wealth tax

[alarmclock]

just curious if anyone is willing to share ideas about wealth taxation.

In 2005, federal personal income receipts were ~927B$, total personal income was ~10200B$ and total personal wealth was ~45000B$ (for citations, please visit http://www.google.com :-).

Some simple math reveals that a 2% federal wealth tax would yield the same federal receipts, eliminating income tax. You might take a moment to compute 2% of your (assets-liabilities) vs 10% or 20% or 30% of your income.

There are a lot of problems with a wealth tax, and I don’t have soultions for these: year-to-year wealth variation is much greater than year-to-year income variation; the wealthiest would easily set up legal vehicles to hide wealth that would be unavailable to the less wealthy; there is no political will to make such a change; wealth is easier to fabricate than income; and so on…

My point for posting is that in the big scheme of taxation
* tax of assets (wealth tax/property tax)
* tax of income
* tax of usage (sales tax/highway tolls)
a wealth tax seems to be the fairest tax, usage taxes are the least fair, with income taxes occupying a middle ground — this is of course based on my definition of fair.

As a young professional with good income but few assets, this regime would dramatically lower my current taxes — essentially my tax burden would be shifted from my younger years to my older years.

This would tend to shift tax burden generationally as well. Grandparents sitting on a paid-off house and other assets assume a larger share of the tax burden from their adult children.

This would also concentrate the tax burden further. The wealthiest 10% will assume more of the tax burden, increasing from 70% to something much higher (95% or 99% ?? I haven’t computed this).

The half-life of a 2% wealth tax is 34 years. This means that if you start with $1B of wealth & no income, you have $500M in 34 years, $250M in 68 years, $125M in 136 years, etc.

As an aside, in my youth I strongly believed that a usage tax was the fairest tax; I have come around to understanding that it is in fact the least fair tax. If this is not clear to you then I can offer a contrived example — suppose that a dollar per liter sales/consumption/usage tax is imposed on the use of oxygen (breathing). Instead of seeing it as a “the more you use, the more you pay” = fair tax, consider that we each use a comparable amount of oxygen. So the hypothetical oxygen tax would consume a substantial portion of a poor person’s wealth, while it would consume an almost insignificant portion of a rich person’s wealth.

[Bugs]

Except that you can exempt certain items – like air, milk, bread, eggs, etc – from being taxed at all. We already have certain forms of taxation that are based on “excess consumption”.

You can hide how much you make and you can hide what you own, but it’s tough to hide what you consume.

[Bugs]

Except that you can exempt certain items – like air, milk, bread, eggs, etc – from being taxed at all. We already have certain forms of taxation that are based on “excess consumption”.

You can hide how much you make and you can hide what you own, but it’s tough to hide what you consume.

[Bugs]

Except that you can exempt certain items – like air, milk, bread, eggs, etc – from being taxed at all. We already have certain forms of taxation that are based on “excess consumption”.

You can hide how much you make and you can hide what you own, but it’s tough to hide what you consume.

[Bugs]

Except that you can exempt certain items – like air, milk, bread, eggs, etc – from being taxed at all. We already have certain forms of taxation that are based on “excess consumption”.

You can hide how much you make and you can hide what you own, but it’s tough to hide what you consume.

[Bugs]

Except that you can exempt certain items – like air, milk, bread, eggs, etc – from being taxed at all. We already have certain forms of taxation that are based on “excess consumption”.

You can hide how much you make and you can hide what you own, but it’s tough to hide what you consume.

[Coronita]

You're only saying this because you are young with no assets. As soon as you start accumlating assets, your opinion would be drastically different.

People who accumulate wealth should have the means of keeping it. They earned it (most at least).

American's biggest problem is over-consumption. suggesting something as ridiculous as an asset wealth tax would just additionally punish the few that take the time and discipline to accumulate wealth.

I don't see where you think that a consumption tax (usage tax) is unfair. For example, why should someone that drives a Hummer that consumes more gas, who's operation on roads probably contribute more to wearing out the roads, who occupy more parking spaces, *not* have to pay more for the additional use of resources than someone who drives an econ box toyota corolla??????

I surely hope democrats don't even think about talking about a wealth tax. It would be so appropriate for the party to do so, to feed into the fat, consumptive nature of the rest of the nation.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You're only saying this because you are young with no assets. As soon as you start accumlating assets, your opinion would be drastically different.

People who accumulate wealth should have the means of keeping it. They earned it (most at least).

