Taxing the rich more? How about making companies bring money back......

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on December 10, 2012 - 6:33pm

Gotta love anyone who makes the argument about taxing W2 "rich" people more.....

Meet the new masters at the helm. Same as the old masters at the helm. Not gonna do shit...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-tech-...

We often talk about the staggering amount of cash some of the biggest multinationals are holding, so I want to take a peek at that, courtesy of some of the top names in tech.

Specifically, I spent some time searching the latest SEC filings to see just how much cash some major techs have in overseas bank accounts where it's not subject to U.S. taxes.
Here's a snapshot: Percentage-wise,(MSFT) near the top of the list, with 87 percent of its $66.6 billion outside the U.S. (CSCO) not far behind at 83 percent of its $45 billion, (ORCL) at 80 percent of $31.6 billion, (AAPL) at 68 percent of $121.3 billion, and (GOOG) at 64 percent of $45.7 billion.
Why is all that cash over there? It's not necessarily because they're hiding it. A big part of the reason is that they've become global growth stories.
When Microsoft sells product overseas, the proceeds naturally go into an overseas account. The money doesn't come to the U.S. unless Microsoft needs to buy something here.
This is actually a big issue for a company like Cisco, where John Chambers has been very straightforward about saying if the feds let him bring this cash to the U.S. without a big tax bill, he'll hire in the U.S. If not, he'll hire a lot less.
Also, there's the acquisition wrinkle: Cisco used to do nearly all of its big acquisitions in the U.S.
But as domestic targets have gotten more expensive and the proportion of Cisco's cash it's generating outside the U.S. remains steady at about 80 percent, it's harder to buy anything big. Not only does Cisco have to look at the purchase price of its target, it has to add another 30 percent or so to factor in the cost of repatriating the cash.
Chambers said just last week that Cisco has gone too long without a big acquisition. Given the dynamics here, you've got to wonder: Does that mean he's about to make a major overseas buy?

Submitted by ctr70 on December 10, 2012 - 6:54pm.

25% of the top income earners in the U.S. pay 90% of the income taxes. Isn't 90% enough??? I just can't see why Obama wants them to pay MORE and MORE. Isn't that enough already?

I would rather see corporate taxes go up, prop 13 repealed and the mortgage deduction go away before raising income taxes on our innovators and high achievers. At least you can choose to not own real estate. You don't have a choice with income taxes.

Submitted by CA renter on December 11, 2012 - 1:45am.

ctr70 wrote:
25% of the top income earners in the U.S. pay 90% of the income taxes. Isn't 90% enough??? I just can't see why Obama wants them to pay MORE and MORE. Isn't that enough already?

I would rather see corporate taxes go up, prop 13 repealed and the mortgage deduction go away before raising income taxes on our innovators and high achievers. At least you can choose to not own real estate. You don't have a choice with income taxes.

How about leveling the playing field and taxing ALL income at the same rates instead of just "punishing" workers (especially W-2 slaves)?

Thoughts?

Submitted by ocrenter on December 11, 2012 - 8:03am.

ctr70 wrote:
25% of the top income earners in the U.S. pay 90% of the income taxes. Isn't 90% enough??? I just can't see why Obama wants them to pay MORE and MORE. Isn't that enough already?

This does seem like an alarming statistics, doesn't it, ctr?

But the problem here is the top is increasing their income while the bottom is stagnate, so how do we increase the bottom's share of the tax burden when it is the top that is increasing their income?

For example, if the top 1% increase their income by 10% in the same year that the rest of the 99% grew by 0.2%, how should we increase the tax burden of the bottom?

Here's another scenario, the top 25% holds 87% of the wealth in this country. So how can we hold the other 75% accountable for that 13% of wealth?

And when a government is trying to go after more revenue, which of the piece of pie should it go after? the 13%? or the 87%.

I don't have the answer. But seems to me the government is just going after where the money's at. whether that is right or wrong it is up for debate.

Submitted by ocrenter on December 11, 2012 - 8:38am.

