To all those who don't understand taxes

[Dutchie]

I might file my taxes this year. haven't decided yet

[MonkeyF0cker]

What the hell does GDP growth or tax rates matter when these dumb fukks spend our money faster than we can make it? You guys have your priorities wrong. Cut spending and I will gladly support a moderate tax increase. They refuse to cut spending because its all the have. Without their government handouts who is going to vote for these idiots?

Federal spending in 2000 was $1.8 trillion. In 2008, it was $3 trillion. In 2012, it will be $3.7 trillion.

Which party is responsible for spending money faster than we can make it again? Sure seems like it's on both of them to me and probably moreso on the Republicans.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2000USrn

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2008USrn

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2012USrn

[HoulihansTX]

Did not pay taxes last year. Got a nice letter from the IRS also. Will be paying this year, and making up for last year.

[SteveRyan]

If I read one more time about Warren Buffetts secretary paying more in taxes then Warren I might explode. So read this and shut up....................................

Yes, you're correct. That is how our tax system operates.

Problem is, it doesn't fukkin work. It never has worked, nor will it ever work. It is a worthless trickle-down system.

Trickle-down economics does not stimulate our economy. Why? Because the top earners in this country do not use the money they save via tax breaks for that purpose. Instead, they line their pockets with it to make their own lives better.

The money does not trickle-down into society; it trickles-down into their investment portfolios.

That's why Obama was talking about change. It's time to flip the tables on those mother fukkers. Lower the tax rate for average income families so that they can save more money and have a better shot to get ahead in life. It will increase spending and production while lowering the unemployment rate.

But instead, the republicans fight to keep things the same. Why? Because they dont want you to get ahead. They dont want you to save money. They dont want you to have any more power than you already have. They like you just the way you are....barely getting by.

[benjy]

Interesting piece in this week's issue of The Economist.

Summary: Does raising taxes on those who are doing well economically stifle growth and slow down the recovery? One study suggests that if the tax system were reformed to make evasion impossible, the top US tax rate might be able to rise to as much as 83%—without hurting the economy

Full article: http://www.economist.com/node/215431.../ar/soakorswim

[ByeShea]

Chances are #10 inherited the money or made it exploiting 1-9. Try again. Next.

Hoja - ever hear of the great leveler called an inheritance tax? If you look into it, you'll realize why you sound like a dope.

[benjy]

Hoja - ever hear of the great leveler called an inheritance tax? If you look into it, you'll realize why you sound like a dope.

There are ways around that too. For instance, have the heir to the family fortune born in a country like Canada where there is no inheritance tax. Don't immediately arrange for US citizenship (later it's easy when all your family is American). And voila, no inheritance tax.

[mebaran]

I might file my taxes this year. haven't decided yet

lmao...there are thousands in your boat, sir.

[ByeShea]

That's why Obama was talking about change. It's time to flip the tables on those mother fukkers. Lower the tax rate for average income families so that they can save more money and have a better shot to get ahead in life. It will increase spending and production while lowering the unemployment rate.

Ever notice how instead of being interested in making higher education more affordable, Obama is energized into making more loans for students easier to get? That college education, already obscenely expensive, is up 10-15% in the 3 years he's been in office?

Who's getting the table flipped on whom, motherf'er? He is ruining people's lives - and the obscenely high debt he "inherited" (and said he'd fix) was $10 trillion. 3 years later it's $16 trillion.

People pay way more for insurance than we did 3 years ago.

Gas has doubled in price. (He just killed a killed a US pipeline last week).

Obama is a f'ing disaster. And it's flipped on all of us.

This is also why whoever wins GOP nomination walks into the White House. Why do you think they're fighting so hard? Because they know they can win.

Remember Bob Dole clinched a primary in '96? It was a like a ceremony. And everyone, Dole himself, knew he was going to lose.

Obama is toast.

[guitarjosh]

Great point. The Republican argument seems to be that by raising taxes on the rich, they'll get up and leave the country (bringing their job creation and tax revenue elsewhere). However, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence to suggest that this would happen.

What WOULD happen, and has happened in the past, is the rich would complain about the tax hikes and then realize that they are contributing to the country that allows them to make so much money in the first place. This is paramount to Warren Buffet's initial argument: Increasing taxes on the rich, mainly by increasing capital gains taxes, will NOT deter people from making investments.