American's biggest problem is over-consumption. suggesting something as ridiculous as an asset wealth tax would just additionally punish the few that take the time and discipline to accumulate wealth.

I don't see where you think that a consumption tax (usage tax) is unfair. For example, why should someone that drives a Hummer that consumes more gas, who's operation on roads probably contribute more to wearing out the roads, who occupy more parking spaces, *not* have to pay more for the additional use of resources than someone who drives an econ box toyota corolla??????

I surely hope democrats don't even think about talking about a wealth tax. It would be so appropriate for the party to do so, to feed into the fat, consumptive nature of the rest of the nation.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You're only saying this because you are young with no assets. As soon as you start accumlating assets, your opinion would be drastically different.

People who accumulate wealth should have the means of keeping it. They earned it (most at least).

American's biggest problem is over-consumption. suggesting something as ridiculous as an asset wealth tax would just additionally punish the few that take the time and discipline to accumulate wealth.

I don't see where you think that a consumption tax (usage tax) is unfair. For example, why should someone that drives a Hummer that consumes more gas, who's operation on roads probably contribute more to wearing out the roads, who occupy more parking spaces, *not* have to pay more for the additional use of resources than someone who drives an econ box toyota corolla??????

I surely hope democrats don't even think about talking about a wealth tax. It would be so appropriate for the party to do so, to feed into the fat, consumptive nature of the rest of the nation.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You're only saying this because you are young with no assets. As soon as you start accumlating assets, your opinion would be drastically different.

People who accumulate wealth should have the means of keeping it. They earned it (most at least).

American's biggest problem is over-consumption. suggesting something as ridiculous as an asset wealth tax would just additionally punish the few that take the time and discipline to accumulate wealth.

I don't see where you think that a consumption tax (usage tax) is unfair. For example, why should someone that drives a Hummer that consumes more gas, who's operation on roads probably contribute more to wearing out the roads, who occupy more parking spaces, *not* have to pay more for the additional use of resources than someone who drives an econ box toyota corolla??????

I surely hope democrats don't even think about talking about a wealth tax. It would be so appropriate for the party to do so, to feed into the fat, consumptive nature of the rest of the nation.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You're only saying this because you are young with no assets. As soon as you start accumlating assets, your opinion would be drastically different.

People who accumulate wealth should have the means of keeping it. They earned it (most at least).

American's biggest problem is over-consumption. suggesting something as ridiculous as an asset wealth tax would just additionally punish the few that take the time and discipline to accumulate wealth.

I don't see where you think that a consumption tax (usage tax) is unfair. For example, why should someone that drives a Hummer that consumes more gas, who's operation on roads probably contribute more to wearing out the roads, who occupy more parking spaces, *not* have to pay more for the additional use of resources than someone who drives an econ box toyota corolla??????

I surely hope democrats don't even think about talking about a wealth tax. It would be so appropriate for the party to do so, to feed into the fat, consumptive nature of the rest of the nation.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Coronita]

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let's see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[nostradamus]

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the standard pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Start a business on the side. Use part of your home for a home office. Open an HSA. Go green.

Lots you can do but like others mentioned it takes some work and most W2 wage slaves don't want to know or think about it.

[surveyor]

pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Isn’t that a lot of tax advantages already? Most people don’t even do itemized deductions on their taxes. They just file a 1040EZ and that’s it.

But even within the pretax deductions, there are quite a few deductions available – daycare and healthcare spending accounts, 401k deductions, even transportation deductions like bus and trolley fares (some companies do have these reimbursements).

If you have a side business (not for wage slaves, obviously), you can access the home office deduction (available whether or not you own your home), and the associated deductions for utilities, property taxes, office expenses, and (big one) home office depreciation.

There are also the college savings accounts, the Roth IRA’s, the Regular IRA’s.

But back to our original topic:

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)…

Learn more about the tax system first and maybe you’ll see how badly your current argument is. As you can see above, there are many tax avoidance methods and they are available to everyone. If you look at the tax code, you will find that wage slaves are the most heavily taxed (their income is relatively easy to track). The tax code encourages a certain amount of risk taking and entrepeneurship by allowing you access to more tax benefits through small businesses and investments.

For myself, I would like to change the tax code as well, but your method thoroughly destroys what made the U.S. of A. great – entrepeneurship, rewarding of risk taking, and personal success through work ethic, ability, and ambition.