The bottom line here remains: the W2 professionals are the easy prey. With no ability to stash their cash outside of the country, yet considered "rich" by the huge and growing underclass, this group is the perfect low hanging fruit for the government seeking funds.

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 8:51am.

ocrenter wrote:
The bottom line here remains: the W2 professionals are the easy prey. With no ability to stash their cash outside of the country, yet considered "rich" by the huge and growing underclass, this group is the perfect low hanging fruit for the government seeking funds.

huh? Only a miniscule % of w-2 professionals would be hit by a tax hike. The logic in this comment is divorced from reality.

Submitted by ocrenter on December 11, 2012 - 8:57am.

SK in CV wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
The bottom line here remains: the W2 professionals are the easy prey. With no ability to stash their cash outside of the country, yet considered "rich" by the huge and growing underclass, this group is the perfect low hanging fruit for the government seeking funds.

huh? Only a miniscule % of w-2 professionals would be hit by a tax hike. The logic in this comment is divorced from reality.

Low hanging fruit does not mean high yielding fruit. The truly high yielding fruit is that top one percent. But the gov certainly has its work cut out for it to go after that.

Submitted by meadandale on December 11, 2012 - 8:58am.

CA renter wrote:

How about leveling the playing field and taxing ALL income at the same rates instead of just "punishing" workers (especially W-2 slaves)?

Thoughts?

Well, I'd argue that taxes on wages are too high, not that taxes on investment income is too low.

If unlike the majority of the wage slaves, I've been smart enough to set aside some money and invest it rather than spend myself into debt, why should I have to pay the government half of any return I make risking MY OWN MONEY?

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 9:17am.

meadandale wrote:
CA renter wrote:

How about leveling the playing field and taxing ALL income at the same rates instead of just "punishing" workers (especially W-2 slaves)?

Thoughts?

Well, I'd argue that taxes on wages are too high, not that taxes on investment income is too low.

If unlike the majority of the wage slaves, I've been smart enough to set aside some money and invest it rather than spend myself into debt, why should I have to pay the government half of any return I make risking MY OWN MONEY?

Kind of a straw man argument. No one has suggested half.

Submitted by livinincali on December 11, 2012 - 9:22am.

ocrenter wrote:

Low hanging fruit does not mean high yielding fruit. The truly high yielding fruit is that top one percent. But the gov certainly has its work cut out for it to go after that.

The top 1% took home 1.5 trillion income in year 2010. Of that they paid 354 billion in taxes. For an effective tax rate of 23.39

The top 10% took home 3.6 trillion in income and paid 670 billion in taxes. For an effective tax rate of 18.46

The top 25% took home 5.4 trillion and paid 827 billion for an effective tax rate of 15.22.

The thing is that the top 1% takes home about 20% of the income while the top 10% takes home about 50% of the income while the top 25% takes home about 67% of the total income.

With a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit each year the numbers say that if your going to fix the problem with revenue you probably need to go after the top 10% and more likely the top 25%. It's just a numbers game where the super rich don't have enough to take to fix everything. I think that's the biggest problem that people don't understand. They think the rich have enough to tax to keep all the spending programs they are in favor of in tact, but the rich don't actually have that much.

Submitted by meadandale on December 11, 2012 - 9:26am.

SK in CV wrote:
meadandale wrote:
CA renter wrote:

How about leveling the playing field and taxing ALL income at the same rates instead of just "punishing" workers (especially W-2 slaves)?

Thoughts?

Well, I'd argue that taxes on wages are too high, not that taxes on investment income is too low.

If unlike the majority of the wage slaves, I've been smart enough to set aside some money and invest it rather than spend myself into debt, why should I have to pay the government half of any return I make risking MY OWN MONEY?

Kind of a straw man argument. No one has suggested half.

Dividend taxes are going to be 43%. That's pretty close to half.

Capital gains rates are going to be almost 25% (20% plus the 3.8% ObamaCare bonus).

