NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
I do the taxes for most of my extended family and there is one household in there who didn't have a income tax liability in years. I think they finally had a little last year. The tax system is jacked up.
orangecrush
10-01-09, 11:00 AM
Figured we could use something other than healthcare and war
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.
The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.
The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.
As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.
Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.
Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.
When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.
I do the taxes for most of my extended family and there is one household in there who didn't have a income tax liability in years. I think they finally had a little last year. The tax system is jacked up.If you are a nuclear family (w/ multiple kids) and making about the median income, it is pretty easy to get to a negative federal tax rate. I have had a negative rate for about 5 years now.
The above numbers are why I hate it when people say the rich don't pay their fair share. If it is unfair, it is do to the fact that the poor/lower middle don't pay their fair share.
Brack
10-01-09, 11:29 AM
Where in any of this data can you conclude that the rich pay their fair share?
Where in any of this data can you conclude that the rich pay their fair share?
If I understand what you're asking...you can't. "Fair" is a subjective term. You can't decide if the rich or poor (which are also subjective terms) are paying their "fair" share as "fair" will be different for different people.
4KRG
10-01-09, 11:58 AM
Where in any of this data can you conclude that the rich pay their fair share?
In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
If 47% of households pay nothing, is that fair to the 53% of households that pay everything?
I think that is what he was driving at. On the surface, it doesn't seem fair that 53% of households pay 100% of the tax.
The Bus
10-01-09, 12:00 PM
This should make Republicans happy, who like low taxes.
kvrdave
10-01-09, 12:04 PM
This should make Republicans happy, who like low taxes.
Low and "fair."
Freaking poor people are paying their way. Lazy bastards. :grunt:
wendersfan
10-01-09, 12:06 PM
On the surface, it doesn't seem fair that 53% of households pay 100% of the tax.I agree, but I'm still happy I'm part of the 53% instead of part of the 47%.
:shrug:
Nausicaa
10-01-09, 12:10 PM
Sounds like the increase is primarily driven by tax breaks in the recovery package, and that the majority of households with no federal income tax burden earn less than $30,000 a year. I don't really have a problem with this, given the recession.
I imagine soon we'll be told that tax breaks are only good and effective when limited to the fewest number of people with the most income and wealth.
I'm not sure what's 'fair', but I don't think families earning around 30k are exactly living it up.
slop101
10-01-09, 12:19 PM
I just got my $10k property-tax bill, so fuck this - I don't care that it's not federal, I feel like I'm getting ass raped here.
Cheato
10-01-09, 01:13 PM
On the surface, it doesn't seem fair that 53% of households pay 100% of the tax.
You should move to Shangri-La. But down there, it's anything goes. They wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people!
Personally, I'd be even more comfortable with 50%.
General Zod
10-01-09, 01:18 PM
Sounds like income redistribution to me.
wendersfan
10-01-09, 01:55 PM
Sounds like income redistribution to me.
Not to be obvious or anything, but practically everything the government does redistributes income from one group to another group. Sometimes it flows up, sometimes it flows down.
wishbone
10-01-09, 02:03 PM
It's a misnomer that lower income people are getting away with something by not paying much in income tax and it's a misnomer that upper income people are not paying their fair share with regard to income tax.
That Lucky Ducky fellow on the other hand... :grumble:
4KRG
10-01-09, 02:07 PM
You should move to Shangri-La. But down there, it's anything goes. They wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people!
Personally, I'd be even more comfortable with 50%.
You should read things more carefully before you make comments.
General Zod
10-01-09, 02:47 PM
Not to be obvious or anything, but practically everything the government does redistributes income from one group to another group. Sometimes it flows up, sometimes it flows down.
When has it flown up?
JasonF
10-01-09, 03:14 PM
When has it flown up?