Consider this example:

John, a super rich individual, is looking at a few possible investments for the upcoming quarter. One of these investments is expected to realize a 30% return (not uncommon for people with massive investments in hedge funds, etc). If he invests $10 million, and is expected to realize 30% in long-term capital gains, he will be taxed the normal 15% long-term capital gains rate. So his $3 million in revenue would be taxed $450,000. If Congress were to impose a long-term capital gains rate equal to your tax bracket after realized returns, John would end up paying 35% (the top marginal tax rate) on his capital gains. So a total of $1,050,000 in taxes.

The question at the heart of the argument is: will John forgo the investment in this example because of the tax hike?

Scenario A: Real rate of return over 1 year (after taxes), 15% capital gains, is 25.5%
Scenario A: Real rate of return over 1 year (after taxes), 35% capital gains, is 19.5%

Meanwhile, that extra $600,000 in tax revenue is being used for something (that something can be debated by Congress for a while lol...I'm not touching that).

First of all, you need to look at what the rates were. W's tax cuts weren't some massive give away as the left tries to portray it. When W took over, the top bracket was 39.6% on wages of $200,000+ a year. He cut that to 35%, a 4.6% cut. He cut the top capital gains bracket from 20% to 15%. They got 2 cuts, the largest being 5%. By the way, Clinton cut the top capital gains rate from 28% to 20% in 1997. The largest 2 capital gains tax cuts in history, which are paid primarily by the wealthy, were actually given by democrats.

As far as your second point, you again need to look at history. In 1981 Reagan cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, and revenue from capital gains tax increased. In 1986, he raised it back to 28% and the revenue decreased. When Clinton cut it, revenue increased. When W cut it, revenue increased again.

[TheCentaur]

There are ways around that too. For instance, have the heir to the family fortune born in a country like Canada where there is no inheritance tax. Don't immediately arrange for US citizenship (later it's easy when all your family is American). And voila, no inheritance tax.

So you expect people of child producing age (mainly 21-40) to realize they will eventually have a huge fortune they will need to leave to their not yet born children so send the wifey to Canada so she can have the baby there?

[rkelly110]

Please explain to me why a flat tax is a bad thing?
It is by far the most equal and fair system of taxation. I'm not much of a constitution type of guy or whatever, but I find it hard to believe this country was founded on giving taxable income benefits to people because they have kids or have a house.....

There are social programs out there for people who need help, and I support most of these programs (Hell, I support the government paying families who adopt kids into their homes).
Please explain to me why the government should tax a person at a lower percentage because they made a personal choice to have a kid or buy a house.... They were in no way forced to do either of these things (unless some type of rape was involved and that is an entirely different scenario), so I have no idea why they should be rewarded from the government.

A flat tax would be good if we didn't have a tax on everything else. Just look at any
of your bills, gas and stuff you buy. Look at all those taxes.

Claiming interest and property taxes on your home, creates home sales.
Getting tax deductions for everyone in the family, not just kids, helps lower
your tax rate. It's big boy deductions for us little guys. It's up to you, like
the big boys, to buy a house, get married or have kids to take advantage
of tax breaks.

I would say eliminate income tax all together, because of all the taxes we now pay.

With all the double, triple taxes we pay now, I have no idea how states and govt
can be broke.

Getting more welfare for having more kids, which is what I think you were talking
about, is just plain wrong. I think they should pay a flat tax on that. Right now,
it's tax free. Drug test 'em and tax 'em out of existence.

[benjy]

So you expect people of child producing age (mainly 21-40) to realize they will eventually have a huge fortune they will need to leave to their not yet born children so send the wifey to Canada so she can have the baby there?

I expect nothing of the sort. In this one example the given technique would be used by those that already have a huge fortune.

[SteveRyan]

Ever notice how instead of being interested in making higher education more affordable, Obama is energized into making more loans for students easier to get? That college education, already obscenely expensive, is up 10-15% in the 3 years he's been in office?

That's just the banks taking advantage of the increase in student loans by raising interest rates.

Who's getting the table flipped on whom, motherf'er? He is ruining people's lives - and the obscenely high debt he "inherited" (and said he'd fix) was $10 trillion. 3 years later it's $16 trillion.

We would be in the same position regardless if McCain or whomever had been elected. The Bush era ruined the economy and the bail-outs were inevitable.

People pay way more for insurance than we did 3 years ago.

That's only because the insurance companies projected increases in medical costs that actually didn't go up very much. They raised their rates regardless and made significant profit from it. Again....just taking advantage.

Gas has doubled in price. (He just killed a killed a US pipeline last week).

