for nothing. A more realistic artificial example might be $50 buying parts and other overheads, $30 paying workers, $20 profit. A competitive marketplace should drive down profit margins.

      So realistically, the cost due to the tax is a lot smaller than you suggest even if it is all passed on to customers. Morally, I think it's more desirable for rewards to go to mostly to the workers who create the products, not company owners (though I know investment is an essential part of the economy, as I mentioned elsewhere).

    493. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 [yahoo.com] How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

      This is bullshit. Tell that to the person who pays FICA off his first dollar, 7.5%. Or if you're self-employed, 15%.

      Yeah, it nets them Social Security 20, 30, 40 years down the road but little use now. And then add in state and local taxes.

    494. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that's the thing about liberals. Their idea of "charity" is giving away other people's money.

    495. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      As my Commander in Chief once said... "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."

      Which is a great sound bite, but not particularly meaningful. Government, like any imperfect solution, replaces one set of problems with another, hopefully lesser, set of problems. I would argue that the problems of our particular government are still trivial compared to anarchy.

      Of course, most people who cite that particular quote really mean "less government is better," not "I want anarchy!" But calling for less government is just a passive way of saying "I want government to do the things that *I* think are important, not the things that *you* think are important," and since importance is typically relative to our position in life, and since we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as we'd like to believe we do), it might actually be worthwhile to consider the things that other people feel are important.

    496. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      A valid point. I'm getting more impatient as I get older, I always used to read the articles carefully...

      Neverless, I think the point is still valid.

    497. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I am required under penalty of imprisonment to pay taxes, its galling to me that I must also hire an expert to do them for me. Its a ridiculous, and unsustainable, situation that needs to change.

      You're only required to pay an expert insofar as you desire the lowest possible tax rate. If you're willing to not take every tax credit available (e.g. mortgage deduction) and willing to have no investments, then a 1040 EZ is very simple to file. You can do it over the phone and for free.

      However, as your income becomes more distributed over investments and dividends, multiple jobs, multiple states, you desire more credits (e.g. mortgage, education, dependents, etc., etc., etc.), tax advantaged savings plans (e.g. 401k, FSA, HSA, Roth IRA, etc.), things get trickier. Under certain limits, much of this can still be filed for free using your choice of online program or the raw 1040 forms, available at many public locations (my college library used to distribute them).

      Really, it tends to get complicated when YOU decide to complicate your financial matters. There are the odd corner cases, where people get generally screwed (looking at the lower limits of the AMT), but the vast majority of tax schedules are only as complicated as your other financial matters. Of course, you could just elect to pay the AMT or another higher rate without the addition complications.

    498. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well who is advocating that straw man position?

      The parent to my post, you retard, when they argued that big government is the most inefficient way to allocate resources. I neither set up nor attacked a straw man, I countered the claim of the parent, since I believe something other than big government is the MOST inefficient way to allocate resources.

      Obama put it very clearly. He would raise taxes even if it meant a decrease in tax receipts to the government. Like you, he is more concerned with some perverted idea of justice then actually doing the right thing.

      Now THERE's a straw man.

      You've just confirmed that you're a hypocrite in addition to being a fool.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    499. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely a very misleading headline. It needs to be noted that the 2.2% is only on Google's overseas income, not its US sales income. read:
      "International income-shifting, which helped cut Google’s overall effective tax rate to 22.2 percent last year, shows one way that loopholes undermine that top U.S. rate"

      Even with all the loopholes, Google is paying a relatively high tax rate.

    500. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if loopholes are due to the complexity of the system, or because the big guys can afford to pay folks who know how to exploit them...but regardless of the reason, it's fucked up.

      Your close, they can afford to pay off the politicians that keep the loopholes open (and for a modest "contribution" will open more).

    501. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you think about it... no companys pay taxes... Company profits go to pay for new jobs, expansion, ect.... if they pay that money in taxes it really accounts to fewer jobs and/or lower wages, or in the case of retail, higher prices. Just a thought.

    502. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 1

      I am all in favor of a transaction flat tax - every time money moves, the government takes a cut. Sales tax, not so much.

    503. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      If you make them pay 90% of the taxes, will you give them 90% of the say in what gets done with their tax money?

      Because let's be honest, that top 10% probably isn't much worried about funding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drug benefits, and other welfare-state entitlements.

    504. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Caught" doing what? It's not illegal, that's the whole point.

      It always amazes me how much time people spent on practice to perfect their sports performance, coding skills twitter-image and what-not, but do nearly zero to improve their financial skills. Don't blame others for the fact that you've chosen to be financially brainless.

    505. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by gander666 · · Score: 1

      My bad, that is in thousands of households. What I get for posting while eating a bourgeois Solid White tuna salad sandwich.

      Still, that is not a large swath of the country, and if you look at the number that are >> $1M versus those that are much closer to $250K, I bet that the number of the near wealthy shoulder a small portion of the $700B than the "super rich"

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    506. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by m509272 · · Score: 1

      Poor people don't pay taxes, hard working middle class people pay taxes and that includes people making 500K or less as a couple not that 250K f'in joke number. Live in Manhattan in a decent apartment at 5K a month with 2 kids, pay the ridiculous NY state and city taxes and full size supermarket prices for sample size packaging, etc. Add in all the other stuff like saving up to pay for college and retirement and 500K after taxes doesn't make you rich. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of the taxes in 2008. The top 25%, paid 86%.

      This corporate tax garbage really pisses me off because if they aren't paying it, we are.

    507. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it, but any of the Libertarians founders who still consider themselves members are now a fairly small minority. At least, that's been the impression I've gained at the last few rallies I've dropped in on.

    508. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I've had enough of fairy tales for the year.

    509. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gets back more money than they paid? Certainly, when I was young and poor, I got money back at the end of the year, but never more than I had paid in withholding. I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      The do it with the earned income tax credit and the federal housing tax credit(expired now) just to name a couple, I believe there may be one for daycare expenses also.

    510. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AmbushBug · · Score: 1

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.

      It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).

    511. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      You don't think this is a gross oversimplification? I mean, it partially explains the federal income tax system, but it doesn't even come close to explaining the tax system as a whole.

    512. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are plenty of possible other alternatives. The most obvious one is an actual free market

      Oh, I agree on that one, emphatically. But in order to have an actual operating free market that would lead to a good outcome, we'd need regulation of the market to ensure the actors in the market can act freely with the real values of their choices explicit to them.

      So we'd need:

      1. Regulations to enforce internalization of externialities like pollution, social costs, etc.
      2. Regulation to ensure equal access to capital to remove that particular barrier to entry
      3. Regulation to ensure adequate disclosure of information so that actors in the market could make efficient choices
      4. Regulation to ensure that markets do not get captured by a monopoly or oligopoly
      5. Regulation to ensure that not only a subset of corporations can take advantage government functions in other areas (like the military, which is a necessary function of government)
      6. Regulation and oversight to ensure there is no regulatory capture of items 1-4 above

      In short, we'd end up with a system much like today's, if only we could get rid of regulatory capture.

      No corporations at all.

      Yes and no. People should be free to join together to mitigate risk, amass capital for large investments, etc. This is what a corporation was originally for. What I'd like to see is corporations not sheltering investors from non-financial risk. We'd see a lot less bad activity from corporations if the owners were personally liable for the evil sometimes done in the name of profit.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    513. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by xnpu · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't make sense for them to pay 90% of the taxes. You forget that they own your government. Most taxes are made to flow TO the rich, not FROM them. Just check which companies get most of the big government contracts and who owns them. Having the rich pay more taxes will just result in more government expense to ensure it all flows back. The poor will not benefit from it.

    514. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Artichoke mode?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    515. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by rk · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can't discount a backlash if you snapped right back up to a 90% tax bracket. It didn't drop from 91% to 35% overnight, and it shouldn't go from 35 to 91 overnight either.

      Also, you're wrong about it being 91 in 1980. The top bracket dropped in 1964 from 91 to 77 in 1964 and has never returned to that level since. Source: The IRS itself.

    516. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Honest"?

      I didn't RTFA, but how is using a "loophole" -- in other words, following the law -- dishonest?

      There are most certainly things that our tax money shouldn't go for, but why shouldn't every person & corporation find every way it can to NOT pay taxes, and pay what it is actually required to pay?

      If they are breaking the law, go after them.

    517. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As cited above, 50%.

    518. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      So who do you support then? Republicans? Democrats? They both support the wars, look at the voting record. Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.

      Please the tea party is full of the people who pushed for the war. And I don't see any Tea Party candidates on the ballots. All I see are Really Really Republican Republicans.

      It's not a multi-party system when they run under the (R) nomination.

    519. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Can someone come and build a road into my backyard even if I don't want them to? Can I contract someone to build a road straight from my house to Vegas?

      Of course not, you have your own property rights and no one, not even the government should be able to take them.

      Now that the road is built, who owns it? Do I own it? Do I maintain it? Who is responsible for it? If someone gets into an accident on my road, due to poor maintenance, am I responsible? Can I collect the money for maintaining it without actually maintaining it?

      Um, there are plenty of private roads already.

      And the idea isn't necessarily private roads, but simply a more accurate way of funding public roads. The government should only be a service provider.

      But yes, if you build it, you own what you've built, now, if it was built on government-owned land, you are simply leasing that land and have a contract to provide services.

      Like all contracts, things are subject to conditions. Can you collect your paycheck without actually working? Of course you really can't. Same thing with this, if you aren't doing a good enough job maintaining the roads, they can terminate your contract.

      Same thing with lawsuits, there should be conditions detailing liability and the like as we do with everything else.

      I think what you want is a tax reform where people still pay taxes, but only for the services they wish to use.

      Yes, which is basically what I said. The government should be a service provider, not the service provider. If a large company wishes to build private roads spanning the nation, they can do that, there shouldn't be legal monopolies like we have in the US with first-class mail.

      The example that I gave wasn't with an entire roads system, such a thing could, at one time, been done privately, and quite honestly probably should have been done privately, but since we have taxpayer funded roads, we should settle for what we have while not disallowing private enterprise to have their own solutions.

      When you privatize it, you get issues where people take the money and keep it - Like corporations funneling money to avoid taxes, you can't trust whoever built the road to maintain the road, even after paying them to maintain it.

      ...Because we can trust the government? Corporations have to balance the books while maintaining a competitive edge. The government doesn't. When the government gives sub-par schools, they still get all the funding because even those who choose to go to an alternate school still have to pay for it. If a private school on the other hand is sub-par, it simply closes because no one will go there.

      Given a free enough economy, this basic principle keeps consumers on top and allows them to control corporations in an effective manner while allowing them to choose who they support. It is only when government intervenes beyond preventing force and fraud that consumers lose to the power of corporations.

      If I don't support a corporation, I don't have to buy things and they don't get my money. If I don't support the government, I still have to pay my taxes. Even worse, we don't decide where our money goes, if we are to have taxation, we need to be able to choose what we "purchase" with that money in the most direct and most individual way possible. If you wish to pay for the war in Iraq, go ahead and fund it. If you don't want to, don't. Granted, there should be a per-household tax for the defense of the country, but it should be very minimal because there are very little real threats that exist of invasion and the like.

      In short, taxation should be voluntary and based on the services you want. If you wish to use the government's roads you pay a fee. If you wish to use your town's garbage pick-up, you pay a fee. Etc.

      This idea that someone or a corporation who makes $100,000 a year costs more to defend, maintain their roads and the like than an identical person/corporation that makes $40,000 a year is silly.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    520. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they have 90% of the income, then they pay over 90% of the taxes, as they also have the highest tax rate. Unless you are advocating increasing the tax rate on those who pay because of those who avoid paying? Either way, I find this argument to be asinine. There will always be a subset of the population who has 90% of the income. The question is just how large that subset is and to ask that subset to pay tax rates of 70+% is ridiculous.

    521. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I'll never understand people who are in favor of more government. And no one is advocating for "No Government", or anarchy. Its always 100% with you people. Either you characterize the arguments against you as 100% No government or 100% more government. Knock off your absurdity.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    522. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by xnpu · · Score: 1

      Incorporate. Stop paying. Have your company do it.

      Really, spend your next holiday reading up incorporating and corporate taxes. It will be the most rewarding investment you have ever made.

    523. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paulhar · · Score: 1

      Rather than being a fairy tale, it is more of a book that attempts to explain what could happen if we continue to attempt to redistribute wealth.

      One basic principle of the book is that if you keep taking from those that produce wealth they choose to give up creating the wealth and then there is nobody to take the wealth from and bad things happen since the whole monetary system collapses.

      You can read part of it here: http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

    524. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      Because the people you're asking to fund 90% of the cost are being turned into beasts of burden, where it is their duty to cash any check somebody in the bottom 10% of wealth writes on their abilities.

      How is that fair?

      For anybody who thinks that "the rich" swim around in a vault full of gold coins, Scrooge McDuck-style, stop and take a look at how most of them *actually* store the majority of their money. Hint: it's called the stock market.

      Now go look at the function of the stock market, and try to convince yourself that taking the money *out* of the stock market (where it provides liquidity as investment for growing businesses) and instead turning it over to consumers to buy consumer goods with it is going to help businesses thrive?

      In short: If you keep eating a pie that doesn't grow, sooner or later, the pie will be gone, even if it's a REALLY big pie. The only way for you to keep eating pie indefinitely is if you allow the people who control most of the pie to continue baking NEW pies for you to eat. If you eat the ingredients before they bake the pies, don't be surprised when there are - someday - no more pies.

    525. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, let's bring on the Randian paradise that Libertarians and tebaggers alike pray for so much. It will be like a filthy mix of Somali government and Christian sharia-style law. We won't pay any taxes, but tithing to the church will be forced at gunpoint. Praise Jesus!

    526. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 1

      Your username is very apropos for your post. I wish you could be modded higher than +5

    527. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm curious how you explain the sequence of events. A bunch of libertarians find each other and discover they enjoy each others' company, so they decide to start hosting tea parties, protesting George Bush's policies.

      Some Conservative Republican notices, decides it's a great idea, they jump on the bandwagon. It gets noticed and starts getting media attention sometime around the election. Apparently, somewhere in the same time frame, Koch eagerly leaps in and starts throwing around money to his leaders to brainwash his minions to...be more right wing conservative?

      There's a lot that's fishy about the whole story. But blaming Koch just doesn't add up. Unless the family's secretly been closet Republicans the entire time they've been pretending to be Libertarian? Do you think David's vice-presidential candidacy in 1980 was a clever plot to infiltrate the party and subvert them with Conservative ideas from within?

    528. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm right around the median income in the US and I most certainly pay a significant income tax.

      Then you're doing it wrong.

    529. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      And those number about the richest paying the most are skewed because that includes only what is called TAXABLE income, not all income. The joy of the rich is that most of their wealth is hidden from the tax man. At least any smart rich folks. Those who do not understand how it works end up bankrupt, like so many entertainers. The old money, they know how to hide it in things like foundations.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    530. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Originally it was mainly about the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and ending the Federal Reserve. The reduced taxes we'd all pay for less government and more freedom were really just gravy. At least, as far as I was concerned.

    531. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, ethical, fair or honest. Sorry but setting up dummy corporations in foreign countries that you don't actually conduct the majority (or any) of your business in should be illegal, or should be hit with taxes and fines so high it makes them unattractive. And now, let us wonder for a moment, who are the ones trying to keep that loophole open? Hint: it isn't the middle class, poor, or anyone making less than $250K per year.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    532. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, corporations couldn't get people to follow them until other conditions convinced the people that it was a good idea? How about an alternate explanation: people are finally fed up with increasing government spending, and they are willing to accept corporate money to fund their attempts to tone it down?

    533. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atlas Shrugged is only good for one thing -- wiping my ass. Only high school and college students actually believe any of that crap. Let us know when you move out of mommy's basement and into the real world, and then we'll see what you think of Ayn Rand and her crackpot ideas.

    534. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      If by "way before," you mean less than a month. The first "tea parties" took place either on January 24, 2009 or in early February, depending on which of the Wikipedia sources you choose to believe, and both of these events were isolated. Rick Santelli, a former hedge fund trader and media personality, called for a "tea party" on February 19 on CNBC. On that day, reteaparty.com was bought and began organizing protests for the 4th of July. The next day, Fox News was running with the story.

      Seems to me like the media may have had a hand in the founding, and furthering, of the tea party movement.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    535. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1

      The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible.

      That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.

      That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.

      This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    536. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might not want the FDA or to have your food safe, but others don't want to spend our every waking moment chemically testing everything we eat for toxins (Not to say the FDA is perfect in this, but if we didn't pay taxes to support it I assure you most things would not be safe to consume), but you're welcome to do so for yourself.

      You seem to think that only the stuff you touch and see every day is all you should pay for and that's just plain stupid. Roads had to be built for these things to get here, they have to be maintained, lots of these parts come from elsewhere in the country (or other countries). If you trace the gallon of milk you buy and all the things it interacts with that had to be paid for and maintained you would see a huge spiderweb across the country. A lot of it is owned or overseen by the government for safety and quality purposes. But you're clearly too fucking stupid to see that.

      Corporations benefit more from these services than most individuals do and hence should pay more. Creating the tax system you propose would eventually result in almost all infrastructure that's not immediately surrounding a massive corporation to completely collapse. No one would be able to afford to live anywhere except underneath a corporate umbrella and everyone would effectively be slaves to the corporations. But since you're a dumbshit teabagger that probably sounds like paradise to you.

    537. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      OK, if they are truly "dummy corporations", then I would agree with it being dishonest.. But if it is Google Ireland or something like that, with people there doing actual work, shouldn't that be fine?

      Maybe require the money be taxed in the country in which it was earned.

    538. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The difference for post WWII US was domestic spending. Post-WWII USA had an increase in non-war-related spending (like infrastructure investment, the GI bill, etc). But of course, you knew that, right? And post-WWII USA had far higher income taxes at the top levels than today... but you knew that also, right?
      For Canada: that article doesn't mention at all the impact of the US economic vitality from '94 to '08, which played a HUGE part in Canada's fiscal recovery. Without the burgeoning US market for Canadian goods, which was partly financed by US government spending, Canada's recovery would have looked very different, if it happened at all.

      As for New Zealand... the US is nowhere close to as socialist a system as NZ was in '86. But deficit spending and socialism, while sometimes related, are not the same thing. But you know better than to conflate those two like the author of that article did, right? Never mind the global economic impact on NZ... The Pacific Rim's recovery from their late-eighties disaster, the US market for NZ products, etc.

      The fact is, you can't honestly compare any of those three situations to the current situation in the US. Post-WWII was extremely different, and, domestic spending *did* go up, to boot. I think it'd also be useful for you to look at tax rates in post-WWII US also... far higher than today. NZ and Canada benefited greatly from external factors that aren't there for the US.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    539. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sure, but compared to the frippery that the pope and the nobles of europe wore, it's at least fairly toned down, if not always temperature appropriate.

    540. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by oncebitter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot to mention the 10th man got to drink 4 of the 10 beers, while the poorest guy just got to lick the condensation off the table afterwards.

    541. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      This from CBO is informative.

      http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/income/income_distribution.html

      Here is the analysis by state of the total tax load (it's much higher on the poor than people realize).

      http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

      This is updated as of 2009! More current than the 2006 version I was quoting.

      The tax on the lowest quintile is up from 10.3% to 12.2% in only 3 years!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    542. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i was not aware that the poor got a refund on their sales tax, gas tax, cigarette and alcohol tax, portion of rent charged to pay for property and school tax, etc.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    543. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      More in absolute terms, but proportionally much less. Sales taxes are regressive - they make poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. A poor person can't afford to save, they spend everything that they earn on essentials. A rich person has numerous investments and savings that would not be taxed - they spend a much smaller proportion of their income.

      That's precisely why the Fair Tax includes a sales tax rebate indexed against the poverty level. The Fair Tax is the most thoroughly researched piece of legislation in history. Easy objections like that have all been addressed. Yet we still keep rehashing these concerns as though they have not already been addressed.

      Besides which, the sacred cow of making sure the rich pay more in taxes would be assured with the Fair Tax. Who has more disposable income, spends more money, and buys more products/services? Rich people, or poor people? Also, the poor might become less poor if we did not have a tax code that strongly encourages wealth (and with it, jobs) to move out of the country. When you work so hard to encourage wealth to move out of your country, two broad categories will stay in your country -- those who benefit from political clout and loopholes, and those who cannot afford to locate their assets in more tax-friendly countries. This is undesirable for everyone but the politicians.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    544. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You think dirt bag liberals don't use every trick they can to hide money from taxes.

      I said, and think, no such thing. Straw man.

      Well they should care no matter what you want to say unless you are industrious enough and hard working enough to start your own business and bring it up to a multi-billion dollar company, which most people are not, then you need the rich both companies and individuals to hire you.

      Oh I see, now you're equating personal income tax with corporate income tax. They are different things. Furthermore, a higher marginal tax rate does NOT remove the incentive to make more money and hiring more people if that's what's required to make more money.

      You're completely confused and uneducated about economics, aren't you? You can parrot Glenn Beck or whoever you want, but it's patently clear that you have no understanding of *how things actually work*.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    545. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Danathar · · Score: 1

      The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible.

      That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.

      That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.

      This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.

      I'm already a fan of Federalism :)

    546. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Why? Because without some method to keep the masses happy, then the superwealthy will end up like the French Nobility after their revolution. The mob must be appeased.

    547. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Why, again, are they entitled to that?



      <sarcasm> Because they keep the terrorists from winning and killing you and your neighbor </sarcasm >

      sorry - i fully agree with you this is bull shit and we are all way the hell too complacent for it - my wife is a school teacher.. when i hear the stories she has to tell me about how the school is run and you do the math on the $ they get.. then they are always complaining about needing money for education.. sorry but we need a way to make them show they are competent before we give them anything.
      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    548. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      All the Austrian economists I've read blame Hoover's interference for turning a fairly minor recession into the Depression and FDR's for making it last so long.

      Well, that's your problem right there. :)

      You'll find that other economic schools of thought differ greatly from the Austrian viewpoint.

      Suffice it to say that I think a lot of the Austrian school of economics is flat-out wrong, and so if that's where you're coming from, we'll never agree.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    549. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quirkz · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm pretty sure that the Earned Income Credit and the Additional Child Credit would be covered under burning1's "collect some form of social service", which means his statement was basically right. The grandparent's reference to a "refund" as a proof of anything isn't accurate at all. Getting more money out than put in is what the grandparent really wants to object to, and it's not nearly as rampant as he thinks. It does take a social service, like the payments that you mention, to put someone in that position.

      As for the first-time homebuyer's credit, that has to be paid back, and is basically just a free loan. Yeah, you'll get more out one year, and then put it back in subsequent years. For the purposes of the rest of the discussion (fairness of tax rates, or whether the poor are getting too many benefits), it doesn't really factor in.

    550. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      That is because you only see (D) or (R). Of course there are insane people in the tea party. There are insane people in the (D) and (R) parties too. Hence the multi-trillion dollar debt and endless wars that the people don't want. The tea party is the best chance at a third party we have right now.

    551. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by lgw · · Score: 1

      Why do I bother writing stuff here; it'll just be completely hidden as anonymous coward, especially since slashdot replaced classic mode with cumbersome web 2.0ish 'levers'.

      With an account, you can turn all that webbish stuff off! Which rocks.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    552. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Big tax cuts and Government reductions have boosted this economy numerous times. Just ask Reagan.

      Ask Reagan? He who cut taxes and blew up the deficit through massive increases in government spending?

      then ask the posterboy Democrat President JFK; he cut taxes in the 60s and the economy boomed.

      Ah, Kennedy, who cut taxes and increased spending also.

      What government reductions are you talking about? The government grew under Reagan, and under Kennedy.

      I'd say that your examples support my argument -- the deficit spending under Reagan and Kennedy helped the economy. Which is what I'm saying we need to do now -- well-planned deficit spending on domestic projects to improve infrastructure and stimulate spending among regular people (instead of lining the pockets of already-wealthy people). The key is to make it effective.

      teh stimulus bill was $787 Billion and according to Recovery.org (which I question their metrics, but it's useful for now) they've created/saved 3,460,000 jobs. That's $227,456/job.

      I agree, it was piss-poor the way the stimulus was spent. That doesn't mean that a stimulus is bad, it just means that the one we already had was bad. But as an aside, those 3.4 MM jobs in turn likely saved many more.

      The real key to effective domestic spending would be to revitalize our manufacturing base, so that when people spend money on consumer goods, it doesn't all go overseas.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    553. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH"

      So? I likely make less than most people on /. (under $15k, college and professionally educated). I don't see what that has to do with it.

      Wealth is aggregate. If you do well, even a little, and save, it builds up over time. Wealthy people know this. They often have fewer kids, pass holdings down generational lines, and simply save more.

      They're going to have more if they make more. I don't get your argument, because to me, the point of being wealthy is to HAVE AND HOLD THAT WEALTH, not spend it.

      The Dems have done a great job blaming the rich. The Reps have done a great job blaming the lazy or the poor. Dems should stop coupling the $300k earners with the million dollar CEO bailout package. The Reps should start hammering those that make over $10 million a year.

      Right now, they've got everyone at each other's throats, and it's amazing to me reading /. how people believe the crap either party spews. Lesser of 2 evils? Who gives a damn. They both suck. Find another way and quit whining like picking your pathetic solution is THE right answer.

    554. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      Because everyone "throws their lot in" with either D or R we are in the situation we are in now. You have to remember neither party represents your views (unless you are a war-mongering corporatist which I doubt you are). Both parties are the same side of the same coin now. Voting either way doesn't matter as the same policies will continue.

    555. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean before reagan. it was under the reagan administration that the top marginal rate dropped from the 80%+ it had been for decades to under 40%. google 'top marginal rate history'.

    556. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't think that's the problem at all. It's more like we don't punish success because it leads to less people becoming successful. And it's not that they think the 250k and up crowd can't afford to pay the taxes, it's that they shouldn't be singled out to pay for the demands of less successful people.

      250k is an arbitrary number anyways. It's not even in the original bush tax cuts. All it seems to be doing is creating conflicts that shouldn't exist. According to the WSJ, the top tax payers are paying more with the cuts then they did in 1990. The interesting part is that with the enactments of the bush tax cuts outside of the first years it was in place, growth in income tax revenue increased at a pace as good as or better then in Clinton's term until the start of the recession and more taxes were collected then the costs of the tax cuts.

    557. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off. They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      This is why I always laugh when a politician claims that they want to increase taxes on the "super-rich." Raising taxes doesn't hurt the super-rich; their legions of lawyers and accountants make sure of that. Increasing taxes hurts the people that are well-to-do, but not well-to-do enough to buy laws that favor them.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    558. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I disagree 100%. I believe that your view is misguided, since it does not recognize things *as they are*, but instead *as you wish them to be*.

      The fact of the matter is that our system is designed (first unintentionally, then intentionally) to be a two-party system. Third parties will always be on the fringe.

      In a case like the Tea Parties, they are being absorbed into the Republican party. Why? Because they don't have a snowball's chance in hell outside of it. They did (rather, are doing) exactly what I am advocating... picking the side that better matches their views and then working to implement their views within that side.

      You are only ineffective at doing good if you are ineffective at showing why your ideas are better.

      Or if there is no audience for your ideas who have any power to accomplish anything in line with your ideas.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    559. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      If the house hits you with a massive estate tax, your house is worth more than most people's lifetime earnings.

    560. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      Fair Tax. Only tax on consumption. Have a rich lifestyle? Like shiny cars and watches? You'll pay lots more taxes than somebody that makes a modest living and buys modest things. Plus, everybody pays taxes, even hookers, tourists, illegal immigrants and drug dealers. Plus, everybody (as long as you're a legal resident of the US) gets cost of living prebates on taxes that would be paid on essential food/clothing, so people that make under the poverty line effectively pay zero tax (like now).

      The biggest advantage is that you can control how much tax you pay just like your weight. Spend a lot - pay a lot of taxes, save a lot - lower your taxes. Plus it's COMPLETELY transparent and fair. No exceptions written in for this lobbing group or that lobbying group, no kick-backs or favors for changes to tax code - everybody pays the taxes at the cash register, regardless.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    561. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After that you have social security tax. 7.5% on people making up to about $100k. (but a "hidden additional 7.5% you don't see). Not paid by the wealthy again."

      Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

      If you're self-employed, it's a 15% tax rate. The "wealthy" often includes those people. Also, if you're part of that wealthy group, you most likely run the company that pays EVERYONE ELSE'S 7.5%, you know, that part where you say they don't "see" it, but for some reason forgot to point out who really pays it.

      The 15% is SS/wage tax. Half is paid by the worker. Half is paid by the company, which they take into account when they choose to (or not) hire someone knowing they have to pay a wage tax. But someone pays it, and it's usually "rich" employer.

      That wage tax, btw, is why a lot of people do not run their own companies. Also, there is a tax credit if your income is low, so some often don't pay the full amount of their 7.5% either.

      btw, the wealthy pay wage taxes if they work. There's usually a ceiling, but they pay it. Very contrary to your "not paid" claim.

    562. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      It'd also be an amazing transfer of money from those who can't save to those that can. It's also dodgeable by spending your money outside of the country.

      Like all tax changes that claim to be revenue neutral, we have to compare it to the current system: Who would pay less taxes under Fair Tax? Who would pay more? There'd be huge winners and huge losers, and I've met quite a few people in favor of the system that didn't realize that they'd be by far on the losing team.

    563. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by satuon · · Score: 1

      but THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH.

      But income taxes are paid on income, not your accumulated net worth. Or do you suggest that each month a percentage of all your wealth (not just this month's income but all your net worth) be taxed at a flat rate?

      Having 90% of all the wealth that is accumulated by everyone for the last few decades is different than having 90% of this month's income.

    564. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      Only if you're retarded. He always said he would raise taxes on incomes over 250k.

      And "not a dime" on those under. And yet, when the Bush tax cuts go away, tax rates will go up. For everyone. http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/ It is a deliberate choice at INACTION, which means it is a choice on the part of Obama to let everyone's taxes go up. He lied. There is no other way to say it.

      He also admitted that he knew that increasing the rates on the "rich" would mean lower revenues. He said he'd do it because it was "fair". He doesn't care if there is a budget shortfall, or that by cutting the taxes on those who pay the most you actually get more money out of them overall, he's willing to cut off OUR noses to spite OUR faces.

    565. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      They're entitled to it because they passed a law. It's all semantics. The (state and federal) government is trying to reach a certain amount of revenue while still having a functioning economy. It could do that entirely through one tax or another, at a very high rate. Instead they opt to spread it out and tax certain activities.

      It all comes out in the wash.

    566. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      So all your kids, their spouses and their friends all earn less than $9.50 an hour, have two kids and aren't living from paycheck to paycheck? Impressive budgeting.

    567. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      It's been going on since the Earned Income Tax Credit was passed which has been a while. No kids will definitely make a difference.

    568. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes.

      I made roughly $9000 in 2006. I did not get paid by the government when I filed my taxes. Are you suggesting that 40% of all US citizens make under $9000? Or that somehow those that make more than $9000 have a lesser federal tax liability? Never in my life have I or anyone I know made a profit on federal income tax. Anecdotal evidence is welcome.

    569. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by martyros · · Score: 1

      owned [ucsc.edu] 73% of total assets and 83% of financial wealth in the US.

      There's a difference between property and income. What you want is the percentage of total income in the top 10%, not percentage of total assets. (Oh, and I suppose you should throw in appreciation on those assets as well -- capital gains, &c.)

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    570. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      I said less than 40K and that gross..subtract the std deductions, subtract the child credits, then figure the earned income credit. The result is getting back everything that was withheld plus a bit.

    571. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The income tax is not even close to describing the full set of different forms of taxation that hit the poorest people worst. Because of this fact, your claim that they pay no or very low taxes is false.

      And if I were to broaden the definition of taxation to what it actually is(the involuntary/violent transfer of wealth), then inflation and other forms of theft would increase that set of taxes even more. There is a reason that wealth is concentrating in western nations, and this is part of it.

    572. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      because then he immediately loses me as his "servaant" in exchange for the annual salary he provides me.

      I think you mean "he loses your services as an employee," right? You make it sound like this is some sort of horrible arrangement, where you get a respectable income for providing a valuable service to someone. I'm not sure I see the shame in that.

      He wants to pay me just enough to keep me just happy enough to continue working 40+ hours a week making him richer.

      Should he pay you more than you are worth to him and his business? Should you in turn offer to pay 3x times the asking price for everything you buy just so shopowners and retailers don't need to keep running their store? Employment is a voluntary exchange of money for services. Don't like the conditions, don't work for the person.

      Worse...if I were to somehow magically become rich,

      If you continue to think it only happens through "magic" and "abusing other people," it will always remain a mystical process to you, and you will never "become rich," through natural or supernatural means.

      assuming he's a successful businessman, I could easily have learnt more than enough to copy what he does, enhance and refine it that little bit, and drive him out of business.

      Indeed, why don't you do exactly that, since clearly you have learned enough to drive him out of business and offer the products and services he does at a lower price, while still maintaining the profit margins which have "magically" made him rich? I would if I could... I see no reason why you shouldn't.

      because they have zero incentive to see me "succeed" in any way that doesn't further their own wealth over mine.

      You are mistaken. Your success increases the size of the market, or puts him out of business - either you corner new areas of the market, or he loses customers. If you put him out of work, he can come work for you (he already knows the market, the services, and the people - you win, and he wins), and you can pay him 2x what he's worth to you (to show what a cool enlightened boss you are), and try to make him "magically" rich with your new-found success just like you wish he'd do for you. He wins, and you win, and in the end the market & the consumers win, because you both are producing more at lower cost, while making enough profits to make you and your old boss "magically" rich.

      Sounds like an ideal situation to me. Any man who sees another man's abilities as an existential threat in a free market will not remain "rich" for long.

    573. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      And jobs in companies owned by the richer ones? Yep...the poor are subserviant to the rich, and the rich have zero incentive for the poor to become rich.

      Other than by having money the "poor" are better consumers and buy more things. It's not a zero sum game.

      You are right though...reduce a company's tax burden and their revenues go up. Not their headcount...

      Yes, when a company has extra money, they do tend to buy more equipment and people to run it, and are able to pay higher salaries.

      Which in turn go to dividends that make the rich investors richer.

      And by "rich investors", you mean everyone who has a investment retirement account. Do you think I'm rich? I'm not. I do have a considerable amount of money in the stock market because I've been working here for a long time and it has accumulated. I'm a "rich investor", according to you.

      Oh, and there are plenty of Average Americans that are teabaggers. Reading comprehension FTW - I said they won't benefit from the tax cutting proposals of the Tea Party...

      There are LOTS of normal people in the Tea Party who will benefit from lower taxes. Especially the continuation of the Bush cuts. You don't have to make $250k+ a year. Your insults are unwarranted.

      You know what *I* would support? Flat Tax. Every man, woman, and child pays x% of their income to taxes. Make it so the first $50,000 or so earned is non-taxable entirely, and then you pay.

      First you say "flat", and then you start making exemptions. How about mortgage deductions for poor people? Stop those? Medical deductions? Stop those too?

      Google paying 2% income tax vs my 30% IS NOT FAIR.

      Google is a CORPORATION, you are a person. Google is made up of people, all of whom pay taxes on their income.

      But the teabaggers want lower taxes...not fair taxes,

      Your continued insults are not supporting your arguments. The Tea Party members want lower taxes and fair taxes ... it's just that YOU don't agree with what they think is fair. That doesn't mean they are asking for unfair taxes. I'd be wasting my time if I argued that YOU were demanding unfair taxes, so why do you continue this tack? Because noting pisses off a conservative with balls in his mouth more than having to give up a goddamned dollar to anyone but themself.

