Renouncing Citizenship Over Taxation

[Red Arrow]

I would better understand your rage if the rich in this country weren't the most prolific tax evaders.

You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.

[nathanm]

You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.

What they (for some significant subset, including our most recent former President) can't avoid, they evade. There's little penalty if you can afford good attorneys. We refuse to allocate the IRS enough funding to make the legal fees more expensive than the tax, or to even do enough audits to uncover most of the evasion. Even when the evaders are caught, prosecutions are very rare and even penalties are also lightly used.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I just do not get this "the rich got rich because of everyone" meme currently sung by Oklahoma's Elizabeth "Your Wampum My Wampum" Warren (borrowed).

That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times.  How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure?  Really??  It is like you blank out the contribution all those around and all those who have gone before you have made to the circumstances that have enabled you to get where you are.

Leaving out all the other items like schools, roads to get you to schools, teachers to teach you through high school, and all the support people you have around you in your office, at court, and just the general infrastructure in Tulsa....

University of Tulsa - private school.  Does NOT mean you paid for your entire education on your own.  You were literally supported by over 100 years of infrastructure and support that has gone on before you.  Including the huge endowments TU holds that subsidized your private education.  

If this whole "rugged individualist" fantasy myth was anywhere near any kind of reality, you would never have gotten anywhere close to where you are in anywhere near the time frame you have done it in.  This also applies to the rest of us, too.  All of us enjoy the leverage that all the other people around us give.

So, yeah...all the richest DO have a debt to the society around them.  As do I, and you, and everyone around us.  And yet, even with the lowest taxes in the civilized world, we STILL hear their plaintive bleat - of these selfish little "kindergarten kids" - whining and crying about how "it's mine,...it's mine,...it's all mine...".

[nathanm]

Let me put it a different way: Even the Reagan-loving right wingers of our southern neighbors have expressed their shock at what we're doing to ourselves in the name of conservatism.

[Conan71]

That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times.  How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure?  Really??  It is like you blank out the contribution all those around and all those who have gone before you have made to the circumstances that have enabled you to get where you are.

Leaving out all the other items like schools, roads to get you to schools, teachers to teach you through high school, and all the support people you have around you in your office, at court, and just the general infrastructure in Tulsa....

University of Tulsa - private school.  Does NOT mean you paid for your entire education on your own.  You were literally supported by over 100 years of infrastructure and support that has gone on before you.  Including the huge endowments TU holds that subsidized your private education.  

If this whole "rugged individualist" fantasy myth was anywhere near any kind of reality, you would never have gotten anywhere close to where you are in anywhere near the time frame you have done it in.  This also applies to the rest of us, too.  All of us enjoy the leverage that all the other people around us give.

So, yeah...all the richest DO have a debt to the society around them.  As do I, and you, and everyone around us.  And yet, even with the lowest taxes in the civilized world, we STILL hear their plaintive bleat - of these selfish little "kindergarten kids" - whining and crying about how "it's mine,...it's mine,...it's all mine...".

There's a big difference in giving back or having your wealth taken by force.

It really doesn't bother me at all that George Kaiser pays very little in personal income tax and I'm sure his various corporate entities legally avoid paying many other taxes.  He gives far more to public projects which either improve the human condition with educational programs, grants, and enterprises for the disadvantaged, better public spaces we all enjoy, or helping provide for the arts.  He does far more for the rest of us via his own gifting devices than the government would ever do on it's own if they took stewardship over that money rather than his own charitable trusts.

The same can be said for many other billionaires and millionaires.  You probably will be shocked to hear this come from my mouth, but if progressive taxation results in more charitable giving via trusts and foundations to avoid additional taxes, I say raise them. 

Your writing however seems to suggest those more successful should be punished for that success like they owe the rest of us something.  Calling people "despicable" if they move off-shore to lower tax burden?  I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.

[nathanm]

I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.

It depends on how you define "their share". If, for example, they're a public company's CEO avoiding tax on their fringe benefits, which can be quite substantial when they have a jet at their disposal, they pay zero times on that money and you pay for it both in your increased share of the tax burden from the CEO's tax avoidance and you pay because you're probably a stock holder through some mutual fund in your 401(k). And, of course, all this reduces the tax liability of the company itself. Same deal when they come up with deferred compensation agreements that pay above market rate interest to the executive for leaving their money on deposit with the company, both avoiding tax (for the CEO) and increasing the cost to the shareholders twice, once in the extra tax payments from not paying the CEO and again in the above market rate interest on the account. Don't think they have to leave that money idle, though. Banks, of course, are more than happy to lend them cash now so that they get use of the money today. Remember the above market interest rate makes this cost-free.

So maybe, sometime in the future, this guy might pay tax on all of his income. (Not likely, he can just pull a Mitt Romney and defer the tax until retirement) Why, though, does he get to pay later while you and I have to pay now?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your writing however seems to suggest those more successful should be punished for that success like they owe the rest of us something. 

Calling people "despicable" if they move off-shore to lower tax burden?  I'm sure they paid more than their share prior to doing so.

So going by that, it would mean that I should certainly not be punished by having the deductions taken out that are removed by force every two weeks.  I am being punished in even greater fashion for a much more modest form of success.  And since we know for a fact - having gone through it over and over - that those richest are limited to an average under 16% even if they triple their income.  So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??

Because I don't own anyone in Congress.


As for paying their share - well, that also goes hand in hand again with all the previous discussions.  If I double my pay and the tax percentage goes up - which it does - but the 1% double their pay and the tax percentage stays the same (actually even decreases slightly), then no, they have NOT paid their share.

