Renouncing Citizenship Over Taxation

[heironymouspasparagus]

(1)
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.

(2)
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?  

(3)
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.

(4)
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.

(1)
I have very definitely grasped that for many many years, and that point specifically, along with ISO's is EXACTLY what I have used in examples many, many times here when discussing the tax situation.  Most of us DON"T have access to those sweet deals that entail getting the vast majority of our income magically changed to long term capital gains.  Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....

(2)
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  Also, one of my gripes about the system as defined by the richest buying Congress.  (You just keep making the same points as I, so why the disagreement?)

(3)
None of my business (a sentiment I have expressed before here) - am very happy for you, though.  UNLESS it were somehow, as in the case of a corporation awarding these massive pay packages, getting a tax deduction, then the recipient getting EXTREME preferential tax treatment to the point of almost total tax avoidance - while I (or you for that matter) and millions just like us, are required to make up the difference - that is a subsidy.  It is corporate welfare.

(4)
And we have seen for many years that is just not true.  Otherwise, we would be swimming in jobs.  Since they are swimming in trillions of dollars of cash laying around.  Doing nothing - but more specifically doing nothing to help the economy by creating more jobs...because they are "worried" about the future...??

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

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...

As long as they pay their share of taxes.  There's the rub, isn't it?

[Conan71]

(1)
I have very definitely grasped that for many many years, and that point specifically, along with ISO's is EXACTLY what I have used in examples many, many times here when discussing the tax situation.  Most of us DON"T have access to those sweet deals that entail getting the vast majority of our income magically changed to long term capital gains.  Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....

(2)
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  Also, one of my gripes about the system as defined by the richest buying Congress.  (You just keep making the same points as I, so why the disagreement?)

(3)
None of my business (a sentiment I have expressed before here) - am very happy for you, though.  UNLESS it were somehow, as in the case of a corporation awarding these massive pay packages, getting a tax deduction, then the recipient getting EXTREME preferential tax treatment to the point of almost total tax avoidance - while I (or you for that matter) and millions just like us, are required to make up the difference - that is a subsidy.  It is corporate welfare.

(4)
And we have seen for many years that is just not true.  Otherwise, we would be swimming in jobs.  Since they are swimming in trillions of dollars of cash laying around.  Doing nothing - but more specifically doing nothing to help the economy by creating more jobs...because they are "worried" about the future...??

You are mistakenly obsessed with the idea that all the "1%'ers" are making huge bank on ISO's.  That's actually a very small minority of the wealthy in this country.  Many of the wealthy make a living off active or passive investment which helps keep the wheels (somewhat) on the economy or are CEO's of their own business.  If you participate in a company matching contribution IRA or 401K you are reaping the benefits of deferred income, just like the big cats.

You simply cannot compel someone to create jobs by creating a punitive atmosphere that if they don't spend those trillions they legally earned you will take it.  That's what forces jobs and job creators to less hostile environments overseas where they don't have the constant meme that the wealthy are nothing but a bunch of tax-cheating a-holes who do zilch for the rest of society.

[guido911]

As long as they pay their share of taxes.  There's the rub, isn't it?

What does their "fair share" mean to you? And for those that pay no federal income tax, why are you not complaining about their not paying a "fair share"? Here's a wild idea, instead of making it so the rich do not leave, why not find a way to encourage them to stay? In all seriousness, if I ever felt that staying in a country that did not make me feel welcome and treated me unequally solely because I happen to be a "have", I'd leave too. Call me despicable all you like, as I am speeding around in my boat or sports car with the U.S. in my rear view showing it my rear view.

[cannon_fodder]

The data simply does not support a correlation between job creation and tax rates.  In a capitalist country jobs are actually "created" when doing so will make the owner more money in some way.  Period.

High taxes. Low taxes.  There are arguments and incentives both ways.  With high taxes i am compelled to leave money on the company (jobs are an expense) and with less take home i have to earn more to pay for private jets (or, like kaiser, your nonprofit foundation can own them).  But at the end of the day, if employing more people makes me more money im in.

"What? 49% top tax rate on investment income!  Screw you.  I REFUSE to hire more workers who will increase my earnings and count as a deductible expense.". /not advocating 49%.

The current tax code awards wealth over work.  It is ripe with special interest and corporate welfare... ot to mention market manipulation.  It needs to be trashed.

Slash corporate taxes in exchange for increasing taxes on investment income.  Lower personal tax rates in exchange for less deductions and a broader tax base.  Go.

[nathanm]

I guess it just irks me that the average American taxpayer has lost about 9% of their income in the past decade and folks ask for them to pay more tax, while the folks at the top have seen their incomes increase 20-40% and have had their tax burden decline significantly.

If you participate in a company matching contribution IRA or 401K you are reaping the benefits of deferred income, just like the big cats.

