So, if for example you had a rental hall, you have to rent it to whomever desires to rent? But if you have a movie theater, you can pick and choose to whom you rent the screen?
Great! Then Government cannot force businesses to accept some clients with whom they disagree, correct? After all, freedom of speech and freedom of association only relates to the Government and not individuals, acording to your position.
In reality, we don't fight wars over oil, either - we get the vast majority of our oil from ourselves, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. The Middle East is a very small supplier of oil for the US. Most of the ME oil goes to our allies in the EU; if we're "going to war" for oil, it's so our allies can have a source of oil.
Thanks for the link. It explicitly states that it's not just racehorses, that it's already expired, it was $500,000 on an asset above $2,000,000 value - and it's not just thoroughbreds. Thanks for playing, buh bye!
Oh, and still wondering about that whole "the rich pay less than 15% taxes" you claimed way back when to be either substantiated - or for you to admit your error...
Wrong as usual... The depreciation is $500,000 and only on assets above $2 million - and must be for business purposes. It also covers expenses by teachers, mortgages, and other assets which can be depreciated if used in a business venture. Like a racing team - car or horse - would consider their "transportation" a needed component of the business. So a bit different than what you're trying to paint (yet again) Ratzo.
Hey, the program manager on my current project races horses. Not at an oval, but "cowboy" racing around barrels and the like. He's an ordinary Joe. And most of the charters in the Ventura and Oxnard harbors are under 30 feet, owned by working Joes. I know, I go fishing quite a bit - and the crew is inevitably the owner and his buddy or son. But you go right on pushing that class warfare! Yep, you didn't get what you wanted so everyone else must be bad. Somehow they don't pay the taxes they do. You keep your anger at the classes boiling!
Wow, didn't realize that middle class people don't own horses or boats! Guess what - plenty of middle class people own both! Several of my coworkers here in the Ventura, CA area have horses (the hills around here are great for riding), and both of my neighbors own boats (20 to 30 foot boats). But go ahead and run away, you've been exposed as a class warfare soldier. Facts obviously don't matter, you have an agenda to push!
I think I'm going to have to plan a stealth take-down of Dice, one office/person at a time. I'll announce my involvement after each attack, and I'll promise more in the future. And I'll scare them so much they will drop this ridiculous meme. That will show them that we engineers are NOT more likely to be terrorists!
Really? What deductions are allowed for high income people and are not allowed for middle/working class people? If there are income-based deductions they tend to phase out at higher income levels. Please - show a deduction that is only available to "the rich".
Explain, please, how a flat 7.62% tax rate will make up a ~15% tax rate differential. Top 1% pay about a 23% income tax rate; the middle/working class pay around a 7% income tax rate. Add in the payroll tax and you're still WELL short of 23%. Simple math, Ratzo, should be quite obvious that "payroll taxes" are simply a red herring...
Hmmm, payroll taxes cap out at about $110,000. Who pays the full amount every time? The rich. Now, should they keep paying more, eliminate the cap?
The question was about the relative percentages paid in taxes.
Uh, nice goal post move Ratzo! You stated that the rich would hate a 15% tax rate because that would be an increase for them. I've shown, conclusively, otherwise (in fact, they tend to pay at least 22.8% on average in income tax;adding in payroll taxes - at the average of $434K - would be another ~2% for an average income-and-payroll tax load of about 25%). Now you want to change the subject. I wonder why? Perhaps because you're wrong?
The rich do not pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle and working class.
Wrong again. Assume middle class is the 26-50% income range. They average about a 7.2% income tax rate. Add in FULL payroll taxes of 7.62% and you're short of 15%. WELL below what the rich pay. Payroll taxes are a flat 7.62% up to ~$110,000. Really easy to calculate - and well below that of the rich. Even if the rich paid ZERO payroll taxes they'd still pay well beyond, percentagewise, than the middle class. You're shooting blanks, Ratzo.
If you evaluate total incomes instead of adjusted incomes (since the wealthy are able to make far better use of the tax code, which after all, was written for them), then you see that the rich pay a far lower percentage of their incomes - their true incomes - in taxes.