      Yep, I guess it't not worth the effort of talking to you because you can't stop being deliberately insulting. Also, you are lying again.

    574. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by martyros · · Score: 1

      There's another mechanism, the foreign earned income exclusion, which (for approved countries) allows you to exclude income before you even calculate the tax. If you live in one such country, even though your tax rate in that country is lower than the US, you'd pay the lower tax rate rather than the higher one.

      Doesn't do me much good, as I live in the UK, where the tax rate is definitely higher. :-)

      I'm pretty sure countries with 2.5% income tax wouldn't be on the list of approved countries anyway, so it's not really a loophole.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    575. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Gerrymandering would have to be addressed first, and then the entire winner take all form of elections. Good luck getting any politician to vote on changes that would make it more difficult for them to get elected.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    576. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember, income tax is only one kind of tax (and some types are actually regressive). By a more inclusive measure of total taxation, the total taxation rate varies by only a few percent among the top 60% of all taxpayers, which all pay around 30%. The bottom 20% of earners pay only about 19%. So, total taxation is somewhat progressive, but not all that much.

    577. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      Well, if not teabaggers, per se, then definitely libertarians.

      Well, if your first lie gets exposed, change what you meant to say and maybe nobody will point out that it is a lie, too.

      Nobody said "no regulations."

      I'm not validating the argument, just pointing out that they are, indeed, advocating for a lack of regulations.

      Fewer regulations is not the same as none.

      Notice that the Bush tax cuts were in effect for a while before the housing bubble burst, and yet there was minimal (if any) job growth.

      And notice that the Daddy Government threw billions of dollars into the economy and we're still not producing jobs, even though the promise was that we'd not get above 8%. Guess what people are looking forward to? The tax cuts going away. If you think business people are not planning more than six months in advance, you are a moron.

      The biggest growth in history of the US took place when the top tax rates were cut. Moving them back up when we desperately need growth again is just lunacy. Inciting class warfare is one way of keeping people in control -- divide and conquer.

    578. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so you're saying tax wealth. Ie if you own a house, it sits there doing nothing, it should get taxed.
      Savings should be taxed, ie if you put $100 in the bank, the gov't should just take eg $5 from you each year?
      So you're asking for a place where everyone has the same? Like old Russia and China?

    579. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Actually, poor people pay a good chunk of money in taxes. Many pay sales tax, and everyone pays payroll taxes. It's only income tax that they don't pay.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    580. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a good exercise isn't to focus on a single law or rule or tax and generalize, but to look at the full set of actions or consequences that apply to what it is you are talking about. Specifically, when discussing wealth redistribution, it doesn't make sense to talk about the money the state takes from the rich(or poor) without looking at how much they get back.

      At the very least, don't just look at federal income taxation. You will find that the rich do in fact get a net positive return monetarily from bribing and colluding with the guns of the state. The poor do not. And that is the point of the system.

    581. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by martyros · · Score: 1

      And a legal framework where contracts are upheld? And a public education system so that Google didn't have to teach their engineers how to read first? And a regulatory framework for the stock market, so that people actually have some modicum of trust that they're not going to be totally hoodwinked, making it possible for Google stock to sell, and thus valuable to investors, allowing them to raise money by issuing shares?

      (Sorry, that's a long train of logic, but it's a really important one.)

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    582. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Diminishing the reward for success isn't the same as punishing success.

    583. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most accurate part of your post is "I don't know". Exactly, you don't. There's no loophole. Without transfer pricing agreements - the underlying technique used - international commerce would be impossible. Trade would collapse. GDP would collapse. Your quality of life would collapse. As someone recently said on this subject, "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

    584. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Is a Lexus or Mercedes tax-exempt?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    585. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mail it to P.O. Box 99304, Washington, D.C.

      You will receive your check for $50k shortly.

    586. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Freakin' socialist with your 'general welfare' crap. Next thing you tell me, you'll be wanting folks to support other folks security and peace of mind!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    587. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "Really, it tends to get complicated when YOU decide to complicate your financial matters..."

      Wrong. Again, I'm required to pay income tax or face loss of my liberty. The tax is imposed upon me. If the tax were a flat one I sincerely doubt that it would be so complicated as to require the assistance of a professional. If I didn't have to pay a tax or a greatly simplified one my accounting would be a since. I'm confused by your assertion that simply being wealthy alone my accounting is so complex. It may be more complicated that a drawer full of receipts, but not as complicated as having to apply the complex maze of laws and loopholes that is the current tax system. And I reject this notion that if I only gave up and accepted whatever the government asks of me to pay things would be "Better". I don't trust this government to take care of my postage without fucking it up. And you want the Fed to be my accountant and present me with a tax bill at the end of the year and simply pay it without looking at it? Get real.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    588. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by treeves · · Score: 1

      Not true. The bar only provides beer (and mixed drinks and pretzels). Beer is not the only thing the ten men need or want. The bar does not provide cable TV, electricity, gasoline, telephones, pizza, cars, or dental treatment, for instance. Likewise, most things we get, we don't get from government. From government we expect national defense, roads and bridges, NASA, OSHA, and some other stuff like that. Not everything we need to survive. Making it so that we have to get *everything we need to survive* from the government: you think that is a good idea? why?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    589. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      So realistically, the cost due to the tax is a lot smaller than you suggest even if it is all passed on to customers.

      Employees are also customers of corporations. Corporations make almost everything. If the cost of "almost everything" (from Heinz Ketchup to Chevy trucks) goes up 30%, you're going to have to increase the wages of your employees significantly to make up the cost of living difference.

      So add that to increased "parts overhead". Office chairs, desks, computers... all roughly 30% more expensive.

      I'm not sure how increasing taxes increases competition; history shows it decreases competition by deterring investment in future products (and generally making the cost of operation higher). Due to the desire to maintain the 'bottom line', costs will be cut - namely, employees and their percentage of income from the whole. The economics are similar to what caused companies to see cheap labor overseas and outsource it there.

      Inflation would go up; the cost of living would go up significantly - and wages and employment would go down. We're seeing a similar thing right now with the mandated healthcare funding and the costs that's introducing, albeit to a much smaller degree.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    590. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      If you make them pay 90% of the taxes, will you give them 90% of the say in what gets done with their tax money?

      LOL! You think they don't have 90% of the say already? Hell, the salary of your congress critters puts them in the higher income brackets ($174,000/year.) Then realize that many of them were financially successful in private life.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    591. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by puppetman · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with the middle class protesting to further the agenda of billionaires and large corporations.

      That's sarcasm, of course.

    592. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue
      imaging how many wars you can go to with such money,
      that would be enough to go to a war with Russia

    593. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      that requires me to either be an expert in that system, which would mean spending the equivalent time to get at least a two year degree, just to pay my taxes

      Doing taxes doesn't take the equivalent of a two-year degree to be able to complete them. I paid some schmuck at H&R Block once seven years ago, realized they were just asking me a bunch of simple questions, and in future years simply referred back to the original document. Occasionally there's a few minutes of head-scratching, but I can run through a 1040, a Schedule C, a Schedule SE, and a couple other schedules or attachments in the span of about an hour and a half if I'm being precise, and in about 20 minutes when I'm just fudging the numbers for quarterly estimated taxes. Your situation may be a lot more complicated than mine, but with a day job and freelance work, and a wife who does the same, our setup is more complicated than average.

    594. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that, by building a system in which they pay 90% of the funds, and have 90% of the say, you don't like how they've set up the system because it doesn't benefit the "little man" enough?

      I thought we were trying to arrive at a 'fair' solution, not just one in which one group benefits at the other's expense?

    595. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely ignoring the fact that it isn't across the board. It is not a tautology.

      Nice try, with that obscurantism.

    596. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Troll

      Diminishing the reward for success isn't the same as punishing success.

      If you are taking/diminishing because of the success, it's punishing success.

    597. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by djp928 · · Score: 1

      Money is finite. Wealth is not. Wealth != Money.

      Wealth creation is not zero sum.

    598. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Employees are also customers of corporations. Corporations make almost everything. If the cost of "almost everything" (from Heinz Ketchup to Chevy trucks) goes up 30%, you're going to have to increase the wages of your employees significantly to make up the cost of living difference.

      My point was that it wouldn't go up 30%, becuase the tax applies to the profit, not the total cost. At least it does here in Britain, it would be a bit silly any other way. It would only drive up prices by 30% if the sale price was all profit.

      I never said that tax increases competition. I said that healthy competition drives down profit margins, reducing the amount the tax costs as a percentage of the product price. If something has a massive profit margin, it likely means that there's a lack of effective competition - in which case they can't pass on the cost increase because they're already charging as much as the market will bear.

    599. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you've run off the logic rails, there.

      google can pay U.S. taxes on its U.S. earnings, which would be about $3 billion.

    600. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      It is due to the fact that the loopholes save large PERCENTAGES of taxes with a large FIXED COST to set up.

      That loophole may have required dozens of man years to get working right, with a few full time accounts just to keep that one loophole working. These fixed costs make it impractical for all but the stinking rich to use.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    601. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Minimum wage earners spend more of their income than rich people, so they pay more sales tax as a percentage of their income than rich people. Sales taxes are regressive, which is why it's important they not be neglected when we're talking about tax burdens.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    602. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1

      The answer is not centralization and more government regulation as it's the corporate players and interests which write the very rules they play under. The answer is distribution of institutionalized power as wide as feasibly possible.

      That's really what federalism is for. What the Founders intended was for most of your experience of government to come from the local and state levels. The federal government was intended to be a distant entity only remotely involved in daily life, and even then only to the extent necessary to take care of things the states cannot do, like national defense and interstate affairs.

      That way you can also vote with your feet without having to give up on being an American. Don't like the laws of your locality or state? Move to another one. If a locality or state pisses off enough residents, they move away and the locality or state starts losing its tax base.

      This doesn't work when you have a gigantic, all-encompassing federal government that is increasingly intrusive and increasingly involved in daily life.

      I'm already a fan of Federalism :)

      Noted. My intent was to elaborate on the good point you had made for the benefit of other readers. In the case of you personally I already knew that trying to convince you would be preaching to the choir :).

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    603. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Our greatest period of growth was right after WWII when we had 90% tax brackets. Your facts are way off. If a rich man is set on an island, he will make no money. His ability to make money without the use of force or fear of retaliation is entirely due to the society set up by the entire US populace and the government it elects. He has no claim to individual "success", regardless of whatever silliness you believe.

    604. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot who has no idea how the tax system works.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    605. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What you want is the percentage of total income in the top 10%, not percentage of total assets.

      Why would I want that?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    606. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      you've run off the logic rails, there.

      google can pay U.S. taxes on its U.S. earnings, which would be about $3 billion.

      But the story is about Google's foreign earnings.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    607. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sonicmerlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Them leaving is actually completely fine, albeit completely unrealistic. Rich people don't "create jobs". It's demand from a strong middle class that wants to buy new products, accessories, techno gadgets, etc. that creates the incentive for startups and companies to research and develop new products. Even if you face a 90% tax bracket, the idea of leaving money on the table is ridiculous. There will always be businesses to sell to people with money. Give the poor and middle class money, and they'll spend it. Give to a rich man, and he'll invest it overseas.

      But by all means, continue ignoring the reality that our greatest period of growth was right after WW2 when we had 90% tax brackets. 30 more years of America losing jobs overseas, the rich getting ever richer, and millions more becoming homeless, while everyone complains that the rich are "punished", should leave you in a great situation I'm sure. I'm in the highest bracket so it won't hurt me, but I sure do feel bad for those who must suffer for your foolishness.

    608. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      They do. You don't realize how much suffering there was before social security and the various social safety nets were enacted. Well actually, back then most of the affluent just pretended the poor didn't exist. In the 1950s a magazine came out with the proclamation that poverty in the US had been eliminated. Reality was far, far from that fantasy.

    609. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since it was inconvenient to his point, he failed to mention that the numbers is thousands so - 1,699,000

      5,695,000, at the tie of that census, was the total homers earning over 157K

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    610. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I would give my left nut to make 50k again.

      I will cut it off myself.

      [...]

      - Since When did being a good citizen in America mean making yourself a good victim?

      This one broke my ironymeter.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    611. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased.

      Wow, talk about a load of bullshit. Plenty of other nations have far *more* progressive tax codes, and have a much smaller income gap. But clearly, because you're an insane libertarian, the problem is those damned progressives...

      But, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your hilariously misguided ideology.

      PS. If you hadn't noticed, the tax code in the last 20 or so years, during which the income gap has grown the fastest, became far *less* progressive than it's ever been.

      What you're doing there is called "pigeonholing". You are deciding to label me a member of a group or ideology just because my words sound vaguely like something that group might say. That belongs to the realm of soundbites and radio commercials. It is a pathology when you do that here in a reasonable discussion.

      It is my belief that progressive taxation is designed to remove a symptom. That symptom is the incredible disparity between the rich and the poor in the USA. It isn't working because that disparity is getting worse, not better. Therefore, if we want to do something about the wealth gap, we need to examine what is actually causing it and address that.

      You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation. That means all of the "tax the rich!" cries are a red herring, because we already do that and it isn't helping. It logically follows that trying harder to do something that isn't helping won't help either.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    612. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sonicmerlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rich people have been moving overseas for the last 30 years. If you give them more money, they will spend it overseas. If you want to make America's economy stronger, give it to those people who will spend it within the country: the poor and middle class. If the richest corporations take their business elsewhere, other businesses will spring up to take the place and sell it to the enormous market that a powerful US middle class will represent.

    613. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since we are talking about federal taxes, it's not included.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    614. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.

      It doesn't look like the growing income inequality in the U.S. is due to tax policy. See this Slate series (Part 5 discusses tax policy).

      Finally someone understood my point. I think all the talk about "wealth envy" vs. "tax the rich!" in the media has contaminated many otherwise sane discussions about this topic. If you even mention taxation, everyone is automatically trying to figure out which of those two "sides" you are on so they can label your viewpoint and therefore trivialize it. Of course you're "either this or you're that" and there's no third options in anyone's minds, or so it would seem. It's a shame.

      It's refreshing that you are able to think for yourself enough to see what I was getting at.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    615. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1

      It probably doesn't help that about 40% of all US citizens have no federal tax liability at all because of various credits, yet still enjoy the benefits and services provided by the government. Some of those even have a negative tax liability meaning the government pays them money when they file taxes.

      I made roughly $9000 in 2006. I did not get paid by the government when I filed my taxes. Are you suggesting that 40% of all US citizens make under $9000? Or that somehow those that make more than $9000 have a lesser federal tax liability? Never in my life have I or anyone I know made a profit on federal income tax. Anecdotal evidence is welcome.

      You probably don't have children. Much of the zero-tax-liability folks are because of the "earned income tax credit" which is basically a handout to people who (like the responsible adults they are) have children that they might not be able to afford on their own.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    616. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So who do you support then? Republicans? Democrats?

      The Elder Party. The stars are right, so why settle for the lesser evil? Cthulhu for President!

      ...The only thing is, I get the sinking feeling that His Tentacled Majesty would be a lesser evil than either of those...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    617. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only ethical people pay taxes." Fixed that for you.

    618. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Liberal success was financed by a wealthy middle class. Savings occur when middle class have enough money leftover after spending on the economy to save up for other activities. I'm going to bang on my head on the wall in the hope that you read up on history.

    619. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      or G, the size of the government, can be cut to one thirtieth or less of its current size, so that the amount of needed tax revenue becomes insignificant.

      This would have added benefit that the government would be too puny to have much economic control or impact. I'm tired of propping up failed business models of the uber wealthy.

    620. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A) Media matters is open.

      The Tea party is not, and the people paying the bills are clearly lying to people to get their agenda done.

      Did you even read the wikipedia link? did you understand it? I have no idea why you think 200 billion was the cost of the war. It look like you jsut picked one 'line item'

      Do you knwo what the deficit was in 1999? 950 billion
      Do you know what it was in 2008? 1.44 trillion
      Do you know what it was in 2009? 1.42 Trillion. It went down with Obama's plan. Now I'm not a tea party screaming idiot, so I am not going to look at the 20 billion dollar difference as anything other the a normal fluctuation, and not some rallying point.
      from 2000 to 2008 the jobless rate constant increased. Sine the Obama plans, it has steadly decreased.

      people like you are the problem. You base nothing on facts, scream at anyone who can show you are factually wrong, and dn't mind that all you lias are coming from sourced that want to stay hidden.

      You are being stupid. For the countries stake, stop it. Logically think about the issues. I don't mind having a conversation with different opinions, but I do mind when those opinion have no facts behind them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    621. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Raquim · · Score: 1

      Now go look at the function of the stock market, and try to convince yourself that taking the money *out* of the stock market (where it provides liquidity as investment for growing businesses) and instead turning it over to consumers to buy consumer goods with it is going to help businesses thrive?

      I guess I would assume that if a business has customers buying things (as you suggest the consumers would do) then that business will have a net income that they can use to reinvest in themselves (hiring staff, producing more product, R&D, etc) which will allow their business to grow. Do businesses no longer make money through selling products and services?

    622. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sufficiently wealthy company or person can basically ignore the law.

      So, you want to put another bandage on the problem and not really fix it.

    623. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      SO you are for removing all tax exceptions? I'm a liberal by several measure, but I really want to see tax exemption go away. Charity, churches, donations, all of it. remove tax exemption from religious donation would pretty much fix are tax issue, and it would stop government support of religious institutions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    624. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of possible other alternatives. The most obvious one is an actual free market. Not the monstrosity that people like Bush and Greenspan promoted as a free market. No bailouts, no safety nets, no corporate subsidies, no preferential tax breaks, no "too big to fail," no hiding behind corporate entities when someone in a company commits a crime. No corporations at all.

      That's all nice and good. However, if you don't have corporations, you don't have a means for people to pool their wealth to start a business, which is bad. Nor do you have continuity of business in case of individual existence failures or loss of interest, which is again bad (for everyone who had anything to do with said business). And if you do have corporations (and even if you don't), they will eventually grow to the point of being too big to fail, because them failing would start a cascade effect that would take down your whole economy.

      The basic problem of free market is that if you have competition, then someone will eventually win.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    625. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck with that. I guarantee you the IRS will not wait until you sue to demand the money you owe.

      You got ALL the money you paid? If so, I would hire a profession tax account before the IRS sends you a letter.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    626. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Our greatest period of growth was right after WWII when we had 90% tax brackets. Your facts are way off.

      What in the hell are you talking about? Nothing I said was wrong.

      And you might want to visit the period of growth you are talking about and realize the reasons for it. Here is a hint, it had nothing to do with taxes and more to do with what ended and the need to supply and fix a mostly devastated continent.

      If a rich man is set on an island, he will make no money. His ability to make money without the use of force or fear of retaliation is entirely due to the society set up by the entire US populace and the government it elects. He has no claim to individual "success", regardless of whatever silliness you believe.

      If a rich man is set on an island, he can still make money seeing how his money doesn't have to be on the island. Anyways, the point about his ability to make money is worthless in this conversation because I never said he shouldn't be taxed or pay a fair share. I specifically said that the "Teabaggers and GOP (which is what the op of the post I was replying to was speaking of) think a certain way which was different then what the op said.

      And yes, he does have claim to any gains or success he makes through his own efforts. Neither the government or society picked the person and said, here, be rich, it was the ingenuity and efforts of the person who became rich. And yes, we are talking about income taxes so it's not inherited old family money so don't get it confused.

      Also, don't let your liberal bent or whatever silliness you believe confuse anything I said to mean anything other then what was said.

    627. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by oncebitter · · Score: 1

      I think our analogies are orthogonal :)
      The beer *is* everything we need and want, and the role of gov't (the bar) is to ensure that system continues to operate, which necessarily benefits the wealthy more than the poor as it's the same system in which they were able to become wealthy in the first place.
      It's disingenuous to examine taxes solely from the perspective of direct benefit to an individual. "Taxes buy civilisation" is the old hackneyed phrase, but there's an amount of truth to it.
      Speaking orthogonally, the Government of Ontario used to bottle and sell their own scotch ("GO Scotch" we called it), but I can assure you that was something you neither need nor want.

    628. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      You can't be charged twice for the same crime; why should they be taxed twice on the same money?

      Money is a crime? I don't get it.

      Also, the same money is always taxed over and over again. I pay income tax (state and local), then that same money is taxed again when I buy something (sales tax). Depending on what I buy, it might be taxed again (property tax).

      So I've been taxed 4 times for this same $$.

    629. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      No IRS, no filing any tax forms. Yep a mountain of bookkeeping here.

      But

      Or you just prefer not to mention a key component, the prebate.

      So how is that prebate tracked again? Also, the prebate (being a fixed nominal amount) fails to take into account the geographic dependence on cost of living (granted, the current standard deduction/exemption system already has this particular problem).

      If you really want to tax the wealthy

      Ah, now we get an idea of where you want to go...

      You falsely assumed that's where I wanted to go. I was simply proposing a method of achieving that particular goal. Also, property taxes obviously don't make the wealthy less wealthy if they use their property to create additional wealth: that's the whole point of capitalism actually. Incidentally, a property tax cannot reduce wealth because it doesn't destroy wealth: property tax merely ensures that a person continues to generate value from the wealth they control at the same time as preventing a wealth-holder from artificially increasing the value of their wealth by withholding its wealth-generating capacity from others (e.g., if a farmer does not produce the full yield of crops his farm is capable of producing).

      Fair tax will grow the total wealth in the nation.

      Our current system continually increases the total wealth in our nation, but it's not perceived as "fair" because the distribution of that wealth increase is not uniform. I would argue that a "fair" system would always increase the wealth in proportion to the amount of work someone puts into the system relative to their individual capability. A "fair" system would never reward someone who is not increasing their own efforts. But nobody really wants that, they want something because they are entitled to it! (Yeah, that's a bit inflammatory.) A "fair" system would keep someone's standard of living constant for a constant amount of work, given a constant set of environmental conditions. If environmental conditions deteriorate, and a person's effort remains constant, their standard of living should decrease under a "fair" system.

      Now, I'm not saying that's an ideal socioeconomic system; an ideal socioeconomic system would probably be one where every single person's standard of living increases, but the rate of increase is higher for those who have the lowest standard of living. The "fair tax" cannot perform this feat since it does nothing to actually raise the standard of living for anyone. The "fair tax" also only provides necessary funds if people consume, so there are erroneous assumptions that consumption will continue at rates that are sufficient to maintain the desired level of services. I would argue that, psychologically, people will complain more about seeing 23% tax on most transactions than they will about the current taxes, because it's taking money out of their wallet, which is different than never having it there in the first place.

      In general I don't have a solution, but I do know that the Fair Tax has a miniscule chance to improve our standard of living. There's no even comparative reference to countries that currently have a VAT, because they never transitioned from a system like ours. At best the Fair Tax will be neutral, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if it were to be implemented there would be some concession in its implementation that would be far more insidious than what we have currently. The prebate is one such example: this is essentially a payment ahead of time - only if you register (what?) - so you actually get paid more the less you consume. I'm not sure how that can actually increase the overall wealth of the economy.

      And, for the record, I hold equal indifference to Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, Green, or whatever other label you put next to someone's name on a ballot.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    630. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to see is corporations not sheltering investors from non-financial risk. We'd see a lot less bad activity from corporations if the owners were personally liable for the evil sometimes done in the name of profit.

      That would also make it even harder to invest if you have a day job, thus increasing and enforcing the separation of society into investing and working classes. Limited liability exists for a reason.

      A better solution would be to simply punish corporations harder, and make any fines deduced from future dividends (and adjusted for inflation and/or interest, of course). This would make them depress the stock value, thus making any shenigans less financially sensible while preventing the side effect of disturbing business (and thus punishing any dependent third parties).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    631. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Websters says, "Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber 'free (man'" Liberals want to preserve our rights and freedoms, particularly from oppressive government. Maybe socialists want to give away other peoples' money, but socialism != liberalism.

    632. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is absolutely wrong, I make less than $25,000 a year and certainly pay federal income tax above 10% (not to mention social security and FICA which everyone pays, even if they make $100 in a year). The earned income tax credit doesn't even kick in until you are making less than $14,000 unless you have children (and with one child it is still at the relatively high income of $35,000). There is no one out there that files their taxes and gets back more than they are paying, in fact if you are making more than the poverty line and don't have children you are most certainly paying a portion of that as income taxes unless you have some serious tax write-offs which people who are making $18,000 a year are unlikely to have.

      The information stated above is factually incorrect.

    633. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      It's a great system....if you're a government.

      It's a pretty great system anyway, despite its flaws. I live a quality of life better than royalty of 200 years ago (all things considered), and all I have to do it pay some taxes? It's a fucking bargain, AFAIAC.

    634. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      We could cut payroll taxes on the poor (or give the equivalent in refundable income tax credits) and remove the ~$100,000 cutoff point where payroll taxes stop being paid. That could cut the poor's taxes from the effective rate of 15.4% (yes, poor people do in fact pay taxes). Don't just look at the IRS income taxes. They hide a lot. And sure, even with that the vast majority of taxes are still paid by a small number of people, but so what? 10% of the country owns 80% of the wealth while the bottom 90% has 73% of the debt. You can't get blood from a stone, so I fail to see why we should aim to shift more tax burden onto less well off folks.

    635. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You've got a point, but I think the more important lesson to take away from this in general is that any organization big enough to be able to hire specialist accountants, lawyers and lobbyists is going to be able to circumvent any government.

      What those Tea Party people are doing will not affect the rich much either way. Elect a Republican or a Democrat and you really don't get much. Elect a Socialist and they'll figure a way around that too.

      A valid question is whether a bigger government will be any more effective at protecting people's rights than what we have now. Last I checked, pretty much every type of government is run by someone other than The People once it passes a certain size. Even US Presidents realize that when they are in office, their actual level of control over the apparatus is much less direct than they would be led to expect.

      The poor have always paid the taxes, so the question is... what sort of government do you want to pay for, knowing it is really coming out of your pocket no matter how much some politician says that they are going to make big business "pay"?

    636. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by SpecBear · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.

      Are there any Tea Party candidates who aren't running as Republicans? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. As far as I'm aware, the Tea Party isn't an actual political party. It's just a marketing tool for a certain segment of the Republican Party. Supporting them only reaffirms the two-party system.

    637. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by darthium · · Score: 1

      Who gets back more money than they paid? Certainly, when I was young and poor, I got money back at the end of the year, but never more than I had paid in withholding. I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      No one I know vilifies the rich for being successful. In fact, people tend to idolize successful achievers. IF they deserve that success. People love it when smart, plucky, hard working go-getters make it big, but they hate it when conniving sociopathic weasels do. And quite frankly, for every one upstanding rich man who made it big without stepping on anyone along the way, there are ten selfish, amoral pricks who fucked anyone and anything that got in their way. It's not the bad apple that spoils the rich bunch, it is the one lone good apple that somehow resists the all encompassing rot.

      Now look at the people who really make a difference, the scientists and engineers who actually make the world a better place. Despite the fact that there work is infinitely more important than that of so called 'industrial leaders' who are mere paper pushers adding nothing of benefit to human society, these scientists and engineers are almost never rich, unless they come from a rich family, or happen to be sociopathic enough to stab their friends in the back when the time comes.

      Remember, if you are making a quarter of a million dollars nowadays, you are barely upper middle class. "Rich" doesn't start until you hit eight figures. I know a lot of middle class Americans think they might become rich someday. They won't.

      Shouldn't a separate thread should be done about this? Why is that the human civilization allowed the the most contributing members of the mankind in different times (Socrates, Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Mozart, Beethoeven Pasteur and a lot of etc...) have always been in certain ways, servants of corrupts bureaucrats? Isn't there a way to prevent the weathiest and most powerful humans are mainly parasites, not producing nothing really worthy and/or creative on their own? a legacy for the mankind? Just think about it....who were the wealthiest and most powerful men in Socrates era? in Galileo era? did they deserve to have more wealth and money than Socrates, Galieo, Da Vinci or Mozart?

    638. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong. Oh so very very wrong. The Tea Party is pure grassroots. The perfect definition of it in fact. So much so, it has the Republican party members running scared shitless. They know damn well that the TP members may actually split the vote which would hand the Democrats victory!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    639. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

      Except that it doesn't. You forgot the part where everyone but the richest guy is working for a living, and the richest guy doesn't, since he gets a cut off of everyone else's work. This is known as "capitalism", and it has attained somewhat of a religious status in Western world. One of the results is the current depression.

      The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

      The powerful usually get the most benefit of anything, especially things devised by their equally powerful friends.

      Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

      They aren't being attacked for being wealthy. They are being attacked for complaining that their free ride isn't fancy enough.

      In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

      Thus leaving more beer for the rest of us, while no more forcing us to give up most the fruits of our labour to him. I'm all for it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    640. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by vettemph · · Score: 1

      >>>> "eat shit out of the garbage"

      I sure hope shit is figurative even if garbage isn't.

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    641. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Households making over $250,000 are 1.5% of the population. Getting 19% of the total is a huge amount (and a lot of that is skewed towards people who are making well above $250,000). Your estimate is way off (like many people's estimation of how much income/wealth is owned by each quintile). Increasing taxes on income over $250,000 doesn't even really hurt even the upper middle class (outside of maybe New York, LA, San Francisco and other areas with extreme costs of living).

    642. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by danomac · · Score: 1

      4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.

      Unless they are joint owners.

    643. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by danomac · · Score: 1

      Argh. If they're not joint owners, they're hit with the estate tax. Joint owners are not charged for this. They can apply to have the name removed from ownership.

    644. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      As an exercise imagine what would happen if you confiscate all wealth from anybody who owns more than say $100K and THEN impose a 90% tax. Who would invest then? Where would these rich people come from when by definition nobody is allowed to get rich? Your scheme can only work for a while until the pre-existing wealth is exhausted. As Thatcher said, you end up running out of other people's money.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    645. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      READ THE ARTICLE.

      I have. So let me reply with:
      UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE.

      I know that won't happen by just saying it, so I'll explain a little.
      Google developed and patented their search technology here, in the US. They then sold that property to a wholly owned subsidiary in a foreign country. That subsidiary owns another subsidiary which does all the selling. That 3rd subsidiary then pays royalties to its owner for the rights to the property. The 3rd subsidiaries profits are then near 0, avoiding taxes. Meanwhile, the 2nd subsidiary (based in the Bahamas) collects billions of dollars, untaxed, in licensing fees. That money is then transferred back to Google, Inc. that you know and love, here in the US.

      There you have it. Google, Inc, a US company based right here in Mountain View, CA earned $13 billion dollars, taxed at 2.5% by Ireland. All by throwing a couple anchor babies at other countries.

      What Google, Inc. did not do was pay the 35% tax rate they SHOULD be paying here, or the ~20% tax rate they SHOULD be paying in Europe, where they collected the money.

    646. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, taxable income after deductions is a different thing than gross income.

    647. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by losfromla · · Score: 1

      assuming you are right, doesn't it seem odd that in "the richest country in the world", a full %50 of the people are poor? Sounds to me like the economic downward spiral is accelerating.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    648. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by treeves · · Score: 1

      But if that is the case, how is it possible for anyone to not get any beer? (i.e. the "system" works for the poorest just as it does for the richest, all he has to do is take advantage of it: i.e. get an education , work hard, etc.)

      ...[the] system continues to operate, which necessarily benefits the wealthy more than the poor as it's the same system in which they were able to become wealthy in the first place. sounds suspiciously like a circular argument to me.

      Is any system which allows any income disparity unjust in your worldview? If so, then the only just system is one in which *all wealth and income* is taken by the government and distributed to all, exactly equally. If you can point to an example of that ever having been done successfully (not just communes that people join voluntarily, but whole nations), I'd be interested to know it.

      You say it's disingenuous to consider the taxation system from the standpoint of individual benefit, but then you complain about the one guy at the bottom who isn't benefitting from the system. You can't have it both ways.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    649. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, that's what your mom said.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    650. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      No, that's not at all what people are saying. Read the replies in this thread.

      People are actually suggesting google should pay taxes it is not required to pay, just because they are google.

      No, I'm suggesting they should pay the taxes because they are no different than any other entity in the united states that pays taxes. Everybody *can* do what Google is doing (I know some independent business owners that don't own a house or car and make less than $25k / year... yet drive a new Mercedes and live in Beverly Hills because their company owns everything, its sneaky, immoral, shouldn't happen, but its legal), but nobody SHOULD.

      The very definition of a law "loophole" is something that was not an intended consequence of the law. If laws banning murder said "It is illegal to kill a man or woman...", is it then "RIGHT" if you kill a person born without sex organs? Well, the law says you can't kill a man or woman... somebody without sex organs cannot be classified as male or female, so its legal and RIGHT?

      They should just make up some huge number and mail in a check, and never mind what the tax codes in these countries actually require.

      What google did is both LEGAL and RIGHT.

      Its legal, its not right. Also legal is J&J setting up a subsidiary to plead guilty to marketing their drugs for off-label purposes to avoid the penalty of being barred from selling to Medicare. That is another loophole to avoid the penalties. How about that? Have your kid go to jail when you kill somebody?

      The law is what we as a society AGREE is RIGHT.

      Oh, is that why marijuana is legal? Is that why Bush was President? What is lawful is not necessarily what is right. What is lawful is not necessarily agreed upon by the people.

    651. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      One of the key benefits to the "Fair Tax" system is that it's simpler, streamlined, and efficient. There would be an unfortunate short-term side effect however. Millions of employees involved in the tax side of accounting would be out of work as most of their services would no longer be needed. Eventually, they would have to re-purpose themselves in the marketplace doing something else for employment.

      That alone should tell you have fucked up our current tax system is and how much we could be saving as a nation.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    652. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I think that's what people are against that the vast majority of people ~95% are fighting over the 10% that the very rich don't control. That is patently unfair and such a situation cannot end well. Yes, fairness does matter, even in capitalism (true capitalism anyhow).

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    653. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I follow your argument along and think, that sound well and all, it's logical and sound, then I realize that it doesn't take into consideration that the 90% number is a work of fiction because the costs are exaggerated by services to the poor like welfare, social security, increased police presence in crime riddled neighborhoods which also tend to be poorer.

      Also, should the person paying for 90% of the costs be entitled to more say then the people who only pay 10% of the costs? I'm not sure that sounds right either.

      So your right, how is that fair?

    654. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by icebike · · Score: 1

      lets see, murder, sex organs, Bush, marijuana, off-label drugs,

      You forgot Hitler! Surely you can work him in there and go for the Full Godwin?!??

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    655. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make them pay 90% of the taxes, will you give them 90% of the say in what gets done with their tax money?

      What makes you think they don't already have 90% of the say considering the lobbyists they hire?

    656. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you've got spunk, kid. I'll give you that. Tell you what, lets see how well you cut off your left nut. If you do well, then I might hire you in my nut cutting department.

    657. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Huge problem with that analogy: It doesn't address the fact that the guy paying the most is also drinking more beer than the bottom 4 combined.

    658. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you mean by "common people" I suppose.

      If the television ads are to believed (and I do believe them because this is something that would be easy to determine and sue for libel or false advertising were it false), there is pretty much no politician in Illinois currently running for office who paid income taxes. Bill Brady, millionaire businessman running for governor? Didn't pay taxes. Alexi Gianulius, son of a bank owner, Illinois Treasurer running for the Senate? Didn't pay income taxes. I'm not talking about their businesses, I'm talking about them personally.