You're kidding, right? TARP, for one. Many defense contracts accrue more benefits to the rich than the poor. The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Medicare Part D.
kvrdave
10-01-09, 03:35 PM
Yes, a great many jobs were created with the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.
classicman2
10-01-09, 04:10 PM
I think the HMID should be done away with immediately.
However, it probably does create a few jobs.
sracer
10-01-09, 04:12 PM
When has it flown up?
Foreign aid when it is used primarily to stabilize corporate interests abroad, for one.
Nick Danger
10-01-09, 04:26 PM
You can't really believe that no laws are passed to help rich people. Here are a couple of classes of laws that do. Price supports for agricultural products, which often give the most help to giant agribusiness corporations. Tariffs to increase the profits of particular industries, and their owners. These ones are easy to spot, because the higher prices that ordinary people pay at cash registers everywhere go straight into a handful of bank accounts.
milo bloom
10-01-09, 05:45 PM
Help me out here, isn't this what the teabagger types are always on about? That the common man is being overtaxed? Doesn't this show that he isn't (this year at least)?
General Zod
10-01-09, 05:54 PM
So let me ask this a different way because I'm not talking about the few % that are multi-millionaires. Let's say I make $500k a year as a manager for a large company that makes widgets. I pay $200k a year (or whatever it would be) in federal income tax. What is flowing up to me? The person down the street doesn't work and he pays no federal tax but instead actually gets money on a return due to this or that social program. Things are obviously flowing down nicely to him. How is this not pure income redistribution? I am paying for him, I am paying for his home, I am paying for his food, I am paying for his health care, and I'm giving him some extra spending cash. What am I getting? (And don't tell me I'm getting the money I make for working. I'm talking about what benefits from the Gov't are flowing up my way?).
I fully admit when it comes how this is all broken up is a bit of a mystery to me so if this is all a crazy example I apologize so please don't parse the details. I'm just trying to convey the question the best I can.
sracer
10-01-09, 06:04 PM
So let me ask this a different way because I'm not talking about the few % that are multi-millionaires. Let's say I make $500k a year as a manager for a large company that makes widgets. I pay $200k a year (or whatever it would be) in federal income tax. What is flowing up to me? The person down the street doesn't work and he pays no federal tax but instead actually gets money on a return due to this or that social program. Things are obviously flowing down nicely to him. How is this not pure income redistribution? I am paying for him, I am paying for his home, I am paying for his food, I am paying for his health care, and I'm giving him some extra spending cash. What am I getting? (And don't tell me I'm getting the money I make for working. I'm talking about what benefits from the Gov't are flowing up my way?).
I fully admit when it comes how this is all broken up is a bit of a mystery to me so if this is all a crazy example I apologize so please don't parse the details. I'm just trying to convey the question the best I can.
In that hypothetical scenario, as one example... there are bills lobbied for by your company that benefit the company and allow you to earn more than you would've been able to had that bill not been passed. Without that import tariff you might not have even had a job.
There are probably some more direct examples that others will provide.
Jason
10-01-09, 06:11 PM
So let me ask this a different way because I'm not talking about the few % that are multi-millionaires. Let's say I make $500k a year as a manager for a large company that makes widgets. I pay $200k a year (or whatever it would be) in federal income tax. What is flowing up to me? The person down the street doesn't work and he pays no federal tax but instead actually gets money on a return due to this or that social program. Things are obviously flowing down nicely to him. How is this not pure income redistribution? I am paying for him, I am paying for his home, I am paying for his food, I am paying for his health care, and I'm giving him some extra spending cash. What am I getting? (And don't tell me I'm getting the money I make for working. I'm talking about what benefits from the Gov't are flowing up my way?).
I fully admit when it comes how this is all broken up is a bit of a mystery to me so if this is all a crazy example I apologize so please don't parse the details. I'm just trying to convey the question the best I can.
A company that large benefits from almost endless tax subsidies, which in turn pay your hypothetical, yet ridiculous salary.
movielib
10-01-09, 06:56 PM
A company that large benefits from almost endless tax subsidies, which in turn pay your hypothetical, yet ridiculous salary.