Submitted by no_such_reality on December 11, 2012 - 9:34am.

ocrenter wrote:
ctr70 wrote:
25% of the top income earners in the U.S. pay 90% of the income taxes. Isn't 90% enough??? I just can't see why Obama wants them to pay MORE and MORE. Isn't that enough already?

This does seem like an alarming statistics, doesn't it, ctr?

But the problem here is the top is increasing their income while the bottom is stagnate, so how do we increase the bottom's share of the tax burden when it is the top that is increasing their income?

For example, if the top 1% increase their income by 10% in the same year that the rest of the 99% grew by 0.2%, how should we increase the tax burden of the bottom?

Here's another scenario, the top 25% holds 87% of the wealth in this country. So how can we hold the other 75% accountable for that 13% of wealth?

And when a government is trying to go after more revenue, which of the piece of pie should it go after? the 13%? or the 87%.

I don't have the answer. But seems to me the government is just going after where the money's at. whether that is right or wrong it is up for debate.

You have to go after both.

The reason is really simple. If you don't, you continue to have people demanding more more more because it's free to them.

In the end, I only see three ways out of this for us as a country.

1. We figure out how to get the every increasing portion of our low skill population to have value added skills that qualifies them for something more than being a package picker at an major online retailer warehouse. There's roughly 7 billion people on the planet that can do that job.

2. We institute 'living wage' rules and enforce them and accept the economic impacts of it and reduction in consumption.

3. We hyper-inflate our way our and accept the normalization of our standard of living with the rest of the world.

I prefer #1, I suspect we'll get #3.

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 9:35am.

meadandale wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
meadandale wrote:
CA renter wrote:

How about leveling the playing field and taxing ALL income at the same rates instead of just "punishing" workers (especially W-2 slaves)?

Thoughts?

Well, I'd argue that taxes on wages are too high, not that taxes on investment income is too low.

If unlike the majority of the wage slaves, I've been smart enough to set aside some money and invest it rather than spend myself into debt, why should I have to pay the government half of any return I make risking MY OWN MONEY?

Kind of a straw man argument. No one has suggested half.

Dividend taxes are going to be 43%. That's pretty close to half.

Capital gains rates are going to be almost 25% (20% plus the 3.8% ObamaCare bonus).

For the vast majority of people, the taxes on dividends and capital gains won't be anywhere near those levels. For 98% of couples with income under $300K, it will be much less.

Submitted by flu on December 11, 2012 - 11:05am.

I'm not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)...

Spending problem, no?

Submitted by meadandale on December 11, 2012 - 12:42pm.

flu wrote:
I'm not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)...

Spending problem, no?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-p...

Submitted by flu on December 11, 2012 - 1:00pm.

meadandale wrote:
flu wrote:
I'm not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)...

Spending problem, no?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html

???

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 12:59pm.

meadandale wrote:
flu wrote:
I'm not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)...

Spending problem, no?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html

That might be the most awesome disingenuous misrepresentation I have ever seen.

It uses one baseline for spending (which is NOT the current baseline), and two different baselines for changes in revenue and counts the increase but doesn't count the decrease. It is entirely divorced from reality.

Submitted by flu on December 11, 2012 - 1:00pm.

SK in CV wrote:
meadandale wrote:
flu wrote:
I'm not really sure taxing people (any people more is really gonna solve any budget issues)...

Spending problem, no?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html

That might be the most awesome disingenuous misrepresentation I have ever seen.

It uses one baseline for spending (which is NOT the current baseline), and two different baselines for changes in revenue and counts the increase but doesn't count the decrease. It is entirely divorced from reality.

What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one...Because I am curious

Submitted by SD Realtor on December 11, 2012 - 1:07pm.

Kind of like saying there were no cuts to medicare during the election but counting cuts to medicare now as spending reductions.

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 1:13pm.

flu wrote:

What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one...Because I am curious

I don't remember the exact numbers, but Obama's proposal is roughly $1.6 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cost cutting from current.

The republican proposal is roughly $800 billion in tax increases (Primarily on YOUR back, and not so much on the back of the really rich. Eliminating deductions hurts you a lot more than it hurts those with > $1 million of income), and i think $1.4 in spending cuts, primarily on the back of the elderly and poor. That's also from current levels. From fiscal cliff levels, it's also a spending increase.