      There obviously are loopholes to be exploited by individuals. It just hinges on how you define "common;" these guys are both personally wealthy, and I have no idea how much they paid to manage avoiding these taxes in either accountant fees or other costs that may have been involved.

    659. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      Maybe you and others like you could get over your petty jealousies and we could drastically reduce all our tax rates so we could bring all the money than has flown out of the country over the past few decades back?

      Unfortunately, we're all so distracted with class warfare we practically beg the government to take more and more of the money from the productive people and drive more and more wealth out of the country.

    660. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ChrisLynx · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income.

      Poor people pay no sales tax?
      No Medicare Tax?
      No Excise Tax on their phone bill?

      Maybe poor people get away light on Income Tax, but the percentage they pay in other taxes dwarfs the percentage that the more well-off pay in income tax. Here's what tax professionals say (in 2009):

      http://www.webcpa.com/news/Study-Identifies-Most-Regressive-State-Tax-Systems-52520-1.html

      The average state and local tax rate on the wealthiest 1 percent of families is ...(snip)... a mere 5.2 percent.
      The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is ...(snip)... 10.9 percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy.

      Ten states — Washington, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Alabama — are identified in the study as particularly regressive. These “Terrible Ten” states ask poor families — those in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale — to pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy

    661. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      The personal task credit is only good up to the first $90K. Also, no other western nation I can think of taxes its citizens for income earned abroad.

    662. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      *tax

    663. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by brit74 · · Score: 1

      It's already been pointed out that the percentage the US' tax revenue paid by the rich can increase while the percentage of individual income paid by the rich falls as long as the rich's percentage of total US income increases faster than everyone else. But, I'll provide you with a chart:

      Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003
      http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_5.gif
      (From here: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

      In 1979, the richest 1% of Americans were earning roughly 38% of the income paid to Americans. By 2003, they were earning around 57% of it. Meanwhile, the poorest 80% of Americans were earning about 23% of income paid to Americans, and by 2003, it slipped to around 13%.

    664. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by camg188 · · Score: 1

      The widespread use of loopholes by companies/"rich" people always really pissed me off.

      If by companies, you mean corporations, then your perception of corporations is a bit anthropomorphic.
      If you have any investments in a mutual fund, you should probably look in the mirror and get pissed off at yourself because you most likely financially benefited, in some measure, from their use of tax loopholes. Corporations aren't "rich" in the sense that a person is rich. Their profits are distributed among their stockholders. The stockholders are wide variety of companies and people that include all income levels. The bottom line is that although the corporation may physically pay the taxes, the money comes either from the stockholders or from increased prices on the corporation's products.

    665. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with.

      In nominal terms, yes. Of course someone making $1 million pays more dollars in taxes than I do, but I bet the total take isn't 35% like it is for me. I'm not talking about their marginal rate, I'm talking about net/gross being less than 0.65. My Social Security tax is 6.5% of my income, while theirs is 0.68% for example.

      If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.

      The real question is whether they are paying the share proportional to their wealth. If 10% of the people have 90% of the money, then 10% of the people should be paying AT LEAST 90% of the taxes.

    666. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction.

      Strictly speaking, not true. You pay sales tax (at least in Iowa) only on products that you sell on a regular basis -- as a business would. On one-off transactions sales tax is not expected.

    667. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My GF for one.

      She runs a daycare, and makes concrete yard art.

      As such, all her transactions are cash, and she gets 800 a month child support.

      At the end of the year... 100% cash, she gets a check from the feds for 2 to 6 thousand dollars. (Depending on if her husband claims the kids, or earned income credit etc.)

      So... There you have it. One example of someone who pays absolutely nothing in federal taxes, but gets a huge check.

      Now lets look at my sister. 9 kids, her choice to have so many damn kids, but the net result is the same. She has such a huge tax 'credit' with those kids, her and her husband don't pay any federal taxes.

    668. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Read my lips was George Herbert Walker Bush. Clinton gave us a pretty steep tax increase in 1993 too.

      But what made us balance the budget in the first place was a lot of parlor tricks that can't really be repeated. First, we had artificially cheap oil (equals cheap energy- equals cheap ability to grow-equals low unemployment-equals higher pay) because we were still off the world market until 98-99 or so and had contract negotiated with countries like Venezuela and mexico for cheap gas. The country always seems to do well when oil is cheap for us. Second, was some tax manipulations like the Roth IRA conversions which took taxes that would have been paid over time at a future date and lumped them into a 4-5 year period. Third is the Y2K scare which caused needless spending on tech sector and preparedness scenarios over fears of failures cascading to catastrophic failures when the date rolled from 99 to 00 on computer systems. Fourth which is similarly connected but separate is an increase in efficiency which allowed the government to save quite a bit of money due to advances in computing systems and automation coming from the tech boom. Finally (which I almost forgot), and this is probably the primary reason behind the dot com bubble, capitol gains taxes were dropped from being tied to income rates to a flat percentage which automatically increased the values of existing investments. This caused an increase in activity in trading investments which increased tax revenue and freed a bunch of money up to be invested in other places. It had the added benefit of stimulating the economy as investments didn't need to look nearly as attractive for profit as before which meant a lot of venture capitol made it's rounds.

      Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the republicans didn't play a role in balancing the budget, I'm saying that revenue streams simply weren't sustainable for long term. Eventually growth would have overshadowed the effectiveness of the economic situation and tax changes, and it would have normalized to a point it offered less or no benefit. It seems that this was already on the way to happening with the dot com bust and when 9/11 happened.

      I'm not really really in disagreement with you, I just think the entire "balanced the budget in the 1990's" is completely over inflated in both it's importance and effect.

    669. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The income tax thing is Federal, not state. If you're in California you're still getting rat-fucked.

    670. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Federal Income tax, Social Security, State, and local taxes need to be eliminated and replaced with a consumption tax. You pay tax on what you spend buy a car worth 100K pay the tax your car only costs 25K then you pay less. It is just that simple and it is fair. No exceptions! Works for business also pay an employee a 25K pay the tax pay a CEO 25M then pay. Last year General Electric paid no income taxes in the US because they took a 500M loss but made billions overseas. The did pay taxes to the other countries but they saved millions.

    671. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's not a Teabagger Quote. It's the punchline of a joke created back in 1993 surrounding hillarycare which the founder of slate seems to take credit for.

      Evidently, it was repeated in 2009 by some senile old man who probably didn't know the difference anyways or was a plant, who stood up at a republican town hall meeting in South Carolina and shouted something similar with expletive words involved. The republican Representative Robert Inglis attempted to explain that Medicare was already run by the government but the old guy would have nothing of it.

      Why you think it was a Teabagger is beyond me unless your just repeating what others told you in which case the facepalm might be appropriate after all.

    672. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whilst a great story, you left out the part where the rich guy uses a loophole and ends up only putting in $1 for the beer... like google is doing... like this whole article was about

    673. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gets back more money than they paid? Certainly, when I was young and poor, I got money back at the end of the year, but never more than I had paid in withholding. I see people make this claim all the time, that poor people get more money back than they pay in taxes, and I just want to know, uh, how do they do it?

      You just need to use every credit, rebate, etc. that you qualify for. There are lots of them. Children (that you can't afford) help on multiple credits and rebates. Your life will suck financially speaking, but it can be done. (And yes, Lehman Brothers wanted to loan you 400k for a home.)

      No one I know vilifies the rich for being successful.

      Wait for it...

      In fact, people tend to idolize successful achievers.

      ...wait for it...

      IF they deserve that success.

      ...wait for it...

      People love it when smart, plucky, hard working go-getters make it big, but they hate it when conniving sociopathic weasels do.

      There it is!

      And quite frankly, for every one upstanding rich man who made it big without stepping on anyone along the way, there are ten selfish, amoral pricks who fucked anyone and anything that got in their way.

      I'm sure this is due to intense scientific study, and not at all based on fiction and anecdotal evidence.

      Now look at the people who really make a difference, the scientists and engineers who actually make the world a better place. Despite the fact that there work is infinitely more important than that of so called 'industrial leaders' who are mere paper pushers adding nothing of benefit to human society, these scientists and engineers are almost never rich, unless they come from a rich family, or happen to be sociopathic enough to stab their friends in the back when the time comes.

      Yeah, sorry, you're crazy. Please explain how this works, I'd love to hear it.

    674. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, /. is becoming as bad as the press!

    675. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by edmicman · · Score: 1

      FDIC, NASA and DARPA, good. Medicare, nope, don't use it....justify its existence. Unemployment benefits? Sure, but with severe restrictions and limits. Safety nets are OK, but we need to get people back to self-reliance, not sucking at the teat of the government. Government's role should be pointing and encouraging society in a positive direction, not taking care of their asses.

    676. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you're now the arbiter for what is and isn't "waste"?

      Every taxpayer should be on some level.

      Let me guess, you don't use medicare, so it's waste? Same with unemployment benefits? What about the FDIC? Or the military? How about NASA or DARPA?

      IRAQ and the search for phantom WMDs, mohair, pensions for no-show jobs, the post office, Fannie, Freddie, every Monsanto handout, the Big Dig, and for the love of all things do you really want to go on?

      Government waste is gigantic and runs in the trillions. Do you have a fucking concept of how much a trillion dollars is on a real level? Not $1,000,000,000,000. That is a number of a computer screen. I mean how much purchasing power is held by a trillion, or how many physical bills that is. If the bills had the structural integrity you could line up those bills... and lasso the moon. Using 100s.

    677. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I do think government is wasting at least a huge sum of it. Roads and infrastructure are fine, but but using those examples of good government spending to say that government doesn't waste money is absurd. The most recent example that hit close to home had to do with the stimulus money. Our state (as most states) received a portion for certain projects. One project was a hospital digital records initiative. I learned that the state had hired 2 consultants to help "plan" or "brainstorm" ideas for how to implement the system. The consultants were being paid over $30,000 per MONTH each! This is in a state where $50,000 per YEAR is a great salary. I find that by and large, a lot of government spending is wasteful. And that's coming from someone who has worked for the government. The amount of bureaucracy is insane. Another example from several years back: I purchased an LCD projector with tech funds. Being that I worked for the state, we had to follow certain rules for purchasing. I had purchased it from a state contract provider but apparently, a few weeks later, someone in purchasing found the same model for about $20 cheaper. They gave us all kinds of trouble for not getting 3 quotes and going with the cheapest one. I bet about 5-10 man hours of work were wasted on that little debacle. And the irony is that at the time of purchase, I probably was getting the best deal. Little things like that are why I'm convinced that government bureaucracy is one of the most inneficient things going for us in this nation. I do think government has it's purpose, but I also think it should be limited as much as possible.

    678. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone's "millions" are irrelevant. The government spends a lot of time and effort making sure the Russians and Chinese don't come walking in and ASSRAPE, ENSLAVE, OR KILL you and your family. THAT'S what "providing for the common defense" is all about. It's not about wealth and property. It's about the inalienable right to life of all people. If you're at a low risk of being turned into dog food by foreign invaders, you have a safer and friendlier environment in which to improve your subsistence lifestyle by out-working or out-thinking those around you to create and acquire wealth and property.

      In that light, I defy anyone to defend the idea that the rich should shoulder more of the defense burden. The poor tend to breed at much higher rates than the affluent, so THEY should be responsible for contributing more for the defense of their 8 to 10 welfare brats than an average person should be expected to pay for their 2.3 offspring. Every individual in a free society has the same opportunity for success. Why should those who took advantage of the opportunity instead of getting stoned and playing x-box all day be penalized for success.

      Fuck the poor. They're lazy, they smell bad, and they have furniture in their goddamn front yard.

    679. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How? You shouldn't pay taxes just to own something. If you spend all your money it should be taxed, but if you save it, invest it, or buy stuff you should? That's punishing you for using money wisely. A lot of the most wealthy are that way not because they make more, but because they manage it "better". (Better is questionable, but better if their goal is to save it).

    680. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should make more money then instead of whinging about other people making money.

    681. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      EIC doesn't help the middle class as most of them make too much to qualify and when they do, they don't get much out of it. EIC is actually the best way to help the lower class, who tend to be less educated and work for minimum wage.

      Because they are less educated, they are usually the last to be hired and the first to be fired when budget cuts are necessary. Most minimum wage jobs go to part-time teenagers, the elderly/retired, and spouses who don't have to work but do so to get out of the house. Non of these labor participants actually need the money but since they are usually technologically advance (teenagers), hire educated (soccer moms/dads), and/or more experienced (elderly), they're more attractive than the worker that isn't educated and/or experienced. So when minimum wage is raised, the intended target group doesn't benefit much, but in fact suffers because inflation. Raising the minimum wage seems like a great social idea and great political taking point but has little affect to the group that needs it the most. However, this group tends to have children and EIC helps them make up lousy wages and raise their standard of living.

      Unfortunately, this group is preyed upon by rapid tax refund loan providers that give loans where interest rates and fees are astronomical, often in the thousands of percents. Because the group is uneducated and desperate for money, they take the fee, lose $300-$1000 in credits, and take the lump sum cash. Instead of saving the money to supplement their incomes throughout the year, they tend to spend it all in a matter of days. Some quit their jobs and use the money to live off of for a few months and just restart the poverty cycle once all the cash is depleted.

    682. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a finite quantity of money?

      Stop the presses! We need to re-write the textbooks!

    683. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sorak · · Score: 1

      Who said 100%? You said that it is messed up that we need lawyers to understand our laws. I asked if there is a single country on earth that isn't that way. No slippery slope there. Just pointing out that your example of a government out of control is something that applies to every government on earth.

      I also said fewer laws means more arbitrary power in the hands of a few. Again, no slippery slope, no assumption that dissent means anarchy. I took your statement to imply that fewer and simpler laws make for better government. Did I misinterpret?

    684. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      A recent study shows that well over 60% of people that make over $100,000 still live paycheck to paycheck. If I could find it I'd link it.

      Bitch and moan about the poor paying too much in taxes but the struggling lower class are poor because they are stupid with their money and the rich and successful are smart with their money. I don't mean to be trolling but frankly it doesn't matter how much money people make or not taxed, it will never be enough.

    685. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      And meanwhile the Tea-party crackpots will still be out there marching in the street demanding the richest 1% get a tax cut (and because they ALSO demand the deficit gets paid off, guess who has to wear the difference, with higher tax, poor and middle class folks).

      Of course I'm sure the Tea-partys wealthy backers like the billionaire Kosch brothers are more than aware of the fact the dumb bastards marching in those rallies will be the first to be suffer for it. A movement run by sociopaths and peopled with suckers,

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    686. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      Apparently the mods agree with the way our tax dollars are spent.
      That's ok, enjoy the war your money has bought you.

      btw, -1 Troll is not a replacement for Disagree.

    687. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where the tenth man shipped the jobs that used to be done by the first through fourth man over to the Chinese bar down the street, and brings in workers from the Indian bar to depress the wages of the fifth through sixth. This tenth man happens to have four times the wealth of the rest of the 9 men combined, due to the aforementioned screwing over of most of the rest of the group.

      He used to pay an even higher percentage but since the rules tend to be made by him, he changed it so that he wouldn't have to pay as high a percentage and managed to convince everyone else that it was ok because now he could trickle down his afterwash into the other men's mouths and they would get more alcohol because of that. And now when people are realizing that they've been screwed over by this man and want him to do the decent thing and give back to the group after screwing them all over, he bluffs that he's going to take his money and go... to where? The bars that are more expensive? Or the bars that serve nothing but non-alcoholic beer? Oh, wait, he opens a tab in the Cayman Islands Bar, though he never actually goes there, and manages to trick the bartender in Ameribar to still give him beer, but to make the other 9 guys pay for it.

      The other guys rightfully get pissed, then the beat the shit out of the first guy for being a trust fund baby who's never worked a day in his life (ok, really more like the top 1-10% of the first guy, but the analogy is kinda stupid, so fuck it). The tenth guy, if he's not retarded, learns a lesson and stops being such a prat and treats everyone else with some basic respect. Then he doesn't have to pick up as high a bar tab because the other 9 guys can actually make a decent living and buy some of their own beer.

      Of course, the bar analogy is completely retarded because it ignores that poor people do pay taxes (and as a percentage, secretaries pay more of their income to the government than CEOs do). You don't get to complain about having to pay a higher amount of taxes than others when you are making 400 times the average worker and still try to hide your income. Besides, rich people get a lot more use out of government services (corporations using roads to transport goods, having the FAA there for safety when they fly, the internet creating an entire new market that people got rich off of, national defense protecting industry, court systems that the rich use to beat people over the head with, etc), than poor people, so really they want something for nothing. Guess what, there's no free lunch.

    688. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Say, the average Slashdotter, or other mid-level professional. Not someone who would actually be in a position to run (and win) the Governorship of a state that actually matters.

    689. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      Considering I have to build a product before I can sell it, and that factory time, parts, research, and development are not free operations... where do you expect that the staffing, r&d, production, and other costs of doing business will come from *before* the product is finished and fit for sale?

      Does that money just magically appear in the coffers of a business?

      Seriously, if you don't understand the purpose of the stock market and the role of investment in business ventures, then you have no business having an opinion on this issue.

    690. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by UCSCTek · · Score: 1

      Interesting, well that's good to know at least. The only other problem I could think of was making sure the sales tax wasn't regressive (taxing the poor more). But that is likely solved by making enough essential (non-luxury) goods tax-free.

      Out of curiosity, do corporations then pay tax on sales between each other?

    691. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Americano · · Score: 1

      You tell me - Is the goal a fair solution, or a solution in which every whim you decide is 'for the public good' can be justified, and the money appropriated from someone else?

      If it's a truly fair solution, the person paying the bulk of the bills *should* have the bulk of the decision-making power, shouldn't they? I'd say the fact that we have a number of quite expensive entitlement programs that provide relatively little benefit to that top 10% of people would suggest that they are disproportionately being told to "just shut up and sign the check, we'll decide what to do with it."

    692. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sjames · · Score: 1

      The part that's left out is that the tenth man earns that $59 "tax" within the first second he's at work while the 5th man has to work an hour to earn his $1 portion.

      The richest constantly complain about their taxes, but for some reason don't care to trade places with the "freeloaders".

    693. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jellyfrog · · Score: 1

      They constantly complain so much of their wealth is being taken, yet they pull crap like this.

      I fail to see why you're so surprised. If you're pissed off at how much you're being taxed, reducing how much tax you have to pay is kind of the obvious thing to do. *shrug*

    694. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Ouch. What I saw in your response was "regulation, regulation, and more regulation." My whole point is to drop those, along with the regulations that allow corporations to take advantage of them.

      I don't have *anything* against people joining together to "mitigate risk, amass capital for large investments, etc." My problem is when they do that and then drive bluefin tuna further toward extinction (does writing this make me a treehugger?).

      Not to mentioning the wholesale slaughter of (what was it?) 13 of your employees.

      I think we're writing the same thing about holding owners personally accountable.

    695. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Not at all! If there's no jack-booted thug standing behind us with a gun pointed at our backs, we're free to pool our resources. We can set up whatever agreement we like, and arrange what happens if I'm stupid enough to step into the street in front of a bus tomorrow morning. Any "corporation" that grows "too big to fail" needs to be broken into smaller pieces so it isn't. This isn't just a matter of "general welfare." It's a matter of national security.

    696. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Ian+Lance+Taylor · · Score: 1

      The only way you can conclude that nearly 50% of the people in the U.S. pay not taxes is if you think that the only taxes people pay are income taxes. In fact most people pay payroll taxes, for social security and medicare. Those are about 7.5% of income for most people. 7.5% is a long way from zero.

      And then there are sales taxes.

    697. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Or you could just punish the people who actually did wrong. "You inspected this mine shaft and it still collapsed on their heads and killed them? Say hello to your new cell-mate, Bubba the gorilla. In a few years, we'll introduce you to your last best friend, Sparky."

      Make the punishment fit the crime, and the real issues go away.

    698. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Agree to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed about everything.

      All things considered, I fervently hope that you're right and I'm wrong.

    699. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Only poor people pay taxes.

      Poor people pay negative taxes. Google "EIC" some time. We actually pay them to work.

      Rich people use a variety of loopholes, like real estate swaps, to avoid paying taxes. However, they still pay a very large and disproportionate share of taxes.

      It's really the middle class who don't have the slightest bit of freedom in paying their taxes. They can't take their corporate profits and reinvest them in order to avoid paying taxes on them - they just get their wages deducted and are told to like it.

    700. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      I want the federal government to do the things it was supposed to do and quit doing the things it isn't. Once that happens, we can start discussing the details.

    701. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Hell, if we want to actually be progressive, we shouldn't look at base income, but on the percentage of disposable income. Here it gets even worse, where the rich are even more ahead. Everyone else has debts to pay, in terms of student loans, mortgage/rent, putting food on the table, paying down debt, car, gas, health etc. People below the national median just plain don't have a lot of disposable income (though this somewhat depends on where you are, if you're married vs single, kids or not, etc, but $44,000 for a house of 3 isn't a lot), so there isn't any way to get more money out of them (and like it or not, we'll have to pay off our debt eventually, so pay moderately higher taxes now, or much higher later).

    702. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by fermat1313 · · Score: 1

      That is simply wrong. Actually, the top 5% of earners in the US paid 58.7% of the taxes in 2008, and 47% of Americans paid no tax in 2009. In addition, the bottom ~40% earn enough in tax credits that their tax liability is less then their credits, and they get a check from the government. I'm not interested in an argument about who should pay more or less taxes, but that is a very common and very wrong perception.

    703. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      As an exercise imagine imagine a strawman that has nothing to do with what anyone is actually talking about, but that I can easily show is absurd.

      FTFY.

      You have fantasy for your argument. I have the actual history of the US economy from 1954 to 1980 (though as one poster pointed, the top bracket was lowered by Kennedy to 77% in 1960--I had forgotten that).

    704. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      the 10th man gets nearly all the beer
      and the 1 and 2nd end up staving on the street

      --
      warning pointless sig
    705. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      "one man with a gun can control 100 who dont"

      --
      warning pointless sig
    706. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's predominantly in the US. In other countries the judicial system still resists being a conveyor belt of cookie cutter application of the law.

    707. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no the laws are very confusing most laws are ignored in less they want to oppress someone

      --
      warning pointless sig
    708. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      No. No it isn't obvious. In 2000, 4 Americans were charged with violating the Lacey Act because they imported lobster tails from Honduras in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes, which isn't illegal under US law, but is against a Honduran regulation (and the kicker is that Honduras sent an amicus brief telling the court that the law wasn't even valid anymore). Three of them were sentenced to 8 years in jail. For lobster tails. Seriously. This isn't just, fair, or sane. It is arbitrary punishment. You're right that I wouldn't like a system teachable to high school students in a semester. I'd just like a system where it doesn't take 4 years of undergrad just to understand the language used to write laws (what something says in English and what it says in Lawyerese are two very different things).

    709. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      When Ireland no longer feels its JUST or RIGHT they will change their laws.

      And how would they go about changing the law? I would assume that happens by public discussion about what is right -- exactly the thing that's happening here.

      You just keep telling everyone we can't have this conversation, so it's a little confusing :)

    710. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot the part where everyone but the richest guy is working for a living, and the richest guy doesn't, since he gets a cut off of everyone else's work.

      I hear this a lot. Can you back it up. And no Bill Gates and co don't count. These guys worked bloody hard and took big risks to get their respective companies started and keep them going. They didn't just sit around collecting everyone else's "tax".

      I think its just jealously. You think you deserve to be "rich" more than the next fellow. Well you don't. Some are rich because they worked hard and got a little bit lucky, some are rich because they got lucky and some are rich cus daddy was lucky. But that makes them no less deserving of wealth than you.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    711. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      IF they deserve that success.

      Which is a totally arbitrary metric and left open to just if someone likes the person or not. ie an Apple fan boy is happy Jobs is rich, but that stinky slimy weasel that is Bill Gates.....

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    712. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Because those are the people paying the most in taxes to start with. If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of taxes are paid by the vast minority of the people.

      This is only because the vast minority of the people have the vast majority of the wealth.

    713. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Actually, most countries that assess corporate and personal income taxes do so on global income for resident/locally headquartered individuals and corporations, and on local income for nonresident individuals and foreign corporations.

      The US is the only country that I'm aware of that expects you to actually pay tax on foreign income. Others merely use that foreign income to set your "base" before calculating their own tax rates.

      Eg:
      You earn $20k overseas and $50k locally:
      In the US, you will be taxed on all $70k (potentially minus a credit if you paid tax on the $20k in another country).
      In other countries, you will only pay tax on the $50k, but the tax bracket(s) that $50k falls into will be calculated starting from $20k rather than $0 (ie: you will pay tax on $50k, but at a rate as if your income was actually $70k).

    714. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      Proportionally vastly less, however. Regressive taxes (like a flat income tax, or sales taxes) always benefit the rich because they have to spend a relatively tiny proportion of their income on necessities.

      All regressive taxes achieve is accelerating the concentration of wealth into the "elite".

    715. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Income tax, perhaps. But they do pay sales tax, gasoline tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    716. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Now, here's some facts: we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now, at least a few generations or so. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor in the USA has only increased. In fact, what's happening is that the middle class is shrinking, the upper class is staying relatively stable, and the poor are growing.

      The tax rates on the rich in the US have been dropping dramatically for decades. You *used* to practice progressive taxation, but you've been doing your best to get away from it. Hence the rapidly increasing income disparity and collapsing middle class.

      Any regressive tax regime (flat income tax, sales tax, etc) will only increase the speed at which that happens. If you play your cards right, US society could be back to a system of serfs and lords (sorry, wage slaves and CxOs) within half a century !

    717. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, the bottom half of wage earners don't pay income taxes. So I guess, the poor don't pay taxes either.

    718. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      I'd love it if I was only taxed twice.

      1) I get paid, they take taxes.
      2) I buy something like a house, I pay sales tax.
      3) Then continuing to own that house, I pay a % of value on that house as a tax every year.
      3.5) if I sell the house, and make a net profit over what I paid, I pay a tax on that profit as income"
      4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.

      It's a great system....if you're a government.

      I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction. Why, again, are they entitled to that?

      Because it is the government that creates and maintains the atmosphere and environment in which each and every one of those transactions is enabled.

      You get paid for working. How do you know you will get paid? What happens if you don't get paid? Who maintains the courts and systems of laws that allow you to redress grievances if you don't receive your pay?

      A house can be valuable in and of itself, but many are more valuable because of connections to public utilities, interconnected rights of way (roads) and services like public safety and waste removal. Where do those come from?

      Capital gains are windfall gains that come from speculative activities. If income you make from the sweat of your brow is taxable, why should income from windfalls not be? Can you honestly say you want laborers to pay taxes, but speculators need not? What of companies and individuals whose entire income is derived from capital gains?

      You paid taxes on your earnings. Your progeny get the benefits of the sweat of your brow without lifting a finger. What kind of society says that your labor is taxable, but their inherited wealth is not?

      If your neighbor decides he doesn't want to pay you for the nice hammer he's just taken from you, and threatens to hit you with it instead, who are you going to call to protect yourself from him-- or should everyone just do that themselves?

      The idea of taxing everything just once is ineffective, because eventually too much weatlh and property falls into the category of "already been taxed once" and flows through channels that aren't taxed. In general, the idea is to encourage transactions to happen and to take just enough from each of those transactions to support the environment that enables the transaction without actively discouraging the transaction. Reducing everything to a payroll tax and removing everything else provides a disincentive to work, and asymmetrically benefits all those whose income comes from sources other than traditional labor.

    719. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by martyros · · Score: 1

      Because we don't pay taxes on assets, but on income. Paying taxes on held assets would be completely broken.

      Do you own a mortgage? Have a pension plan? Own stock? How far do you think you'd get paying off your mortgage if every year you had to pay 30% of the equity in taxes? How well do you think you'd be able to save for retirement if you had to pay 30% of your portfolio in taxes every year?

      Although I guess one might argue, the total value of all assets owned by people in the US far outweighs not only their income, but even the money in the system; so that if we abolished taxes on income and only taxed assets, the tax rate might be a lot lower, like 2%.

      But then you might run into other problems, like people would avoid owning things to avoid paying taxes; and how do you valuate all of the assets you own?

      But it's an interesting idea.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    720. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Just think about it....who were the wealthiest and most powerful men in Socrates era? in Galileo era? did they deserve to have more wealth and money than Socrates, Galieo, Da Vinci or Mozart?

      They were aristocracy and descendants of aristocracy. "Deserve" had nothing to do with it. That was not a meritocratic age. They were wealthy, destined to be so by God and luck, and it was their privilege, even their duty, to flaunt it.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    721. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Who rallies in the street to keep poor people paying taxes? This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever modded 5 Insightful

      When your US teabaggers rally to cut taxes/government it is the poor people who will suffer and the rich who get better off, you clueless dimwit.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    722. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If a rich man is set on an island, he can still make money seeing how his money doesn't have to be on the island.

      * whoosh *

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    723. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LQ · · Score: 1

      That's $60 billion total per year. Not just from Google but from every American business using these tax loopholes (Microsoft and Facebook included).

      And that could keep the Afghan war going for, like, 5 months. Why should they pay big taxes to a government that'll just throw it away?

    724. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      There'd be huge winners and huge losers, and I've met quite a few people in favor of the system that didn't realize that they'd be by far on the losing team.

      Are you sure about that? Seems to me that a lot of people who support a Flat Tax system are doing so on ideological grounds, and are willing to accept higher taxes if, in exchange, they get a country closer to what they want.

      That is where I stand, anyway. I do not know whether I would be paying more or less, but I do not care. I want a fair tax system.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    725. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you cut 20% off the tax bill, there are inevitable effects on the wider economy, you can't just look at the lucky rich people who now have more money to spend on increasing their wealth.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    726. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      To say that "we've been doing this "progressive taxation" thing for quite a while now" is blatantly false, precisely because of all the loopholes. Capital gains taxed at 10%, the very loopholes as shown in this very article we are discussing, and a horde of other ways that the rich pay lower taxes.

      He said that we've been doing it for a while, and it doesn't work. Now, if it doesn't work because no one lets it work and adds special cases and loopholes, rather than because the math is bogus, that still means it...doesn't work. Time to try something else that may succeed better.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    727. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Since you brought it up, you should tell us where the point of fairness begins. How much of what you earn should you be able to keep? After all, 95% of $30,000 is not as comfortable as 5% of $1,000,000. Almost, but not quite.

    728. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      If the IRS doesn't intend this to be legal, then they need to change the statutes and/or regulations; otherwise any money "lost" in this way is their fault.

      You know it is not up to the IRS. Congress makes these laws and relies on the IRS to somehow make it work. I am sure every staffer there dreams of the day when the laws start making sense. I imagine they have an underground archive full of brilliant tax systems that would see the United States well-funded and the citizens happy, but those bright futures are gathering dust behind a door marked "beware of leopard," while their authors are aging 10 years every time Congress sends out a new round of "tax code revisions."

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    729. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nyri · · Score: 1

      In response to your FYI, the top 5% is earners over $157K, and above 250K is a meager 1.57%. Thus that $700B will be distributed over a mere 1,699 households over the next 10 years.

      1,699 thousand.

    730. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by somersault · · Score: 1

      What was the intended purpose of that comment? Trying to say that there are no economical issues? Trying to rub it in the face of those who are having problems? I don't get it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    731. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

      Yeah, that happens. Like in 60-s when US top rates were about 80% and rich people emigrated in droves. Not.

    732. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nhaehnle · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income.

      Nonsense. Poor people pay no income tax. There are lots of other types of taxes out there.

      What the distribution of the tax burden ultimately ends up being is another question, and I do not have concrete data about the US. But to claim that poor people pay no taxes is just plain wrong and distorts the discussion.

    733. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But that's because the top 1% make more now. The wealth is more concentrated and the income more so. And that will result in a concentration of the taxes as well. Compare the percentage of income of that top 1% for the periods mentioned and get back to us.

      And I judge all tax schemes by how much they tax Paris Hilton. She has no wages, but is a billionaire. Trusts, inheritance, capital gains, and such are the toys of the rich and get the rich paying a smaller percentage of their income than the upper middle class. I'm talking comparing the billionaires tax percentages as a percentage of increase in controlled wealth (real income, not AGI as defined by the IRS) having single digit tax rates in almost all cases. And nothing done in all these plans touches that. They all encourage the concentration of wealth and few taxes on the real wealth. Just skim off the top of the millionaires and pretend that's taxing the rich.

    734. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by nhaehnle · · Score: 1

      Please explain why you support the government wasting over 3 trillion dollars of borrowed Chinese money, and then please explain why people opposed to that make you so angry.

      No need, as I don't believe the money is wholly wasted. What makes me angry is the 4-7 trillion dollars we've spent and have accrued liability for with pointless boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people who blindly support those "wars". But that's beside the point.

      I agree with that, though I would also add that the expression "3 trillion dollars of borrowed Chinese money" shows a gross misunderstanding of how the US monetary system works. You may be interested in an economic approach to understanding fiat money called the Modern Monetary Theory.

      The fact of the matter is that the Chinese earned US$ by selling goods to the US. This money ended up in an account at the central bank (the Fed). This account can be thought of as a checking account. The act of buying US treasury bonds is equivalent to shifting that money from a checking account into an interest earning savings account.

      In other words, it is not the US government that spends money borrowed from the Chinese. Rather, the Chinese are saving money that they earned from the US, money that comes from US federal spending.

      It is important to understand the distinction. For a first reading, I recommend The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds by Warren Mosler. Also, billy blog by Australian economist Bill Mitchell makes for interesting reading.

    735. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I hear this a lot. Can you back it up.

      You do know about stocks and dividends, right?

      And no Bill Gates and co don't count. These guys worked bloody hard and took big risks to get their respective companies started and keep them going. They didn't just sit around collecting everyone else's "tax".

      Actually, according to both US and EU courts, ol'Bill's success is based on criminal activities. But I guess a criminal could still be hard-working...

      But yes, Bill built his own company, no matter how unethical, illegal and harmful his methods might have been. Most rich people haven't, but simply inherited enough money from their parents to live off the interest - in other words, other people's work.

      I think its just jealously. You think you deserve to be "rich" more than the next fellow. Well you don't. Some are rich because they worked hard and got a little bit lucky, some are rich because they got lucky and some are rich cus daddy was lucky. But that makes them no less deserving of wealth than you.

      So, if they're no more deserving of being rich and getting a free ride than the rest of us, why should they get one at our expense? Tax them their fair share and use the money to fix crumbling infrastructure and pay up national debt.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    736. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Not at all! If there's no jack-booted thug standing behind us with a gun pointed at our backs, we're free to pool our resources. We can set up whatever agreement we like, and arrange what happens if I'm stupid enough to step into the street in front of a bus tomorrow morning.

      You do realize that "corporation" is just a standardized way of handling such arrangements, right? And lack of standardized corporation formats will simply make it easier for conmen to fool the gullible out of their money.

      Dunno what you mean by "jack-booted thug", since freeform partnership is certainly possible to do right now. It's simply that limited liability corporations tend to work better in practice, so most opt for that instead.

      Any "corporation" that grows "too big to fail" needs to be broken into smaller pieces so it isn't. This isn't just a matter of "general welfare." It's a matter of national security.

      Agreed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    737. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough, when it's a rich person/company doing it people point out how 'clever' they are, but when it's a poor schmuck trying to make a living, the same people complain about dishonesty and how *they* need to pay taxes.

    738. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where exactly has "stimulus" worked in the past?

