Can you specify some of those loopholes? Are they things like lower tax rates on dividend income and long-term capital gains?

I am sure there are some regular posters who make more than $34.5k taxable income ($69k for married couples filing jointly). Possibly even the majority. I would be willing to wager not everyone, though. Also - as with the marginal vs effective tax rate discussion, taxable income can be dramatically different from gross (or even adjusted gross).

By posting too much in the political threads and trying to objectively discuss current events and economic policy while never discussing my car or on-track antics? :hustler:

You know, Scrappy, I love you and hate you right now. That post put a big smile on my face, but at the same time, I'm hatin' you for hitting me up with that during lunch. You'll have to wait for me to get home to give you a proper response.

To be clear, that was an actual observation of my own postings. From a purely objective perspective regarding Miata-based contributions, I think I peaked at my first two threads. :rofl: :hahano:

The "ultra-wealthy" are the "ultra-wealthy" for a reason...

First, I'd like to differentiate between "ultra-wealthy" and "ultra-high-income-earner"

The former may not need to pay any taxes at all, because "wealthy" does not imply "income earner", though an ultra-wealthy man with no income is a fool, and as we all know, "a fool and his money are soon parted".

So, lets take an investigative peek at the "ultra-high-income-earner". To help me make my point, we'll use a story - everyone loves a good story.

It's the end of the quarter, and the CEO of "Tile and Carpet, Inc." has asked for a payroll report from his sales force. When he looks at the report, he is staggered to find out that Greg, his number one sales person, earned $12,000 more than he did over the quarter.

"How is this possible?" He thinks to himself. I am the CEO, I'm supposed to make more than this..."Greg". He looks at Gregs records and sees that Greg had focused on selling "hi-gloss no-slip tile", which has the highest commission payout of all of the products. Thinking to himself that he's going to pull a fast one on this "greg" charachter, the CEO changes the commission structure of his company so that the "hi-gloss no slip tile" is actually towards the bottom of the commission structure.

At the end of the next quarter, the CEO gets his eagerly awaited payroll report. Tickled to death that he's going to have the highest payroll in the company, he glances over the report for self-validation. Immediately he's speechless. This "greg" charachter, as the report states, earned $18,000 more than he did.

How in the world did this happen? The CEO changed up the entire comission structure to move greg's top products to the bottom. As he dives deeper into the report, he finds out that greg sold only $3,200 worth of "hi-gloss non-slip" tile this quarter, whereas last quarter, greg had sold $812,000 of that exact same product. Furthermore, in the previous quarter, greg had not sold a single dollar worth of "super blue carpet padding", but had sold well over $1,000,000 in this quarter. The funny thing is, the CEO had moved "super blue carpet padding" from near the bottom of the commission structure, all the way up to the very top.

You see, Greg was making an incredible amount of money because he was selling products based on the commission structure (which was published to the entire sales force whenever changes were made). Greg was able to pick and choose which products he pushed based upon how much money he would make in the sale.

Yeah, I know.... "cool story, bro"

How does this relate to the "ultra-high income earners"?

Well you see, the ultra-high income earners know what types of income are most profitable for them - and since many methods are relatively similar in income earning potential, a lot of times these tax "loopholes" (as we call them) mean that a certain opportunity is more profitable than another, and this helps determine which opportunities that an income earner pursues. The "loopholes" are actually designed as government incentives to get people to use their money in certain ways, and since the income-earners are using these incentives, the "loopholes" are serving their purpose exactly as intended. Just as our carpet and tile salesman used the commission structure to determine exactly which products he was going to promote, the high-earner is using the tax code to help him determine the most profitable investments of his time and money.

Thus, the ultra-high income-earner is not "earning a high income and then finding tax loopholes which allows him to keep most of it", but rather, he is "finding tax loopholes and integrating them into his investment decision making process". You see, he is not "evading taxes", he is making sound business decisions. He is maximizing profits, and as all democrats instictively know, profits are the root of all evil.

In the end, the effective tax rate of these high income-earners is significantly decreased because they can choose how they will earn their incomes. On the flip side median income earners generally earn the vast majority of their income as wage-earners, and I should note that there is little or no government incentive to be a "wage earner" and thus, the median income earner doesn't get to exploit any "loopholes".