It has not. There was a brief period where it dropped a couple dollars per gallon, then went back up a few months later.

I honestly do not think that any GOP representative has a shot at winning an election. People have not forgotten all the tasteless tactics and lowly methods the republicans used to try and discredit Obama (Muslim, socialist, etc...). Not to mention that they screw themselves over anyway. Look at what happened to Cain. Newt is being heavily scrutinized. He wont make it.

[Hawkeye2011]

Yes, you're correct. That is how our tax system operates.

Problem is, it doesn't fukkin work. It never has worked, nor will it ever work. It is a worthless trickle-down system.

Trickle-down economics does not stimulate our economy. Why? Because the top earners in this country do not use the money they save via tax breaks for that purpose. Instead, they line their pockets with it to make their own lives better.

The money does not trickle-down into society; it trickles-down into their investment portfolios.

That's why Obama was talking about change. It's time to flip the tables on those mother fukkers. Lower the tax rate for average income families so that they can save more money and have a better shot to get ahead in life. It will increase spending and production while lowering the unemployment rate.

But instead, the republicans fight to keep things the same. Why? Because they dont want you to get ahead. They dont want you to save money. They dont want you to have any more power than you already have. They like you just the way you are....barely getting by.

All your saying is lets tax the hell out of the rich and give it to the poor because their poor

[Jonah]

Chances are #10 inherited the money or made it exploiting 1-9. Try again. Next.

Maybe that's an east coast thing, maybe that will be true in the future...I don't know maybe because the USA is still fairly new, but almost every wealthy person I ever met was more of the self-made type... and this is not a sample of a few, more like hundreds of millionaires.

The top earners in this country often seem to be not the result of inheritance.

CEO's, Athletes, movie-stars, rock stars, motivated business owners, inventors ...the list goes on and on.

Again, maybe this inheritance thing will be more true, but has not been up until this point. Not by a long shot.

Bill Gates, Oprah, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Ray Kroc, Sam Walton...the list can go on and on...

And BTW - not the exception, but the rule in this country...thus far.

[Jonah]

That's just the banks taking advantage of the increase in student loans by raising interest rates.

What kind of rebuttal is that? The rate is going up for the rich kid that does not need a student loan too, or am I wrong??? Seems like a pretty easy thing to track and a shut/closed case if what he said is true.

[bettilimbroke999]

That's how social security works (well, actually at higher income it goes away), and that's bad enough. So you want someone making minimum wage and $25,000/year to pay 7.5% into social security and then another 20% or 25% into income tax. They will literally go hungry and not be able to feed their kids, just so a millionaire can net $11 million instead of $10 million. Anyone who believes this has to be a prick of the highest order.

Exactly, at the lower levels 30% taxes would starve ppl at the upper levels it makes a guy with a 100 mil ONLY make 70 mil, the difference to the multi-millionaire is that he cant buy an extra yacht to the poor man the difference is whether hell be able to feed his family or not

Also, guys like Mitt Romney pay 15% income tax, that's right fukin 15% income tax the lowest tax level possible, anyone paying that low an income tax and bitching about taxes while making millions is just a jackass.

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

Exactly, at the lower levels 30% taxes would starve ppl at the upper levels it makes a guy with a 100 mil ONLY make 70 mil, the difference to the multi-millionaire is that he cant buy an extra yacht to the poor man the difference is whether hell be able to feed his family or not

Also, guys like Mitt Romney pay 15% income tax, that's right fukin 15% income tax the lowest tax level possible, anyone paying that low an income tax and bitching about taxes while making millions is just a jackass.

0% is the lowest tax rate and its what the average american family pays in federal taxes( assuming a family of 4 and 40k household income only taking the standard deduction) God forbid what these poor people would do if they couldNt write off there 3 kids, charity donations( yea right), EIC, and interest on there home.

[SteveRyan]

All your saying is lets tax the hell out of the rich and give it to the poor because their poor

No, it's not that simple.

Our tax system generates a large amount of revenue. By changing the tax percentages where the wealthy pay a higher percentage, the revenue stays the same. The people who need money the most get to keep more of their paychecks. It's not a "Redistribution of wealth". More money is being pulled from the wealthy and less from the middle class; the revenue stays the same.

On a side note (Because the concept was mentioned in this thread), the USA cannot ever implement a "Flat tax system". The revenue generated through our current system will drop significantly. Other forms of tax will need to increase to make up for it (Like sales tax, property tax, etc...).