    739. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      So is it just to demand that a german company in germany pay all their taxes in ameria or that an american company in america pay all their tax is germany just because they're associated in some way with a company in the other country?

    740. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ZFox · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You do know about stocks and dividends, right?"

      You do know that they are still taking a risk with their money, right? Here are some other questions to ponder: Just what does happen to that money they invest? Does it just disappear into a magical money farting machine?

      There are, however, major problems when risk is regulated away in an effort to control the cyclical nature of the markets and companies performing risky business practices being too big to fail.

    741. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Households making over $250,000 are 1.5% of the population.

      And your citation is?

      According to the CBO (in the same URL I cited above), there were 1.2 million households in the top 1% in 2007. That's 1.3% of the total.

      The minimum adjusted income for the top 1% was $352,900 in 2007. That's normalized to a single person household. Multiply that number by the square root of the number of people in the household to calculate the amount for multiple-person households.

      If we lower the threshold to the top 5%, then it's 5.9 million households, or 5% of the total. The minimum adjusted income was $141,900. That's closer to the $250,000 threshold for a couple with 2 children, but still not quite there.

      Therefore, your assertion is demonstrably wrong, and I won't bother with the rest -- other than to point out that "wealth" is usually considered equivalent to "assets", neither of which are the same as "income".

    742. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003

      Did you bother to read the definition of capital income in your citation? It's only a subset of all income.

      That one factor alone makes your following assertions demonstrably false. But, I'll leave it to you as an exercise: maybe you'll learn something. You can start with the CBO figures I started earlier.

    743. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Who rallies in the street to keep poor people paying taxes?

      Obviously you've never been to a Tea Party rally.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    744. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being a huge asshole. Hope it helps you sleep better at night.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    745. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why it is a fairy tale. We've been taking the wealth of the "producers" for hundreds of years, and everything keeps moving merrily along. If you want to give up, fine, but there is always someone out there who'd be happy to eat your lunch. I am quite familiar with the work of Ms. Rand. I find the people who are fans of it to either not be very bright or not have thought it through. Which one are you?

    746. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (and yes, rich people will still pay more in taxes. Even if they just put the money in the bank, it will be spent eventually.)

      More in absolute terms, but proportionally much less. Sales taxes are regressive - they make poorer people pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. A poor person can't afford to save, they spend everything that they earn on essentials. A rich person has numerous investments and savings that would not be taxed - they spend a much smaller proportion of their income.

      Yes but they will have to spend the money eventually. Even savings have to be eventually spent.

    747. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The difference being that rich people don't leave when they get lumbered with higher taxes. Well, a few of them do and it gets a lot of press, but most don't.

      Also you can't deny that rich people pay a smaller proportion of their disposable income in tax than poorer people do. That is why VAT (sales tax in the US) is unfair - putting it up by 1% has a disproportionate effect on the poor even though the price is the same to everyone.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    748. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People who advocate government austerity in the face of a deep recession are asking for the recession to deepen, and for the deficit to get worse."

      We have spent billions of dollars on stimlus packages during past two years and what has happened? The recession has deepened and the deficit has gotten worse. The tax and spend plan should have fixed this by now.

    749. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paulhar · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what your basis for judging brightness is, nor do I accept that I am ignorant as I would say I have thought through the implications of book.

      I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are though since they are obviously different to mine.

    750. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NoSig · · Score: 1

      I want to say that no company pays sales tax on anything, though they are required to collect sales tax when selling to individuals, as that has always been my impression. However, I have been unable to find support for this position on the internet. So I'm not sure. I can't imagine that having a middleman incurs a 25% tax hit, though.

    751. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      If you want to get a comment modded +5 Insightful, you just have to type something like "Taxes? We don' need no stinkin' taxes!"

    752. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You can seek the root cause of this problem and attempt to solve it while retaining progressive taxation. What I was saying there, in the previous post, is that whether or not you have a progressive tax is irrelevant to the problem of the wealth gap. The fact that both the USA and other nations have progressive taxation, yet some of those have huge wealth gaps and others don't only reinforces my belief that such gaps have causes that have little or nothing to do with methods of taxation.

      No, what it shows is that a progress tax code is insufficient on its own to solve the wealth gap problem. But did it ever occur to you that there is no silver bullet, single solution to the wealth gap problem? That there is no one, singular root cause? That a spectrum of tools might be necessary? And that one of those tools is a well-designed, progressive tax code?

      No, of course not. Your world is too black-and-white for that.

      And note I said "well-designed". Your little piece of "evidence" there might just be evidence that a poorly designed progressive tax code is no better than a regressive tax. And given the US government is bought and paid for by the rich, what do you want to bet the tax code isn't a terribly well-designed progressive system?

    753. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement....

      And this is where the analogy breaks down. The math that you cite is reasonably illustrative. What makes this not anything at all like our current tax system is pretending we're at a happy, stable point where everyone is satisfied.

      Where's the paragraph where the 10th man is lobbying to have men 1-4 kicked out of the group for being freeloaders? Or accusing them of intentionally making themselves thirsty so they can consume more of the 10th's man's generous beer?

    754. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      You can cite me, I know plenty of rich people in my business, and they are the hardest working people I know. Because they know how to make a deal doesn't mean they are exploitative. Here's a clue; you'll never get rich bussing tables or picking grapes. I don't care if the country becomes a Trotskyite Socialist Paradise, you will NEVER make any money not owning things. Reality check for ya there.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    755. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you mark as "poor". If you set your "poor" marker low enough, then the answer is "because they need food, shelter, clean water, clothing and other basic needs and have very little left to really take."

      If we set the bar for "poor" a little higher, then I agree with you, though I feel the need to note that even the poor pay some taxes, even if only to the state, as they're only really exempted from income tax.

      That "1% on all banking transactions" thing seems more and more like a good idea the more I think about it, but it would never come to be simply because the people most effected by it would be so called "investment firms" who make hundreds+ stock market transactions every millisecond or so -- you can say they improve the market by improving liquidity, but frankly I can't think of any case where you need liquidity to the extent that waiting 1 second, or even 1 minute would be a meaningful problem with any frequency, and slowing the market down just a hair (which this would likely have the side effect of, by making huge numbers of super-rapid transactions costly) would help prevent things like that ridiculous mini-crash not all that long ago.

    756. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you mark as "poor". If you set your "poor" marker low enough, then the answer is "because they need food, shelter, clean water, clothing and other basic needs and have very little left to really take."

      True, but if they make such little money then it's fair to say they don't work full time. In that case, if they don't have enough money to pay taxes, they can do community service or some type of government sponsored work. Not too much, just enough so that the connection between "the government does stuff for me" and "but it costs me money/time" is established.

      That "1% on all banking transactions" thing seems more and more like a good idea the more I think about it

      Hm, how many banking transactions are involved with your paycheck? I know customers have to deposit money into their accounts (1), then transfer it to my company (2), then my company transfers it to me (3), then I transfer it to pay my bills (4) and I have very little left over. Then the people I pay have to pay additional transfer taxes so they raise their prices. It seems it could become a very high tax indirectly, and it would affect regular working people maybe more than you think.

    757. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say this was one of the better posts I have read on /. Some of my very close friends and I were discussing a very similar topic to this a few weeks ago. We began discussing taxes and how they end up being treated as an expense by organizations and in-turn rolled into products which consumers pay for anyways. It is a very interesting thought process on taxes and the economy. I am curious as to what others think of this type of a model.

    758. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      But if that is the case, how is it possible for anyone to not get any beer? (i.e. the "system" works for the poorest just as it does for the richest, all he has to do is take advantage of it: i.e. get an education , work hard, etc.)

      What the OP forgot to mention is that the rich guy drinks German beer, the guys in the middle drink Canadian beer, and the guys drinking for free get American beer.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    759. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Corporations are a very special kind of partnership, with all sorts of legal benefits and protections that aren't available to average people.

      Since the Supreme Court recognized them as people, they've grown into something of a privileged class.

      If you or I decided to cut enough corners in a business venture to kill 11 people and cause unfathomable environmental damage, we'd (at the very least) be bankrupt and looking at extremely long jail sentences. (Deep Horizon oil spill).

      When I mention jack-booted thugs, I'm pointing out that any law is, ultimately, enforced by some guy with a gun and a license to kill.

    760. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average person starts off with a base non federal (mostly state) tax rate of over 10%. That ignores state income tax- its just school tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, phone tax, car license tax, toll road fees.

      That tax rate is fixed (if you have a cell phone, your taxes are about $30 regardless of if you are rich or poor).

      That means the effective tax rate on the wealthy is .03% for the same taxes

      BS. You like pulling numbers out of your ass? Those tax rates are more like 1-2% or the average person.

      >After that you have social security tax. 7.5% on people making up to about $100k. (but a "hidden additional 7.5% you don't see). Not paid by the wealthy again.

      BS. (Unless by wealthy, you mean the top .01%) Just because someone is a millionaire (which I suspect you consider wealthy) it doesn't actually mean they make millions of dollars a year in capital gains. 99% of those you consider wealthy, have income subject to social security and those who pay at the highest rates will never get their money back. You are also forgetting medicare which has no income limit and you are also somehow forgetting the new healthcare taxes which hit all investment income.

      >...Federal income tax is just a red herring. but even there, the wealthy can structure their "income" as "dividends" and other tax advantaged income and pay a much lower rate on their income than everyone else.

      It's broken. The top .5% are getting about 20% of the income and have about 40% of the wealth. They should be paying about 20% of the income taxes and 40% of the property taxes.

      YES, they should! Unfortunately they are paying 58%(!) of the taxes (and that is just counting federal - they pay a larger percentage of state income taxes.

      http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    761. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by fritsd · · Score: 1
      In this context, you and the other Slashdotters might be interested in this recent BBC article: From grinding poverty to Hollywood in three generations - Richard Bilton. It's about poor people in 1910 participating in a statistical study about poverty in the U.K., which for the first time put some concrete data to light: e.g.

      Monday: * Breakfast - Tea, bread and margarine * Dinner - Tea, bread and margarine * Supper - Tea, bread

      (presumably this was before the guy who wrote that diary got his job in the chocolate factory).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    762. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      "True, but if they make such little money then it's fair to say they don't work full time. In that case, if they don't have enough money to pay taxes, they can do community service or some type of government sponsored work. Not too much, just enough so that the connection between "the government does stuff for me" and "but it costs me money/time" is established."

      Honestly, for many types of welfare, I've thought exactly that, that requiring them to do X amount of labor for the state wasn't a terrible idea.

      The "welfare as a career choice because I don't want to be bothered to work" types really piss me off though, as opposed to the ones who really do put forth every effort to try to not need it and do anyways, usually because of something outside their control, like a child with an expensive and medium-long term illness (I actually know one of those cases, they'd be off all government assistance and able to save a little even if their child wasn't sick, instead they get HUD-sponsored income-adjusted housing and food stamps).

      "Hm, how many banking transactions are involved with your paycheck? I know customers have to deposit money into their accounts (1), then transfer it to my company (2), then my company transfers it to me (3), then I transfer it to pay my bills (4) and I have very little left over. Then the people I pay have to pay additional transfer taxes so they raise their prices. It seems it could become a very high tax indirectly, and it would affect regular working people maybe more than you think."

      Yeah, I was considering how often transactions occur. The original claim made (before Congress shot that whole idea down) regarding that was that a 1% tax there would generate enough income to do away with income tax entirely and have a surplus to start paying down the debt with.

      It's a tiny tax, but it's a tiny tax that gets applied all over the place and makes up for only generating small income per transaction by the sheer volume of transactions effected.

    763. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hazydave · · Score: 1

      They want it both ways -- the taxes on businesses are "too high"... on paper, so they complain about them. But in reality, they're not paying anything close to the base tax rate for a business... no business worth its salt is paying anything close to what a business in Europe would pay, much less the expected rate for a US company.

      And yeah, it's the same for individuals. Warren Buffett came out about this a few years ago -- don't recall if he was #1 or #3 richest in the country back then, but it doesn't matter. He was paying a lower tax rate ON HIS INDIVIDUAL INCOME that I was that year (and I'm sure, most of us with a good job but not "wealth").

      They seem to have convinced the low-information voters that this is a Good Thing, and that somehow, this is going to affect their taxes. Just as they were convinced that the inheritance tax (eg, the "Death Tax") would somehow be a huge burden when willing that double-wide to their kin-folk. Even with the $1,000,000 exclusion at the time...

      Of course, being idiots, they don't realize that Buffett is getting the same tax breaks on his first $50,000 as anyone making $50,000, and he's paying the same taxes on his first $100,000 as I am... it's just that for me, that's all year, and for him, that's like lunchtime on January 1. He's telling us all he SHOULD be paying higher taxes (and by extension, other very rich people) I don't understand why we don't listen.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    764. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by WarrenLong · · Score: 1

      Any company which does not take advantage of these tax loopholes is doing something dumb and will not be in business very long. If you don't feel good about the loopholes, then work to get them changed.

    765. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by fritsd · · Score: 1

      You're describing a Progressive tax system. I thought every country had this as income tax formula :-)

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    766. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by oncebitter · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr. Straw; nice to meet you.

      I'm not rallying against income disparity here (nor advocating Communism!)-- the world is an inherently cruel & unfair place; we create society to mitigate against that.

    767. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is incorporated and headquartered in the US. It has most of its network and IT infrastructure here. The supreme court has upheld corporate personhood, so all the responsibilities of citizenship should also apply. If you were to try to hide the majority of your income in Germany to avoid paying taxes you'd go to prison. Why should Google get away with it?

      Google enjoys the services and protections of our commons: police, fire, roads, a publicly educated workforce, patent and copyright protections, and the courts. They should pay their fair share for that.

    768. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      But the wealthy don't spend on goods and services proportionately to their wealth. They end up with extra left over, and the greater your income, the greater the disparity.

      This would mean that in order for a sales-tax only system to work, the tax rate would have to be at least 30% or more, which would be utterly crippling to the poorest in the nation.

    769. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TelavianX · · Score: 1

      I think the econmical issues are somewhat to do with people not wanting to leave their comfort zones. Maybe the person should learn a new skill. Maybe they should move to a new place. Maybe they should stop watching so much TV.

    770. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NevDull · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, we don't have any eunuchs admin requisitions.

    771. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Fine, that particular argument of mine was wrong, but the larger point is still true. Here's why:

      First, the chart I provided showed tax rates beginning in 1960. The tax rates for the rich drop around the late 1970s. It fluctuates a bit between 1980 and present day. The PDF you provided paints the same picture as I just described - in the first page of your PDF, you can see that the tax rate of the rich fluctuates a bit (presumably because of a fluctuating economy and stock market), but don't really change. Most notable is the fact that your chart doesn't begin until 1979 - two decades after mine begins. Your chart leaves out the two decades where the tax rates were higher on the rich. (You can see the declining tax rates on the rich at the very beginning of your table - where, in 1979, the richest 1% paid 37%.) Also, your chart shows the richest 1%, but not the richest 0.01% as my chart did.

      So, how is it possible that the rich pay a larger percentage of the federal budget in 2010 than they did in 1980 when the tax rates are roughly the same? In part because the richest 1% in 2010 make more money than the richest 1% in 1980. There's also a slight tax increase on the richest 20%, and a slight decrease on the poorest 40%.

      I also find it funny that republicans complain that Obama is some kind of socialist / communist. Looking at the tax rates on the rich, we were putting a lot more of the tax burden on the rich during the 1960s and 1970s than today. I guess we can conclude that the United States was a socialist/communist country during the Space Race and the Cold War.

    772. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by brit74 · · Score: 1

      By the way, the same paper also included a table of income distribution in 1980 through 2006:

      Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006
      1980: Top 1% earned 12.8% of all income, Bottom 80% earned 48.1% of all income
      2006: Top 1% earned 21.3% of all income, Bottom 80% earned 38.6% of all income

    773. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by hazydave · · Score: 1

      If you look at the numbers, the vast majority of MONEY is being made by a small minority of the people (I don't think a minority can be vast, so I won't exactly parallel your statement here). As of 2007, 15% of the US population owned 85% of the country's wealth; the top 1% owned 34.6% of the country's wealth. But you look at financial wealth (eg, subtract your house's value), the top 1% owned 42.7% of the country's financial wealth.

      [Edward N. Wolff, New York University: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html%5D

      It's a little bit worse globally -- the top 10% control 83% of the world's wealth... the top 1% control 43% of the world's wealth. Worse, but only a little bit.

      And these are 2007 figures. It's worse now.

      So basically, the bottom 85% of the country is sharing 15% of the wealth. Any question, now, about why some of these people aren't taxed -- the don't make enough to be taxed. No one's paying taxes on the first $20,000 or so of income (varies by your household/dependencies)... not you, not me, not Warren Buffett. We all get that same tax break... so stop complaining about poor people not paying taxes. What's disturbing is that I'm paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than Warren Buffett is, despite his being in that 1% (and 0.1%, etc) exclusive club.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    774. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you got the $9.50... They are mostly military, single income, with kids...and they very much live paycheck to paycheck.

    775. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 1
      I apologize for the insult. You have shamed me by your better behavior.

      I do not believe that the free market exists. A truly free market tends towards monopoly, which destroys the free market. In order for a "somewhat" free market to exist, government intervention is necessary. Once you acknowledge the need for government, we can debate what type. I do not accept the notion that "smaller" government is always better. I believe in "necessary" government - enough government to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. Libertarianism seeks the solution of the least government possible, believing the free market will ultimately seek the best solution - but the free market doesn't exist. I will not throw out a better solution (such as single payer health care, which would be cheaper for everyone concerned, with a better outcomes) just because it is a "big government" solution. I find Libertarianism to emphasize moral correctness - individuality and liberty - over effectiveness. If I force you to give me $25 for your medical care, aren't you better off than if you willingly paid $100? I believe that the efficiencies saved by forcing your hand outweigh the immorality of doing so. You can hate my guts all you like, but you'll do so with $75 dollars in your pocket.

    776. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      some are rich because they got lucky and some are rich cus daddy was lucky. But that makes them no less deserving of wealth than you.

      Wait, you think a guy who is handed a fortune from daddy is no less deserving than somebody who actually did something to deserve the wealth other than be born to somebody who was already wealthy?

      Odd, that.

    777. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'd love it if I was only taxed twice.

      1) I get paid, they take taxes.

      And if they take too much, you get some of it back.

      2) I buy something like a house, I pay sales tax.

      I have bought a house in four states with a sales tax and none of them charge sales tax for home purchases.

      3) Then continuing to own that house, I pay a % of value on that house as a tax every year.

      I like schools and electricity and sewer systems and fire departments.

      3.5) if I sell the house, and make a net profit over what I paid, I pay a tax on that profit as income"

      Because by definition, you selling your house for a profit is "income", which is taxable.

      4) if it's a valuable house/property, if I will it to my children on my death, they get hit with a massive estate tax.

      Most likely won't affect you. Less than 2% of deaths a year are subject to the Estate Tax.

      It's a great system....if you're a government.

      Indeed it is. This is a big country with 300+ million people. It doesn't run on Turkish Lyra.

      I sell my hammer to my neighbor, according to the government I should be paying taxes on that transaction. Why, again, are they entitled to that?

      Because it is enumerated in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

      What, you don't like the Constitution?

    778. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The poor pay the same 8% that I do. They just have less purchasing power, which isn't the fault of the tax system.

    779. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I love the comment about the comfort zones, and I know that those that are motivated don't have an issue crossing comfort zones. I went from making 80k+ as a Navy Contractor, to Driving a Tow Truck, then back to network admin, but at far below market.

      I have *just* Recently Fixed that situation towards the better, and I still have my nads. *Grin*.

      As an addendum, I ran the tow company too. When interviewing for my replacement I met people with degree's and major experience in IT, all trying to drive a tow truck and get woke up all hours of the night. So, Jobs in the IT sector were, and are in the cropper. In Florida at the time anyways.

      Never Assume. Cause I felt the same way until I experienced it myself.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    780. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Well, because 40k gross income for a 2 income household over a year would indicate an approximate hourly wage for each adult at around $9.50 an hour.

      Of course I find your tax work impressive, since I make under 30k as a single childless individual and I pay out close to 10k a year in federal taxes, of course that includes SS and Medicare Maybe there are deductions and credits I'm unaware of but in ten years I've never received more back than I pay, or even close.

    781. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      I'm only talking income tax. Get married and have a couple of kids and you will see a difference. Being single gets you screwed. Even so, you should be paying under $2k if your doing your taxes right. An example from 2009 was: W2 gross Income: $21,600 Refund including credits: $7900 (includes $4900 EIC, $2000 child credit, $800 making work pay credit) There was some additional non-taxable combat pay as well.

    782. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by El+Rey · · Score: 1

      Typical obfuscation argument I hear all the time. Total BS!

      It's about percentage of income not about total dollars. In the US, the rich guy pays 15% of his income. I pay 25%. How is that fair exactly?

      That's why people are pissed. The rich are not paying their fair share. All I want is for them to pay the same percentage that I pay.

      That's why consumption taxes like the “Fair Tax” are also BS. If I live paycheck to paycheck and spend 100% of my income, 100% of my income is taxed. If I'm rich enough that I don't need to live paycheck to paycheck less than 100% of my income is taxed.

    783. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've actually seriously considered being a delivery driver from time to time, even before the "crisis". In fact the business I work for wasn't doing that well just before the worldwide downturn, but started doing quite well around the time the crisis hit, so I've been less worried about money than ever. But still, if I left my current job I would seriously consider being a delivery driver for a while.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    784. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by paulhar · · Score: 1

      I also apologise. My intention was not to cause offence but instead understand better.

      I also do not believe a free market exists, but as an ideal I prefer a free market to a regulated market.

      As for a monopoly, I am not sure we do not have them even in markets that the governments highly regulate, such as the water industries in the UK where I live where we pretend we have a market yet only have a single regulated supplier for the utility, and in other industries like gas we pretend there is competition yet that is just for billing as the gas is still provided by a single supplier, ran through pipes where we license the use, etc.

      Would I prefer you take $25 for $100 worth of value? Sure... But someone else needs to fund that $75 shortfall and the worst case scenario is that everyone needs the $100 but only $25 was collected. In some cases where it is obvious that the person cannot pay and has no ability to pay would I turn them away for example because they are incapable mentally or physically? I hope not. Though I would prefer the option of doing so rather than being forced to under duress.

    785. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by El+Rey · · Score: 1

      It's not disingenuous when the rich are being "paid" in stocks so that they can be taxed at 15% as capital gains when the rest of us are paying more than 15% because we don't have the ability to hide our "compensation" as something other than "income".

      Another BS argument to hide the truth in legal semantics.

    786. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by El+Rey · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

    787. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by El+Rey · · Score: 1

      No consumption tax can be fair. Period.

      If you have to spend 100% of your paycheck just to keep from starving to death, 100% of your income is taxed. The richer you are the less of a percentage of your income you will pay because as we've seen time and time again, the rich don't spend as high a percentage of their income as the middle class does. Taxed at 100% of income vs. taxed at less than 100% of income equals not fair.

      A flat percentage of all compensation (rather than the limited legal definition of "income") would be fair.

      That's why Obama is not interested in giving a tax cut to the rich. For the economy to improve people need to spend. If you look at the outcomes from previous tax cuts, the rich put the money in the bank. The middle class and poor spent it. Tax cuts for the rich are a bad return on investment.

    788. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      But by all means, continue ignoring the reality that our greatest period of growth was right after WW2 when we had 90% tax brackets.

      If I have $5m and want to start a company, I will be risking that money if the company does poorly I loose it all if the company does very well and I have $1m is profits a year under your tax plan I will only be making 100k a year back it would take me 50 years to make the money back. The problem with high taxes is simply the risk outweighs the reward, without a carrot innovation will dwindle.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    789. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm estimating that the 250K/200K cutoff separates the top 10% from the bottom 90%.

      A reasonable guess. I turns out to be off by a bit more than a factor of two. For 2007, last year for which I found data:

      Top 20%: 264,700
      Top 10%: 394,500
      Top 5%: 611,200
      Top 1%: 1,873,000

    790. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax revenues go up when you have a tax increase as well. When the economy grows and/or inflation works its magic tax revenues go up. I've seen studies that say tax revenues would have gone up more with a tax hike.

      Kennedy lowered the top marginal tax rates but he also closed a lot of loopholes so I don't think your argument holds that much water.

    791. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the wrong line in the chart. The previous post was for average income per category and is skewed by the earnings of the top 1%. Here is the correct line.

      Minimum income to be in the category in 2007:

      Top 10%: 102,900
      Top 5%: 141,900
      Top 1%: 352,900

      So again you are off by more than a factor of two. Just in the other direction. :)

    792. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're making over $100,000 and you're still living paycheck to paycheck then you're not doing it right.

    793. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by causality · · Score: 1
      I appreciate your dissent but not your tone. It's far too demeaning, as though I'm a moron for not automatically seeing it your way.

      No, what it shows is that a progress tax code is insufficient on its own to solve the wealth gap problem. But did it ever occur to you that there is no silver bullet, single solution to the wealth gap problem? That there is no one, singular root cause? That a spectrum of tools might be necessary? And that one of those tools is a well-designed, progressive tax code?

      That runs into one huge problem in the real world: power-hungry politicians. Specifically, here is the problem. Fevered-ego politicians who lust for power and prestige have a gigantic pathology. They have a need to be needed.

      It doesn't serve their purposes to teach a man to fish, because afterwards that man wouldn't need them again. What serves their purposes is to give fish to a man. This is the real problem with wealth redistribution. It certainly could be a "hand up". However, the people who administer it benefit the most if it is a "hand out". They obtain both job security and political power that way.

      So here's the problem. The higher proportion of wealth that is taken from the rich by means of taxes is not being used for a noble purpose. In other words, the intent is not to solve the problem. The intent is to perpetuate the problem. So yes, wealth is redistributed. The pathology is that wealth is redistributed in a manner designed to make the recipients dependent on the redistribution of wealth.

      If you recognize the wealth gap as a problem, and it certainly is, this is the wrong solution. The solution is not to see the wealthy minority and take them down a peg or two. The solution is to take the poorest among us and elevate them, or better still, find a way for them to elevate themselves.

      No, of course not. Your world is too black-and-white for that.

      You could not be farther off the mark. I see the problem as economic, political, cultural, psychological, and yes even spiritual. All of these factors are involved when discussing the fact that there is a small wealthy elite, a growing number of poor, and a shrinking middle class. Very simply, most of it comes down to the ways that freedom, independence, and individuality are compromised. Much of it is about fear, ego, and the surrender of control, self-sufficiency, and personal responsibility. That is what sets the stage for the current situation.

      You don't know the very first, most basic thing about me or my beliefs. Recognize that fact and realize you have wronged me by attempting to trivialize my beliefs and what you will find is not me saying "I told you so" but rather, the beauty of a true meeting of the minds. Really it'd be wonderful if you could see that both you and I are nothing like the forces that we are speaking against, though we have different perspectives of the same.

      And note I said "well-designed". Your little piece of "evidence" there might just be evidence that a poorly designed progressive tax code is no better than a regressive tax. And given the US government is bought and paid for by the rich, what do you want to bet the tax code isn't a terribly well-designed progressive system?

      Ah, but there's the thing. If you take a good hard, independent look at the Fair Tax, I can tell you what you'll find. You'll find that entrenched, established politicians and organizations with real clout fight it at all costs. They will lie, misrepresent, and distort to attempt to make it look bad. I agree with you that the US government has been compromised. So, riddle me this: when real power brokers are against a proposal, do you suppose that's because it represents We The People or them?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    794. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by UCSCTek · · Score: 1

      Ah, so then what happens with small businesses, where the owner or few owners buy things for the "company" and end up just using the stuff for themselves? Perhaps it would just be a matter of type of good. If a company is buying consumer goods they would pay tax, while if they buy barrels of chemicals, they don't.

    795. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Yep, that is a way to not pay sales tax. They have to be able to argue that the purchases are relevant for their business, and in the event that it is discovered that the main use is personal, they are going to be in trouble. Also, in some cases there are taxes you have to pay when a company provides you with items that it is possible for you to use personally, such as if you ever take your work computer home with you.

    796. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think being married usually gets you screwed more often, at least until the marriage breaks down. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself).

    797. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I would give my left nut to make 50k again. I will cut it off myself.

      At this point, I'd cut my left nut off for $40K.

      Hell, I'd cut both of them off for $40K.

    798. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      No, I said it makes them no less deserving than you.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    799. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but compare what happens when a 250k/yr + family loses 10% of their income (to tax in this case) versus, for example, versus a 30k/yr family.

      The former might not get a new car this year, or take that extra vacation, or have to sell the 70' lake yacht and get a 50' lake yacht instead, drop the country club membership, etc. etc.-- basically they'd lose some luxuries.

      For the latter, it might mean a foreclosure, not being able to send little Johnny to college this year, not being able to afford medical care, and what have you. 3k/yr could easily be make or break for a low-income family.

      So really, forgive me if I don't see how it's a fair comparison. I really don't see how the richer folks are being cheated. They are benefiting more from a system that both ends of the spectrum put effort into -- with the people in the low and middle income brackets probably putting in most of the effort.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    800. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Ok, so let's make it about me.

      I'm 40. I was the first in my family to go to college and get a degree, going deeply in debt to do so. I served in the military to pay back some of that debt (and the job market in 93 was pretty bad). I stayed in long enough to add a real life skill to my degree, got out, went to grad school (going back into debt).

      All the while raising a family and having two mortgages.

      I do fine now, but only due to MY actions. In other words, I deserve what I have now more than any trust-fund baby.

      Hell, you don't even have to have my story to be more deserving. You just need to have applied yourself at something.

    801. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually not the case.

      The current proposed tax cuts by both republicans and democrats save the people making up to 150k is a fairly constant 2k. However, for the top 1%, the average savings is 100k.

      I'd be fine with retaining for everyone a 1k tax cut and taking the excess and applying it to the burgeoning deficits. Personally, I'd prefer to let my taxes rise 3k, let theirs rise 100k, and stop spending our grandchildren's money.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    802. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, I'm an American living in Europe. As long as my income is below a certain limit (which sadly is higher than I've ever earned and is basically above the salary of someone in the middle class), my taxes to European country of residence are all I pay on income I earn in the country.

      There are some bad pieces of US tax code (certain requirements to declare assets for people living overseas), but the actual tax portion isn't unreasonable, and for the most part the tax code is trying to do the right thing.

      Oh, btw, I'm getting US services too, e.g. the right to use the US Embassy here (which I did), or the right to use it in England (which I might have needed to do a few months ago). Taxes that I could pay to the USG are partially responsible for supporting my right to use US services overseas.

      n.b., the US Dept of State has tried to change its structure to reflect the fact that most Americans do not use passport services, as such the prices I'm paying for them (abroad) have gone up -- which is reasonable, especially as they aren't getting tax money from me.

    803. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by realnrh · · Score: 1

      The share paid by the top 20% has gone up because the percentage of the national income accumulated by the top 20% has gone up by far more. If you have 100 people, 20 of whom make 100,000 each and 80 of whom make 10,000 each, and everyone pays a flat 10% tax, then the top 20% will pay 200,000 total while the bottom 80% pays 160,000 total. Then adjust it over time so the top 20 make 1,000,000 each while the bottom 80% make 20,000 each, but give the top 20 a 5% rate instead, and the top 20 pay 1,000,000 total while the bottom pay 320,000 - and so those top 20% who are making 50 times more than everyone else complain about how they're 'unfairly' paying too much, despite paying half the tax rate. It's a gross simplification, but the effect you're noting is not the wealthy paying an unfair amount; it's an effect of growing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which is not a stable situation.

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    804. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And booze taxes, gasoline taxes, cell phone taxes, cable tv taxes, water taxes, electricity taxes, car license taxes, property taxes (which are in your rent), school taxes (also in your rent), franchise fees, natural gas taxes, toll road fees, battery reclaimation fees, tire recycling fees, state park fees, fishing permits (a tax on fishing), hunting, boating, jet skiing, etc. etc. etc.

      It was 10.3% in 2007. In 2009 it is up to 12% for the bottom quintile. It's about 6% for people making in the middle quintile. How about the top 1%?-- it's .03% of their income.

      Fixed taxes hit the poor very hard.

      The wealthy are putting a lot of money into getting taxes lowered. Don't buy their propaganda. Understand that even "liberal" tv stations and newspapers are now owned by wealthy people. There is no voice for the poor any more.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    805. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And we are being focused on federal income taxes to avoid talking about the total tax.

      This would be like me punching you repeatedly in the head and stomach and then wanting to restrict our discussion to only punching you in the head.

      The bottom quintile pay extremely heavy taxes.

      It doesn't have to be this harsh on them. I'm in the top quintile. The way we are acting is irresponsible and will lead to civil unrest. In my opinion, a lot of the top has lost all empathy and are a bunch of greedy bastards at this point.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    806. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by realnrh · · Score: 1

      "I like having a police and fire department." It was quite recently that one particular homeowner discovered the downside to not paying for a fire department. In a 100% Republican-controlled county, his town opted to not pay for fire coverage via taxes, instead allowing individual residents of the rural surrounding areas to voluntarily subscribe to the firefighting services of the nearby town. This guy didn't, and then was terribly upset that his offer to pay the fee while his house was burning was rejected. Sorry, buddy. You want fire coverage? That's what taxes are for. If your political philosophy objects, elect people who let things like this happen, and you can deal with the consequences. It's the on-your-ownership society.

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    807. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Woosh is right, the man could not be considered rich in isolation because the very definition of rich or wealthy is subjective to comparison in order to have meaning. And even then, you couldn't count his wealth in money as the money would be useless and valueless itself in isolation. If you can compare, he isn't in isolation. Which is why his saying he makes no money in calling him rich would make him not rich at the same time.

      This is why some the rich or wealthy in some third world countries do not even have the resources or life style of the poor and/or middle class have in other countries.

      So don't pretend there is some magical situation that only parses in the mind of the "willing to believe", that the real world is supposed to accept for a concept to be true. Those of us in reality need to stay within reality when dealing with politics or issues that impose burdens onto others. You can keep the fictional representations in the fictional books. Otherwise, it's no different then saying, if the cow jumped over the moon, you need to pay more taxes Mr. Diddle.

    808. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Google Ireland Holdings is incorporated in Ireland. Why should America get to tax its earnings, even if they're made by vastly overcharging for some trivial service?

      If I were to pay a German relative $30,000 to water a plant, and he paid German taxes on that money, I wouldn't end up with a prison sentence. I'd just end up with an expensive plant. Now, two years from now I might provide the same service to my relative, and work "hard" to earn that money. Then I get to pay American taxes.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    809. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      And yet there are 100s who work harder, and have less. You are no *more* deserving of wealth than them.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    810. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You are right. I'm no more deserving than anybody else who applies his or her self.

      We are ALL more deserving than people who inherit a fortune from a family member without doing anything.

      I don't even know you, but I can tell by your communication skills that you deserve whatever money you have more than people like Snooki or Paris Hilton.

    811. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by pnuema · · Score: 1
      As an ideal I also prefer a free market. But I will never put my ideals over people. People are more important than ideas.

      Your last paragraph shows me where we are missing each other. You see the cost as fixed. I do not. You see things in terms of fairness, where everyone should pull their own weight. I see people's behavior in terms of statistics. There will always be a certain percentage of people who are parasitic on the rest. This is life, and life is not fair. If we acknowledge these realities and deal with them efficiently and effectively, we can solve them at lower cost. Instead of concerning ourselves with how things should be, we should concern ourselves with how things are.