I'm so glad someone knows what salaries are and are not ridiculous. Even hypothetical ones. Thanks, Jason!
Plenty of the rich and plenty of the poor get tax subsidies. It's all wrong.
Venusian
10-01-09, 07:32 PM
Help me out here, isn't this what the teabagger types are always on about? That the common man is being overtaxed? Doesn't this show that he isn't (this year at least)?
Maybe the complaint is about the 750,000 or so households making over 100k that aren't paying taxes
Superboy
10-01-09, 10:03 PM
Maybe the complaint is about the 750,000 or so households making over 100k that aren't paying taxes
They are paying taxes, just not a Federal Income tax.
And this could be due to a multitude of factors. You do realize that many of these people are potentially liable for a Federal income tax, but do not pay one due to deductions and exclusions from their income.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not contributing money to the government. There's social security taxes, property taxes, etc etc. You should also know that many of the benefits that people in that income bracket receive are taxed, almost to the point that they're not even getting them.
X
10-01-09, 10:07 PM
They are paying taxes, just not a Federal Income tax. No, those payments are for "social insurance", not taxes which go into the general fund. Those payments are insurance premiums in case they become disabled or get old.
orangecrush
10-02-09, 09:40 AM
No, those payments are for "social insurance", not taxes which go into the general fund. Those payments are insurance premiums in case they become disabled or get old.We both know that those funds make their way into the general fund. And it is the most expensive insurance I have ever heard of.
classicman2
10-02-09, 09:46 AM
We both know that those funds make their way into the general fund. And it is the most expensive insurance I have ever heard of.
Money is taken from both the Medicare & Social Security Trust Fund to 'pay' for other things - unfortunately. This practice should be stopped - immediately.
orangecrush
10-02-09, 09:54 AM
Money is taken from both the Medicare & Social Security Trust Fund to 'pay' for other things - unfortunately. This practice should be stopped - immediately.I agree 100%.
Dr Mabuse
10-02-09, 10:02 AM
You should also know that many of the benefits that people in that income bracket receive are taxed, almost to the point that they're not even getting them.
"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal
creekdipper
10-02-09, 10:22 AM
Money is taken from both the Medicare & Social Security Trust Fund to 'pay' for other things - unfortunately. This practice should be stopped - immediately.
Evidently it will be stopped within the next decade even if only by default.
classicman2
10-02-09, 10:24 AM
It's been going on (with a very few exceptions) for the last 35 years.
Superboy
10-02-09, 10:33 PM
"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal
Don't forget this gem:
The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
- Alexis De Tocqueville
kvrdave
10-03-09, 12:16 AM
"A great stylist has the potential to significantly impact their clients’ lives." - Vidal Sassoon
Dr Mabuse
10-03-09, 12:50 AM
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
:lol:
Brack
10-03-09, 02:08 PM
^^^ I thought it was Mark Twain who said that.
Dr Mabuse
10-03-09, 07:00 PM
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
That Abraham Lincoln coined the quote I cite above is not in much question.
That Mark Twain is one who many, many quotes are just 'assigned' to is not in much question. He is a clearing house for many 'wise' or clever quotes that are mistakenly/falsely accredited to him.
In this instance one may be using another's phrase, I would give the edge to Lincoln in that case.
creekdipper
10-04-09, 07:30 AM
^ ^ ^
After seeing the Dan Rather thread below, I'm prompted to think that he would love to attribute "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" to Mark Twain.
Just as W. would like to hand off, "Helluva job, Brownie!" to Twain.
classicman2
10-04-09, 08:21 AM
"That Mark Twain is one who many, many quotes are just 'assigned' to is not in much question. He is a clearing house for many 'wise' or clever quotes that are mistakenly/falsely accredited to him
And Lincoln wasn't?