[dodger33]

The problem about spending is that neither party is truly serious about cutting anything. We're not close to a balanced budget and won't be for a very long time.

Paul Ryan proposed a perfect plan. No one wants to vote on it because they know they would lose their jobs.

[UntilTheNDofTimE]

Paul Ryan proposed a perfect plan. No one wants to vote on it because they know they would lose their jobs.

What did this plan consist of?

[SteveRyan]

What kind of rebuttal is that? The rate is going up for the rich kid that does not need a student loan too, or am I wrong??? Seems like a pretty easy thing to track and a shut/closed case if what he said is true.

He was trying to say that the increase in education was Obama's fault. Truth is, the banks are just taking advantage of the increase in the number of student loans.

Obama's concept is very simple.

Make it easier for people to get a college degree.

College degree = higher income.

Higher income = better living.

Sounds good right? Problem is, the banks just take advantage of students by increasing interest rates on student loans. What's their excuse for doing that? Students that would normally be in a "High-risk" category will now be allowed to get these loans. High-risk = higher interest rates. But for some reason it applies to everyone. Get it? They just want more of your money.

So who's fault is that? Obama? Think not.

[guitarjosh]

Exactly, at the lower levels 30% taxes would starve ppl at the upper levels it makes a guy with a 100 mil ONLY make 70 mil, the difference to the multi-millionaire is that he cant buy an extra yacht to the poor man the difference is whether hell be able to feed his family or not

Also, guys like Mitt Romney pay 15% income tax, that's right fukin 15% income tax the lowest tax level possible, anyone paying that low an income tax and bitching about taxes while making millions is just a jackass.

Last year people were outraged when BkofAma wanted to charge a $5 a month fee to use a debit cart. Verizon customers were furious when there was a proposed $2 a month fee to pay your bill online. Yeah, I'm sure someone will just gladly give up several million more in taxes.

[bettilimbroke999]

Maybe that's an east coast thing, maybe that will be true in the future...I don't know maybe because the USA is still fairly new, but almost every wealthy person I ever met was more of the self-made type... and this is not a sample of a few, more like hundreds of millionaires.

The top earners in this country often seem to be not the result of inheritance.

CEO's, Athletes, movie-stars, rock stars, motivated business owners, inventors ...the list goes on and on.

Again, maybe this inheritance thing will be more true, but has not been up until this point. Not by a long shot.

Bill Gates, Oprah, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Ray Kroc, Sam Walton...the list can go on and on...

And BTW - not the exception, but the rule in this country...thus far.

Walton dead - 4 kids currently in top 11 richest Americans
Jobs - dead heirs instant billionaires
Kroc - dead heirs instant billionaires
Oprah - celebrity
Woods/Lebron - pro athlete
Gates - started Microsoft with multi-million dollar trust fund his incredibly rich parents had for him, would've been a multi-millionaire anyway if things had gone wrong
Ellison - Self-made

Your list suggests by far those currently rich are either through inheritance or becoming a celebrity/pro athlete with only one actual businessman being self-made....good point btw

[mebaran]

First of all, you need to look at what the rates were. W's tax cuts weren't some massive give away as the left tries to portray it. When W took over, the top bracket was 39.6% on wages of $200,000+ a year. He cut that to 35%, a 4.6% cut. He cut the top capital gains bracket from 20% to 15%. They got 2 cuts, the largest being 5%. By the way, Clinton cut the top capital gains rate from 28% to 20% in 1997. The largest 2 capital gains tax cuts in history, which are paid primarily by the wealthy, were actually given by democrats.

As far as your second point, you again need to look at history. In 1981 Reagan cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, and revenue from capital gains tax increased. In 1986, he raised it back to 28% and the revenue decreased. When Clinton cut it, revenue increased. When W cut it, revenue increased again.

With much respect, there are many other factors. You cannot simply say that since they lowered taxes, that was the reason revenue increased.

Plus, the financial institutions, during Clinton's day, did NOT have $150 trillion in derivatives positions like they do now. Sorry, but you cannot compare Presidents in two extremely different economic climates. Hell, the world derivative position is probably almost $1 quadrillion..(and that's not made up...it HAS to be almost there by now, though we won't know for a few years since the economic data always lags 1-2 years before it's accurate).

[guitarjosh]

With much respect, there are many other factors. You cannot simply say that since they lowered taxes, that was the reason revenue increased.