Well, not just like the big cats. As I mentioned earlier, you and I only get to contribute $5,000 (or $6,000 for some of you) a year to (all of) your IRA(s) and, what, about $14,000 to your 401(k). And, of course, most of what they get isn't their own money possibly with a small company match, they get a straight up pension that gets treated as capital gains instead of wage income. Your pension, if you have one, is taxed as wage income.

Interestingly, if my SO's company pays for me to fly somewhere, that's treated as income to her. In many cases, if a CEO has his company pay to fly his wife somewhere on the company jet, that's not counted as income. Still a tax deductible business expense for the corporation, though, so you and I pay for 35% of the actual cost. (Same goes when one of my clients flies me around in his jet..thank you for your contribution) He's not also stealing from shareholders in the process, at least.

It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago when we disapproved of those who took great pains to avoid tax. AMT, after all, was put into place because many of the top income earners were not paying any income tax at the time. Congress really managed to love that one up, though. Now it mainly only effects people like guido, and probably Conan if his income tax tripled. There's not really any other way that's mathematically possible, barring some other reason for losing lots of deductions (or a very low starting income, or the married thing coming into play).

[Red Arrow]

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

I think the match is 4%, it's been a while since I signed on.  As I remember, his overall Federal tax rate was single digit.

[Red Arrow]

Why should my taxes nearly triple for making double the income when I'm decidedly middle class?  

Because you can afford it.

(I'm practicing to become a Democrat when I retire so I can vote my wallet.   )

[heironymouspasparagus]

What does their "fair share" mean to you? And for those that pay no federal income tax, why are you not complaining about their not paying a "fair share"? Here's a wild idea, instead of making it so the rich do not leave, why not find a way to encourage them to stay? In all seriousness, if I ever felt that staying in a country that did not make me feel welcome and treated me unequally solely because I happen to be a "have", I'd leave too. Call me despicable all you like, as I am speeding around in my boat or sports car with the U.S. in my rear view showing it my rear view.

First, "fair share" is your term.  My term was "their share".

What I think would be fair is that my share do down to their level.  If they get ISO's, then everyone should share in the gimmick - great way to compose a 'bonus' program.


So, you think the best business opportunity, the best tax rates in the civilized world, the 37th best health system in the world are all not enough incentive for them to stay??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Because you can afford it.

(I'm practicing to become a Democrat when I retire so I can vote my wallet.   )

Actually, his taxes shouldn't go up that much.  Unless the guys way above him go up, too.

[Red Arrow]

[Obviously, have never actually read one of my posts explaining how the richest skate with <16% taxes....

And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

[Red Arrow]

Actually, his taxes shouldn't go up that much.  Unless the guys way above him go up, too.

I'm not going to do the math but if he jumped a bracket or two it's possible.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Have just now checked it out.  Are you sure that's what you want to argue with?  From 2001 to 2009, the tax rate paid on W-2 income is going down every year for the 1%ers.  As well as everyone else.  Which we already knew.  (And which also correlates well to the deficits and increases in national debt...)

But you still keep trying to narrow the income concept to just the W-2 numbers.  I certainly have never made any comment about that without also considering the "off W-2" income, which, as you well know, is where the games are played, and the rewards are paid to the 1.0%ers from a grateful Congress.  So, that table takes into account a very small percentage of income for the 1%ers, and ALL of the income for you, me, and most everyone else.

Since 1968, the real buying power of people at the minimum wage level have gone down over 30%.  Today is $7.25 per hour.  1968 minimum wage buying power was equivalent to almost $10.50 per hour.  In that same time, the richest have NEVER had a reduction, and just in the last 4 years or so, have risen from around $


And what really rubs our noses in it, is that if your company pays you a bonus, you get to pay at regular rates, while CEO's get the ISO so they can pay at capital gains rates. 

[nathanm]

And you have never looked at Table 8 in the tax data link that Nathan gave me a while ago.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Go directly to the source and you'll find the IRS gives figures for the top 400. (not sure if they do the top 0.1% or not) You'll find that the folks lower on the scale pay a higher percentage, even within the top 1%. Sort of like how the folks in the 10th to 5th percentile pay the highest percentage of anyone. They're not generally wealthy enough to make capital gains money or take advantage of the many loopholes. The tax attorneys who know about the dirty little secrets are rather expensive, obviously.

[Red Arrow]

Have just now checked it out.  Are you sure that's what you want to argue with? 

I guess you will continue to be blind to the percentage of the AGI that most of us pay which is less than your magic 16%.

But you still keep trying to narrow the income concept to just the W-2 numbers. 

No, I'm not narrowing anything.  I pay tax on w-2 and 1099s.  Most of us do. There are other reportable income sources too.  It's part of the AGI.  I don't do odd jobs for cash.  It's not worth the tax hassle.