Jason
10-04-09, 09:11 AM
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
:lol:
"Oh yeah, Well...takes one to know one!" - Homer Simpson
Suprmallet
10-04-09, 02:33 PM
All I can say is that I hope my tax guy takes these stastics into account when he does my taxes in April.
Brack
10-04-09, 03:59 PM
^ ^ ^
After seeing the Dan Rather thread below, I'm prompted to think that he would love to attribute "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" to Mark Twain.
Just as W. would like to hand off, "Helluva job, Brownie!" to Twain.
I'm sure there's nothing that prompted this thought except some sort of superiority complex on your part.
pedagogue
10-04-09, 07:48 PM
If you are a nuclear family (w/ multiple kids) and making about the median income, it is pretty easy to get to a negative federal tax rate.
Why do we keep rewarding people to breed? A flat tax should be implemented. It simplifies the tax code, and everyone pays their fair share. Frankly, it is a HUGE net loss to have all of those people not pay taxes because many are usual social programs, but don't pay into them.
classicman2
10-04-09, 07:51 PM
A flat tax is the last thing we need.
It would have a far too negative impact on the middle class.
kvrdave
10-04-09, 08:15 PM
And it would treat people the same. That's not American.
Pharoh
10-04-09, 10:11 PM
And it would treat people the same. That's not American.
Of course a straight flat tax wouldn't treat everybody equally, but hey...
kvrdave
10-04-09, 11:47 PM
It wouldn't? -confused-
Everyone pays the same percentage of their income....that doesn't treat everybody equally?
Hank Ringworm
10-05-09, 12:20 AM
It wouldn't? -confused-
Everyone pays the same percentage of their income....that doesn't treat everybody equally?
Yeah, but it ignores the fact that some Americans, in the government's eyes, are more equal than others. Responsible folks need a Brown v. Board of their own.
Superboy
10-05-09, 05:32 AM
It wouldn't? -confused-
Everyone pays the same percentage of their income....that doesn't treat everybody equally?
It doesn't account for how people with higher incomes are better able to manage their tax liability.
Superboy
10-05-09, 05:36 AM
Oh, I could go on for pages about everything wrong with a flat tax... and it's not because it's not equitable, it's because it's impossible to implement. We would just end up with the same tax system we have now, with all the same potential problems.
orangecrush
10-05-09, 10:12 AM
Why do we keep rewarding people to breed? A flat tax should be implemented. It simplifies the tax code, and everyone pays their fair share. Frankly, it is a HUGE net loss to have all of those people not pay taxes because many are usual social programs, but don't pay into them.I personally don't have a huge problem w/ the child tax, but don't think it should be refundable. I also don't think we need any change as radical as the flat tax or national sales tax. We just need a much simpler tax code. I say limit it to 150 pages w/ 10 point font.
Pharoh
10-05-09, 10:25 AM
It wouldn't? -confused-
Everyone pays the same percentage of their income....that doesn't treat everybody equally?
No it wouldn't, and I really don't understand why that concept isn't universally understood and accepted.
classicman2
10-05-09, 10:57 AM
And it would treat people the same. That's not American.
No, it wouldn't.
kvrdave
10-05-09, 11:36 AM
Why wouldn't it?
classicman2
10-05-09, 11:38 AM
Think about it a little, and I'm reasonably certain you can see why it wouldn't.
We encourage thought on this forum. ;)
X
10-05-09, 11:54 AM
Think about it a little, and I'm reasonably certain you can see why it wouldn't.I wouldn't mind hearing a couple reasons why some people think it wouldn't and then see if there is a way to work around those issues.
classicman2
10-05-09, 12:07 PM
Flat tax - takes away a major incentive for the middle-class buying a home.
X
10-05-09, 12:11 PM
Flat tax - takes away a major incentive for the middle-class buying a home.That's one point for a flat tax. And I say that as a home owner with a substantial mortgage interest deduction.