      In terms of medical care, if the goal is to provide it to everyone who needs it, the single cheapest way to do so is to determine how much said care costs, and to pay the fucking bill. Any other method of payment - and by this I mean insurance - is inefficient. It adds costs to the system without adding value. We have already determined as a society that it is immoral to deny life saving emergent medical care to those who need it. By denying preventative care, we make the emergent care more expensive - an emergency room visit is tens or hundreds of times more expensive than a doctor's office visit - and we all pay more because of it. If it is our moral belief that denying emergent care is unacceptable, we should seek to make that cost as low as possible to society. This means covering everybody. It just so happens that the moral thing to do here is also the most cost effective - the United States pays more than 4 times the amount on health care than any nation in the world, and our infant mortality rate is behind Singapore.

    812. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by mea37 · · Score: 1

      First: False.

      1. The tax code repeatedly defers to regulations, which are made by the IRS.
      2. The IRS staff is as invested as anyone in the complexity of the tax code

      Second: Irrelevant.

      If you'd rather blame Congress instead of the IRS, blame Congress instead of the IRS. In the context of this conversation, the degree to which you're wrong won't matter. What matters is OP blaming the company that is following the law as written.

    813. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your teabagger anecdote conveniently glosses over what it means that the 9th and 10th man are richer than 1-8 combined.

      1-5 come out for a free beer, then walk 5 miles home and eat spam for dinner in the ghetto.

      The 6th and 7th drive home in a beatup old car, eat a reasonable dinner, then go back out to work their 2nd job so they can pay their mortgage.

      The 8th works a normal job, loses 30% of his money to taxes, has a home, and will probably lose it if he gets laid off.

      The 9th cuts the 8th's job to boost his stock options briefly before the company goes bankrupt due to firing all of its qualified employees. #9 has already moved on to another position he is totally unqualified for in a buddy's company. He works 2-4 hours a day and spends the rest of his time at the country club, and drives a new BMW or Mercedes. Which he trades in ever 2 years to get an even newer one.

      The 10th actually owns the bar, and has been paying himself all along, and hence actually profiting from #6-9's contributions. He was also taking a taxcut on the money he pays himself. He doesn't work at all, he owns a business his father worked hard his whole life to create. He pays 2% of his income in taxes, owns 6 homes, and has a chauffeur to drive him everywhere. He contributes nothing to the economy, pays little to taxes, and yet is richer than 1-9 combined.

      The only problem in this story that needs to be corrected is that #10 has been substantially rewarded for doing nothing his entire life. This is an artifact of various systems that allow the rich to avoid taxes, gouge consumers by buying up all competitors, and in general grow businesses to be much too large for any capitalist competition principles to function.

    814. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      That "somebody who actually did something to deserve the wealth" is daddy, and he can do what he pleases with his money, including passing it on to his kid. The kid deserves the money because it's his dad's money and dad can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. If you think the kid doesn't deserve it and you do, then don't complain about the kid, complain about your daddy.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    815. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That "somebody who actually did something to deserve the wealth" is daddy, and he can do what he pleases with his money, including passing it on to his kid.

      And the kid did nothing to deserve it other than be born to the right person.

      The kid deserves the money because it's his dad's money and dad can do whatever the fuck he wants with it.

      Agreed, he can do whatever he wants with it. Doesn't mean he earned it.

      If you think the kid doesn't deserve it and you do, then don't complain about the kid, complain about your daddy.

      I never said I deserved the rich kid's inheritance. I said I earned my money and thus deserve the rewards more than a kid who inherits his.

      That's the difference between me, and a punk trust-fund baby...if I inherited a bunch of money, I would not feel like I did anything to deserve it and would thus act accordingly.

    816. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jrade · · Score: 0

      The people getting shafted are the medium income earners...

      I have always said that everyone has a choice, either try and be rich or just sit and be poor. Cause the middle sucks.

      --

      Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
    817. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by jrade · · Score: 0

      A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.

      Not entirely true. EIC is in the tax-code and if you are financially poor, you will get all of your income tax back that you paid and any EIC. I was able to collect EIC when I was still in college.

      --

      Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Sig.setCleverSig(Sig.java:42)
    818. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Curien · · Score: 1

      If the EIC is a "social service", then so is deducting your mortgage interest. All you do to get the EIC is fill out the appropriate IRS form and send it in with your return, same as any other deduction or credit. There is simply no substantive difference between it (and the Additional Child Credit, the Making Work Pay Credit, and other "payments") and any other tax credit, other than that those other credits have an arbitrary cutoff of reducing your tax burden to zero. Sure, you could define any tax credit which results in a net payment as a "social service", but then the assertion becomes merely a tautology -- and one which conflicts with the language used in the tax code itself.

      As for the FHC, your information is right for the 2008 version but wrong for the 2009 version. "For home purchased in 2009, the credit does not have to be paid back unless the home ceases to be the taxpayer's main residence within a three-year period following the purchase."

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    819. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Ponyegg · · Score: 1

      Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all

      But this doesn't mean they aren't paying taxes! Poorer families will invariably end up paying a higher % of their income in excise/sales/indirect taxation (food, fuel, services etc).

    820. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally they do no bribe for this kind of things. They just threatens the politicians directly in a open, but kind of polite way.

      They mentioned how much tax they do pay including all the salary of all their employees, subcontractors, product sales, and so on.

      They also points at the fact that there are other countries in the world that will openly accept them with no tax and close to no labor protection.

      We got this crap going on in Norway all the time. We have a long tradition of international multinationals that was started in Norway. This includes some of the larges shipping companies in the world.

      The shipping industry threatens the Norwegian people and the leaders of Norway every year. One of the worst of them escaped because he was fed up with the law. The individual is a well known leader of global organized crime and the largest oil shipping owner in the world.

      The criminal billionaire "escaped" Norway after the government put him in jail and messed up the evidents so he could escape... My guess is that they did mess it up and not giving in. The result was that another country invited him happily as a open criminal with money. He is no longer a Norwegian citizen.

      The Norwegian government messed up the evidents for this well know criminal. He earned his first major money by importing oil to South Africa and exporting the oil from Iran during the periods where it was illegal.

      The criminal also used his owns clients oil directly from the storage tanks to run his ships. His clients payed him to transport their oil and payed him for it. He then used their clients oil to power the ships. The missing oil was then payed by a Norwegian shipping insurance company. The evidences for this .... was lost.. He was a bit stressed in jail.

      Later the government of Norway managed to invited him back to do business from Norway. He is still a major owner in Norwegian business, but refuses to live in Norway.

      He should of course be followed 24/7 by the Norwegian secret services and held responsible for everything he do anywhere. But he was invited to Norway to do business instead.

      Many other Norwegian criminals left the country to do their criminal activities from Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. They are major players in the organized crime of international shipping. They are said to be better than most others and it said that the world has "changed to the better". The major criminal mentioned above seems to run his business as always.

      Norway is also well known for killing the wales and transporting the slaves to North America back in the days.

      Norway is other ways a lot better than USA in most areas when it comes to corporate justice. But the truth needs to be out in the open.

      All this crap for licking up some criminal potential tax payers.

    821. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS has the resources to pre fill in taxes for a lot of people(though possibly not in your case,and people could still fill it in if they think there are any mistakes) but a lot of people are against the suggestion that we make taxes less annoying.

    822. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are monetarily successful(there are many kinds of success) so they make most of the money so they should pay most of the taxes. As for brackets I agree that using a simple polynomial functions instead might be a good idea.

    823. Re:Headline Is So Very Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can totally control how much you pay now now just get a lower salary and/or get more tax credits. That's only slightly more stupid then what you are saying especially for most people who are middle class or poor. Moreover even with rebates a "flat tax" is still highly(!) regressive lower middle class pay a low percentage of their income then the upper middle class, and the rich pay the smallest percentage of their income. Especially since the higher income earners earn most of the money tax rates would have to go up substantially on the middle class (yes they would be the same for everyone which means they would go up for most people) to have even close to the same amount of tax revenue.

  2. Are you going to say they're just being smart? by Spiflicator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if it was Microsoft?

    1. Re:Are you going to say they're just being smart? by Rary · · Score: 5, Informative

      What if it was Microsoft?

      It is. They're mentioned in the article as well.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Are you going to say they're just being smart? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      and apple and vmware and ...

      Mind with 14% unemployment and Banks which invested in the usa's ponzi scheme. Ireland needs the cash badly.

      If you were a non-european company looking to sell in Europe it makes perfect sense to pick Ireland as a base of operations, you will also find manufacturing tends to favour eastern Europe due to lower labour costs.

    3. Re:Are you going to say they're just being smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately for US (pun intended), Microsoft isn't quite as good at it as Google.

    4. Re:Are you going to say they're just being smart? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Are you going to say they're just being smart? What if it was Microsoft?

      Microsoft is there. As well as pretty much any other large corporation you can think of.

      But Google is, apparently, smarter than everyone else, since their implementation of scheme is the most effective one.

    5. Re:Are you going to say they're just being smart? by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft does it (and other dodgy things) too: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/07/10/microsoft-does-tax-avoidance-in-secret/

      So, if you're some kind of MS fan-boy wanting to see Google on the end of a beating, you'll have to find a different topic to claim the high-ground. I don't think anyone's going to get really outraged against Google when a) it's not illegal, and b) all their competitors did it first.

  3. So? by JesseL · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Apparently this is legal, so why should I care? It's not as if the government is going to do better things with that money than Google is.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    1. Re:So? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a lot of textbooks, teacher's salaries, roads to be paved, police/fire stations to NOT be closed etc etc etc..

    2. Re:So? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

      Apparently this is legal, so why should I care?

      Because "Die, Economy, die!"

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    3. Re:So? by C_Kode · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently this is legal, so why should I care? It's not as if the government is going to do better things with that money than Google is.

      That's a straight up ignorant statement.

    4. Re:So? by adosch · · Score: 0, Troll

      Agreed. It's not like that ~$3 billion was going to be applied solely to our national debt, or something worth-while to keep our economy afloat. Applaud Google for legally avoiding ridiculous taxation. As wasteful and ridiculous as spending of our tax dollars has become more and more every year, I'd prefer to have Google use their break to pillage my personal and private data than have the U.S. Government do it half ass.

    5. Re:So? by dachshund · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently this is legal, so why should I care? It's not as if the government is going to do better things with that money than Google is.

      One of the things they could do is fund their operations, rather than borrowing from overseas with substantial interest penalties for me and my children to pay. Trot this argument out again when the government stops doing that --- then we can talk about whether the government needs that money.

    6. Re:So? by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      That's not at all true. The government at least has the potential to use that money for the public good instead of buying a solid gold helicopter for an aristocrat.

    7. Re:So? by dosilegecko · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's a lot of politicians huge salaries and pensions

      fixed that for you

    8. Re:So? by HotBits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they are not paying their share, and that means you and I have to make up for it. Further: this nation generally supports a progressive tax where the more wealthy pay a greater share, not less.

      Not that Google is the slightest bit wrong for doing this! If I owned their stock I'd expect them to do whatever is legal to reduce non-productive expenses, which taxes are. I'd prefer them to invest it new products and technologies, or pay me a dividend.

    9. Re:So? by wowbagger · · Score: 1, Informative

      "That's a lot of textbooks, teacher's salaries, roads to be paved, police/fire stations to NOT be closed etc etc etc.."

      That assumes the taxes collected would be spent on such matters, vs. on wars, bridges to nowhere, monuments to government leaders, etc.

    10. Re:So? by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps if Google paid up more taxe you would pay less ?

    11. Re:So? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your taxes have to be higher because these guys have to pay less. You should ask your government to close these loopholes, and have big companies pay a reasonable share of the tax.

    12. Re:So? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Farm subsidies to multi-billion dollar corporate farmers, pork barrel spending by politicians, foreign aid to countries that stab us in the back whenever they get a chance, awarding no-bid defense contracts to friends and buddies and anyone else with inside connections, etc etc etc....

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    13. Re:So? by Kaboom13 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The problem is, it's not just Google, all big companies do this. And because they do it, they get a big advantage over the small and medium businesses that are stuck paying 35% because they cant pay an army of lawyers and accountants to setup and run these loopholes. Congress should either close the loopholes, simplify the tax code so fewer loopholes are possible, or get rid of corporate income tax entirely to kill the whole incentive to play the "tax haven" game in the first place. At least that way you level the playing field and cut out a parasitic, wasteful element in the form of the army of tax attorneys and accountants every Fortune 500 company must employ.

    14. Re:So? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but corporations donate a crapton to worthy charities every year. Some prominent CEOs or ex-CEOs, of course, have also established charities out of their own pockets. John Huntsman and, yes, the EVIL Bill Gates are notable examples.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:So? by Fastolfe · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This is not a zero-sum game. Government spending is not tied to tax revenues. Increasing corporate taxes does not automatically decrease personal taxes. It is more likely that increasing corporate taxes just means more government spending. They probably won't even pretend to reduce the deficit with it.

    16. Re:So? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe I'm being cynical, but I see more articles about Google doing things to improve the world than I do our own governments.

    17. Re:So? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Seriously, who's going to give me better value for that money. Google gives me more things that make my life better than the government does these days.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    18. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, teachers, police, firefighters and other union members fleece us out of way more tax dollars than Google ever will.

    19. Re:So? by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of textbooks, teacher's salaries, roads to be paved, police/fire stations to NOT be closed etc etc etc..

      Or another few days of the Drug War... or the Iraq War... or the Afghanistan War... or...

      At least Google's expenditures generally benefit us as a side effect of their pursuit of profit. For every tax dollar paving roads and educating youth, how many more are spent in ways completely detrimental to the population?

    20. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If goggle paid more taxes (or corporations in general) it would be reflected in the price you pay for their products and services - so in the end you pay either way.

    21. Re:So? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. Taxes have almost nothing to do with government spending. Most of it is funded by borrowing freshly-printed, devalued dollars from the Federal Reserve or from foreign countries who are propping up their own export-based economies (oil producers, China, etc).

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    22. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That assumes the taxes collected would be spent on such matters, vs. on wars, bridges to nowhere, monuments to government leaders, etc.

      Given that you have a democracy, your vote, ultimately, decides that. Of course, if no taxes are collected, then there's nothing to decide.

    23. Re:So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Apparently this is legal, so why should I care?

      Perhaps because it sounds like something that really shouldn't be legal, so laws need to be tweaked?

      It's not as if the government is going to do better things with that money than Google is.

      It's up to you as a citizen to ensure that your government does good things with the money that comes in taxes. It's not an easy thing, but as a problem it's completely orthogonal to the one about tax share.

    24. Re:So? by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Nah. The government would just spend that much more and make the deficit that much higher.

    25. Re:So? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Corporations can't raise their prices arbitrarily. If Google had to pay more taxes, the first thing they'd have to do is immediately cut their staff and lay off thousands. The second effect would be that they would become less competitive to foreign competitors, especially as they raised their costs. In the longer term, they would either slowly move overseas - taking jobs with them - or, they would just die as a foreign competitor that could operate more efficiently elsewhere took over the market.

      People talk about textbooks, teachers, roads to be paved etc. when defending taxation --- however the problem is not these 'basics', the sheer amounts of waste into burueacracy for bureaucracy's sake is the problem. Tax us for the basics and actually deliver them, don't tax us so that millions of people can push paper around all day. We're all working and working and feel like we're getting nowhere because we give our money to the state, they pay someone to push paper around, and that person buys the house next door to you and buys HDTV's etc. and nice cars with ultimately taxpayer money. You want to see where the money's going, look around, it's state employees who *aren't* actually delivering value for the money paid to them.

    26. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm being cynical, but I see more articles about Google doing things to improve the world than I do our own governments.

      No, you can get even more cynical, like me: Google has people who specialize in PR.

    27. Re:So? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no textbooks need to be cut
      very very soon

      --
      warning pointless sig
    28. Re:So? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no the super rich would pay less then some how i`d pay more

      --
      warning pointless sig
    29. Re:So? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, I care because I find it intriguing how big busineses avoid taxes.

      But Google is paying taxes. To another government. Is Google goung to do better things than the governmnet? The government would be able to reduce taxes benfitting everybody. Google is able to pay dividends, benefitting those with Google shares.

  4. Technically Legal by Afforess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically Google has committed no crime, and their tax avoidance is entirely legal. While it is normal to feel a moral outrage, I think your anger should be focused on those who created the loopholes in the first place. Washington.

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Technically Legal by callmebill · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tax avoision.

    2. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [Washington] who created the loopholes in the first place.

      After Big Business used campaign contributions to ask for them.

    3. Re:Technically Legal by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That deserves a -1 funny somehow.

    4. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why do you think Washington put those loopholes there? Out of the goodness of its heart? Probably not; maybe because it's been bought by those who benefit? In which case you can redirect your moral outrage yet again.

    5. Re:Technically Legal by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically Google has committed no crime, and their tax avoidance is entirely legal. While it is normal to feel a moral outrage, I think your anger should be focused on those who created the loopholes in the first place. Washington.

      Technically Washington has committed no crime, and their acceptance of massive quantities of cash in exchange for favorable tax legislation is entirely legal. While it is normal to feel a moral outrage, I think your anger should be focused on those who paid for the loopholes in the first place. Google. And Microsoft. And a few hundred other large corporations.

      http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/20/google-spends-1-38-million-on-lobbying-in-q1-up-57-percent-from-last-year/

    6. Re:Technically Legal by hohokus · · Score: 1

      "don't hate the player, hate the game."

    7. Re:Technically Legal by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Right, and who lobbied Washington to put those loopholes in place? Poor people?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:Technically Legal by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      You live in a democracy, Washington is the result of your voting choices. Be angry at yourself and your fellow citizens.

    9. Re:Technically Legal by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. The situation seems like a problem, but Google's playing by the rules here. Don't hate the player - hate the game (God I never though I'd be able to say that in a serious conversation . . .).

      Just further evidence as to why we need a simpler tax system. Corporate rate is 35%? Lets simplify that and remove the loopholes. Same goes for personal income taxes as well. I don't want to fill out a 1040EZ in one case or a A, B, C, D, or ZEKD (all with different lengths and complexities - and a gazllion pages of explanations referenced by all of them). Give me a table that I can lookup my income bracket and then find the appropriate percentage I owe. Mulply my wages on my W4 by that percentage and poof - taxes done.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and who do you think voted those clowns into Washington?

      Why do I always find myself to blame for everything?

    11. Re:Technically Legal by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Practically speaking, do you really believe that the nation and the economy would be better served by the government spending another $3 billion than Google retaining it? I mean, when Google spends money, it typically creates some pretty high-quality jobs. That's a high standard for anyone to match, let alone the federal government.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    12. Re:Technically Legal by iceborer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Their motto is Do No Evil not Do Nothing Illegal

      Now, we can argue whether they actually follow that, but using tactics so convoluted that you have to have a team of lawyers and get approval from the IRS to set them up in order to avoid supporting the society that makes your business possible is evil.

    13. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just "legal", it's effectively compulsory, since Google is a publicly-traded company with shareholders that expect them to exercise all legal means to keep their costs low and profits high. If Google took a stand and voluntarily paid more taxes, they risk being sued by their own shareholders.

      Like you say, the solution is to get our legislators to change the system, not to get upset at the companies that choose to benefit from it.

    14. Re:Technically Legal by martyw · · Score: 1

      Multinationals avoid paying taxes in high-tax jurisdictions, that is one of the reasons why they are, you know, multinationals.

    15. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically neither Google nor Washington have committed a crime. I think you should get your head out of your ass and stop whitewashing over the fact that Washington AND the wealthy few are the same. Money does all of the talking. The middle class and poor have little to no voice in politics any longer and haven't for decades. Throw every single one of these career politicians out on their fucking heads, enact term limits and ban lobbyists. Enact tougher legislation to track campaign donations and throw fuckers in jail for life that try to influence elections by giving $10 million dollars in $200 increments "anonymously".

    16. Re:Technically Legal by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely agreed. The anger toward tax evasion is entirely misdirected. If you want to point fingers, you can aim them straight at the supreme court, who made the decision that money == speech, and therefore bribary == simply exercising one's rights, and then proceeded to rape the corpse of the American system of democracy in their "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission" ruling.

    17. Re:Technically Legal by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "its google's fault"

      "no, its the government's fault"

      hey, can't it be BOTH?

      if google and the congresscritters/lobbiests that make these laws were in a fight club to the death, I would enjoy seeing such a fight. no matter who gets hurt, justice then gets served.

      there's sd'er around here with a memorable sigfile, something like "I like paying taxes, with it I buy civilization". good quote. any corp who willfully avoids paying their fair share of civilization certainly meets the definition of evil, in so many ways.

      yes, google is playing the same game as the rest. but the rest never ever tried to market themselves as white knights. google did. and they are fucking blatant bold-face liars. they are a "gimme!" company just like the rest.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    18. Re:Technically Legal by box4831 · · Score: 1

      Be angry at yourself and your fellow citizens

      We have the latter part down to a science but the former still needs quite a bit of work... "gat-dang liburuls... bible-thumpin' conservitards... derrf"

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
    19. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, do we blame the people or the system or both?

    20. Re:Technically Legal by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the voting process isn't corrupt at all. Hardly any of our elections are stolen. </sarcasm>

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    21. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your anger should be focused on those who created the loopholes in the first place. Washington.

      Would that be corporate lobbyists by any chance - after all corpoarations own the government. SO after a meaningless diversion it comes back to Google and other corporations.

    22. Re:Technically Legal by bcomisky · · Score: 1

      It's selection pressure. Companies that could use loopholes but don't are at a disadvantage in the marketplace to those that do. Similarly, politicians can improve their election chances by pandering to large corporations who ply them with campaign donations. That is, unless the electorate decides to penalize them for doing so and there is enough transparency in campaign financing to allow voters to reasonably decide.

      Campaign finance reform anyone?

    23. Re:Technically Legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no not technically but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and the money will have to come from somewhere and that means it's going to come from folks who can't afford to pay for accounts who can find the loopholes.

      Sorry but I'm still going to blame Google. They decided to use the loopholes. They could have done the right thing. Just because an unethical option is there, that doesn't mean a company must use it.

    24. Re:Technically Legal by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      f massive quantities of cash in exchange for favorable tax legislation is entirely legal

      Actually, no, its not, and there are lots of laws designed to prevent this as its essentially bribery by a different name.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    25. Re:Technically Legal by X86Daddy · · Score: 1

      Corporations, by design, are a kind of entity who's life revolves around money. Not oxygen, food, trust, family, joy, good, or evil. Just money. They are designed to maximize shareholder value, period.

      Periodically, people of the "free" countries elect representatives to office. These elected humans take various oaths to represent those humans who elected them, and to do "good" for such human people.

      The corporations and the politicians are both quite responsible for how this system works and they both contribute copiously to maintaining this system... but ask which one is violating trust, being hypocritical, behaving in an evil manner, etc... and the answer is pretty clear.

      Which of these entities should be jailed? Which of these entities can be jailed? Which one is violating the spirit and/or letter of their oaths or charters?

      All that said, corporations and humans playing shell games with taxation will continue until a major overhaul of the tax system... this is much more complicated than the summary or even TFA can get into. Much more glaring examples of corporate & politician cooperation to exploit or damage the people abound. Were the people of the US threatened in any way, shape, or form by Iraq? Then who actually benefited by the US invasion? Are the people of the US threatened in any way, shape, or form by copyright terms not being extended? Then who actually benefited by each retroactive extension and all of the additional laws and treaties?

    26. Re:Technically Legal by tist · · Score: 1

      Really, you should include all of the pillars of this system that is slowly destroying the republic: 1. Individuals have the right to free speech (The first Amendment) 2. Donation of money is protected free speech (as you said) 3. Corporations are persons (headnote to the Court's opinion 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394) and so... the larger the corporation, the more money they have, the more they can influence our representatives. Broken system.

    27. Re:Technically Legal by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Eh, even if you somehow reverse the precent set in "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad", allowing unchecked personal donations means the rich can still game the system, they just have to do it as individuals. So a corporation need only funnel their money through individuals (say, an executive PAC), and you're back to square one again.

    28. Re:Technically Legal by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Citizens united certain made things blatantly worse. But it has been going on a long time.

      Meaningful campaign finance reform, 100% public funded elections, is probably the only way out. But getting something like that passed is likely impossible.

    29. Re:Technically Legal by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with disliking players of games, even if they aren't breaking the rules. I can choose to attack Google, or boycott them, if I believe their business practices are immoral, even if those business practices are legal. If I cared enough, I could even take out attack ads in newspapers against them to put pressure on them to refrain from those practices (so long as my ads did not falsely claim that the practices were illegal). They can ignore my ads if they want. That's how free speech and free markets work: I don't need Congress's permission to attack Google's business practices, to spread negative PR about them, or to boycott them for their choice of practices.

  5. Don't Blame... by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

    Don't blame the company (unethical as it may be). Blame the tax code that allows for such schenanigans to exist and occur.

    --
    "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    1. Re:Don't Blame... by suso · · Score: 0

      Don't blame the company (unethical as it may be). Blame the tax code that allows for such schenanigans to exist and occur.

      Unethical? I thought Google's motto was 'do no evil'?

    2. Re:Don't Blame... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      It's "don't be evil", the subtle difference being, I assume, that you can get away with "doing" a certain amount of minor evil things without "being" evil in general.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    3. Re:Don't Blame... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Taking advantage of unethical loopholes is unethical. I will blame them if it is legal or not.

  6. Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by geoffrobinson · · Score: 0

    Unless you believe that all money ultimately belongs to the government, I fail to see how this is evil.

    I look for every deduction I can grab as well. So does almost everyone else. This isn't wrong.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Deductions are one thing. This is closer to laundering money than anything else.

      "Income" is money acquired from doing business. If you are employed and are paid by exchanging your work for money, then technically you are not earning an "income." However, when people like you and me attempt do utilize these technicalities to our advantage, we just might get thrown in jail. And I don't entirely fault Google and Microsoft and all the rest for using a broken system to their advantage because I would too if I could. The real problem, which is where the moral outrage comes from, is that the "entities" that are SUPPOSED to be paying "income" tax are avoiding it, while we tax payers are being compelled to pay taxes which we should not be paying in the first place. (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1068.htm -- definitions of "income" within. I challenge anyone in there to see where earned wages are considered income.)

      The outrage comes from the fact that we are not allowed to play the same games. The outrage comes from the realization that we are being gamed ourselves and there is nothing productive we can do about it.

    2. Re:Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you believe that all money ultimately belongs to the government, I fail to see how this is evil.

      I look for every deduction I can grab as well. So does almost everyone else. This isn't wrong.

      I disagree. Legal and moral aren't synonymous. As one of the country's largest technology companies, Google has a moral obligation to pay their fair share of taxes whether they're legally obligated to or not. They also have a moral obligation to lobby against these unfair tax codes. You cannot take a neutral stance on moral issues and avoid being evil. Doing good is the only way to avoid being evil because by taking a neutral stance is usually just as bad as being intentionally evil.

      It goes back to the old murder issue: If someone is drowning and you have the ability to save them but don't, have you just murdered the person? My answer is: it doesn't matter because regardless, inaction was evil. Our government is drowning in debt and Google is intentionally contributing to the problem. Their attitude is, "I don't want to get wet, someone else can dive in."

      They bought consumer trust with their "don't be evil" slogan, it's about time they started living up to it again.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    3. Re:Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      "Paying the maximum tax is a morally superior to paying the minimum required tax" is hardly a widely accepted axiom.

    4. Re:Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, last I checked, governments were awash in revenue. They just have spent even more. You are essentially arguing that the gambling addict has too much debt so we should give him more money. No thanks.

      And what exactly is their "fair share"? There is none that can be objectively ascertained.

      Btw, did you overpay your taxes? You're allowed to and not take your deduction.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    5. Re:Legally Avoiding Taxes != Evil by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      If a company needs to have a "don't be evil" motto. . .

  7. And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0

    The moral of the story is that by saving that money, Google is able to hire more people to produce more products and make more profit. Those people in turn pay more taxes which, in toto, is greater than the supposed evaded amount.

    It's sometimes counterintuitive how economics works.

    1. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      President Reagan, is that you?

      All kidding aside: I'm no Economist, but the arguments for trickle-down theory seem pretty good to me.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    2. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The moral of the story is that by saving that money, Google is able to hire more people to produce more products and make more profit. Those people in turn pay more taxes which, in toto, is greater than the supposed evaded amount.

      It's sometimes counterintuitive how economics works.

      It's counterintuitive how economics works if you're going by base models and forgetting that the system doesn't work perfectly like that. You're assuming google will hire more people instead of just keeping the cash and giving it as bonuses to the CEO and using it for shareholders

      a.k.a. "ECONOMICS SURE IS COUNTERINTUITIVE WHEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!"

    3. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm no Economist, but the arguments for trickle-down theory seem pretty good to me.

      I thought by this point history had pretty well demonstrated that it's never worked out in practice.

      It's a nice-sounding idea that falls apart completely in reality -- just like communism.

    4. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by operagost · · Score: 1

      The 1980s economy is proof that it does. I know because I was there-- and we were basically a blue-collar union family who prospered, not rich Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold coins.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming google will hire more people instead of just keeping the cash and giving it as bonuses to the CEO and using it for shareholders

      What do the CEO and shareholders do with the cash? Hide it under mattresses? No, they hire people, invest, and buy stuff. That's what we WANT them to do.

    6. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely (as in, a near certainty): DIVIDENDS AND BONUSES!! HORRAY!!

    7. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Which are taxed at the appropriate rate.

    8. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      For the moment, I'm going to grant you that it worked in the 1980s without a fight, even though I don't honestly think that it did.

      Now, find an example where it worked and the country doing it didn't triple their debt.

      Citing the 1980s is like saying things worked great for a family that didn't work and lived on credit cards, until they hit their spending limit, except the credit card family is sadly the more fiscally responsible/conservative of the two.

    9. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by louzer · · Score: 1

      Communism is, among other things: Taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his need. Unfortunately, Human needs are unlimited, and Human abilities are limited. So if we steal from the able and give it to the needy, all of us will go bankrupt. This is why Communism does not work in theory nor does it work in practice.

      --
      Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    10. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect!

      Trickle-down works EXACTLY as stated.

      Wealth in the hands of the rich trickles down through the rest of the economy.

      The problem isn't with trickle-down... the problem is with the unspoken, accompanying surge-upward...

    11. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by drsquare · · Score: 1

      All kidding aside: I'm no Economist, but the arguments for trickle-down theory seem pretty good to me.

      Except for all the evidence over the last three decades that it doesn't actually work?

    12. Re:And yet they provide lots of jobs and services by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      I'm an engineer, I steer clear of economics. Feel free to provide examples if you'd like. I'd enjoy a good read. Independant, non-biased evidence would be nice too.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
  8. As a taxpayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be the first to say, as a taxpayer, that I don't care. Why don't I care? Because the US government is already the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. The last thing the people at the top of the pyramid need is more cash passing through their corrupt hands.

    In fact, I wish more companies would catch on to this. The way things are going today, the less money being raked through government every year, the better. But wait, you say. There are legitimate government services that don't have enough money. And why is that, I ask? Because the vast majority of cash passing through the hands of the elite are being directed to things that don't benefit you, rather than things that do.

    1. Re:As a taxpayer by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Wouldn't be so bad if the Fed didn't waste as much of the money they extract from us as they do. I'm for paying taxes, at a reasonable rate. But the current situation is ridiculous. I'm simply working 40% of my life to give money to a government that burns it up faster than I can make it.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:As a taxpayer by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to say, as a taxpayer, that I don't care. Why don't I care? Because the US government is already the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. The last thing the people at the top of the pyramid need is more cash passing through their corrupt hands.

      In fact, I wish more companies would catch on to this. The way things are going today, the less money being raked through government every year, the better. But wait, you say. There are legitimate government services that don't have enough money. And why is that, I ask? Because the vast majority of cash passing through the hands of the elite are being directed to things that don't benefit you, rather than things that do.

      You're right. Fuck the American people. This country needs to fall apart so China can become the #1 superpower and return balance to the world. /sarcasm

      I have plenty of problems with how the U.S. government is run, but I think that policy change would be preferable to bankrupting the country.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    3. Re:As a taxpayer by rednip · · Score: 1

      Well, then quit and move to some other society where you'll get taxed less, or are you 'entitled' to all of the benefits of civilization without any of the cost. Sure some of the programs don't directly provide you with a more comfortable existence, but I'd swear people like you would wish to see children starving in the streets if it'd mean 1% more in your 'pocket'. If corporations paid more of their fair share (after all they're people too), we might be able to afford your Bush era tax cuts.

      Besides, I seem to remember that those tax cuts were supposed to give us more tax revenue over time. Do you think that it worked?

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    4. Re:As a taxpayer by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "Well, then quit and move to some other society where you'll get taxed less, or are you 'entitled' to all of the benefits of civilization without any of the cost."

      No, you're completely wrong and way off base. Its my country too, and if there's something wrong with it its my DUTY to fix it. This a participatory democracy, not a autocracy were only people like you are allowed to run it. You're the one in the wrong. By the way, there's nothing stopping you from tithing 100% percent of your income directly to the federal government. Is that what you are doing?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    5. Re:As a taxpayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. Bankrupting the country is at this point by far the easiest and most preferable route. It is fundamentally broken.

  9. OMG by zombieChan51 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone actually read TFA

    1. Re:OMG by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's always an outlier.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  10. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I bad because I go to an accountant to do my taxes and get every deduction/exemption I am legally entitled to?

    1. Re:Don't hate the player. Hate the game. by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Bad? No. Socially irresponsible? That's open for debate.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  11. Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ridiculously complex tax code is to blame. It's time to flush it and start again. That's one of the concepts behind H.R.25, also known as the FairTax.

    It's a misconception that corporations pay taxes. They don't. They get all their money from their customers (and some from investment). If you raise corporate taxes, the corporation raises prices to cover the tax. Why hide it like this? Just tax the customer, so we can all SEE how much tax we're paying. It's the only way to keep people involved in the battle to lower government spending, which is out of control.

    --
    I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    1. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And then a really big black market will come into being.

    2. Re:Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's one corporation using loopholes to dodge billion$ in taxes. Would a black market be any worse? Don't hate the new idea because it's not perfect. What we have now sucks, so I'll take an improvement, warts and all.

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    3. Re:Exactly! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You fail econ 101. Prices have a ceiling, if they could raise the price they would have already. Taxes eat into profit.

    4. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your point is corporations shouldn't pay anything in taxes, because they just 'pass the cost on to the consumer', you could make that same case for individuals too. Silly teabagger, talk radio has rotted your brain

    5. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fairtax creates the largest welfare system every envisioned by man and is in no way enforceable. What happens when you try to buy a BMW here? Are the German's expected to take a 23% hit because someone here came up with a messed up tax system? What happens with passive income? Are you going to charge a sales tax on investments? I'm sure Wallstreet would like that.....

      The Fairtax is retarded and always has been.

    6. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely true either.

      Typically, businesses pick a profit margin that they feel they can be successful with AND not risk a competitor undercutting them with. For example, if you pick a 10000% profit margin, someone will come in with a 10% profit margin and you'll be out of business. It's a careful balance with a "ceiling" of what you can get away with, that's true.

      However, if everything now costs more because of taxes, you can keep the same margin and pass that tax along to the consumer by raising prices without risk of someone undercutting you because they experience the same tax.

      THAT is why H.R.25 is being proposed. Consumers are pretty flexible in paying whatever if they need something (see printer ink pricing) as long as there isn't a useful alternative that is cheaper.