[Red Arrow]

It depends on how you define "their share". If, for example, they're a public company's CEO avoiding tax on their fringe benefits, which can be quite substantial when they have a jet at their disposal, they pay zero times on that money and you pay for it both in your increased share of the tax burden from the CEO's tax avoidance and you pay because you're probably a stock holder through some mutual fund in your 401(k). And, of course, all this reduces the tax liability of the company itself. Same deal when they come up with deferred compensation agreements that pay above market rate interest to the executive for leaving their money on deposit with the company, both avoiding tax (for the CEO) and increasing the cost to the shareholders twice, once in the extra tax payments from not paying the CEO and again in the above market rate interest on the account. Don't think they have to leave that money idle, though. Banks, of course, are more than happy to lend them cash now so that they get use of the money today. Remember the above market interest rate makes this cost-free.

A solution to this horrible inequity would be to raise the CEO's salary enough to cover the cost and tax of these benefits.  

So maybe, sometime in the future, this guy might pay tax on all of his income. (Not likely, he can just pull a Mitt Romney and defer the tax until retirement) Why, though, does he get to pay later while you and I have to pay now?

I take it you don't have any tax deferred retirement savings.   Perhaps you have enough tax deductions to make tax deferred retirement savings ineffective.  One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget.  He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans.  Is that your situation?

[Red Arrow]

So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??

If your overall Federal Income Tax rate is much more than 16%, you have enough money to invest in places that are limited to 15% tax.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If your overall Federal Income Tax rate is much more than 16%, you have enough money to invest in places that are limited to 15% tax.

Company won't give me any ISO's.  I'm not important enough...too interchangeable, I guess.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I take it you don't have any tax deferred retirement savings.   Perhaps you have enough tax deductions to make tax deferred retirement savings ineffective.  One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget.  He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans.  Is that your situation?

Must not have been much of a company match... hard to be a constant 50% or better return...tax or no tax...

[nathanm]

One of my co-workers (Electrical Engineer) did when considering family and house mortgage and maybe a few things I forget.  He determined his present tax rate is lower than his projected retirement tax rate so he dumped his 401 etc and put them into other retirement savings plans.  Is that your situation?

Only Mitt Romney and his ilk get to dump unlimited sums into their IRA. We get $5,000/$6,000. We don't get to deposit assets worth tens of millions of dollars and claim they are actually valueless because they haven't produced income yet, even though it's a contractually guaranteed thing. Let's also not forget that even his retirement package from Bain counts as a capital gain, where yours or mine would be taxed as income.

[Conan71]

So going by that, it would mean that I should certainly not be punished by having the deductions taken out that are removed by force every two weeks.  I am being punished in even greater fashion for a much more modest form of success.  And since we know for a fact - having gone through it over and over - that those richest are limited to an average under 16% even if they triple their income.  So how come I have no similar <16% limit if I triple my income??

Because I don't own anyone in Congress.


As for paying their share - well, that also goes hand in hand again with all the previous discussions.  If I double my pay and the tax percentage goes up - which it does - but the 1% double their pay and the tax percentage stays the same (actually even decreases slightly), then no, they have NOT paid their share.

Most American's effective overall tax rate is about the same when you consider all the various deductions and other loopholes people can take advantage of.  Secondly, you have simply never grasped the concept that the wealthiest make most of their income off dividends and cap gains, not a W-2 statement.  Often times, that net income the individual enjoys is post corporate tax.  Before you insert the requisite "GE doesn't pay corporate tax" meme not every corporation or investment firm is quite so creative at skating on taxes.

I will tell you this though, my income doubled last year, yet I paid not an amount equal to twice my prior year's taxes, but rather much closer to three times, and yes, I was still under 6 figures.  Did I take any more out of infrastructure last year than any other year?  No.  Did I depend on any more government benefits than the prior year?  No.  Why should my taxes nearly triple for making double the income when I'm decidedly middle class?  

In case you are wondering how I doubled in a year, I rely heavily on bonuses for my income.  We had two pisser years then a very good one last year.  Huge fluctuation, but I live fairly frugally.

You also forget those whom you think aren't contributing their fair share contribute many, many jobs to the federal, state, and local tax rolls aside from what their investment and corporate vehicles pay in taxes, fees, and licenses.

[guido911]

You have to have a tax liability in order to evade them.

Boom....

[guido911]

That right there just shows how strange the workings of your mind can be at times.  How far do you actually feel you would have gotten if it had not been for all that previously discussed infrastructure?  Really??

I stand by this post I made a while back on the notion that I was somehow luck or fortunate to be where I am today.

I love it when people who refer to those worse off financially than others as "less fortunate". It's not like they might have less ambition, care less about education, or that they never took a risk on an idea. As for myself AND my wife, and as I have chronicled repeatedly in this forum, we started with NOTHING--so I guess we were "less fortunate" by definition. However, through a series of "fortunate" events in my life (but not as "fortunate" in my wife's life), namely: working full time at just over minimum wage, while attending college full time while serving in the National Guard (and basically living on Ramen), irresponsibly waiting to start a family until I was over thirty while I finished law school (I will be over 50 when my youngest becomes a teenager--wow that by itself is fortunate), and commuting 200 miles each to work day for four years while my better half finished her training. Good grief!!! I didn't sacrifice and work hard at all. I was fortunate!!!  And by all means, feel free to call me immoral because I pay only ____ times what you do in income tax.

There are countless other stories out there better (or worse depending on the POV) than mine of people making it from nothing and IMO are not despicable if they decide to leave and take THEIR money and THEIR jobs with them...