It would have to be phased in though.
classicman2
10-05-09, 12:13 PM
I actually do favor a form of the flat tax. I believe the top 1% should have a flat tax rate of 75%.
kvrdave
10-05-09, 12:31 PM
Just take it all.
Dr Mabuse
10-05-09, 12:51 PM
We've had a 75% tax rate in the past.
The rich still managed to get richer, but I think that was the highest bracket ever. I think it was still in effect as late at the 60's.
JasonF
10-05-09, 01:13 PM
We've had a 75% tax rate in the past.
The rich still managed to get richer, but I think that was the highest bracket ever. I think it was still in effect as late at the 60's.
The highest marginal tax rate we've ever had in the U.S. was 94%. The top marginal tax rate was 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980, which explains why the post-World War II period is remembered as a dark time in American history when the country stagnated, there was no innovation, and nobody got rich. ;)
kvrdave
10-05-09, 01:16 PM
Why risk money to innovate when the prize is having 70% of it taken away?
JasonF
10-05-09, 01:23 PM
Why risk money to innovate when the prize is having 70% of it taken away?
30% of an obscenely large sum of money is still a very large sum of money. But you'd probably get a more complete answer from all the people who risked money to innovate between 1936 and 1980.
spainlinx0
10-05-09, 01:24 PM
It just means they have to work harder to get rich. I think it provides motivation.
Cheato
10-05-09, 01:44 PM
The highest marginal tax rate we've ever had in the U.S. was 94%. The top marginal tax rate was 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980, which explains why the post-World War II period is remembered as a dark time in American history when the country stagnated, there was no innovation, and nobody got rich. ;)
Funny, I think other people remember it (post WW2 up through the 70s) as the time when America went from an economy based on single-working-parent households to one based on dual-working-parent households. After WWII and for the next 30 years or so, progress and prices can be tied to the fact that there was an increase in the workforce and, as a result, in family incomes. Suddenly everybody could afford a house and a car, and then TV started and they all got those, along with all kinds of appliances designed to make life easier, etc., etc.. As the economy reached a new equilibrium over the next two generations of increased wages and increased consumption, and prices increased to accommodate the new supply of money (houses, college tuition, cars, etc.), we found ourselves in a prisoners' dilemma. It was no longer a choice for many to have single-working-parent households. And people in dual-working-parent-households could no longer get ahead--they could only keep up.
Comparing the tax structure of today to the one of that time, or using the one of that time as a predictive model for another would not yield accurate results, IMO.
Pharoh
10-05-09, 01:52 PM
30% of an obscenely large sum of money is still a very large sum of money. But you'd probably get a more complete answer from all the people who risked money to innovate between 1936 and 1980.
:lol:
I think you have a vastly different conception of what an obscenely large sum of money is than many, (most), people do.
And don't you think it is relevant to include in your posting of rates what the income level was with those rates? Like for example that from 49 to 64 the income level was over $400k, as opposed to only $300k in 2001?
JasonF
10-05-09, 02:00 PM
:lol:
I think you have a vastly different conception of what an obscenely large sum of money is than many, (most), people do.
And don't you think it is relevant to include in your posting of rates what the income level was with those rates? Like for example that from 49 to 64 the income level was over $400k, as opposed to only $300k in 2001?
I didn't say anything about the income level at which people started paying the top marginal rate.
I support adding at least two or three additional tax brackets above the one we have now. I do favor a very high top marginal bracket, but I think it should be reserved for people making somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures.
Pharoh
10-05-09, 02:36 PM
I didn't say anything about the income level at which people started paying the top marginal rate.
I support adding at least two or three additional tax brackets above the one we have now. I do favor a very high top marginal bracket, but I think it should be reserved for people making somewhere in the neighborhood of seven figures.
I know you didn't; that was the point. You can't point out that the rate was often 90% without also indicating what the income level was, especially if you are discussing growth and its possibility.