    7. Re:Exactly! by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      It bothers me when people say something needs to be "flushed" or that we need to "start from scratch".

      Realistically, rewriting the whole tax code or what ever isn't reasonable. There are lots of rules and exceptions in there that have been added for reasons based on the experience of the IRS/government/tax payers.

      While it may need to be refactored, wiping it out and losing all that knowledge isn't a reasonable way to go.

    8. Re:Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your understanding of the FairTax might be retarded, but if you read the bill (it's only a bit over 100 pages long), you might be able to change some of your misconceptions.

      the fairtax creates the largest welfare system every envisioned by man and is in no way enforceable.

      Please elaborate. Why is it not enforceable? Almost every state in the U.S. runs that way, why can't the federal government? Why do they have to invade every citizen's privacy to tax them on income? There are fewer retail businesses than there are wage earners - it's easier for the IRS to watch over the retail business, just because the numbers are fewer.

      What happens when you try to buy a BMW here? Are the German's expected to take a 23% hit because someone here came up with a messed up tax system?

      I didn't know the U.S. government was supposed to watch out for German concerns. Wouldn't it be great if U.S. auto companies got a leg-up on foreign competition? What would happen? BMW would build more cars in the U.S.! What happens now? The cars are taxed when they are sent to the U.S., and the person who buys it had his income taxed more than 23% before he spent a dime. Why pay taxes on every penny you make? Just pay taxes when you spend it!

      Are you going to charge a sales tax on investments?

      No, you might want to read the bill before you blast it. Education and investments aren't taxable. Neither is charitable giving, savings, inheritance or buying used goods. Don't just listen to what the talking heads say, do a little of your own investigation, and compare it to what we have now for a federal revenue system.

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    9. Re:Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 1
      Let me fix that for you.

      Realistically, rewriting the whole tax code or what ever isn't reasonable. There are lots of rules and exceptions in there that have been added for reasons based on the experience of the IRS/government/special interests, lobbyists, corporate greed, welfare exploits

      There, that's better.

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    10. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a huge fan of the Double Irish. I love the Dutch Sandwich too. How about the Filthy Sanchez? I wonder if Google uses the Filthy Sanchez. Not to mention the Glass Bottomed Boat.

      But seriously, you have just nailed (so to speak) the one thing everyone seems to miss. Corporate tax, should any occur, is purely a pass through expense to the customer. A hidden sales tax, essentially.

    11. Re:Exactly! by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      If you raise corporate taxes, the corporation raises prices to cover the tax.

      I agree. Why, if you raise Google's taxes any more, they'll go from charging $0/search to charging $0/search!*

      Why hide it like this? Just tax the customer, so we can all SEE how much tax we're paying.

      Probably because it's easier to raise taxes on corporations than to raise taxes on the rich. Further, merely raising taxes on the rich would likely result in many leaving the US and that'd translate into either the US tax system possibly collapsing or some complex tracking system of corporate payments to shareholders. At that point, why not just tax the corporation itself since it's harder to loophole billions from one corporation (in that it'll be noticeable and is ripe for changes to the law to close the loophole) than millions from many shareholders (where even closing loopholes might not be enough).

      It's the only way to keep people involved in the battle to lower government spending, which is out of control.

      Well, given there's been deficit spending in the US for 40+ years (ignoring a few Clinton years), it's pretty clear people are used to not paying all the taxes they'd need for what they want. I don't think removing corporate taxes would magically change that.

      *Yes, technically I'm not Google's customer--advertisers are. But, then that's just another example of hiding costs. Or, you know, it's because it's ineffective to charge individuals for searching and beneficial to advertisers to be able to pay to reach potential customers. Funny that you don't argue for taxing *just* corporations and companies since no matter how you look at it there's no way to magically make people associate what they pay in taxes to what benefit they receive in government spending, no matter how high or low taxes are. Yes, you could get rid of all taxes, but then you'd be nickeled and dimed (or I guess be ad-sponsored) everywhere and that's not really a tenable situation when you need unbiased courts, accessible travel for all, and a defense that can't be bought out.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    12. Re:Exactly! by apoelstra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're coming from the same angle, but Peter Schiff (who is a "real" economist) agrees with you. He writes on his site http://www.europac.net/ He doesn't distinguish between consumers and corporations --- his argument is simply that taxing income makes no sense (since we WANT people to be productive), so all taxation should be on consumption, whether you are a corporation or an individual.

    13. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, higher sales tax? This puts an even higher proportion of the tax burden on the lower class. Rich people don't eat more bread than poor people (at least, not proportionally more as compared to their incomes).

    14. Re:Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FairTax is absurd. I don't see how anyone could have the audacity to support it. We might as well just provide a federally funded lube-distribution program for the poor. One of the "FairTax Five" talking points from their own website is what really got me going.

      To rebut the claim that "The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people", they address the following hypothetical situation:

      "Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent."

      Disingenuous at best. How stupid do they think people are? Their argument completely ignores the existence of billionaires whose wealth, *gasp*, keeps increasing. Yes, that's right, believe it or not, the rich -are- getting richer. This means that the rich do NOT spend "only" the income earned on the wealth each year. They spend a tiny fraction. No part of their "grassroots" website addresses how the FairTax will -really- affect the wealthy. Those billionaires who spend "only" half of their income, let's say "only" $25M/year (assuming a 5% yield on their investment), their tax rate is not 23% but now 11.5%. Would you look at that. Under the the FairTax, someone making a billion dollars a year will have their tax burden actually go down if they spend 65% or less of their income. Which, if you ask me, would be a vast majority of billionaires. Really progressive there, guys.

      Fundamentally, it depends on what you want taxation to accomplish. Do you want to reduce stratification of wealth, or are you comfortable with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? That taxation of spending/income is necessary to fund federal expenditure is a myth. Countless other sources of revenue are available. Taxation is merely a tool to promote specific social policies, and it would be great if proponents of proposed taxation schemes were more transparent about the underlying intent behind their approach. From a critical layman's point of view, it seems that every proposed change to the current tax code would benefit the wealthy, without exception. Where's the populism when you need it? When will enough be enough?

      I can't understand why we don't just move to a very simple graduated income tax. Basically the same thing we have now, minus all the credits and exemptions and other crazy loopholes. It's simple, it's progressive, and it pays the bills. Oh wait, that's the problem. There's not enough potential for abuse, and there's no way to have the rich end up paying less while convincing the poor that they're actually better off.

    15. Re:Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 1

      Great post, but I'll take a stab at a rebuttal anyway...

      The FairTax can claim (and rightly so) that it is progressive because of the prebate. Each family gets a check from the government monthly that pays for the tax on necessities. Why do that? To keep the tax SIMPLE. If we try to untax milk, bread & other "necessities," we open the floodgates for lobbyists and manipulators. It's much easier to tax EVERYTHING, and give you back what you pay on necessities. For a family of 4, that would be about $525 per month. A family of 4 making $50K per year could live in the U.S. and pay NO tax (just keep your retail purchases of new goods/services below $2300/month, and your tax burden is 0). Compare this to our current system. A head of household (family of 4) with an income of $50K pays ~$3600 in FICA/Medicare, plus the employer pays another ~$3600 for that employee. Even if that wage earner gets a refund of all income tax, he starts with ~$44.4K, even though nearly ~$54K was set aside for his income.Compare that to someone making a million per year - the FICA/medicare tax would be around $20K....in % terms, way less than our $50K/year worker.

      By the way, your use of the term "billionaire" seems to refer to someone with an annual income of over $1B, not someone with a net worth of $1B. Steve Jobs may have enormous net worth, but his paycheck shows his wages as $1/year (not including stock options).

      For most people, taxes aren't negotiable. You can't decide to not pay taxes (even though Harry Reid says taxes are voluntary). Under the FairTax, average citizens would have a choice. Don't want to pay tax? Buy a used car instead of a new one. Save your money instead of spending it. It would be a very different attitude amongst consumers.

      What does the FairTax want to accomplish with taxes?

      • Income for the Federal Government
      • Transparency of taxes, so those paying the tax see how much
      • streamlining the taxation process (no invasive 1040 forms, corporate tax, payroll tax, expensive compliance).
      • freeing the poor from taxation
      • Taxing those who currently don't report income (unregistered aliens, drug dealers, etc)
      • making the federal government PART of the economy (if they want more income, they'll have to entice us to spend more of ours, which we'll only do if we are happy!)
      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    16. Re:Exactly! by TecKnow · · Score: 1

      If corporations could just raise prices to cover increased tax, wouldn't they already be charging the higher price to make more profit? There's got to be some reason the corporation isn't charging higher prices already, and if that is true, then the idea that higher expenses (taxes) plainly result in higher prices doesn't work.

    17. Re:Exactly! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 1
      I think I already covered this, but it's an important economic lessen, so I'll say it again.

      There's got to be some reason the corporation isn't charging higher prices already

      It's called competition. If you try to raise your prices just to make more profit, your competitor is free to undercut you, and your customers become their customers. If the government taxes your industry, both you and your competition get hit, and not wanting to lose money, you both raise your prices. It's called market equilibrium.

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    18. Re:Exactly! by TecKnow · · Score: 1

      Why would we both raise prices? Sounds risky to me. If we both raise prices an equal amount the market may shrink, and we'd both be getting the same portion of a smaller pie (lose). If I raise prices and my competitor doesn't, I'll lose market share (lose).

      Conversely if I don't raise prices and my competitor doesn't, I face only a known loss. (lose) but if they do raise prices, I'll steal market share from them (win).

      In this scenario not raising prices would be the safest bet; it is the only one with a "win" case.

    19. Re:Exactly! by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not time for the Fair Tax.

      It's time to decrease the federal government's appetite for taxes.

  12. Internet treats limits as damage, routes around it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Internet treats attempts to control it as damage and routes around it; capitalism treats tax as inefficiency and routes around it.

  13. Even though.... by Eric+Freyhart · · Score: 2

    Even though the title is misleading, I still have only one thing to say....

    "DON'T BE EVIL"

    Like every other monolithic company in the world.

  14. I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who's "they"?

    "They" are Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. Any company that uses this method.

    And, assuming you're referring to google, how are they shafting you? It's not your money.

    No, it's not my money. It's the communal money that is under so much debate by politicians. And the fact that Google and everyone else has a hundred goddamned lawyers and accountants sitting around saving them billions of dollars does upset me. Because I don't have that. I don't have the option to employ the "double Irish" tactic when trying to save thousands of dollars in taxes each year so I can afford a simple house. Nope, they get that privilege and I don't because I'm poorer than them. So who's being screwed over? Every tax payer that doesn't have or employ those options. If you live in America, that's you. Why is your public education so lacking? Why do your taxes go up? Well, part of it is that companies employ tax evasion methods like the ones listed in the article. I'm not singling out Google, I'm expressing equal anger toward all who employ these methods.

    You can call me a socialist, you can call me a communist. That's fine because I know I'm neither of those. I'm just someone that wants a fair playing field when it comes to aggregating X amount of resources so that our government and public services continue to function properly.

    The men and women who founded this country cited 'taxation without representation' as one of the reasons. Like them, I'm not okay with lobbyists and tax loopholes that are apparently legal and okay to anyone who has tons and tons and tons of money. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer just because.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, part of it is that companies employ tax evasion methods like the ones listed in the article.

      It's not tax evasion. Tax evasion is when you use methods that the IRS has explicitly disallowed.
      Maybe, instead of looking to soak the rich, you should ask how you can avoid taxes as well. Hint: just because you don't run a global corp doesn't mean you can't invest in assets or ventures that will reduce, defer, or eliminate your tax liability.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

      I am against all income taxes, so I am applauding all companies that manage to pay as little as possible within the existing system, I am for them paying even less and nothing at all as INCOME taxes and I am also not interested in paying ANY INCOME taxes.

    3. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The issue is that the setup to avoid taxes in the same way has a high cost to enter. You'd need to set up several shell companies around the world and then pay to route your money through them all in the appropriate order. This requires enough labor and money that it's simply not feasible or worth the investment for private middle class individuals. But the more you make the more beneficial something like this is and the higher the return on doing so. So it really isn't a useful loophole for the masses. But for companies and rich individuals it's totally worth it.

    4. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well too bad because you're going to get to pay more while corporations ride your back to riches.

    5. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Corporations shouldn't be paying any income taxes at all!

      Corporate income taxes are based on money that corporation makes that is not taken by anybody as salary, in that case this is the money that directly stays in corporation and is reinvested, it is the money that allows corporation to grow and to add more to the economy in whatever ways.

      If income is taxed, it should never be taxed from money that is not spent on personal purchases.

      But I am also against personal income taxes, which rob individuals of:

      1. Liberty to not disclose information to the government.

      2. Ability to save money by not spending in on buying stuff.

      So I am against all income taxes, but corporate income taxes are a specially huge atrocity.

    6. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on /. valid points of view are often moderated as 'troll' because the moderator doesn't agree with the point of view, so don't despair.

    7. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Corporate income taxes are a tax on economic inefficiency, monopolies, etc. In a properly competitive market, large rates of profit do not persist, because the invisible hand will reallocate resources to drive prices towards the cost of production (plus an epsilon). If corporations are making large profits, it's by definition because the market they're operating in is failing, and recovering the proceeds of that market failure seems perfectly justified to me..

    8. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am against monopolies, that's why I am against any government whatsoever as I said, and moderation here does not take kindly to points of view like mine.

      Government creates monopolies in the first place, which enables those monopolies to fix prices. Government removes competition in the first place by creating regulations and rules and taxes and subsidies. Government is the reason in the first place why there are some corporations with large incomes (like energy companies, that's an easy example)

      Most companies however obviously do not have large incomes, they spend it mostly. However listen to yourself, what is the government going to do with the money that it 'reallocates' from the private sector? How is the government going to be 'more efficient' than the private sector with any money at all?

      For a corporation it makes sense to cut costs, by cutting costs it increases profit, and clearly sound corporations that you want to actually invest to pay dividends.

      For a government it does not make sense to cut costs, it makes sense to spend as much as it takes in to keep its power and it makes sense to increase its costs by increasing the money it takes out of the private sector and even by borrowing. Of-course printing just takes out money from the private sector as taxing does, so it's more insidious, but the idea is the same.

      So don't misunderstand me for somebody who wouldn't cut government in the first place.

      Were I a dictator, I'd change the Constitution to abolish most of what government does and I would explicitly prohibit government from meddling with economics in all ways completely.

      There wouldn't be any department or a government worker left in my system. There would be minimum military and justice department all funded only by some sales taxes on luxury goods and it would be enough as well, this has happened before the gov't of US learned how to go around the rules imposed by the Constitution and to abuse the system and increase its size and power and take away people's money in form of income taxes to allow itself grow and then to create all those monopolies that are able to be inefficient.

      Of-course they are inefficient, government makes them inefficient by insuring them, bailing them out, taking out their competition, making sure they are subsidized, etc.

    9. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by martyros · · Score: 1

      You can call me a socialist, you can call me a communist. That's fine because I know I'm neither of those. I'm just someone that wants a fair playing field when it comes to aggregating X amount of resources so that our government and public services continue to function properly.

      I recently read about a very interesting theory of how to define a just society.

      Imagine there are a bunch of souls before birth, and they're asked to evaluate and decide on the rules of the social, cultural, economic, and legal conditions of the society they will be born in. However, none of them know what place they will hold in that society. They may be born in the top 1%, the bottom 1%, or somewhere in the middle. They may be healthy or sickly, talented or not, &c. They know the different positions in society, but they don't know the distribution -- whether it's 99% lords and 1% downtrodden peasants, or 1% lords and 99% downtrodden peasants (so that they can't do probability calculations). If that group of people can agree on a set of rules for society, not knowing which place they will hold in it, will be just.

      In essence, this theory allows for inequality of income, status, &c, but only to the degree that allowing some people to have more raises the bottom "rung" of the ladder.

      Or to put it another way: if you were a soul before being born, and you had a choice of which country you were going to live in, but not what place you held in the society of that country or the kind of body / brain you would be born with, where would you rather live?

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    10. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      It's called the "Veil of Ignorance" by John Rawls.

    11. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Just to add to your comment, this tactics doesn't work only in USA. It works for all countries worldwide. Google isn't paying its share of taxes in Canada, in France, in UK, in Bolivia, etc because it's supposed to be done in Ireland since this is where customers are paying for the services worldwide. Not only Americans are having good reasons to be upset. Almost everyone worldwide is having the same good reasons.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    12. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Nice "Economics for Dummies" justification for confiscating someone's property. I'd love fair taxation, too. When I fork over a new 911 Turbo to the government to certainly not get five times the services that anyone else gets, or pay five-figure property tax for the school for the kids I don't have to subsidize the kids of my neighbor who makes more than I do, I could really use some fairness. But stealing more from Google doesn't help me; it feeds government growth and its unchecked addiction to spending.

    13. Re:I Am Not a Fan of Unfair Taxation by spiralx · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the lie of the "American Dream" means that most Americans think that they'll one day be one of the "lords", and therefore society should be set up to benefit the rich. Rationality doesn't come into it.

  15. Good for Google by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ""Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
    possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
    treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
    Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
    in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
    does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
    public duty to pay more than the law demands."
    " - Judge Learned Hand

    Of course, if we'd reign in corporate taxes, we'd bring a lot of capital back home. The US has one of the highest rates of corporate taxes in the world, trailing only Japan and Cameroon. Even France... bastion of Euro-Socialism Lite... has a lower top corporate tax.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Good for Google by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      1. Company makes money overseas.
      2. Uncle Sam demands 35% if company repatriates this money.
      3. Company spends money overseas.
      4. OMG they're taking our jobs!!!
      5. Duh?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Good for Google by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That philosophy is fine for tax loopholes that were created by popular vote with broad support from the general public. I have a harder time accepting it when these loopholes- which are designed specifically to exempt only corporations, you and I can go pound sand- were drafted and created by expensive corporate lobbyists. You're essentially saying that we should allow Google to bribe our politicians into giving them huge tax breaks, and then gag us with Hand's quote to keep us from complaining about it. To be blunt, fuck that.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    3. Re:Good for Google by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Of course, if we'd reign in corporate taxes, we'd bring a lot of capital back home.

      So, if we'd only lower taxes corporations who already have a sweet system setup to pay little or not taxes on some things are going to magically decide to increase their tax burden here. Pandering to corporations to manipulate them into paying a higher tax amount is unlikely to work because, as your quote implies, corporations are very set to find any possible loophole in paying less in taxes, especially as they view such actions as legal. More importantly, if at a whim a corporation were to invest heavily because the tax rate here is so low, it's fairly certainly they would just as easily on a whim move to invest somewhere else if another country were to have an even lower rate (until, of course, it reaches 0%, for which you possibly gain very little). It is also a mistaken belief that these efforts will be viewed as a partnership with the company who will look beyond their bottom-line (and how even a marginally better growth potential elsewhere good justify killing a profitable venture since the money spent elsewhere will grow faster).

      In short, it would seem wise to come up with a better justification for a lower tax rate than trying to cater to flighty companies.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    4. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter at all what the bracket tax rate is, not at all. What matters is the effective tax rate and I can tell you from my medium sized business that business are just fine. My corp effective tax rate is MUCH lower than my personal effective tax rate.

    5. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.4% is high? Really?

    6. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except most people can't, without an army of accountants, lawyers, and overseas subsidiaries.

      The law is too complex. Judge Learned Hand needs to get something out of his ass and observe reality.

      AC

    7. Re:Good for Google by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That graph shows the US as having a 40% corporate tax rate.

      This tells the reader that the graph is meaningless because no corporation actually pays their statutory rate (That'd wipe out the entire tax accounting profession!). The US tax code relatively speaking, is jam-packed with tax breaks. A lot of companies do business in the US because the actual tax they pay is not that scary.
      http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08950.pdf

      The GAO estimates average corporate income tax to be ~25%.

      Corporations know what their effective tax rate is (because they have to pay it!). Part of the due diligence in setting up a corporation in the US is tax planning to determine what the actual tax impact will be. Any corporation large enough to have an accountant (i.e just about any corporation larger than one-person) is taking advantages of these tax breaks. Perhaps not all, depending on the experience of their accountant(s), but they will have no problem identifying the majority of their tax savings.

      So if someone tells you that the US has high corporate tax and says that it's at 40%, they are either unaware of the effective tax rate, or they are deliberately trying to spin the issue with misleading information.

      IAAA (I am an accountant).

    8. Re:Good for Google by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      The US tax code relatively speaking, is jam-packed with tax breaks.

      So lower the corporate rates AND close the loopholes. Doing one will give you leverage to do the other, and everyone wins something.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    9. Re:Good for Google by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      Many tax professionals have been clamoring for exactly this, but unfortunately taxes are the product of an intersection between theory, necessity, and politics.

      Those tax breaks have come about through specific agendas set forth by both parties. Each party has certain behaviors that they want to make easier, or incentivize. While the tax code is complex, the individual pieces were put in place for a reason. Tax reform would require Congress to reset all the small political victories that they’ve won over their years for the groups who support them. The first thing they’d bargain for in return for voting for a reform, is to make sure that the reform retains their particular tax legislation victorywhich defeats the purpose of the reform.

      This is a problem that is truly party-agnostic, and really is just a product of our democratic republic. We vote or donate to those who would promote our interests, and they in turn advocate on behalf of those who keep them in power. It's just the way it all works out.

      The legal system works the same way. Insanely complex, but somebody somewhere felt they had good reason for writing the law that way at the time.

      At this point, tax reform can only hope for the simple removal of redundancies, laws that just aren't relevant to anything anymore.

  16. why do companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pay taxes in the first place???

    companies pass taxes on to consumers... if they didn't have to pay taxes, they would have lower prices. if we taxed consumers instead, then these loopholes wouldn't be found in the first place...

  17. TFS is misleading even outside the headline by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFS says "Google only pays a 2.4% tax rate"

    TFA says "Google’s income shifting [...] helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent"

  18. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by theantipop · · Score: 4, Funny

    But corporations are people!

  19. So what. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    That money is well-taxed before it goes to any human being. Anti-corporatism is all the rage these days, but corporate profits go to either creating jobs by expansion/R&D, or they go to human beings as some form of compensation, at which point that person pays taxes.

    1. Re:So what. by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or...it just sits in a war chest somewhere so the CEO can jump in for a refreshing dip in the morning.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:So what. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And? They literally burn the money? In that case, their stockholders should sue them.

      The money will get spent. That said - any kind of corporate perks the higher ups get should be flagged as taxable income for whoever receives them.

  20. US corporate income tax by operagost · · Score: 1

    The corporate rate is essentially a mirror of the progressive individual/family rates. Therefore, it's not 35%, but slides from 15% to 35%. By the way, that 35% top rate is the highest in the world. It's no wonder companies do their best to avoid it.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by atfrase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If corporations were not recognized as individuals in a number of other annoying contexts (political contributions, "personal" rights, etc) then I *might* be inclined to agree. But as it stands, they've got the best of both worlds; no meaningful taxation like individuals are burdened with, but all the same protections and "rights" as well.

  22. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    Exactly. But it's easy to rouse the rabble by breathless, facile claims about "fat cat" corporations (rabble rousers love the phrase "fat cat") not paying their "fair share". Where exactly do people think that money goes, is the "corporation" walking down the street and buying an 8-ball and paying hookers to let it snort blow off their hooker bellies? I don't think so. It goes to a human being in one way or another who pays taxes.

    Corporate taxes 100% literally takes money from the best job generating position it can be in and moves it to one of the most wasteful places money can be - the government.

    I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, basically I can't buy a few extra TVs I don't need, or a new car I can live without. I'm not using that money to massively stimulate the economy. Corporations do.

  23. Or... by cobrausn · · Score: 1

    Corporations pay taxes and individuals keep their money. It could happen.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    1. Re:Or... by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Sure, if we wanted Somali-style warlords running the country.

    2. Re:Or... by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Instead of the Medieval-style rich and pampered aristocracy we currently have? Sure. That would happen.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  24. HHOS by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do I still feel like they're shafting me? Yes.

    You know if they gave it to the Feds they'd just use it to do evil. They're following their mandate.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. I'm the submitter by bonch · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the record, I tried to submit a different headline, but the buggy, AJAX-ridden story editor wouldn't display the changes I made in the text boxes when I hit Preview. It kept displaying the old text unchanged. I even refreshed the page and tried a different browser. Eventually, I said, "Fuck it" and submitted, hoping it would post the changes.

    1. Re:I'm the submitter by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, in that case the summary wasn't correct, either. Google paid a 2.4% tax rate on foreign income. Their total tax rate was about 22%. That's an order of magnitude higher, probably would have been worth mentioning...

    2. Re:I'm the submitter by sackvillian · · Score: 1

      Buggy? No sir, you've just discovered slashdot's latest feature! Automatic selection of the most sensationalist headline possible, honesty be damned.

      Sure explains a lot around here.

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    3. Re:I'm the submitter by bonch · · Score: 1

      I couldn't make changes to anything I had originally written, not even the summary. Usually I go through several iterations to make the submission clearer. There was even a typo I couldn't change, but apparently it was fixed by one of the site's editors.

  26. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, taxing corporations is a way of collecting funds used to offset all the extra infrastructure costs these corporations generate.

  27. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think if we remove the corporate tax that somehow the prices of goods and services will be lower? I am a pessimist and believe if we lower those tax rates (or eliminate them altogether) prices on goods and services won't go down, the profits for the corporations will increase. Will that spur an increase in development and hiring, perhaps; will it ensure that fatcat executives get monster bonuses, oh yes.

  28. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

    But corporations are people!

    Thread over.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  29. google gettin jiggy by TuxCoder · · Score: 1

    Personally, I find that a "Double Irish", followed by a "Dutch Sandwich" actually is pretty taxing. Not to mention the mess that needs cleaned up before everyone can put their clothes back on.

  30. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Temposs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want to make that argument then you would need a corollary to go along with it that any law that treats a corporation like an individual would have to be abolished as well.

    --
    Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
  31. LOL Dutch Sandwich by stevegee58 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The act of have a sex sandwich with a mother and daughter who's combined weight is over 400 lbs http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dutch%20sandwich

    1. Re:LOL Dutch Sandwich by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      Man, I don't even want to look up "double Irish"...

  32. Where does it go? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    the money saved in taxes? it goes into paying dividends on shares and wages etc. of employees... all of these get taxed anyway... If they were paying higher taxes, then they wouldn't be paying duch good wages or employing so many people or paying such good dividends on their shares... and people would still be moaning...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Where does it go? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "the money saved in taxes? it goes into paying dividends on shares"

      But it should be noted that if Google repatriated income from foreign subsidiaries to pay dividends, that income would be taxable.

  33. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google better hope Obama doesn't read Slashdot...

  34. Re:Frosh thinks he knows everything! by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe you should take some higher-level courses. What stops them from raising prices is competition. When you tax an industry, you allow all participants in the sector to raise their prices to cover the tax increase. If one company finds a tax loophole, they'll be able to undercut the other players, and force everyone else to find a way to cut their costs, so they can cut prices. Yes, they may be able to sit on higher profits for a while, but anyone who has gotten out of econ 101 knows, growth is the only measuring stick that matters. Cash sitting idle in corporate coffers is not how you win the game.

    --
    I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
  35. at least try to get it right by wmeyer · · Score: 1, Informative

    If even a tenth of those who have developed skills in software would spend a little time on the study of economics, there'd be less nonsense here.

    Taxes on corporations are hidden taxes on consumers. End of story.

    --
    --- Bill
    1. Re:at least try to get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So. A tax on me is a hidden tax on anybody I trade with? Funny though, it still feels more like a tax on me.

      Study economics? You mean, that so-called science that teaches us comparative advantage and the effects of monopolies; yet fails to realize how the two theories come into conflict, even with things like the Chinese rare earth embargo staring them right in the face?

    2. Re:at least try to get it right by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why you think this.

      A company sells a product for as much profit as it can. If a company makes $1Billion a year on its products and pays 10% taxes they make 900 million.

      If you drop the tax to 0% then they make $1Billion.

      They do not reduce the cost of their goods by 10% so that they only make $900 million and they do not pay their employees more.

      Trickle down economics is a myth.

      If that is not the point you were trying to make please explain what these hidden taxes are

  36. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made. All the money is headed somewhere else (either to shareholders as dividends, or to pay operating expenses such as wages).

    The corporation itself won't enjoy the benefit from any of the money because it is imaginary. The corporation itself won't weight the benefits of government services against the cost of the taxes, and even if it did it wouldn't complain about it because it can't care and can't speak (only people may speak for it).

    It makes no sense to tax corporations because they have no stake in the matter. They are imaginary. People are real, they have a stake. Corporate taxes hide the costs of government from the people who really have a stake in it. That is not a good way of doing business because there is no accountability.

  37. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by steelfood · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, they can't make political contributions. Those need to be done through individual members of the corporation.* But somehow, they have free speech rights that allow them to buy advertisements.

    *There's a lot of backroom dealing to the effect of, I donate $25K to each of the candidates X, Y, and Z that you're buddies with, and you do A, B, and C for me. Now the guy who does A, B, and C is owed a big favor from X, Y, and Z, which he'll collect sooner or later either as a politican or a lobbiest.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  38. It's ok with me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if they invest the unpaid taxes in offshore windmills :)

  39. So much for not being evil by J.+L.+Tympanum · · Score: 1

    So much for not being evil

  40. So? by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

    I itemize my taxes at the end of the year in such a way as to end up paying as little in taxes as possible. I'm relatively certain that the people here complaining do the same. Why is it okay for us to look for legal ways to pay less, but not Google?

    Lotta hypocrites around these parts . . .

  41. this changes everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A corporation with a sole business model founded on tracking, storing, and cleverly selling data, is clearly evil, and is the enemy of all democratic mankind. Whether the democratic masses know it or not. I have always thought google was evil.

    Now, after hearing this tidbit, they are clearly EVIL. Time to delete the gmail, docs, voice, and get rid of that blasted googleTV. Ahh, on second thought.... it's too late, they've already taken over. Blast them.

    Let me be the first to welcome our new overlords.

    Google is good!

  42. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by stubob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're saying we should protest in favor of "No Representation without Taxation!"

    --
    Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
  43. CmdrDickTaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the biggest trolling post I have seen in a long time. You should be ashamed of yourself CmdrAssTaco. Shit like this is killng /.

  44. Summing it up by Caerdwyn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Can the argument be summed up as "from each according to their means to each according to their needs"?

    I've heard that somewhere before...

    I'm getting so tired of people saying that "fair" means "you pay, I benefit". Almost half of Americans pay NO federal income tax at all (http://www.businessinsider.com/only-half-americans-actually-pay-income-tax-2010-4), and these are the ones screaming loudest that the ones who DO pay taxes should pay even more... with that money to be paid to (you guessed it) the people who already pay nothing, directly or indirectly.

    "I want your money, I don't want to have to work for it, so I voted that you have to give me your money. That's my definition of 'fair' and 'democratic'."

    Maybe it's time I looked into creating an overseas-based tax structure for myself.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Summing it up by lostros · · Score: 1

      How is this for "fair" I pay my taxes, which go towards roads, the military, schools, the military, welfare, the military, and of course the military. Despite me paying my taxes, we are massively outspending our budget. Should we cut the budget? Probably, but no one wants to mention that if we cut the military budget in half, we would still outspend the next 7 nations combined, but this is a different argument.

                      You say that fair means you pay I benefit, and that half of Americans pay No federal income tax, but the simple fact is that I am paying, and We are outspending, because They are avoiding taxes in oversees tax shelters, and in living trusts, and a thousand other dodges. I pay my share to keep America safe, and have roads to drive on, and yes, for the military whose budget increases even though our roads have potholes, and we are facing a serious sewer problem because we don't spend on infrastructure. and yet despite my calculated share of the taxes being paid, I am getting screwed. Because the people who control 90% of the nations wealth are not paying theirs.

            For those of you playing along at home, that means that the 50% of Americans who pay no income taxes (and that is a statistic that includes children), control about 2.5% of it. I am far more concerned with a 20 to 30 percent avoidance on 90% of the wealth than even if we taxed the bottom 50 percent at a 90% tax rate and they could somehow pay it.

      I am an American, and I pay my taxes. I would like the infrastructure I am paying for

      source: http://trueslant.com/sahilkapur/2010/04/09/the-mind-blowing-surge-of-wealth-inequality-in-america/

    2. Re:Summing it up by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Taxes on wealth destroy small businesses. But I'm sure you already knew that.

    3. Re:Summing it up by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the bottom doesn't pay taxes, and the top pays a lot less relative to the value they have and consume than the middle. This is not communist thought. It is simply outrage that the rich and corporations pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes, which is even worse when they need such a low percentage of their income in the first place for necessities.

      It's easy to claim "communism!" when you've never had to budget $1000 a month take-home pay for food, rent and transportation.

    4. Re:Summing it up by dkf · · Score: 1

      Taxes on wealth destroy small businesses.

      Taxes on middle income people destroy their ability to form small businesses. Let the rich pay a larger proportion of all required taxation so that the ingenuity of the people in the middle can be better unleashed!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:Summing it up by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      I've had periods of unemployment in my past which were many months long (boom and bust). I've had to live on my own on under 20,000 a year. I've been in situations where I've had to sell my stuff to pay rent and buy food. But I've never been on the dole, even though I was thoroughly "entitled" to do so.

      Yeah, I know how to be poor. I've done it. But somehow, I knew how to be poor without drawing welfare, food stamps, unemployment or other subsidies. I don't reach into others' pockets.

      Last year, between state, local, federal, social security and other mandatory taxes, plus sales taxes, fuel taxes, various surcharges and fees on fuel, utilities, car registration, property taxes, and other unavoidable expenses, 45% of my income went to the government. And people say I should pay MORE?

      It's not a crime to be rich, for whatever "rich" means, even though people with more "want" than "earn" in them like to claim otherwise. If you have one more dollar than I do, does that make you "rich" and a fair target for the abuse that gets heaped upon anyone capable of making more money? If I have one more dollar than-- oh, wait, I already know the answer to this one.

      There is as assumption that if you are "rich" then you by necessity screwed someone over to get that way, which is just plain wrong. There is also the assumption that if you're "poor" it's someone else's fault, usually the corporate straw-man. That too is BS; personal responsibility is not income-dependent. Yes, somewhere there are mustache-twirling slumlords, but they are a minority. Yes, somewhere there are poor people who would be better off but for an act of malevolence, but that too is a minority. You can't blame Bill Gates if you drop out of school. You can't blame Steve Jobs if you take a degree in liberal arts and find out *shock* nobody will pay you a six-figure salary for being an expert in Turkish history or for mastering classical guitar.

      But the moment that the claim is made that the "rich" should have money taken away from them and given to the "not-rich", SOLELY because they have money that others want, or a claim is made that there is an upper limit to how much you should be allowed to have before everything else is confiscated in the name of "fairness", yeah. There's a word for that.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    6. Re:Summing it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can the argument be summed up as "from each according to their means to each according to their needs"?

      I've heard that somewhere before...

      Yes you have, but probably not where you think. It's not from Marx or any of the communits (as you seem to be implying); it's from the bible (Acts 2:44-45 to be specific)

    7. Re:Summing it up by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Informative

      But the rich aren't paying. That's the entire point. Capital gains taxes are low, loopholes, and other advantages makes their effective tax rate much lower than the middle class.

      As for those in the bottom rung paying nothing, did it every occur to you why they are in that position, and why the USA has the highest income inequality in the entire world? Why the average wages went down by 2000 dollars for the middle class the last 10 years, but the top earners wages tripled?