Plus, the financial institutions, during Clinton's day, did NOT have $150 trillion in derivatives positions like they do now. Sorry, but you cannot compare Presidents in two extremely different economic climates. Hell, the world derivative position is probably almost $1 quadrillion..(and that's not made up...it HAS to be almost there by now, though we won't know for a few years since the economic data always lags 1-2 years before it's accurate).

There are always different factors - including between 2012 and 2003 when W cut capital gains.

If you can't compare what happened when you tried similar tax hikes & cuts, you have little reason to believe it will increase revenue now.

[bettilimbroke999]

0% is the lowest tax rate and its what the average american family pays in federal taxes( assuming a family of 4 and 40k household income only taking the standard deduction) God forbid what these poor people would do if they couldNt write off there 3 kids, charity donations( yea right), EIC, and interest on there home.

The rich and the average both take as many deductions/credits as they can, the rich owe 15 mil in taxes on their 100 mil income, the average owe 5k on their 40k income.

Deductions probably save the rich guy a couple mil and save the poor guy 5k, the rich guy uses that extra 2 mil to throw a 16th birthday party for his daughter, the average guy uses the extra 5k to pay his mortgage.

[Jonah]

Walton dead - 4 kids currently in top 11 richest Americans
Jobs - dead heirs instant billionaires
Kroc - dead heirs instant billionaires
Oprah - celebrity
Woods/Lebron - pro athlete
Gates - started Microsoft with multi-million dollar trust fund his incredibly rich parents had for him, would've been a multi-millionaire anyway if things had gone wrong
Ellison - Self-made

Your list suggests by far those currently rich are either through inheritance or becoming a celebrity/pro athlete with only one actual businessman being self-made....good point btw

Like, I said this may become increasingly true...but up until now it has been the go-getters, the hard workers who are constantly a top the Forbes list...

Oprah and Gates aren't self made

Jay Z isn't self made?

Tiger's hard work is thrown out the window?

Those who started - Wendy's, Dominoes, Carl's Jr, Ben and Jerry's, famous authors, producers, directors.

And I am thinking more of the people I know than anything

Worked three jobs, bought a gas station, a hotel a couple more hotels.

Begged, borrowed and did whatever they had to get their first Mcdonalds franchise...bought 5 more.

Bought one house, worked hard, bought a couple more, weren't afraid to deal with dead beat tenants, patched holes, painted walls, replaced toilets, lost money, stayed focused, saved, leveraged and bought more houses, didn't ask for hand-outs or waste time worrying about others. took calculated risks and have something to show for.

Got lucky on their first big deal ---that is okay too. Started a weird internet business...It's about motivating the masses here. Giving people the incentive to try these things is huge.

Worked two jobs throughout law school.

Marines for 20 years....started their own security business.

I could go on and on. ...

[bettilimbroke999]

Who gives a **** if they're self-made anyway?

So I open a store like Wal-Mart buy some shit to fill the shelves mark it up and reap the profits...I should pay no taxes bc I marked the shit up myself? Strange logic

The most successful have to pay a higher tax rate bc the brokedik fuks workin for 8 bucks an hour at Walmart making that fat cat richer cant even pay their living expenses, taxing them would be pointless. Hey you're lights are off, well if ya dont mind paying this big tax bill, we didnt want to go over 15% tax rate on the Walton kids, we didnt think it would be fair to them

[falconticket]

Exactly, at the lower levels 30% taxes would starve ppl at the upper levels it makes a guy with a 100 mil ONLY make 70 mil, the difference to the multi-millionaire is that he cant buy an extra yacht to the poor man the difference is whether hell be able to feed his family or not

Also, guys like Mitt Romney pay 15% income tax, that's right fukin 15% income tax the lowest tax level possible, anyone paying that low an income tax and bitching about taxes while making millions is just a jackass.

I believe you have " income tax " confused with capital gain taxes.

[dodger33]

What did this plan consist of?

[dodger33]

[dodger33]

Federal spending in 2000 was $1.8 trillion. In 2008, it was $3 trillion. In 2012, it will be $3.7 trillion.
Which party is responsible for spending money faster than we can make it again? Sure seems like it's on both of them to me and probably moreso on the Republicans.

George Bush spent like a democrat, there is no denying that. The problem is a true conservative has not been elected to office. Cutting spending is and never will be a policy that will get someone re-elected. The masses are too fuking stupid.

[bettilimbroke999]

I believe you have " income tax " confused with capital gain taxes.

Capital gains IS an income tax...investment income