On a different note, "charitable contributions" are generally exempt from taxation, up to a certain threshold. Compare how likely a median-earner is to make a large charitable donation versus an ultra-high earner. This is a "loophole" that I, (definitely not a high-income earner) am very unlikely to exploit.

tax loopholes aren't making or breaking them. why do you care if they pay more? what benefit do YOU get?

What if I said everyone who's black should pay 5% extra in taxes because they use the system more?

I derive no benefit from them paying more, i derive benefit by not having to listen to median and low income earners claim that high income earners aren't paying their "fair share"

Is Drew Brees's fair share higher than Bill the Layman's?

I would argue that if Drew is making 100x more than Bill, then his fair share is 100x more than Bill

Bill, on the other hand, is arguing that Drew's fair share is 500x more than Bill's.

There would be a financial incentive to undergo plastic surgery in order to change skin color from black to white. The high-earning blacks would have much more incentive than the low-earning blacks, and would thus be much more likely to undergo the process. The low-earning blacks would then claim that the high-earning blacks are gaming the system so that they don't have to pay their "fair share"

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

Fair share is subjective. Fuck fair share. Fair share = you want more than equal rights


But very good answer :)

That type of thing is really irritating. That type of person makes me want to become a libertarian.

Also, I would plow natalie portman soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hard.

That's one way to do it.

I expect Michigan not the be the laughing stock of education anymore.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im.../topstate3.pdf

99. Are you an ignorant American?

Yes 99%
No 1%

100. Do you need to grow some balls and vote for the person that agrees most with your values?

Yes 99%
No 1%

That's so weird, why wouldn't people vote for who they like? Unless they think they themselves are wrong.

I made shirts with this logo on the front durring the '08 election as a joke, if I can find it I'll send it to Brain:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-om1w11bs6p...he-guevara.jpg

Hope this isn't a repost.

But I like watching leftist Hollywood glorify Charlie Wilson for entertainment and indoctrination.

:popcorn:

"Fair share" is only this for me: If someone makes more than me, I should not be paying more in taxes than them.

I strongly feel that I should not be paying a greater tax burden then someone that makes more than me.

Do you agree or disagree with this, Brainy?

Now here's the shocker about the fair share argument: Okay, so the top X pay Y%. I feel the Z% I pay should be no more than Y%.

To put it more simply: I think any "tax loopholes" someone has access to should apply to everyone. Not just an elite few.

Loopholes are fine - but only if they apply to everyone, not just a few people. Then again, I also think most of the US pays too much in taxes and we should close loopholes in favor of lowering everyone's tax rate.

for the millionaires and donating thing
didn't we already argue that on here once?
meh i must have been discussing that once somewhere else

all i have to say bout that is
i can NOT respect those men because they do not lead by example

i CAN respect Ron Paul because he DOES lead by example
sure his refusal of the overly generous congressional health care and pension doesn't hardly help the government to balance its budget
but the Dr. leads by example

in response to FRT_fun's question about having a chance at winning
well so far he is doing excellent in Iowa where he has alot of tv ads running

i think he has a great chance at winning minus his foreign policy
unfortunately most people still think terrorists hate us because we are "free"
and not because of our military action in the middle east well before 9-11

i have never seen such widespread support for Ron Paul until now. people are finally starting to understand how far we have strayed from what our founding fathers intended. the question is have enough people waken up

there are two other major problems with Ron Pauls chances i see
JFK was killed shortly after speaking out against the federal reserve

and the fact that this here exists

BRAINY, you NEED to watch this video.



This is from a posting originally by JasonC SSB. All credit goes to him.

all this talk about the income tax
anybody care to comment on how they feel as to wethor it is a legit tax in the first place?

Wikipedia has an excellent article on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteen...s_Constitution

Cliffs: Repeatedly supported by the supreme court, amendment properly ratified across 42 states, power granted in the constitution.

I don't understand your point. There is no link to classical liberalism and today's liberal.

Show me an example of one classical liberal in Washington. Ron Paul?

I agree, I pay a lot more than 48% of Americans out there, and I get little to no benefit from my tax dollars collected.


Yes, everyone should pay Y% in order to be fair.


I'm sure there are just as many tax loopholes for the poor/middle than wealthy. Like how a family of 4 making around $50,000 could have ended up paying zero, well, actually getting money back, in federal taxes due to deductions and subsidies.

Yes, I agree the tax code is too complicated. It should be easy and equal to all groups.