      Maybe if the top didn't have the vast majority of the country's wealth, they wouldn't be paying, by volume, so much of the taxes. The percent paid of their income certainly isn't high, but since their income itself is so high, the actual dollar amount is high.

      Re-read this thread since it has been modded a bit more now. There are plenty of links and examples about how little the very rich actually pay.

      From 1950-until Reagan we had very high taxes on the rich (70-90%) and the rich managed to stay rich, our factories continued to employ workers, and the country was largely stable. I have no idea why people are freaked out about a possible return to Clinton's tax rate of 39% and talk of (hopefully) closing some loop holes...

    8. Re:Summing it up by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Federal tax burden is not limited to the Federal income tax. The assorted Social Security/Medicare/whatever taxes are percentages of income under a certain amount, and are a serious burden for the low-income taxpayer. They mean that I'm paying a higher earned income marginal tax rate than somebody making $20 million a year, because I don't earn enough to get some income that isn't payroll taxed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Summing it up by lostros · · Score: 1

      actually, they don't. They destroy large businesses, which I'm okay with.

    10. Re:Summing it up by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "And people say I should pay MORE?"

      Nice you asked. Since you are lurking Slashdot instead of having a nice day at Bahamas I bet, no, people doesn't say you should pay more.

      "Yes, somewhere there are mustache-twirling slumlords, but they are a minority."

      Yes, but such minority controls roughly 90% of GDP

      "Yes, somewhere there are poor people who would be better off but for an act of malevolence, but that too is a minority."

      Yes, but such minority of relative poverty means about 13~17% of American population, with more than one out of two expected to spend at least a year of their lives below the relative poverity treshold. Not exactly the same kind of problem.

    11. Re:Summing it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Insightful? A Randroid ignoring the structures built by society before they were around?

    12. Re:Summing it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting so tired of people saying that "fair" means "you pay, I benefit". Almost half of Americans pay NO federal income tax at all (http://www.businessinsider.com/only-half-americans-actually-pay-income-tax-2010-4), and these are the ones screaming loudest that the ones who DO pay taxes should pay even more... with that money to be paid to (you guessed it) the people who already pay nothing, directly or indirectly.

      Those who have low enough incomes to avoid paying federal income taxes do not have much of a political voice. Your assertion makes no sense.

      The reality is that the country is roughly 50-50 on whether taxes are too high or too low as well as on most political topics. The 50% that disagrees with you covers as many levels of income and education as the 50% that agrees with you, despite your prejudiced opinions.

    13. Re:Summing it up by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You paid 45%. Corporations and other exceptionally wealthy people get tax breaks and other incentives making it so that they pay much less. 15-30%. I'm not saying you should pay more. I'm saying that the taxation should be fair, and should not be applied to things that are necessities like food and under a certain value of housing, because those taxes hit the poorest most disproportionately.

  45. Good For Them by Andy_w715 · · Score: 1

    It's thier money. People always love complaining about others that have more than them. Simple jelousy. Like those in upstate NY who don't want Google to build a datatcenter because of the PILOT (payment in leu of taxes) agreement. Well you know what? Its not like that 40 acres is bringing in much tax revenue as it sits now. Yes collection rates are going to be lower but its better than the current yield. Not to mention the jobs both Google and Yahoo are bringing to the area,.

  46. Corporations do not pay taxes! by edawstwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All taxes are paid by individual taxpayers, no matter the form in which it goes to the government. If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs, so it ends up being a tax on the customer. Be thankful that they don't pay them - keeps your costs lower and keeps the politicians from finding more useless crap on which to spend it.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    1. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Good thing the price of a google search isn't going up!

    2. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      Corporations and small businesses pay Google to place their ads. If that cost went up, the cost of virtually everything you buy online (and many B&M items) would go up since not many businesses don't advertise with Google.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    3. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      All taxes are paid by individual taxpayers, no matter the form in which it goes to the government. If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs

      Which, in turn, would be passed onto their employers (i.e. corporations) in the form of increased wages - right?..

      Simply put, this premise that money flow terminates at some single point is rather obvious bullshit.

    4. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by sackvillian · · Score: 1

      If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs, so it ends up being a tax on the customer.

      That is extraordinarily naive. You're saying that Google's profit is fixed and its prices are totally flexible, and that changing those prices wont' affect the quantity of business that it does. No way.

      In reality, Google would probably realize that increasing ads (effectively charging consumers more) would drive customers to a competitor, say Bing, and so they would be forced to just accept a lower profit margin. Not such an outlandish idea given how much profit they would still make.

      But your assumption that all tax avoidance by big corporations are passed on to the consumer in savings is nothing short of absurd, tea-baggish nonsense.

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    5. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by edawstwin · · Score: 1
      Don't twist my words - I never said that prices won't affect what customers will do. Increased costs or lost jobs (which likely means worse service). It has to be one of those. If a company operates as for-profit, they must make a profit for their shareholders or go out of business. Pursuing every legal avenue to keep their profit margin above zero should be perfectly acceptable.

      How you can bring "tea-baggish" into this is absurd. Simple economics is simple economics. All costs are passed onto the consumer in one form or another. The consumer can choose not to pay those costs (thankfully), but the costs do exist.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    6. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      If companies have more money to hire better employees to make their product better and increase their market share, then yes the money will go towards higher wages. If they choose not to use their money to pay better then someone else will to try and take their market share. To state the really really ridiculously obvious: less money in taxes means more for individuals whether it's in the form of higher wages (or dividends or bonuses) or individual tax savings.

      How can money flow not terminate at a single point? Government does not create wealth, people do. Therefore money flow always begins and ends with people.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    7. Re:Corporations do not pay taxes! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs,

      Considering the profit motives of a corporation, if they could increase their prices they would have done so already. Those three billion in taxes would have come out of shareholder profits.

  47. Ya, so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least google does some really neat shit that advances human tech and over all quality of life for the masses. As opposed to these wall street dens of fucking scumbag thieves who are nothing more than leeches and parasites.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8074417/Goldman-Sachs-pay-and-bonus-pool-hits-13bn.html

    The neat stuff google does, or toxic derivative "financial products" that destroyed the global economy outside of asia then got bailed out to the tune of TRILLIONS, not billions, trillions of various currency units that all of us peons get to pay back one way or the other.

    A little perspective is needed here on what is a ripoff or not.

  48. Shorter version: by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's solidly rigged in favor of the rich and the corporations.

    Nothing new here; vote with and for the republicans to keep things this way.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Shorter version: by jyx · · Score: 1

      Nothing new here; vote with and for the politicians to keep things this way.

      Fixed that for you..

  49. 2.4% is incorrect by atticus9 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google on average pays 20% in taxes, as stated in their earnings. Which is still pretty low, but nowhere near the 2.4% in the article.

    1. Re:2.4% is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 2.4% of foreign earnings. Of course the US is one of the countries with the arrogance to tax foreign earnings as if it were normal income.

    2. Re:2.4% is incorrect by newviewmedia.com · · Score: 1

      If the government in US, Ireland, Netherlands, etc did not receive this 20% tax... then who did it get paid to? Does this mean 100% of Google profit was taxed at 20% overall... i doubt it. Think the article was saying that Google pays the US 2.4%.

      --
      www.newviewmedia.com
    3. Re:2.4% is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.4 overseas
      rtfa

  50. Unusual taxes and political greed by Terwin · · Score: 1

    These taxes that were 'avoided' are the taxes for bringing profit home to the US that were made in other countries.
    Most countries have the same tax rate set in the range of 0-2%. The US has this tax rate at 35%.

    If I were to make money over seas and I had to pay 35% to bring it home, I would be tempted to re-invest it over seas as well.

    If you want this money to come to the US to be reinvested and help the economy grow, make the US tax rate for these profits similar to that of other places so that it is not worthwhile to do these 'tricks' which really amount to little more than keeping money that was made outside of the US outside of the US to avoid US taxes.

  51. Not avoiding taxes, just partitioning income by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Bloomberg "interactive" infographic tiptoes around this point. They note that Google, US, has licensed some IP rights for "undisclosed fees," but that "U.S. companies have an incentive to set such prices low, reducing their taxable income at home."
    Essentially, Google licenses the IP to the Bermuda holding company for $1000, which Google, US pays taxes on.

    Now, the Bermuda company licenses it to the Irish company, which then sells products and advertising to make a ton of money. That ton of money goes, by way of the Netherlands, back to the Bermuda company...
    ... where it sits indefinitely.

    "But no," you say, "it returns to the US in license fees!"
    Nope. As noted, Google sets its license fee intentionally low so that it has very little income and thus pays very little US income tax. If that money was returning to the US in license fees, then they would have all that income and pay taxes again. The money, generated overseas, stays overseas (well, Bermuda, anyways), and is not coming back into the US. Google, the multinational has avoided paying US taxes on its international profits by keeping its international profits separate from its US profits. Google, the US company, hasn't avoided any US taxes.

    The article also notes this:

    Deferred Indefinitely

    Technically, multinationals that shift profits overseas are deferring U.S. income taxes, not avoiding them permanently. The deferral lasts until companies decide to bring the earnings back to the U.S. In practice, they rarely repatriate significant portions, thus avoiding the taxes indefinitely, said Michelle Hanlon, an accounting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Conceptually, this makes some sense, too... Why should Google US have to pay taxes on money that was earned overseas and is never brought into this country?Like, say they make a lot of money on advertising in the UK, and decide to open a London office and hire a bunch of people there... Why should the US government get a piece of money earned outside the US and spent outside the US?

  52. How can this be? by bizitch · · Score: 1

    I thought the Google being a good solid liberal company - Obama's number 5 contributor - would do the good American patriotic thing and pay confiscatory tax rates on it's profits .... I am so disillusioned now *sob*

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  53. Lowest tax rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assure you, the lowest tax rate in the technology industry is 0% ;)

  54. BS !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Only poor people pay taxes.

    Back in 2000, Dick Cheney sold $35-million in Haliburton stock, and paid over *FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS* in taxes. In one year!

    ( Citation, MF: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa041301a.htm )

    Start a family tree at my generation. Count me, my wife, my three brothers and sisters-in-law, her sister and brother-in-law, my five cousins and their spouses, her seven cousins and their spouses, and all our parents and grandparents. Total all the income taxes we pay over the whole of our lives and it won't be $14-million.

  55. Time to fight fire with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We the people need to get our own lobbyists for fight for our interests:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/

  56. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, corporate person-hood has only been established by legal precedent (specifically in regards to whether or not corporations have a right to enforce contracts). So you would really have to write a new law saying that corporations don't have a right to enforce contracts. I don't see the point in doing that, but I can't say that I'd have a problem with it either.

  57. here's the thing though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if Google keeps that money, Chances are they are going to spend it. On a great many things. New buildings, New servers, New hires, more R&D... I could go on but you get the picture. And all of those things get taxed. so yeah they got out of paying a significant amount of taxes but they will most likely reinvest and their reinvestment will get taxed yet still provide benefits. maybe not initially, but eventually that money makes it way back. Well unless they bonus it all out to execs. and then the execs get taxed. Ideally

  58. No easy fixes... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    But maybe, just maybe, we adjust the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to .02% of worldwide revenue?

    Google would have paid $4.7M on 2009 revenues of $23.651B.

    Naw, not enough. How about 2%? $473M taxes? Seems like not a lot.

    But wait. From their own results report for Q409:

    "Income Taxes - Our effective tax rate was 23% for the fourth quarter of 2009."

    Yeah, and someone's nose grew.

    Evil. Not any different than any other corporation, just bigger.

    Actually, we will never fix this. Corporations don't pay taxes, this is just an expense to them. Their customers pay the taxes.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  59. and people wonder why our country is in debt? by Rhadamanthos · · Score: 1

    cause the only people paying off the debt are the lower class.

  60. Income taxes are regressive by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sales taxes are regressive

    So are income taxes.

    There is no tax-free situation for the poor with income tax in place.

    Assume 30% average tax rate. Poor person pays zero. Then buys a service, such as plumbing. Plumber pays 30%. Poor person pays $100; Plumber gets $70, government takes $30; poor person gets (maybe) $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for poor person: 30%.

    Of course, it's higher if you're middle class: You earn $142; taxed at 30%, you keep $100; you pay plumber $100; government takes $30; you get $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for middle class: 50%.

    Whereas if you're Google, you pay 2.4%, so you earn $102.45, keep $100, pay the plumber $100, govt gets $30, Google gets $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for Google: 31.6%

    By taxing incomes, the government ensures that everyone, most definitely including the poor, pays taxes by catching you (often again) when you spend your money on anything that is taxed. The only way to avoid paying is to only buy things that themselves are not taxed in any way. And good luck with that.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Income taxes are regressive by bmh5c · · Score: 1

      IANAE(conomist), but isn't this flawed logic? If he only had to do $70 worth of work to get my $100, then I only had to do $100 worth of work to get the $142, so we're still talking about 30%. Otherwise, doesn't it become a vicious cycle if you just keep chaining services and tax rates together?

      (it's been a long day, so my logic could also very well be flawed. Something just seems off about your calculations)

    2. Re:Income taxes are regressive by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      So are income taxes.
      There is no tax-free situation for the poor with income tax in place.
      Assume 30% average tax rate. Poor person pays zero. Then buys a service, such as plumbing. Plumber pays 30%. Poor person pays $100; Plumber gets $70, government takes $30; poor person gets (maybe) $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for poor person: 30%.
      Of course, it's higher if you're middle class: You earn $142; taxed at 30%, you keep $100; you pay plumber $100; government takes $30; you get $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for middle class: 50%.
      Whereas if you're Google, you pay 2.4%, so you earn $102.45, keep $100, pay the plumber $100, govt gets $30, Google gets $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for Google: 31.6%

      And this is why we charge higher income tax rates for higher levels of income (i.e., make taxes progressive) - because we want to do our best to avoid what you are showing here. But it worked a lot better back in the 50's when the rate for people who earned above $1M per annum (probably somewhere in the $10-20M range today, adjusted for inflation) were taxed at a 90% rate and ratcheted down pretty much linearly. You know - before government "cut our taxes" by flattening the tax structure in the eighties and made it more regressive.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:Income taxes are regressive by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      It's not logic. It's just math.

      And yes, certainly, as money flows through the hands of one non-government entity after another, it is repeatedly taxed. However, the effect is only felt when earned and spent; in other words, if you earn $142, give up $42 to the feds, spend your $100 on the plumber, the plumber loses his $30, gives you what he can for the $70 he actually gets to keep... that's the end of what you feel.

      Here's why: Say the plumber spends the $70 he got to keep on a similar service (perhaps on an electrician), so he puts out all $70, but the feds take their $21, and so all the value he can get out of that $70 is $49. This doesn't have any significant effect on you -- you still received the same amount of service from the plumber, and your finances aren't affected any further, either. The plumber is catching it on the spending end (which you don't feel) and on the earning end (which is your spending end) so you did feel that.

      In order to understand where the effects are, you have to examine what work the money is doing for any one transaction. If you're involved, either earning or spending, then it'll affect you by increasing the amount of work you have to do to get a measured amount of product or service. If you're not, it won't.

      The money itself, though, keeps being tapped each time it serves as the pivot of a transaction. How much of a hit it takes depends on the tax rates of the buyer and seller, and sometimes the goods themselves. For instance, you buy gasoline, a lot of the tax isn't on income to the seller, but is in the form of fees added right at the pump which are used to pay for roads. Liquor, fuel, real estate are all examples of goods with taxes as added fees at the transaction level, independently of taxes on income.

      It's also worth pointing out that a sales tax can be designed to not be regressive by exempting basic needs from the sales tax. X amount of whatever allowed per person, and above that, you pay the sales tax. POS systems could easily manage this. In this way, a poor person could live tax free; a middle income person could live like a poor person and save and live tax free, or live well and pay taxes, or a mix of saving and indulgence; a high income person could live in any style they please, just as they can now.

      Human nature pretty much assures that the more money one has, the more comfortable one will be spending it on non-essentials. The sales tax is visible at all times, while income tax hides from most consumers as they don't understand they're being hit again when they buy things.

      That's why a well designed sales tax would be hugely superior to any possible income tax. The effect is visible; it's easier to plan for, especially if you're not all that financially intuitive. And importantly, it can be designed to actually not be regressive, which cannot be done with income taxes - they always bite when the poor person spends the money. Unfortunately, if we ever get a sales tax, most likely it will be in addition to the income tax, which will make it just another way to make things worse.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Income taxes are regressive by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      And this is why we charge higher income tax rates for higher levels of income (i.e., make taxes progressive) - because we want to do our best to avoid what you are showing here.

      Yeah, the thing is, it doesn't work. Even when you tax the rich guy at 90%.

      The rich guy has something to sell. Otherwise he wouldn't be earning that million bucks. When you tax him at 90%, then when the poor person goes to buy the thing he sells, the poor person's money only does a fraction of the purchasing that it would on something bought from a fellow who isn't making a million bucks, but is instead just getting by. The millionaire may be selling bread, which the poor person really needs, while the guy who is just getting by is selling handcrafted chairs and tables, which the poor guy doesn't need.

      Income tax is an insidious, inherently unfair funding mechanism. The less money you have, the more significant damage is done to your purchasing power. If you're earning $10k/year, you really need your money to work as effectively as possible for you. If that gets you into the 0% tax bracket, that only means the feds don't smack you when you earn it. But they're going to smack you, and quite hard, when you spend it -- because the amount of work it can do is hugely reduced by the taxes they apply to the person you're buying from. And the higher the income taxes are on the entity you purchase your goods/services from are, the less work your money will do for you. That's why graduated income taxes that supposedly penalize high incomes are stealth taxes on the poor. It's also why it would be better if those who are taxed, were taxed at a flat rate. That way, all products and services get the same amount of leverage out of a dollar.

      A system that taxed consumption above a basic standard of living would be far superior even to a flat tax (and vastly superior to any possible income tax), because it would be transparent, and far more honest, and because it would be amenable to considerably more control by the individual - frugality would mean a lot more than it does now, and so would excess.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Income taxes are regressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assume 30% average tax rate. Poor person pays zero. Then buys a service, such as plumbing. Plumber pays 30%. Poor person pays $100; Plumber gets $70, government takes $30; poor person gets (maybe) $70 worth of plumbing. Effective tax rate for poor person: 30%.

      Duh, no. Plumber deducts business expenses before paying income taxes.

    6. Re:Income taxes are regressive by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I suppose it would be do-able if a social security card meant you could pay $70 instead of $100, and the plumber wouldn't have to pay taxes on that $70 they earnt. Could require a lot more in the way of administration, though.

      Still, if you could buy basic services and repairs, rent basic accommodation, and eat basic food (raw, minimally-processed ingredients, mainly) at 30% off, it'd make life a lot easier.

      Of course, the problem would occur at the point where you started making just enough income to cancel the social security card, meaning that almost all costs of living would seem to suddenly jump by 43% overnight. You'd need to find a way to soften that jump or many people just wouldn't take it, locking them further into poverty lifestyles.

  61. Avoid the knee-jerk reaction by zvyr · · Score: 1

    I know most people see this article and think that American's are getting screwed. Actually, the article makes the case that as American taxpayers we are getting screwed. The article also only gives one side of the argument, basically saying 'close the loop holes and tax the hell out of them'. However a better answer to raising the taxes or more vigorously applying them is to drastically lower or remove them all together. I link you to the following article from Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-12/stimulus-of-1-trillion-adds-nothing-to-deficit-frank-aquila.html To summarize the article he states the companies would no longer have a reason to hide the money, which they would in turn bring back into the US and use somehow. Whatever way that is, it will almost assuredly be taxable, whether it be more jobs (tax on income), more infrastructure, dividends to investors, what-have-you. If companies are going to great lengths to avoid high taxes, in turn withholding tax revenue, how does making them pay more/up make any sense?

    1. Re:Avoid the knee-jerk reaction by Sigmon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Very good point... It always amuses/saddens me to read these ignorant rants from liberal retards (I would estimate 90%+ of the /. comments). They get so cross whenever a story like this comes along about a corporation doing the best they can to increase income/revenue/profit and lessen their tax exposure... the EXACT same thing the complainers do when they fill out their tax return, albeit on a smaller scale. When they stop taking any deductions (standard or otherwise) on their tax returns - and pay income tax on the full, non-adjusted gross income THEN I will listen to their rants.

      You liberal retards don't understand that:
      1. Corporations do NOT pay taxes... People do. Corporations are legal fictions and when taxed do one or a combination of 3 things: Lower dividends to investors, lay-off workers or, more often than not, increase the price of their product. A corporation is therefore NOT a tax payer... it is a tax COLLECTOR!

      2. The loopholes you like to gripe about (legal ones) are in the tax code ON PURPOSE!... put there by the politicians. Gripe at them, not the sensible leaders of a corporation doing the best they can (legally) to lessen their tax exposure.

      Many of you have been brainwashed into thinking that being 'rich' - whatever that means - is somehow inherently evil... so you support taxation policies that confiscate more of what people have when they have more. Why? Is it because they OUGHT to be able to live on less money? Is it because you think they don't pay their fair share in taxes? Is it because they earn 10 or 100 times what you earn in a year and you think they are greedy? What do these things matter to you? It is because YOU are the one who is greedy... You are envious of what somebody else has and you support taxation policies that take what they have and give a small piece to you.

      So fracking what the rich guy lives in a mansion... who was paid to build the mansion? So fracking what they guy has a yacht... who was paid to build the yacht? So fracking what he has ten cars... Lots of people were employed to build those cars. So fracking what the guy has a million dollars sitting in the bank... The bank is loaning that money to people who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

      You see? Just because a person has a large amount of wealth associated with their name does NOT mean they are greedy and others are not benefiting from it. Even if they do use so-called loopholes to get around taxation - they've gotta spend their money somewhere! They aren't likely to bury it in the back yard.

      If companies/individuals are breaking the law, however... penalize them harshly! If it's a stupid law... work to change it.

    2. Re:Avoid the knee-jerk reaction by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "1. Corporations do NOT pay taxes... People do. Corporations are legal fictions and when taxed do one or a combination of 3 things: Lower dividends to investors, lay-off workers or, more often than not, increase the price of their product. A corporation is therefore NOT a tax payer... it is a tax COLLECTOR!"

      That's the smokedream of Mr. Adam Smith where every business plays on open ground and their rivals compete in such a way that profit margins stay low and are solely due to the hindrance of the service they are offering.

      In the real world, corporations can do a lot more than you say. For instance:
      1) Reduce their profit margins
      2) Pay less to their corporate officers
      3) Focus more on their internal efficiency and expenditures in order to be able to provide product/services at lower operational costs.

      A real example: BP oil doesn't seem to be any more expensive now than it was prior to their Gulf accident while the contention and retaliation expenditures worked against them exactly the same as a "Mother Nature tax". How is that possible within your theory?

      "So fracking what the rich guy lives in a mansion... who was paid to build the mansion?"

      The society as a whole (including, of course, the rich guy itself). The rich one wouldn't be able to stand on his standard of living unless the society he lives within support for that, so it's fair that he returns a part of his earnings to help building the society he lives within. And it seems fair the he pays for such society building *at least* as much as the next guy, never less.

      "You see? Just because a person has a large amount of wealth associated with their name does NOT mean they are greedy and others are not benefiting from it."

      Truly. But such a person didn't get the money out of thin air. And *if* such a person made his money out of a business that managed to sustainedly get above 15~20% net profit margins, even Mr. Adam Smith knew something is smelling fishy and such enrichment must be suspiciously looked at.

      "Even if they do use so-called loopholes to get around taxation - they've gotta spend their money somewhere!"

      Quite truly -again. But if they use their privileged position so that they get to spend their money in an uncompetitive way (ability to find holes to evade taxes, tycoon-like practices so they get even richer while their workers stay just a step above slavery...), that again smells fishy and earns a second, suspicious look.

  62. Land value taxation would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, even for a technology company like Google. They like servers to be located close to the customer, the main headquarters and Google Campus are here in the U.S., and I bet Page, Brin, and all of the executive officers own property. You can't hide beachfront property on an island or a Swiss bank account.

  63. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will go down because all companies cost will now go down. Unless you have a group of companies colluding, which is illegal if not often enforced, some company will lower their prices in an attempt to undercut the competition and gain market share. This in turn will force other prices down.

  64. Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by shmlco · · Score: 5, Informative

    "... but I do begrudge people from demanding that the rich pay even more taxes.'

    Warren Buffett himself says that the rich do NOT pay enough taxes, and that the taxes on the rich should be higher.

    "Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

    "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by edmicman · · Score: 1

      So is the solution to tax Mr. Buffett at 30% as well as his secretary, or lower the secretary's taxable percentage accordingly? I don't want to pay more than I have to (even 30%!) whether I make eleventy billion dollars or I make $25k.

    2. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Buffett has his own agenda. If he really believes that he is morally obligated to pay more taxes, he would. He can certainly afford it. Simple as that. Since he's not doing that, you should take his statement with a large bucket of salt.

    3. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing stopping Mr. Buffett from paying what he thinks is his fair share.

    4. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by ncc74656 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Warren Buffett himself says that the rich do NOT pay enough taxes, and that the taxes on the rich should be higher.

      Nobody's stopping him from cutting a big fat check to the Treasury. If he really believes he isn't paying enough, he ought to cash out some of his stock and write a billion-dollar (or whatever) check to Uncle Sam. Until then, I invite him to enjoy a nice big cup of STFU.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    5. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by ballwall · · Score: 1

      The IRS would refund the difference. (Assuming they caught the mistake)

    6. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit on not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. He specifically setup his company ownership structure so that most of his personal income arrives via capital gains, which have the lowest tax rate. There's no reason why he couldn't have chosen to receive his income as salary and pay the same 35-40% tax rate (plus employment taxes on the company's side) that someone making $250,000 would have paid.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    7. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by AfroTrance · · Score: 1

      By income through capital gains you mean share options? That is standard for executives, as it ties your income to the company performance.

      I'm Australian so I don't know the laws in the US, but are shares etc that are received as income taxed at a lower rate? In Australia, anything you receive from your company is counted as income and taxed at standard income rates.

    8. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by xnpu · · Score: 1

      Of course he has his own agenda. The more tax the rich pay, the more money the government can spend on Buffet's companies/projects.

    9. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

      Actually he did give about 50% of his net worth to charity via a number of foundations. That's what moved him from being the richest person in the US to the 2nd richest behind gates. Over the long term he has pledged that 99% of his wealth will go to philanthropic causes.

      When I used to for the John D and Cathrine T MacArthur foundation I found it surprisingly does take a lot of time, and man-power to give away that much money (assuming you limit it to programs that actually help people and not get wasted, stolen, mis-used). Usually the amount of research, financial tracking, charitable tax paperwork, legal department, IT department, international relations, government relations, etc people is very much like a 200-300 employee endeavor right there. And all the time your doing all this work to ensure that the money goes to people who really need it you are making more money.

      On top of that Buffet is going to all his Billionaire buddies and saying "do you really need to have a net worth of 20 Billion? Why not give away 10 billion, cause you have the ability to make that back over a decade or two anyway".

    10. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      Buffet's salary and benefits in 2008 totaled to $175,000, which is a little on the low side but still commensurate with a senior executive position. The fact that he makes capital gains on Berkshire Hathaway is not a tax avoidance scheme but rather a reflection of how much of the company he has a direct financial stake in.

    11. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Buffett also supports the death tax in his belief that the government deserves your money to redistribute as they see fit... The key word being YOUR money, since Buffett has already signed over his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, obviously, because he believes the BMGF will redistribute his money in better ways than the government.

      So what is it, the government should forcefully redistribute the wealth of people or that the foundation created by one of the few people richer than Buffett himself should be able to redistribute HIS money since they know better than the government... Again, Buffett believes in one set of rules for himself but a different set of rules for everyone else. If Buffett gave up half of his fortune to the government to distribute (he's conveniently getting rid of it now, which not only prevents it being taken by the death tax, but gives him nice fat tax writeoffs every year too, which, surprise, also would help him pay less tax than his secretary), he might have room to talk... instead, he's a complete hypocrite and I laugh every time someone brings up his tax arguments since he's deliberately flouting the rules he's supposedly supports... you know, for everyone EXCEPT him .

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    12. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he really wanted to pay more, he could do it. I haven't seen anyone put their money where their mouth is.

      http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

    13. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The problem area now seems to be in the $200-800k income range. This is especially true if you live in a place with a high cost of living.

      While sales tax is regressive to the middle class, treating a family in San Francisco making $250k the same as a married individual with the same income in Mississippi is off. The San Francisco family would pay an effective tax rate including sales, income, and FICA taxes of about 37%. In Mississippi, the individual would be increasing wealth at a much faster pace, and only paying an effective tax rate of around 28-30%.

      Once you get close to $1MM annual income there are plenty of ways to significantly limit taxes, especially through income property ownership and dividends.

    14. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warren Buffett himself says that the rich do NOT pay enough taxes, and that the taxes on the rich should be higher.

      Then let more Mr. holier-than-me give as much of his money to the government as he wants. Let him stop taking advantage of the "loopholes" in the laws, I don't mind; but he has no business telling me that I'm not paying enough.

    15. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      So raise taxes on the super rich and watch them move to Dubai.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    16. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate hearing about "taxing the rich" - we pay very little tax on "wealth", we pax taxes on income. You can have high income and not be "rich", and you can also be very rich and have modest income. The whole meme about "the rich" is a way to have an excuse to take stuff from some other guy, and not ourselves.

    17. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Warren Buffett himself says that the rich do NOT pay enough taxes, and that the taxes on the rich should be higher.

      The Treasury department takes voluntary tax payments. Buffett can put up or shut up.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    18. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by dcroxton · · Score: 1

      How in the world did his secretary pay 30% in taxes? Even if she's single with no kids, her total income tax would be significantly less than that. (Her marginal rate might be 30%, but that wouldn't count deductions and exemptions.) The only way you could get it up to 30% would be if you included other taxes -- FICA, Medicare, real estate, sales taxes, and so forth -- but Buffett had to pay those himself, and was surely not including them in his 17.7% rate. True, he doesn't pay FICA for income over some small amount ($80,000?), but that is because we maintain the fiction that FICA is a sort of savings account, and we don't give benefits for earnings over that amount. (Not that I agree that it works that way, but that is the justification for it -- if someone wants to argue for a reduction of the FICA tax, I'll be all for it.) One might also point out that the government could tax Warren Buffett at a 90% rate and he would still be fabulously wealthy. That's not true for people making $250,000, which seems to be the magical point when one becomes classified as rich these days. How about a higher tax rate for people making over $1 billion per year? I'm not necessarily in favour of it, but at least they would be in a position to afford it.

      --
      Sincerely, Derek

      A curious little blog
    19. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not pay the secretary an extra 30%?

    20. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      The IRS would refund the difference. (Assuming they caught the mistake)

      As well they should. But since 1996, the generous have had another avenue to help the Treasury: a gift donation. I've sent them money, myself, but that was in happier times when I wasn't in danger of being flat broke.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    21. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      When I used to for the John D and Cathrine T MacArthur foundation I found it surprisingly does take a lot of time, and man-power to give away that much money (assuming you limit it to programs that actually help people and not get wasted, stolen, mis-used).

      I am not surprised. I saw Brewster's Millions, and he was trying to waste money.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    22. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

      BS. This is another stipid meme that people want to believe even though it is trivial to disprove. If his secretary makes $60,000 even with no extra deductions, no kids, not married, her tax rate would be 15%. It is easy enough to run the numbers yourself:
      http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_calculator.htm

      Buffet might have only paid 17.7 percent if all his income is capital gains, but he is in the top .0001% and is somewhat of an outlier. Most people in even the top 1% have most of their income from other sources which is why the top 5% pay 95% of all taxes.

    23. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your estate is big enough to be subject to the estate tax (aka "death tax") then all I can say to you is congratulations. Your estate is worth more than at least 98% of the estates in this country.

    24. Re:Tax the rich. (The rich say so.) by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those family farmers... they're loaded. I bet they just love having to sell the farm to BigFarmCorp or SprawlTractInc so they can pay the government the value of 50% of the farm's assets.

      Starting in 2011, the federal government will begin taking 55% of the value of the estate exceeding $1 million. You can pretty much guarantee that will hit almost every commercial family farm out there (100 acres at $10k per acre is enough to hit the exemption, and that is just land, ignoring machinery, buildings, livestock, etc). Factor in other assets like stock and bond holdings, retirement accounts, cash assets, life insurance, vehicles, homes, jewelry, etc and it isn't too hard for the average person to hit $1 million in assets these days.

      Two people working minimum wage will earn $1.2 million over 40 years. Factor in that almost nobody works minimum wage for their entire life, and it's even theoretically possible for them to hit the estate tax, to say nothing of the 45% of households making $50k a year or more.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
  65. Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we all agree taxes are evil, right?

  66. OMG you TRFA'd by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Thanks. It's nice to see someone else the reads the articles.

    How many people will not only fail to read the article, but fail to do the math?

    If 60 billion was inly 2.4%, Google would have to be making a hell of a lot more money.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  67. Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Punish people for doing something (business taxes) they will either stop doing it (go out of business) or try to reduce the impact of the punishment by changing what or how they do something (tax havens, non-profit status, etc). No-one should expect anything less when an entity unceremoniously wishes to take over 30 cents per dollar you make. American corporations TOTALLY LEGALLY paid less taxes than they otherwise would have had to if they didn't do anything about it? Great! That's $60 billion dollars the American government can't squander. Government is necessary and all that sure, and I don't mind paying a fair tax rate, but the US is far above that number and has been for years.

  68. Firemen should let google's house burn down by tekrat · · Score: 0, Troll

    Remember that Tennesse dude that didn't pay his $75 fee, so the firemen let his house burn down? That's what needs to be done here. If corporations feel that they somehow don't need to contribute to the pot for essential services provided by taxes, then they should not be recipients of said essential services.

    Consider this: Google got rich because of the INTERNET. And where exactly did the internet come from? It came from TAX MONEY. The internet didn't spring forth from no place, essential R&D had to be done, and most of it was government funded research, i.e., tax dollars.

    Now let's imagine for a second that everybody employed Google's tactics, but this idea got thrown through a space-time distortion and landed in the 1950s. So, it's right after WW-II, and nobody in American is paying taxes because we're all looping it through Bermuda.

    Guess what happens? There's no internet. There's no space program. Hell, by this time there's no police, EMS, or fire dept. When 9/11 happens, only financial people died because there's no attempt at a rescue. Of course, I wonder how we even have financial people without an educational system.

    Oh, and there's no Google either, and no Facebook. Because without the internet, none of that happens.

    So go ahead, be a Tea-Bagger and not pay taxes. I hope you've got a gun to defend your property, because when you dial 9-11 for the police, you get disconnected. Assuming we even have a phone system since America would be a completely collapsed society with anarchy and violence as the only law.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  69. Mod parent up by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it so disheartening that people will bitch vehemently about taxes without a fucking clue about the truth. I was hoping someone would point out that your return is a portion of the money already taken out of your taxes. I know people well into the "bottom half" of earners who didn't have their taxes set up right and they ended up owing money to the government come tax season.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I agree. We should tax everyone more. In fact, I think that everyone should send every single cent they earn to the government so that it can distribute the country's wealth in the most wise way possible.

      --
      Love sees no species.
  70. PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES!!! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    Greedy fucking assholes.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES!!! by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Google will pay its taxes when it repatriates its earnings (to pay stock dividends, for example).

      It is important that countries only tax income generated in those countries. Otherwise you might be taxed twice by the different countries.