Do we do the same for the other groups as well?
The Tax Foundation is an advocacy group for energy and pharma corporations that don't want to pay taxes. Period.
Do you want to pay taxes? Do you take your legal deductions? If so - how are you any different than what you decry? Hypocrisy - thy name is Ratzo...
And not SINGLE citation refuted anything about the IRS data the Tax Foundation has used, or the conclusions they've reached. And they've done this report for at least 5 years now - with ZERO refutation of the accuracy of who pays the income tax. YOU started by implying the rich don't pay even 15% of their income - but the actual IRS data says otherwise. You're the one who's been shown wrong - and have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary.
The CBO gets their data from the IRS. If you think everyone is lying then point to your own solid analysis based off of IRS data.
The CBO only uses the data they are told to use. For example, specifically the report that you linked to omitted payroll taxes, which make up 34% of all federal revenue (income tax is 42%). When you factor in that the percentage of their income that the rich pay in payroll taxes is vanishingly small compared to the percentage of total income that the rest of us pay, those little bar graphs look completely different.
Hmmm, payroll taxes cap out at about $110,000. Who pays the full amount every time? The rich. Now, should they keep paying more, eliminate the cap? Well - do we want to also eliminate the cap on benefits? Because payroll taxes are for defined contribution plans like Social Security and Medicare, which have capped benefits. They get out what they put in - like everyone else.
Not a single link about who pays what taxes, three complaining that calculating an average that includes all income earners isn't really an average (hmm, what is an average other than a sum of the total divided by the number of entries?), and a link complaining about who's donated to the Tax Foundation. So again - what data contradicts their reports on who pays the income tax?
Well, see it's not charging them for being guilty or prosecuted. It's a "user fee" to use the courts. At least that's the usual justification. I completely agree with you - it's impossibly punitive and IMHO immoral. But Government, in its quest to ever grow and expand, will do whatever it can to increase its revenues. Including charging you a "user fee" to use the Courts to protect yourself from that same Government!
And the data - is it in question? It comes from the IRS data itself, and has been published by the Tax Foundation for years and years. If it was in error, wouldn't someone have caught it by now? Of course, if the data makes you uncomfortable, you can always attack the messenger...
Well, you CAN sue the police and win - if you can prove malicious intent. In other words, if you cannot prove the police officer did it out of spite or a desire to personally harm you - he's immune. And yes, many (and more and more all the time) US jurisdictions do this. You can go to court - but you have to pay very high court fees, sometimes nearly as high as the ticket you're challenging. The State wins either way!
The IRS overview of the expatriation tax. If your total assets - cash, retirement accounts, property, stock options, etc - adds up to over $2 million and you want to renounce your citizenship, the IRS can and will tax up to 40% of your total asset accumulation. It really covers pretty much all your assets - and you don't get to claim the personal residence deduction of the first $250K (or $500K for a married couple) either for this tax.
Cool! The expatriation tax is up to 40% - I guess you don't mind taking about half of everything you have and just giving to the Government? In much of the world (like Europe, much of Asia, and other places) $2 million in total assets isn't that much. In fact, it's not much in the US either - own a home in the Bay area? You have assets most likely close to, if not over, the $2 million mark. This is total assets, not just cash or cash equivalents. Retirement accounts, stock options, real estate, cars, collectibles, interest in family businesses, etc.
Here is the problem with that in practice. People are still citizens when they move overseas, corporations are not always. Often when corporations move, they become entities of the new nation. The equivalent is like taxing a German citizen on all his income made anywhere even though only 10% was earned in the US.
Hey, that's what the US does! If you're a US citizen, the Federal Government demands to know all about every penny earned everywhere, and claims the right to levy taxes on that overseas income. Even if you never set foot in the US for the entire year, and already pay taxes in the foreign jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if for example you had a rental hall, you have to rent it to whomever desires to rent? But if you have a movie theater, you can pick and choose to whom you rent the screen?