As for your other suggestion, I still cant' fathom how it makes economic sense or is morally justified. (And remember, I am not in favour of a flat tax).
Dr Mabuse
10-05-09, 02:39 PM
The highest marginal tax rate we've ever had in the U.S. was 94%. The top marginal tax rate was 70% or higher from 1936 through 1980, which explains why the post-World War II period is remembered as a dark time in American history when the country stagnated, there was no innovation, and nobody got rich. ;)
:lol:
Nice.
Lemmy
10-05-09, 02:58 PM
I've had a job since I was 13 years old; I'm now 46. I have ALWAYS filed longform when my income was sufficient to warrant it (starting at about age 20). I make it my business to know the tax laws every year; any changes, etc., and I've NEVER paid Federal income tax. In fact, one year (2005), I moved from Michigan to Texas to Indiana and back to Michigan, all in the name of employment. I paid about $5400 during the year in Federal tax, but got over $9000 (Federal) back, due to qualifying for several programs (both State and Federal) that pay expenses invloving work relocation.
And the years my income was too low to pay longform? I got every penny back on shortform.
:)
If you pay....you're a sucker.
I now do taxes for family and friends every year as well. In fact, my sister won a $23,000 judgement this year, and will owe about 5K in taxes...if she files her taxes on her own. With my help, she'll get it all back (minus my 15% fee for finding the loopholes and filing the forms).
Groucho
10-05-09, 03:17 PM
With my help, she'll get it all back (minus my 15% fee for finding the loopholes and filing the forms).Brother of the year.
fujishig
10-05-09, 04:10 PM
Brother of the year.
I wonder if the fee gets returned once the IRS audits her? :)
Cheato
10-05-09, 04:18 PM
How much do you pay in taxes on that fee?
Mabuse
10-05-09, 07:07 PM
I've had a job since I was 13 years old; I'm now 46. I have ALWAYS filed longform when my income was sufficient to warrant it (starting at about age 20). I make it my business to know the tax laws every year; any changes, etc., and I've NEVER paid Federal income tax. In fact, one year (2005), I moved from Michigan to Texas to Indiana and back to Michigan, all in the name of employment. I paid about $5400 during the year in Federal tax, but got over $9000 (Federal) back, due to qualifying for several programs (both State and Federal) that pay expenses invloving work relocation.
And the years my income was too low to pay longform? I got every penny back on shortform.
:)
If you pay....you're a sucker.
I now do taxes for family and friends every year as well. In fact, my sister won a $23,000 judgement this year, and will owe about 5K in taxes...if she files her taxes on her own. With my help, she'll get it all back (minus my 15% fee for finding the loopholes and filing the forms).
Please pray tell, help me on an income tax question: If I have annual dividend income from shares of common stock totaling $8,000 how would I avoid paying any and all federal income tax on these earnings? I dare say it is impossible.
kvrdave
10-05-09, 07:17 PM
You will pay, but you have to find credits elsewhere to offset it. Claim pets as children, etc.
Superboy
10-05-09, 11:47 PM
Why risk money to innovate when the prize is having 70% of it taken away?
Because the risk is tax deductible.
kvrdave
10-06-09, 12:04 AM
:lol: I have people talk about how I should do all sorts of things to my rentals because it is tax deductible. There really are flaws with that thinking. It is still money lost. Money you no longer have.
Anyway, I think it is all silly. Rich people don't pay big taxes if they are smart. When the highest levels were 70-93% there were so many loopholes that it didn't matter. The rich make the tax laws. Ted Kennedy didn't pay huge taxes, he paid huge amounts to find ways to avoid it. The Kennedy trust is a great example of that.
If you really think you can get money out of the rich, you need to go with a wealth tax....and they won't pass that because it would cost them money.
X
10-06-09, 12:25 AM
When people talk about how great high marginal tax rates would be you certainly know they're talking in the abstract.
Buy: