So States are relying upon Federal dollars to provide local fire and police coverage? Seems pretty screwed up - how about just leaving those dollars with the State in the first place?
Oh no - we're wrong - we're both sucking off the system and not paying our fair share... And don't you dare set foot in the US for 35 or more days each 12 month period - because then you lose your $107,000 "exemption". Yes - spend 3 days a month in the US and you get to pay full US income taxes on every dollar you make - and full foreign income taxes on the same amount.
But we're the rich, we're the ones who aren't paying our fair share...
The cost of living in Shanghai isn't much lower than that in Seattle, WA... It's not a cheap city. And the deduction ONLY applies if I spend less than 35 days a year in the US - AND I pay an equivalent amount (or more) in Chinese taxes than I would in the US on that first $107,000. At best, you only pay once for your first $107,000 - after that, you're paying twice on everything.
But do those benefits add up to more than what is given to anyone else? Remember, the meme is that the rich benefit disproportionately from Federal spending. I know that I pay fuel taxes on the fuel I use to drive my car, and I pay excise taxes and registration fees for my car that I use on those roads. And I know that my property taxes pay for local police and fire and courts which give the stable society...
And I pay taxes on those assets every year - 1099s for interest income and other capital gains, property taxes to pay for the law enforcement and fire protection for my house, and so on. I wasn't aware that local police and fire was a function of Federal dollars...
How much tax would you pay if you were a citizen there?
I pay the full amount - did in Belgium, did in Chile, now do it in China. I pay full income taxes in the overseas jurisdiction.
Now, I can deduct the first $107,000 of income from US income taxes IF - and only if - I spend less than 35 days a year in the US. Any longer than that and I have to pay full income taxes on every dollar earned overseas - taxes in China and in the US.
However you do use theirs, while paying, if anything, substantially less than what citizens pay for it.
I pay the same amount; in fact, in most places foreign employees also "contribute" to the social security/national retirement plan but as foreign nationals they do not qualify to ever receive those benefits. It's like paying for Social Security and being prohibited from ever receiving a SS check.
Social Security and Medicare aren't necessarily paid if you live and work abroad; you'll collect only what you had originally put in. And yes, I pay income taxes in my home country - and on a portion of my income, I also pay US income taxes as well. And if I spend more than 35 days in the US each year, I end up having to pay US income taxes on ALL my foreign income - the deduction goes away.
Then do you know about the exemptions related to time spent overseas, and investment income based in the US, and how those affect your overseas income taxes?
We're pretty unique in the world in that our Government demands you pay "your fair share" of every dollar you make anywhere in the world.
But AFAIK, you do get to deduct foreign taxes, so if you living somewhere with a significantly higher tax rate, then you aren't going to owe taxes in the US too.
Only up to the amount of taxes paid that would be equivalent to making ~$107,000 in the US. After that point, you pay full overseas taxes AND you pay US taxes - at a US tax rate as if you had paid all along (meaning you jump in at the 25% tax bracket). It'll cover the first chunk of cash only, and only if you've already paid those taxes overseas AND spent less than 30 days in the US AND do not have investment income in the US above $100,000...
When I lived in Belgium, I earned $165,000 per year. I paid Belgian taxes on the first $96,000 (it was a lower threshold, then) I earned, and Belgian and US income taxes on the last $69,000.
Our budget is $3.7 trillion; even assuming that chart's source numbers for military spending are correct, it would come to 26% - not the 36% as claimed. In essence, their numbers are provably wrong - they don't even add up internally. It's not the military spending that is breaking our bank - it is all the other spending that is doing it.
OK, let's do the German thing - ZERO percent capital gains tax on investments held for more than 1 year. That's the reason Buffett pays less taxes than his secretary - his income is from capital gains, not earned income. Let's skew it even more that way!
You realize they make most of the money right? More than 60%, you knew that though right?
Often claimed, but the facts are otherwise. It is great red meat for the class warfare mill however...
As far as wealth accumulation goes, I've accumulated a lot more wealth than most would assume possible on my income, because I've lived like a cheap bastard who wants to retire when I'm 45 - not 65. I guess I should be penalized for showing such fiscal restraint as well?
In Washington State (where I was born and raised and mainly lived when in the US) we paid by blue-book value of the car, and by weight/vehicle class. I do know that fuel taxes on road vehicles tend to be a net money earner for the Federal Government. Perhaps we need to look at where those dollars are spent in the first place - use it to maintain the infrastructure that generated the dollars first, and IF there's anything left, look at expanding other alternatives second.
I look at the demand for more tax dollars as the result of Government wanting to spend more, not as a means of being 'fair'. It's being sold as fair - or class warfare - but those dollars are being raised because the Government wants to spend even more. And by spending, the Government - and those who control it - gain even more leverage and power over the nation. In a sense, the desire to create a millionaire's tax rate IS class warfare - but it is by the members of Congress and the Administration against other millionaire's "not in the circle" of power. We're seeing the Government-based rich fighting against the private-sector-based rich.
You're welcome... The US Government is actually pretty draconian when it comes to taxation. For example, if I am a Canadian or French or Japanese citizen, and I work and live in the US and earn my money in the US, I do not pay income tax back in Canada, France, or Japan - just here in the US. But if I'm a US citizen and live and work in Canada, France, or Japan - I pay Candian/French/Japanese income tax - and I also have to pay US income tax. We're pretty unique in the world in that our Government demands you pay "your fair share" of every dollar you make anywhere in the world.
You have to pay the local income tax no matter what. I worked in Belgium for a few years and paid full income taxes there. There's no dodging the local income tax. And above a certain point I had to pay US income taxes as well... Now, if I was a Belgian citizen working in the US, I wouldn't have to pay Belgian income taxes. The US is pretty unique in demanding all its citizens pay income taxes to the US regardless of where they earned that money...
Only up to a certain point; this year, it is up to an equivalent of about a $107,000 income in the US. Every dollar earned above that results in taxes paid overseas AND in the US. And the US taxation starts at the higher tax rate (the rate of $107,000 and up).
Actually, Mr. Millionaire probably has the corporation chartered in Scotland, where there is no taxes on business. Therefore all earnings made by the trucks are taxed at scotland's rate of 0%. So no he probably doesn't pay taxes on those trucks.
In the US, if you earn the dollar here then you get to pay taxes here. Now, on those trucks registered in Scotland, he doesn't have to pay US taxes on income earned overseas - but he would if those trucks were registered in the US and used in Scotland.
Any dollar earned in the US is subject to taxation - regardless of the domicile of the company. The only benefit to forming an overseas shell corporation is to defer US taxation on money earned abroad; that's what Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like have foreign offices - they can keep the earnings overseas without paying US taxes. But for money earned in the US - regardless of the country of incorporation - there are US corporate income taxes to be paid. And if you're a US company, you also have to pay US taxes on money earned overseas. Thus you can see why companies set up overseas offices and subsidiaries.
I've looked at this stuff in depth - it's a big concern for all US expats.
Do you use public transportation? Then you should pay even more in road taxes, since the average axle loading on buses is even higher... But you are, of course, overlooking things like excise taxes, registration taxes, and other things that tend to go with the value of the vehicle - and I bet those taxes on a Bentley are a bit higher than on a Prius.
The unfortunate truth is that right now the rich pay a lower tax rate than most other people.
The facts say otherwise. A little research would show "the rich" actually pay a higher rate - and pay a higher rate given their share of adjusted gross income, too.
Can someone explain to me why Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate than him? What other country has a more regressive tax system?
Simple - his earned income (salary) - on which he pays income taxes and Social Security/FICA taxes - is less than his secretary. His unearned income - capital gains on passive investments, bank account interest, etc - is huge. But that's at a lower 15% tax rate - so that's what most of his total income is taxed at.
If you want to hit the rich like Buffett in the pocketbook, don't play around with the income tax at all. Raise the capital gains income tax rate to 50%. That'll nail Buffett, Gates, and the other super-rich. Whether or not hammering your investment source is a good idea is another question, but if you want Buffett to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary, you're only recourse is to raise the capital gains tax - because his earned income is less than his secretary in the first place. He will always pay a lower tax rate.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half?
That would be great! Now what do we do for the remaining $1.3 trillion in deficit spending?
This whole tax issue is simply papering over the fact that our Government spends way too much money. In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving about as much as it did in 1998 - the height of the Clinton boom, and when we started a meager budget surplus. The problem is, spending - in constant dollars - has increased by 50%. We don't need more tax revenues to the Federal Government; we need spending restraint by the Federal Government.
You can whack the entire DOD budget AND the VA budget - take both to zero - and still have a $400 billion deficit. It's all the other spending that's killing us - not just the military. Every single Federal tax dollar from all sources - personal income tax, social security/FICA, corporate income tax, capital gains, excise, tariffs, etc - just barely cover our spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Income Security (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing). EVERYTHING ELSE the Federal Government does - EPA, OSHA, IRS, DOT, DOEs, DOC, DOD, all the rest - is funded with borrowed dollars.
We have a spending problem - not a revenue problem. And it's a LOT bigger than just military spending. MUCH bigger.
I live and work overseas the entire year. I get the distinct pleasure of also paying US taxes, as well as taxes of the country I live in. I've not used anything in the US in terms of infrastructure, but I sure get to pay for it!
Slashdot Mirror
So States are relying upon Federal dollars to provide local fire and police coverage? Seems pretty screwed up - how about just leaving those dollars with the State in the first place?
But we're the rich, we're the ones who aren't paying our fair share...
The cost of living in Shanghai isn't much lower than that in Seattle, WA... It's not a cheap city. And the deduction ONLY applies if I spend less than 35 days a year in the US - AND I pay an equivalent amount (or more) in Chinese taxes than I would in the US on that first $107,000. At best, you only pay once for your first $107,000 - after that, you're paying twice on everything.
But do those benefits add up to more than what is given to anyone else? Remember, the meme is that the rich benefit disproportionately from Federal spending. I know that I pay fuel taxes on the fuel I use to drive my car, and I pay excise taxes and registration fees for my car that I use on those roads. And I know that my property taxes pay for local police and fire and courts which give the stable society...
And I pay taxes on those assets every year - 1099s for interest income and other capital gains, property taxes to pay for the law enforcement and fire protection for my house, and so on. I wasn't aware that local police and fire was a function of Federal dollars...
How much tax would you pay if you were a citizen there?
I pay the full amount - did in Belgium, did in Chile, now do it in China. I pay full income taxes in the overseas jurisdiction.
Now, I can deduct the first $107,000 of income from US income taxes IF - and only if - I spend less than 35 days a year in the US. Any longer than that and I have to pay full income taxes on every dollar earned overseas - taxes in China and in the US.
However you do use theirs, while paying, if anything, substantially less than what citizens pay for it.
I pay the same amount; in fact, in most places foreign employees also "contribute" to the social security/national retirement plan but as foreign nationals they do not qualify to ever receive those benefits. It's like paying for Social Security and being prohibited from ever receiving a SS check.
Social Security and Medicare aren't necessarily paid if you live and work abroad; you'll collect only what you had originally put in. And yes, I pay income taxes in my home country - and on a portion of my income, I also pay US income taxes as well. And if I spend more than 35 days in the US each year, I end up having to pay US income taxes on ALL my foreign income - the deduction goes away.
Then do you know about the exemptions related to time spent overseas, and investment income based in the US, and how those affect your overseas income taxes?
We're pretty unique in the world in that our Government demands you pay "your fair share" of every dollar you make anywhere in the world.
But AFAIK, you do get to deduct foreign taxes, so if you living somewhere with a significantly higher tax rate, then you aren't going to owe taxes in the US too.
Only up to the amount of taxes paid that would be equivalent to making ~$107,000 in the US. After that point, you pay full overseas taxes AND you pay US taxes - at a US tax rate as if you had paid all along (meaning you jump in at the 25% tax bracket). It'll cover the first chunk of cash only, and only if you've already paid those taxes overseas AND spent less than 30 days in the US AND do not have investment income in the US above $100,000...
When I lived in Belgium, I earned $165,000 per year. I paid Belgian taxes on the first $96,000 (it was a lower threshold, then) I earned, and Belgian and US income taxes on the last $69,000.
Our budget is $3.7 trillion; even assuming that chart's source numbers for military spending are correct, it would come to 26% - not the 36% as claimed. In essence, their numbers are provably wrong - they don't even add up internally. It's not the military spending that is breaking our bank - it is all the other spending that is doing it.
OK, let's do the German thing - ZERO percent capital gains tax on investments held for more than 1 year. That's the reason Buffett pays less taxes than his secretary - his income is from capital gains, not earned income. Let's skew it even more that way!
You realize they make most of the money right? More than 60%, you knew that though right?
Often claimed, but the facts are otherwise. It is great red meat for the class warfare mill however...
As far as wealth accumulation goes, I've accumulated a lot more wealth than most would assume possible on my income, because I've lived like a cheap bastard who wants to retire when I'm 45 - not 65. I guess I should be penalized for showing such fiscal restraint as well?
In Washington State (where I was born and raised and mainly lived when in the US) we paid by blue-book value of the car, and by weight/vehicle class. I do know that fuel taxes on road vehicles tend to be a net money earner for the Federal Government. Perhaps we need to look at where those dollars are spent in the first place - use it to maintain the infrastructure that generated the dollars first, and IF there's anything left, look at expanding other alternatives second.
I look at the demand for more tax dollars as the result of Government wanting to spend more, not as a means of being 'fair'. It's being sold as fair - or class warfare - but those dollars are being raised because the Government wants to spend even more. And by spending, the Government - and those who control it - gain even more leverage and power over the nation. In a sense, the desire to create a millionaire's tax rate IS class warfare - but it is by the members of Congress and the Administration against other millionaire's "not in the circle" of power. We're seeing the Government-based rich fighting against the private-sector-based rich.
You're welcome... The US Government is actually pretty draconian when it comes to taxation. For example, if I am a Canadian or French or Japanese citizen, and I work and live in the US and earn my money in the US, I do not pay income tax back in Canada, France, or Japan - just here in the US. But if I'm a US citizen and live and work in Canada, France, or Japan - I pay Candian/French/Japanese income tax - and I also have to pay US income tax. We're pretty unique in the world in that our Government demands you pay "your fair share" of every dollar you make anywhere in the world.
You have to pay the local income tax no matter what. I worked in Belgium for a few years and paid full income taxes there. There's no dodging the local income tax. And above a certain point I had to pay US income taxes as well... Now, if I was a Belgian citizen working in the US, I wouldn't have to pay Belgian income taxes. The US is pretty unique in demanding all its citizens pay income taxes to the US regardless of where they earned that money...
Only up to a certain point; this year, it is up to an equivalent of about a $107,000 income in the US. Every dollar earned above that results in taxes paid overseas AND in the US. And the US taxation starts at the higher tax rate (the rate of $107,000 and up).
Actually, Mr. Millionaire probably has the corporation chartered in Scotland, where there is no taxes on business. Therefore all earnings made by the trucks are taxed at scotland's rate of 0%. So no he probably doesn't pay taxes on those trucks.
In the US, if you earn the dollar here then you get to pay taxes here. Now, on those trucks registered in Scotland, he doesn't have to pay US taxes on income earned overseas - but he would if those trucks were registered in the US and used in Scotland.
Any dollar earned in the US is subject to taxation - regardless of the domicile of the company. The only benefit to forming an overseas shell corporation is to defer US taxation on money earned abroad; that's what Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like have foreign offices - they can keep the earnings overseas without paying US taxes. But for money earned in the US - regardless of the country of incorporation - there are US corporate income taxes to be paid. And if you're a US company, you also have to pay US taxes on money earned overseas. Thus you can see why companies set up overseas offices and subsidiaries.
I've looked at this stuff in depth - it's a big concern for all US expats.
Do you use public transportation? Then you should pay even more in road taxes, since the average axle loading on buses is even higher... But you are, of course, overlooking things like excise taxes, registration taxes, and other things that tend to go with the value of the vehicle - and I bet those taxes on a Bentley are a bit higher than on a Prius.
Hey, stop using that logic and reason! There's a lynch-mob to form here!
The unfortunate truth is that right now the rich pay a lower tax rate than most other people.
The facts say otherwise. A little research would show "the rich" actually pay a higher rate - and pay a higher rate given their share of adjusted gross income, too.
Can someone explain to me why Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate than him? What other country has a more regressive tax system?
Simple - his earned income (salary) - on which he pays income taxes and Social Security/FICA taxes - is less than his secretary. His unearned income - capital gains on passive investments, bank account interest, etc - is huge. But that's at a lower 15% tax rate - so that's what most of his total income is taxed at.
If you want to hit the rich like Buffett in the pocketbook, don't play around with the income tax at all. Raise the capital gains income tax rate to 50%. That'll nail Buffett, Gates, and the other super-rich. Whether or not hammering your investment source is a good idea is another question, but if you want Buffett to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary, you're only recourse is to raise the capital gains tax - because his earned income is less than his secretary in the first place. He will always pay a lower tax rate.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half?
That would be great! Now what do we do for the remaining $1.3 trillion in deficit spending?
This whole tax issue is simply papering over the fact that our Government spends way too much money. In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving about as much as it did in 1998 - the height of the Clinton boom, and when we started a meager budget surplus. The problem is, spending - in constant dollars - has increased by 50%. We don't need more tax revenues to the Federal Government; we need spending restraint by the Federal Government.
You can whack the entire DOD budget AND the VA budget - take both to zero - and still have a $400 billion deficit. It's all the other spending that's killing us - not just the military. Every single Federal tax dollar from all sources - personal income tax, social security/FICA, corporate income tax, capital gains, excise, tariffs, etc - just barely cover our spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Income Security (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing). EVERYTHING ELSE the Federal Government does - EPA, OSHA, IRS, DOT, DOEs, DOC, DOD, all the rest - is funded with borrowed dollars.
We have a spending problem - not a revenue problem. And it's a LOT bigger than just military spending. MUCH bigger.
How many of those taxes you listed are Federal taxes, not local taxes?
I live and work overseas the entire year. I get the distinct pleasure of also paying US taxes, as well as taxes of the country I live in. I've not used anything in the US in terms of infrastructure, but I sure get to pay for it!