Submitted by flu on December 11, 2012 - 1:33pm.

SK in CV wrote:
flu wrote:

What would be a more accurate one? Seriously, do you have one...Because I am curious

I don't remember the exact numbers, but Obama's proposal is roughly $1.6 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cost cutting from current.

The republican proposal is roughly $800 billion in tax increases (Primarily on YOUR back, and not so much on the back of the really rich. Eliminating deductions hurts you a lot more than it hurts those with > $1 million of income), and i think $1.4 in spending cuts, primarily on the back of the elderly and poor. That's also from current levels. From fiscal cliff levels, it's also a spending increase.

SK, doesn't really matter who's in office for me. It's always on my back...They just call me differently each time...

Submitted by SD Realtor on December 11, 2012 - 1:51pm.

Here is a good site:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Go to the spending tab. Then you can plug in any year to see spending itemized by fairly major categories. You can then drill down into each category for subcategories. It is fairly laborious but it is as close to an unbiased presentation of numbers as it gets.

I really wish that each plan both from team obama, and team pub would simply tell me where the spending cuts would come from based on spending in each of these categories. I also want to see the breakdown year by year.

Honestly a 1 or 2 or 4 trillion dollar reduction in the next 10 years doesn't comfort me much especially when we are projected to hit 20T in the next 4 years.

Submitted by UCGal on December 11, 2012 - 2:39pm.

I have a question.
I heard during the election and during the early fiscal cliff discussions a proposal to "limit deductions"...

Isn't that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT...

What is the difference?

Submitted by no_such_reality on December 11, 2012 - 2:42pm.

I'm tired of the fiscal cliff discussion. A trillion, $400 billion, yadda yadda, those are decade long numbers.

$400 billion over a decade is $40 billion a year equivalent.

$40 billion is one penny out of every dollar we're spending.

Oh the drastic cuts, the blood letting, oh how can we be so cruel

All Obama extended Bush era tax cuts need to go and spending needs an across the board 20% cut.

Submitted by SK in CV on December 11, 2012 - 2:57pm.

UCGal wrote:
I have a question.
I heard during the election and during the early fiscal cliff discussions a proposal to "limit deductions"...

Isn't that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT...

What is the difference?

The "limit deductions" scheme, particularly during the campaign, was to protect what the GOP considers the "job creators". Those with very high income. Romney's plan was to be revenue neutral, so eliminate deductions and at the same time decrease top rates. The current scheme is to increase revenue. Both end up with the largest benefits going to those with the highest income, who currently benefit very little from deductions. (If income is $2M or more annually, the maximum home mortgage deduction, for instance, will only save under current law and interest rates, about $17K. A savings of less than 1% of income. But for someone earning $300K, it would be more than 5%.)

Note that not a single politician involved in these negotiations on either side of the aisle has ever identified a particular deduction they're ready to eliminate. They're afraid to face the special interests that want to protect each and every deduction that has become essential to their particular piece of the economy. What will the NAR have to say when they seriously begin talks of eliminating the mortgage deduction?

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on December 11, 2012 - 3:15pm.

UCGal wrote:

Isn't that AMT on steroids? The GOP claims to hate the AMT...

GOP never hated AMT.

AMT is GOP's preferred way to take money from near rich to subsidize tax cuts for super rich.

That's how GWB's tax-cuts were designed. On the face of it everyone seemed to get a tax cut, but his moderately rich supporters missed the fine-print on AMT! GWB cleverly designed that tax cut such that capital gains are not subject to AMT.

Next time anyone gives you a tax cut, first look under the hood!

Submitted by flu on December 11, 2012 - 3:26pm.

I hate AMT...I bend over on it every year...

At one point, people suggested I paid my entire property tax role this year. Doesn't help one bit....

I guess the corollary is if you have x W2 income, and you live in California with y CA tax, it's not that hard for AMT to kick you in the axx...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.