So - explain how the movie theater case is different than a rental hall, in deciding what they allow to be shown/done in their facility.
Great! Then Government cannot force businesses to accept some clients with whom they disagree, correct? After all, freedom of speech and freedom of association only relates to the Government and not individuals, acording to your position.
In reality, we don't fight wars over oil, either - we get the vast majority of our oil from ourselves, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. The Middle East is a very small supplier of oil for the US. Most of the ME oil goes to our allies in the EU; if we're "going to war" for oil, it's so our allies can have a source of oil.
Thanks for the link. It explicitly states that it's not just racehorses, that it's already expired, it was $500,000 on an asset above $2,000,000 value - and it's not just thoroughbreds. Thanks for playing, buh bye!
Oh, and still wondering about that whole "the rich pay less than 15% taxes" you claimed way back when to be either substantiated - or for you to admit your error...
Wrong as usual... The depreciation is $500,000 and only on assets above $2 million - and must be for business purposes. It also covers expenses by teachers, mortgages, and other assets which can be depreciated if used in a business venture. Like a racing team - car or horse - would consider their "transportation" a needed component of the business. So a bit different than what you're trying to paint (yet again) Ratzo.
Hey, the program manager on my current project races horses. Not at an oval, but "cowboy" racing around barrels and the like. He's an ordinary Joe. And most of the charters in the Ventura and Oxnard harbors are under 30 feet, owned by working Joes. I know, I go fishing quite a bit - and the crew is inevitably the owner and his buddy or son. But you go right on pushing that class warfare! Yep, you didn't get what you wanted so everyone else must be bad. Somehow they don't pay the taxes they do. You keep your anger at the classes boiling!
YOU may eat Furbies... I don't like coughing up the furball after dinner. I'll stick to my Tamagochis thankyouverymuch...
Wow, didn't realize that middle class people don't own horses or boats! Guess what - plenty of middle class people own both! Several of my coworkers here in the Ventura, CA area have horses (the hills around here are great for riding), and both of my neighbors own boats (20 to 30 foot boats). But go ahead and run away, you've been exposed as a class warfare soldier. Facts obviously don't matter, you have an agenda to push!
I think I'm going to have to plan a stealth take-down of Dice, one office/person at a time. I'll announce my involvement after each attack, and I'll promise more in the future. And I'll scare them so much they will drop this ridiculous meme. That will show them that we engineers are NOT more likely to be terrorists!
Really? What deductions are allowed for high income people and are not allowed for middle/working class people? If there are income-based deductions they tend to phase out at higher income levels. Please - show a deduction that is only available to "the rich".
Agreed. Too hard to grill them (plus they are metallic tasting), and I've yet to find a use for their pelts...
Explain, please, how a flat 7.62% tax rate will make up a ~15% tax rate differential. Top 1% pay about a 23% income tax rate; the middle/working class pay around a 7% income tax rate. Add in the payroll tax and you're still WELL short of 23%. Simple math, Ratzo, should be quite obvious that "payroll taxes" are simply a red herring...
The question was about the relative percentages paid in taxes.
Uh, nice goal post move Ratzo! You stated that the rich would hate a 15% tax rate because that would be an increase for them. I've shown, conclusively, otherwise (in fact, they tend to pay at least 22.8% on average in income tax;adding in payroll taxes - at the average of $434K - would be another ~2% for an average income-and-payroll tax load of about 25%). Now you want to change the subject. I wonder why? Perhaps because you're wrong?
The rich do not pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle and working class.
Wrong again. Assume middle class is the 26-50% income range. They average about a 7.2% income tax rate. Add in FULL payroll taxes of 7.62% and you're short of 15%. WELL below what the rich pay. Payroll taxes are a flat 7.62% up to ~$110,000. Really easy to calculate - and well below that of the rich. Even if the rich paid ZERO payroll taxes they'd still pay well beyond, percentagewise, than the middle class. You're shooting blanks, Ratzo.
If you evaluate total incomes instead of adjusted incomes (since the wealthy are able to make far better use of the tax code, which after all, was written for them), then you see that the rich pay a far lower percentage of their incomes - their true incomes - in taxes.
Do we do the same for the other groups as well?
The Tax Foundation is an advocacy group for energy and pharma corporations that don't want to pay taxes. Period.
Do you want to pay taxes? Do you take your legal deductions? If so - how are you any different than what you decry? Hypocrisy - thy name is Ratzo...
And not SINGLE citation refuted anything about the IRS data the Tax Foundation has used, or the conclusions they've reached. And they've done this report for at least 5 years now - with ZERO refutation of the accuracy of who pays the income tax. YOU started by implying the rich don't pay even 15% of their income - but the actual IRS data says otherwise. You're the one who's been shown wrong - and have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary.
The CBO only uses the data they are told to use. For example, specifically the report that you linked to omitted payroll taxes, which make up 34% of all federal revenue (income tax is 42%). When you factor in that the percentage of their income that the rich pay in payroll taxes is vanishingly small compared to the percentage of total income that the rest of us pay, those little bar graphs look completely different.
Hmmm, payroll taxes cap out at about $110,000. Who pays the full amount every time? The rich. Now, should they keep paying more, eliminate the cap? Well - do we want to also eliminate the cap on benefits? Because payroll taxes are for defined contribution plans like Social Security and Medicare, which have capped benefits. They get out what they put in - like everyone else.
Not a single link about who pays what taxes, three complaining that calculating an average that includes all income earners isn't really an average (hmm, what is an average other than a sum of the total divided by the number of entries?), and a link complaining about who's donated to the Tax Foundation. So again - what data contradicts their reports on who pays the income tax?
Well, see it's not charging them for being guilty or prosecuted. It's a "user fee" to use the courts. At least that's the usual justification. I completely agree with you - it's impossibly punitive and IMHO immoral. But Government, in its quest to ever grow and expand, will do whatever it can to increase its revenues. Including charging you a "user fee" to use the Courts to protect yourself from that same Government!
Great - where's your data showing otherwise? Or is it just something to be decried because it threatens your view of the world?
And the data - is it in question? It comes from the IRS data itself, and has been published by the Tax Foundation for years and years. If it was in error, wouldn't someone have caught it by now? Of course, if the data makes you uncomfortable, you can always attack the messenger...
Well, you CAN sue the police and win - if you can prove malicious intent. In other words, if you cannot prove the police officer did it out of spite or a desire to personally harm you - he's immune. And yes, many (and more and more all the time) US jurisdictions do this. You can go to court - but you have to pay very high court fees, sometimes nearly as high as the ticket you're challenging. The State wins either way!
The IRS overview of the expatriation tax. If your total assets - cash, retirement accounts, property, stock options, etc - adds up to over $2 million and you want to renounce your citizenship, the IRS can and will tax up to 40% of your total asset accumulation. It really covers pretty much all your assets - and you don't get to claim the personal residence deduction of the first $250K (or $500K for a married couple) either for this tax.
Cool! The expatriation tax is up to 40% - I guess you don't mind taking about half of everything you have and just giving to the Government? In much of the world (like Europe, much of Asia, and other places) $2 million in total assets isn't that much. In fact, it's not much in the US either - own a home in the Bay area? You have assets most likely close to, if not over, the $2 million mark. This is total assets, not just cash or cash equivalents. Retirement accounts, stock options, real estate, cars, collectibles, interest in family businesses, etc.
Hey, he's quoting Lady Gaga to begin with. Sets the bar really low, when you think about it...
Here is the problem with that in practice. People are still citizens when they move overseas, corporations are not always. Often when corporations move, they become entities of the new nation. The equivalent is like taxing a German citizen on all his income made anywhere even though only 10% was earned in the US.
Hey, that's what the US does! If you're a US citizen, the Federal Government demands to know all about every penny earned everywhere, and claims the right to levy taxes on that overseas income. Even if you never set foot in the US for the entire year, and already pay taxes in the foreign jurisdiction.