    2. Re:PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES!!! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Then why bother with all the cloak-and-dagger accounting? Why not just pay it up front and get it over with, saving the expenses of all the book cooking? It's not as simple as you make it sound, and somebody is getting fucked in the ass because of it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES!!! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It is not cloak and dagger accounting. It is moving money to where it is needed in the business. If I were a multinational, I would do as much work as possible in countries with the least expensive combination of labor and tax rates.

      If the US cannot compete because she has to pay for her bloated social welfare programs, war operations, and insane debt service costs, that's her own damn fault.

  71. I've got a bridge... by orthancstone · · Score: 1

    Care to purchase it?

    (Seriously, the more a certain sect of the media brags about it being "grassroots," the more you should be realizing what a load of bullshit the claim is. I've been calling out gov't spending for the past decade but I don't seem to remember Fox News pushing my "grassroots" ideals all over the airwaves, and that has nothing to do with rallies or total participation. It has to do with underlying agenda; in this case, political upheaval puts their guys in power so they support it. The Tea Party is nothing more than political speak of the year, sort of like "flip flopping,", "giving the keys back," "socialist," "terrorist sympathizers," or any number of idiotic catch-phrases they use to dumb down your ability to think and take advantage of people's inclination to be attracted to slogans.)

    1. Re:I've got a bridge... by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      You give Fox News way too much credit. They don't care about elections, they care about ratings. The more eyeballs, the more they can charge for advertising. This is true for any other channel on television.

      The sad fact is that news is becoming less about "just the facts", and more about opinion, conjecture, and sensationalism. All the major cable news outlets have been caught with their pants around their ankles because they jumped on a "big story" without properly vetting it. MSNBC peddles just as much drivel as Fox News, yet since it is for the other side places like Media Matters ignores their false statements. CNN tries to take the middle road, but puts you to sleep with their effort.

      News is biased because no matter how much you might want to believe otherwise, all people are biased. They are biased by their environment and all the news outlets pretending that is not the case always has been little more than an illusion.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    2. Re:I've got a bridge... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You give Fox News way too much credit. They don't care about elections, they care about ratings.

      So why is Newscorp donating millions to the Republican cause?

      Fox News wants its owner to become richer. And because of that, Fox News DOES care about elections.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  72. Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I asked my girlfriend if she was into Double Irish or the Dutch Sandwich, but she just slapped me.

  73. Too lazy... by Syberz · · Score: 1

    I'm too lazy to read the article but, does it explain how I can have a 2.4% tax rate?

    --
    ~Syberz
  74. Good for Google, teach all the companies to do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. Can I sign up to find a loophole in my Federal taxes as well?

    Our 35% rate on Business in this Country should be illegal. Then again almost everything our US Federal Government does is corrupt and it shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    I don't blame any company for trying to keep more of what they EARNED! The Federal Government didn't earn it and nor did any of the hand out citizens looking for a free ride handout.

    Go Google, you just got even less evil in my book.

  75. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But corporations are people!

    And the top people in these corporations hide the majority of their income under the corporations. They use all sorts of legal tomfoolery to avoid paying taxes at all.

  76. You're only looking at income tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the poor in Washington State should be happy they pay no income tax! Actually, WA has one of the most regressive tax systems. The poor pay about 17% and the rich pay about 4%. This is largely due to sales tax which has a bigger impact on low incomes than high incomes.

  77. MOD PARENT UP by anwaya · · Score: 1

    There's so much anti-tax rhetoric around here, it's a pleasure to read someone give a good argument that demonstrates why the rich should pay taxes, and the taxation system needs to be fixed so that they do.

  78. The government needs to earn its keep by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

    At this point in the US there is a shrinking line between taxes and government extortion. These obscene rates are the reason so many companies have located the headquarters overseas.

    The only reason it makes financial sense for Google is because of the amount of money the company makes yet somehow for the average user the services provided are free. It's truly remarkable.

    Instead of complaining about how someone else or some other company isn't paying what you think it should in taxes, you should spend that time figuring out how to reduce your own tax burden.

    A 35% corporate tax is absolutely ridiculous. What does the government provide Google that it should be entitled to 35% of their profits?

    --

    It's a perfect time for being wasted.
    A perfect time to watch the stars.
    - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    1. Re:The government needs to earn its keep by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      A 35% corporate tax is absolutely ridiculous. What does the government provide Google that it should be entitled to 35% of their profits?

      The means of its existence, i.e., the internet. Invented and developed by government employees, remember? Maybe something about not biting the hand that feeds you?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  79. Insightful? Really? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

    Actually, the bottom half or so of the US population pays no federal income taxes, and the top 1%, 5% etc. pays a hugely disproportionate share. Want to see the guys dodging taxes relative to the amount of money they make? It's huge corporations like Google that give loads of money to the Democratic Party, as Google did.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  80. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Soylent Green was people?

  81. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No meaningful taxation! Read the article - Google's tax rate in this Country is 35% which is REDICULOUSLY high! 35% of all profits go to Uncle Sam - for what? It's extortion and if they'd lower the rate we might have a few more jobs in this Country. How many businesses do you think don't headquarter in the US so they can avoid our insanely high corporate tax rate? I'd imagine a lot of them.

    Go Google and Facebook and any other corporation! You deserve to keep more of what you earn. The entitlement crowd can go get a job. The Big Government cronies can go home when we continue to vote you out each election. It's time to return to Limited Government and lower tax rates.

  82. Income taxes != taxes by David+Jao · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare, state taxes, and consumption taxes. These represent a far bigger proportion of a poor person's income than a rich person's income.

    In addition, the article is about the 2009 tax year. During the 2009 tax year, Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit disproportionately benefited the poor. That tax credit is now expired, and (unlike with the Bush tax cuts) there is absolutely zero discussion in Washington about extending it.

    Anyone who supports extending the Bush tax cuts but fails to support extending the Making Work Pay tax cut is doing exactly what we are accusing you of doing, namely, wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes. Presumably this is your stance as well, since I see you favor extending the Bush tax cuts, but not the Making Work Pay tax cut. If this assessment of your position is wrong, please feel free to correct it.

    1. Re:Income taxes != taxes by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare

      Ha, ha, I thought those were not taxes but "insurance". Get on the message, comrade.

      These represent a far bigger proportion of a poor person's income than a rich person's income.

      So what? The top 10% are already supplying 70% of the income tax receipts and benefit less from that money than the poor do. Why in your opinion do the hard working have a duty to carry the lazy on their shoulders? They are doing far more than enough already.

      Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit disproportionately benefited the poor. That tax credit is now expired, and (unlike with the Bush tax cuts) there is absolutely zero discussion in Washington about extending it.

      Maybe there is zero discussion because people forgot about it. A completely random once off $400 tax credit based on a million conditions is hardly in the same league as tax cuts of several % across the board.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Income taxes != taxes by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll
      As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare, state taxes, and consumption taxes.

      Which are not income taxes, which they pay 0.

      Anyone who supports extending the Bush tax cuts but fails to support extending the Making Work Pay tax cut is doing exactly what we are accusing you of doing, namely, wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes.

      That's a lie. You can't "keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes" because they are not the only ones who pay taxes, and they aren't the ones who pay federal income taxes at all.

      You refuse to understand the difference between a tax cut and patent welfare. A tax cut means you give less of what you have worked to earn to other people; welfare means other people are giving the money they earned to you. The "Bush tax cuts" are tax cuts. "Maying Work Pay" is welfare. The former deals with money you've earned, the latter with money you are being handed for doing nothing.

    3. Re:Income taxes != taxes by David+Jao · · Score: 1
      Troll comment is troll, but I'll feed you anyway.

      As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare Ha, ha, I thought those were not taxes but "insurance". Get on the message, comrade.

      Despite your derisory attitude, I have yet to see any national-level candidate, of any party, advocate the elimination of these programs. This includes your beloved Tea Party.

      I'll say it again: Not a single Tea Party candidate anywhere in the country has called for the elimination of Social Security or Medicare.

      I personally very much support eliminating these programs. I want to see them GONE. Do you? If yes, then good, but in that case, how do you reconcile this with the "no compromises" attitude of the Tea Party, which is clearly compromising on this issue? If no, then you're just being hypocritical, since you evidently support socialist "insurance" programs.

      So what? The top 10% are already supplying 70% of the income tax receipts and benefit less from that money than the poor do. Why in your opinion do the hard working have a duty to carry the lazy on their shoulders? They are doing far more than enough already.

      As many others have pointed out, the top 10% own far more than 70% of the wealth. Paying only 70% of the taxes is not even a fair share, let alone "far more than enough."

      Maybe there is zero discussion because people forgot about it. A completely random once off $400 tax credit based on a million conditions is hardly in the same league as tax cuts of several % across the board.

      The conditions are: AGI less than $195000, not a dependent on someone else's tax return, and legal status (i.e. have SSN). It's hardly a million conditions. More like three.

      Attacking the Making Work Pay credit on the grounds that it is "once off" is a very strange accusation. Does that mean you would support it more if it were permanent? And if the "once off" nature of the tax credit is a major objection, why aren't you lobbying to make the credit permanent, rather than opposing it bitterly?

    4. Re:Income taxes != taxes by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      You refuse to understand the difference between a tax cut and patent welfare. A tax cut means you give less of what you have worked to earn to other people

      By this logic, which is your own logic, social security and medicare are taxes. They involve giving part of what you have worked to earn to other people.

      As the article itself points out, poor people still pay Social security, Medicare, state taxes, and consumption taxes.

      Which are not income taxes, which they pay 0.

      They are not income taxes, but they are taxes, by none other than your own logic from above.

      In the real world, what matters is how much you pay in taxes, not how much you pay in income taxes.

    5. Re:Income taxes != taxes by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      First of all, my previous comment is certainly not a troll (do you know what a troll is?) but it has been modded as such because it mentions the simple and obvious truth that rich people tend to get rich by working harder and poor people tend to stay poor because they are lazier, which doesn't agree with the pc attitudes of the modders.

      I'll say it again: Not a single Tea Party candidate anywhere in the country has called for the elimination of Social Security or Medicare.

      Please, say it again if it makes you feel good but it doesn't change the fact that it is completely untrue. Many tea party candidates are in favor of (reforming/privatizing/making optional) SS which all amounts to abolishing. I am not going to go searching for quotes, just google "tea party candidate social security".

      I personally very much support eliminating these programs. I want to see them GONE. Do you? If yes, then good, but in that case, how do you reconcile this with the "no compromises" attitude of the Tea Party, which is clearly compromising on this issue? If no, then you're just being hypocritical, since you evidently support socialist "insurance" programs.

      It is in the 10 points voted in by the Tea Party supporters Contract From America ( http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/ ) to examine all government programs for constitutionality and a number of prominent Tea Party people have called SS unconstitutional. BTW, are you applying the same criteria for what you call hypocrisy to other parties as well? For example, all Democrat senators voted FOR Patriot act, except for one, Russ Faingold. Does that mean that Democrats are being hypocritical or inconsistent? No, it means that Democrat party as a whole supports PATRIOT act strongly, even though there are some dissenters as is always the case. Same with the Tea Party. As any most political movements, it is directed by the broad areas of agreement, not by blind following of a precise dogma. Less government, lowed taxes, free market. As it happens, I am in favor of abolishing SS and Medicare but I can support candidates who are broadly in favor of reducing the scope of the federal government even if they compromise on specific programs.

      As many others have pointed out, the top 10% own far more than 70% of the wealth. Paying only 70% of the taxes is not even a fair share, let alone "far more than enough."

      And what is the relation between how much someone has and how much they are due to pay in taxes? Someone who saves more (even after paying their income taxes) is supposed to be taxed again more than someone else who spent more of their money? Why?

      Attacking the Making Work Pay credit on the grounds that it is "once off" is a very strange accusation. Does that mean you would support it more if it were permanent? And if the "once off" nature of the tax credit is a major objection, why aren't you lobbying to make the credit permanent, rather than opposing it bitterly?

      No, if you read my reply again you will see that my opposition was with equating one of the hundreds of obscure government programs ( http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/) with income tax cuts.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    6. Re:Income taxes != taxes by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      I'll say it again: Not a single Tea Party candidate anywhere in the country has called for the elimination of Social Security or Medicare. Please, say it again if it makes you feel good but it doesn't change the fact that it is completely untrue. Many tea party candidates are in favor of (reforming/privatizing/making optional) SS which all amounts to abolishing. I am not going to go searching for quotes, just google "tea party candidate social security".

      I just did exactly that. Clicking through the first five pages of results, the only candidate mentioned is Joe Miller. He supports "transition[ing] out of the Social Security arrangement" over the course of a generation. That's not elimination. That's delaying the problem to our children. In other words, business as usual in Washington.

      If that's the best you can do, then case closed. I stand by my statement that no candidate supports elimination. This is an indisputable fact.

    7. Re:Income taxes != taxes by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how anybody can support instant elimination of the payouts to people who paid into the system their entire life (with the explicit promise of getting paid once they retire). That's not a matter of big government or small government, that's a matter of honoring the contract. It can only be abolished for the new people entering the workforce, though the question then becomes where the funding will come from to pay out the current retirees. The reality will be a sort of a compromise: reduce the outflow (by cutting benefits, and increasing the retirement age) over a period of time, finding new sources of funding (by cutting fat out of the rest of government) while transitioning the new workers to a system of a interest baring retirement accounts. It's not as if we have a clean slate to work with, we have to meet obligations made by the previous governments too.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    8. Re:Income taxes != taxes by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      I don't see how anybody can support instant elimination of the payouts to people who paid into the system their entire life (with the explicit promise of getting paid once they retire).

      Sure sure, keep on defending the need for compromise.

      I'll tell you what, only one party on Capitol Hill has expressed any willingness whatsoever to compromise on legislation, and it's not the Tea Party.

    9. Re:Income taxes != taxes by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Why in your opinion do the hard working have a duty to carry the lazy on their shoulders?

      That's actually a really good question, and possibly the key to this whole discussion.
      In my opinion, the answer is: because they, for their own personal reasons, want to show solidarity to "the lazy" (as you call them).
      Seeing as how most of the viewing audience of Slashdot seems to be Americans, and I've read discussions where the word was painstakingly circumscribed, you may want to look that word up in a dictionary.
      It's a difficult word, "solidarity".
      But I think it's an essential component of any viable society (another difficult word, "society" comes from "socius", "companion". Or "comrade" as you describe it ;-). But you don't always have to like your "companions"--it's more neutral than "comrade").
      The essence, I think, is that you're not required to like solidarity, but many people see it as something that is necessary nevertheless (maybe like paying taxes).
      Maybe it depends on a mental picture of exchanging places with someone else, which would leave most people with a feeling that it's not good that people have it much worse than themselves. I can't explain it better than this unfortunately :-( Any sociologists around here??

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  83. Ah but you are not a real american! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real Americans as we've been told for over a decade are not people who use reason or know history or believe science.

    Americans are really stupid! All of us unAmericans just refuse to leave the country and they've not found a way to get rid of us yet. (but since they think we are conspiring to put them into camps or whatever Glenn Beck says they may have to attack us first... you know, like Iraq...)

  84. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    insightful? are you shitting me?

    too bad there's no "+1 painful reality" tag

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  85. The teabagger thing was hyjacked by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It is not what it was when it started. I know some of the 1st people and they are NOT part of the fake group of suckers who stole the name and just a small number of the early people are fell for the new one under the same banner.

    Its not hard to steal a grass roots unorganized movement that has faded out when you have marketing people with tons of corporate funding and TV time when the real movement had an incredible time trying to even get noticed.

    1. Re:The teabagger thing was hyjacked by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but...it's amazing how many "teabaggers are all stoopid" conversations I've had lately when I explain what the original points were. And I've been pleasantly surprised how many have ended up with "OK, I can respect that," or even "You know what? I totally agree with you."

      The mission hasn't changed. Who cares if they stole our symbol? Their noise gets enough attention for us to get at least a little signal through. We're a lot closer to the mainstream than we were 4 years ago.

    2. Re:The teabagger thing was hyjacked by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? Other than being a conversation starter, what it clearly is NOW is not what it was. Like I said, you can use that to tell some history and get in some good points but the current group shouldn't be legitimized and especially treated as if they are a large group with large protests. They are not.

      I know some real libertarians I argue with all the time and we don't disagree a whole lot on most things but these people are nearly like the religious right groups of the 90s... in fact I bet many are the same and many of their manipulators are likely the same as well.

      I think some signal got around before without all the hype. The real reason the word spread better now than in the past isn't them, its the internet and how vastly more intelligent the message is over the empty marketing we are bombarded with.

      The times also are a factor; more so than this front group's attention. I think they are not contributing anymore than they harm the legitimate movement.

      They warp it too far towards the corporations when Ron Paul and his smart followers advocate more government by killing the FED and returning our money back to our control (government WAS ours.) But instead this astroturf movement and gov are totally backing the banksters in any policy they want.

    3. Re:The teabagger thing was hyjacked by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it matters.

      The internet's been around for a while now. I've been in contact with a handful of libertarians scattered around various states for several years.

      Before Ron Paul ran for President, and got his fans in touch with each other (which, in a big way, led to the tea parties), no one ever listened to people who wanted real reductions in government. Most I've talked to felt like there were only a scattered handful of us left.

      I've spent years being immediately dismissed as a complete lunatic by people attached to both parties. The tea parties are opening people up to the possibility that there's a sizable minority who's actually serious about downsizing government.

      Next to the squeaky wheels at the tea parties, my ideas sound downright reasonable. People don't always agree with all my positions...but I've been very pleased with how often they wind up agreeing with the ones I consider most important. And we can usually come up with some sort of compromise on the rest that suits us both.

  86. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    A corporation is a legal entity, with almost as many rights as an individual, more all the time lately. It's not a situation I agree with but it is a reality.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  87. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    wanna bet?

    it appalls me that corporations have first amendment rights in the eyes of the law

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  88. They must do this to follow the laws. by Khenke · · Score: 1

    Actually, if Google had not done this they would have broken the law.
    Why?

    Because the law says that a company must do everything to maximize profit for their shareholders. So a company can't be "not evil", since the laws says they must be. It's not their fault, it's the law makers fault.

    Same goes with copyright, patents and so on. According to the law they must be greedy bastards, otherwise the people responsible (VP, chairmen, board members and so on) in the company will break the law.

    I don't like that it works this way, but we can't blame the companies for being good at what they are meant to do, earn money for the shareholders.
    What we can do is either change the laws (good luck with that in the US...) or we can refuse to help the company earn money or just don't give a damn.
    It's just up to your self.

    Personally I'm the much worse evil (according to people in the country that knows best), a liberal socialist one...

  89. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by mosb1000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you are against corporations being treated as a legal entity, why are you for taxing them?

  90. Only people pay taxes by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    for every tax paid by a corporation they have to get it from a person by selling services or goods.

    It is simply indirect taxation of the populace. It is a far easier sale to the population than taking it directly, hell why do you think withholding taxes works so well.

    If all taxes came directly from individuals too many would ask questions politicians would not want to answer.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  91. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by repetty · · Score: 1

    But corporations are people!

    Sure... yeah, sure they are. Same thing. <wince>

  92. Re: base tax rate by durdur · · Score: 1

    You forgot to mention sales tax - 10% or so all by itself in Northern California. It is a regressive tax because poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items.

    Social security tax is "paid by the wealthy" but since there is an income cap above which it does not apply, it is also a much lower percentage for income for the wealthy than for the poor or middle class.

    In addition, the AMT, originally intended to snare extremely wealthy taxpayers, has in effect become a surcharge that affects upper-middle and some middle-class taxpayers, especially in states with high state, local and property taxes. Ironically the very wealthy often escape this tax.

  93. Goods and Services by macshome · · Score: 1

    Normally you need to pay the escort service in advance to get a "Double Irish". They require a lien on property for the "Dutch Sandwich".

  94. Congress is the blame for tax loopholes by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    People need to vote for representatives that will fix these loopholes and not surcome to special interests who want to make them bigger. How convenient, there is an election right now so go vote.

  95. Dan, my man, by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 2

    You've been plundered.

    "...the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons.” – Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  96. going back to the past by ProfBooty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Supposedly this was the case before world war 2 as well.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  97. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, you both got hit by the old "I disagree!" cocksucker mod.

  98. /. slow as dirt new interface by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Is there a way to go back to the orginal threaded slash interface? Rendering 10,000 div and class tags in a large group discusson is grinding my browser to a screaching halt. The new interface is not attractive, not efficient and does nothing for me when it comes to functionality....epic fail . I guess the slash developers did not take note of the digg fiasco.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:/. slow as dirt new interface by maxume · · Score: 1

      Prefs button at the bottom left of comments pages.

      (I don't see any other way to access the Dynamic Discussion pref)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  99. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made.

    True. However, typically it does have a will of its own. Who actually runs a corporation? The CEO, obviously, but he himself works for the shareholders, and if he's not raising the profits/price of their stocks, he's out. In a sense, he's a hostage. A very well treated hostage, but one nonetheless. Shareholders, however, are very similar. If profit/price of the stocks is not raised, then they lose money. And due to investors being typically very panicky, any unfamiliar drop means there will be plenty of people trying to get out of the boat before it sinks, which means more drops etc ad infinitum. Se you have to find a way to keep profiting more and more even if you're doing really well already, or you might lose a lot. Looking at it like that, it's hard to find someone who's in charge. We might as well say that the only one they're all working for is the corporation. Not that it jusifies taxing them, of course. I was just sidetracking. What justifies taxing them is their using of governmental institutions. They use court houses, roads, policemen etc. Actually, nowadays they use them more than citizens, I think.

  100. What? no Double Dutch Ruddrr? by howardd21 · · Score: 1

    I am not sure how they missed the tax evasion scheme known as the Double Dutch Rudder...

    --
    no comment
  101. Good. Business collects taxes, doesn't pay them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxes on business make no sense except as a way of hiding the burden from the people, who actually pay them.

  102. Personal Income Taxes by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    How many millions (billions?) of tax dollars is Google not paying that could be used to reduce each of our personal income tax burdens? Couldn't this one company's taxes, if collected at higher than 2%, cover tens of thousands of individual's tax share? How is this good for society?

  103. Vote for Prop 24 (CA) to close a tax loophole by rsborg · · Score: 1

    If you want a more level playing field and you live in California, vote Yes for Proposition 24, which will make it more difficult for companies like Google (and esp. oil companies) to avoid their fair share of taxes.

    Before you anti-tax folks get your panties in a bunch, please keep in mind this proposition would close exactly the kind of tax loophole that only benefits corporate behemoths at the expense of small business and consumers.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  104. Don't be evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or don't be stupid?

  105. corollary by Anon1072 · · Score: 1

    1st grade logic corollary: .

    Your learned what a "corollary" was in first grade?

  106. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    Cost of being allowed to do business. Social responsibilities. They make use of the same public works and services the rest of us do, which have nothing to do with rights.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  107. LoL by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    You can't name a single thing that the US government would better spend that money on than Google.

    Bonuses for failed bankers? Rescuing inefficient industries and manufacturers to the detriment of more efficient ones? Torturing innocent people? Subsidizing irresponsible borrowers? Spying on Americans? Attacking countries that pose no threat to us? Creating a new permanent underclass of welfare recipients? More jails and more corrupt, militarized police? Services for illegal immigrants and their hordes of children? Tearing up and re-building perfectly-good roads and bridges? Pointless, ecologically-destructive make-work? Extending old age at the expense of youth? Maintaining overpaid bureaucrats? Creating more terrorists who hate us? Handing out prescription drugs?

    Is there even one thing they do that isn't corrupt and destructive from top to bottom?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  108. Non-U.S. profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is tax on NON-U.S. PROFIT. It was never subject to U.S. tax (a won't ever be until repatriation).

  109. Re: base tax rate by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    They only pay social security tax if they get their income from wages (that's a really small number-most of their income is in other forms than salary).

    And on top of that, if they do get 1 million in salary. they would pay the same 7500 (secretly 15,000) that the 100k salary person does. So it drops from an effective 15% tax to an effective 1.5% tax. If they make 10 million, their effective tax is .15%.

    So they pay it, but it's not much of a factor.

    They should pay it- since there is a small risk they'll be bankrupted and need a retirement income. But.. they should be means tested out of it if they 'win' the lottery and retire wealthy. It's more of a retirement insurance. I expect to be means tested out of 25% to 50% of my social security.
       

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  110. Re:Frosh thinks he knows everything! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Not all participants are based in places where this tax would apply.

  111. I can already hear the other hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if we close the loophole, they will take their company to China?

  112. Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As DragonWriter pointed out above: the overseas rate was reduced to 2.4%, but there's a couple other factual errors in the summary.

    The actual effective rate is 22.2% (relative to statutory 35% in the US, although it's lower elsewhere): "International income-shifting, which helped cut Google’s overall effective tax rate to 22.2 percent last year."

    and "Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion" (first sentence...not $60bn)

    the $60bn number is all US corporations using this strategy: "Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue"

    The summary is incredibly misleading.

  113. Now now, let's be fair. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    If you're going to start complaining about corporate donations to political parties/movements/PACs/etc, which is a perfectly valid complaint to have, you're also going to have to spread the blame around -- D or R, the parties are in bed with whomever has open pockets. One of many reasons I quite dislike American party politics.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  114. Rules by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    What I don't like are people cheating the system

    I understand your feelings on the topic, but are they cheating the system? If the rules are poorly written, they still are rules, and you aren't cheating to follow them. Many of the strange tax loopholes are a result of the government trying to encourage certain types of behavior with tax incentives.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  115. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Wocka_Wocka · · Score: 0

    But Soylent Green is people!

    Fixed that for you.

  116. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by jimrthy · · Score: 1

    Anything that treats a corporation as a person is evil and should be abolished. The Supreme Court decision that turned corporations into people (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad) was one of America's first big steps down the road back to feudalism.

  117. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by jimrthy · · Score: 1

    The Supreme Court decided back in the 1860's that corporations are people, with rights. That same court has been giving the more and more rights ever since.

  118. Google provides (free!) essential services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxes allow governments to provide such excellent services as roads, education, etc. Read above for more. Unlike other giant corporations, google provides its services to everyone for free. If I had say which I relied upon more, paved roads or email, search and google maps, I'd have to go with the later. From a morality and did-i-get-my-money's-worth perspective, google gets no damnation from me for what it's doing. Could the government have provided such services that our insanely high-tech country and IT industry rely upon if it had a couple $billion more? Who can say.

    My point is that by avoiding some taxes, google cheats the people out of some services just doesn't fly for me in the face of all that google does provide. Information is power, and google gives that away for free.

  119. you are very wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Keynes was a fool. Japan has demonstrated that throwing good money after bad and neverending government stimulus investments in infrastructure only serves to prolong the depression, they've been at it for 20 years and we're just starting.

    Look at all the money we spent and what it got us. Every day you see news of depression ending, and the economic realities saying otherwise. Every month the unemployment numbers are "revised" to worse numbers, after all the excitement about things improving has made sure no one's looking.

    Houses were unaffordable before, government's solution ? let's make sure they stay that way, let's not depress prices. Let's give trillion $ to banks. Guess what, you can print money but can't force banks to lend. Can't force companies to hire. Government spends billions hiring people to repair roads and sidewalks that don't need repairing and creating a few TEMPORARY jobs in the process. Why not give away money for free. Some city in California spent like 100 million of government money to create 3 jobs. And now we say we need MORE "stimulus".

    Look at who is going to have to pay for all this. The fucked middle class, who still can't buy a house but will have to pay more taxes for the luxury.

  120. The rich are not _SUPPOSED_ to pay taxes! by xQx · · Score: 1

    Even back in the days of kingdoms the rich tycoons didn't pay taxes.

    Taxes are a way for the king (now government) to get income back from the individuals in the kingdom who don't naturally contribute (on balance) to the kingdom.

    The likes of Microsoft, Google, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump don't have to pay taxes and shouldn't pay taxes because their contribution to society is giving others thousands of others jobs - and those thousands of others pay taxes - in essence they don't have to pay tax themselves because they have _CREATED_ wealth for the kingdom.

    Company taxes are immoral and sneaky, because it is a double tax - shareholders and employees pay taxes when they selfishly earn income that they have a tendency to not share with others (by saving).

    The moral to the story is stop bitching about the fact that you are paying taxes, and do something for society and try to become one of the people who employs thousands of others - and thus deserves the right not to pay taxes, rather than sitting on a wage, saving every penny you can, and bitching that the government is forcibly taking 30% of that to pay for services that you have otherwise done nothing to fund.

    These loopholes are just a modern day incarnation of what used to be a gentlemen's agreement with the king.

  121. Thanks be to Flipao by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    Indeed, my Good Citizen, you have made a most brilliant and insightful comment.

    Those moronic teaboogers, named after a porn character, Prof. Teabag, are the ultimate duped suckers. Protesting in support of the major tax evaders (Peterson, Koch, et al.) they sound the alarm against possible future tax recovery.

  122. Do No Evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do No Evil. Yay for hypocrisy!

  123. Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't illegal. This is smart.

  124. Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this strike anyone as slightly.....Evil!?

  125. What the fuck are you all doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earlier today, this story had like a hundred comments. Now it has almost a thousand. It was pointed out way early that they fucked up the headline. Bad journalism. Apparently the sensationalist headline worked, because you all generated a lot of page views here. Geeze.

  126. Good for Google by camg188 · · Score: 1

    Good for Google.

    Well, actually... good for Fidelity Investments, BlackRock, Vanguard Group and all the other investment groups that are the top 10 Google stockholders.

    Well, actually... good for anybody who is a Google stockholder, or has a 401k with an investment company holding Google stock, or anybody who buys services from Google, because corporate taxes are a cost of doing business and those costs would have been recovered from higher fees.

    I bet a lot of slashdot readers benefited in some way from Google's perfectly legal tax strategy.

  127. Net Income? I Think You Missed a Few Numbers by ChrisLynx · · Score: 1

    Actually, a fair number of people get net income from the IRS because they get "refundable tax credits" and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Most tax credits either reduce your taxable income or reduce the amount of tax levied, but in any case, you can never end up with anything less than $0 on the "tax owed" line, so you simply get all of your withheld money back.

    ALL of my withheld money back? I think you are forgetting about Medicare Tax and Social Security Tax. Those two don't even show up on the form as an option to get back, and the EITC is nowhere close to what is withheld by those two.

    Any talk of "Net Income from the IRS" is laughable until there is a standard deduction or refund of Payroll Taxes.

  128. Parent is modded "Troll"? by boot_img · · Score: 1

    C'mon mods, seems like a perfectly reasonable comment to me.

  129. Actually, honesty has little to do with it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The facts are that the ultra-rich do NOT do their taxes. More importantly, they do not have much of a clue about how was paid. Or how many were helped by them.
    What they know is that they pay top dollars to top accountants, including tax guys, whose jobs are to help make money and then keep it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  130. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "In a sense, he [the CEO]'s a hostage"

    Except that it seems it tends to be the other way around. Golden parachutes, anyone?

  131. Corporate taxes are a lie. by CaspianHiro · · Score: 1

    The only person who really pays ANY taxes is the consumer. All other taxes are simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

    Imagine if we stopped taxing foreign income? Would Google and these other companies rather have the money here to use? Certainly. How many jobs could be created if the money was repatriated?

    Convoluted tax laws that no one understands creates these rules, Google is just following them.

    There is a better way, go look for yourself at what the Fair Tax could do for all of us. The poor are no longer taxed at all, the rich have no loopholes to use. It's fair, honest and simple. Everything Washington hates.

    1. Re:Corporate taxes are a lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine if we stopped taxing foreign income?

      People in Boston would hear the 'Tax Breaks for the Wealthy' mantra howling from the Capitol. Class warfare renders such notions politically infeasible.

  132. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Corporations are not real. They can't possibly make use of public works, since they don't exist. I would submit to you that every time you would say a corporation is using a public service, I can actually find a real person who is making use of it. That is the person who should pay for it, so that he will be aware of what it costs. The corporation should not pay for it because it is not aware, and it does not care what it costs.

  133. Re:Liberals by jimrthy · · Score: 1

    I fought this one for ages. But the definitions have changed. For the past few decades, liberalist == collectivist. So has conservative. The only meaningful difference has been the flavor.

    I hated it (more than I can possibly say) when I learned this lesson. There's no way to sugar-coat it. There isn't much time left to try. If you happen to be younger than me...I apologize. I'm trying to talk other people into paying attention to the mess our grandparents created.

  134. So its a problem ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    almost all american megacorporations have been doing it for decades. these, or other means to rip the govt. off. the ones like wb, warner, this, that.

    the thing is, if you dont do it yourself, they eventually surpass you in power and buy you out. so, its a survival matter.

  135. Sounds a bit like Microsoft and ... by aklinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how they avoid paying taxes to the state of Washington. http://crosscut.com/2008/02/02/microsoft/11167/Microsoft-s-$528-million-Washington-tax-break/ They probably have tactics for avoiding federal taxes as well. I think all large companies do.

  136. Forest and trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you shouldn't stop there, pointing the finger at "the corporations". Really, come on, the corporation doesn't enjoy expensive holidays, 8 figure incomes, perks and dinners and gifts galore, and a big fat bonus cheque at the end of the financial year. That money that "corporations" make goes directly into the pockets of .... the shareholders, the owners, the speculators, the corrupt and their cronies. And the executives - why do you think they all want their remuneration measured in company stock? They want "in" to the moneyed class, can't really fault them for that either - humans are selfish. Whether you want to admit it or not, the corporation is a vehicle for the class war, rich vs. poor. The corporate laws are instituted, regulated and manipulated to funnel total income towards those that have the most already. The rich-poor gap is widening, everywhere.

    You can not tax the "customer" adequately to compensate, because our charming rich neighbours go spend their money in other jurisdictions - you get shafted twice, chum, cause they're paying whatever tips they pay to a Thai waitress, not the one in the boon-docks in mid-America.

    You must tax elsewhere than purely on spending - short-term capital gains is the best mark for the best result for most of society. A transaction tax on the stock market would nail the speculatory thieves at the same time.

    Targeting corporations is nonsense - you have to target the REAL people hiding behind the corporate veil those that really do benefit from these re-distribution laws.

  137. Not evil to not pay US taxes on foreign income. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    Why should Google bend over and pay US taxes on income earned abroad? The Irish have a low business income tax to attract companies (and jobs and the revenue and spending that come with them). Is Google wrong for taking them up on it? Keep pushing ignorant, anti-employer policy that not only chases jobs out of the country - but prevents outside earnings from being spent and invested here too. Good work. The US is nearly alone in fully taxing earnings brought in from foreign subsidiaries - at, I might add, one of the highest corporate tax rates. Most western economies charge taxes of http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om

    1. Re:Not evil to not pay US taxes on foreign income. by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Got cut off after preview. Most Western countries have 4% taxes on income brought in from foreign subsidiaries. The link (http://tinyurl.com/2evo4om) is to a WSJ article from Wednesday.

  138. 3.5 and 4 partially wrong by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    3.5) If it is a house you have lived in for 2 of the last 5 years, the first $250k ($500k if you're married) of your appreciation is shielded from taxation.

    http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/capital-gains-home-sale-tax-break-a-boon-for-owners-1.aspx

    4) If you die this year, there is no estate tax at all. If you die next year (or beyond), the first $1 million of your estate will be shielded from taxation by an offsetting credit for each recipient (if you have 3 kids the total offset is $3 million--1 for each). This issue is active in Congress so both exemptions and rates could be reset this year.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  139. Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But corporations are people!

    Corporations are organizations of people.