[surveyor]

pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Isn’t that a lot of tax advantages already? Most people don’t even do itemized deductions on their taxes. They just file a 1040EZ and that’s it.

But even within the pretax deductions, there are quite a few deductions available – daycare and healthcare spending accounts, 401k deductions, even transportation deductions like bus and trolley fares (some companies do have these reimbursements).

If you have a side business (not for wage slaves, obviously), you can access the home office deduction (available whether or not you own your home), and the associated deductions for utilities, property taxes, office expenses, and (big one) home office depreciation.

There are also the college savings accounts, the Roth IRA’s, the Regular IRA’s.

But back to our original topic:

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)…

Learn more about the tax system first and maybe you’ll see how badly your current argument is. As you can see above, there are many tax avoidance methods and they are available to everyone. If you look at the tax code, you will find that wage slaves are the most heavily taxed (their income is relatively easy to track). The tax code encourages a certain amount of risk taking and entrepeneurship by allowing you access to more tax benefits through small businesses and investments.

For myself, I would like to change the tax code as well, but your method thoroughly destroys what made the U.S. of A. great – entrepeneurship, rewarding of risk taking, and personal success through work ethic, ability, and ambition.

[surveyor]

pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Isn’t that a lot of tax advantages already? Most people don’t even do itemized deductions on their taxes. They just file a 1040EZ and that’s it.

But even within the pretax deductions, there are quite a few deductions available – daycare and healthcare spending accounts, 401k deductions, even transportation deductions like bus and trolley fares (some companies do have these reimbursements).

If you have a side business (not for wage slaves, obviously), you can access the home office deduction (available whether or not you own your home), and the associated deductions for utilities, property taxes, office expenses, and (big one) home office depreciation.

There are also the college savings accounts, the Roth IRA’s, the Regular IRA’s.

But back to our original topic:

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)…

Learn more about the tax system first and maybe you’ll see how badly your current argument is. As you can see above, there are many tax avoidance methods and they are available to everyone. If you look at the tax code, you will find that wage slaves are the most heavily taxed (their income is relatively easy to track). The tax code encourages a certain amount of risk taking and entrepeneurship by allowing you access to more tax benefits through small businesses and investments.

For myself, I would like to change the tax code as well, but your method thoroughly destroys what made the U.S. of A. great – entrepeneurship, rewarding of risk taking, and personal success through work ethic, ability, and ambition.

[surveyor]

pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Isn’t that a lot of tax advantages already? Most people don’t even do itemized deductions on their taxes. They just file a 1040EZ and that’s it.

But even within the pretax deductions, there are quite a few deductions available – daycare and healthcare spending accounts, 401k deductions, even transportation deductions like bus and trolley fares (some companies do have these reimbursements).

If you have a side business (not for wage slaves, obviously), you can access the home office deduction (available whether or not you own your home), and the associated deductions for utilities, property taxes, office expenses, and (big one) home office depreciation.

There are also the college savings accounts, the Roth IRA’s, the Regular IRA’s.

But back to our original topic:

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)…

Learn more about the tax system first and maybe you’ll see how badly your current argument is. As you can see above, there are many tax avoidance methods and they are available to everyone. If you look at the tax code, you will find that wage slaves are the most heavily taxed (their income is relatively easy to track). The tax code encourages a certain amount of risk taking and entrepeneurship by allowing you access to more tax benefits through small businesses and investments.

For myself, I would like to change the tax code as well, but your method thoroughly destroys what made the U.S. of A. great – entrepeneurship, rewarding of risk taking, and personal success through work ethic, ability, and ambition.

[surveyor]

pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Isn’t that a lot of tax advantages already? Most people don’t even do itemized deductions on their taxes. They just file a 1040EZ and that’s it.

But even within the pretax deductions, there are quite a few deductions available – daycare and healthcare spending accounts, 401k deductions, even transportation deductions like bus and trolley fares (some companies do have these reimbursements).

If you have a side business (not for wage slaves, obviously), you can access the home office deduction (available whether or not you own your home), and the associated deductions for utilities, property taxes, office expenses, and (big one) home office depreciation.

There are also the college savings accounts, the Roth IRA’s, the Regular IRA’s.

But back to our original topic:

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)…

Learn more about the tax system first and maybe you’ll see how badly your current argument is. As you can see above, there are many tax avoidance methods and they are available to everyone. If you look at the tax code, you will find that wage slaves are the most heavily taxed (their income is relatively easy to track). The tax code encourages a certain amount of risk taking and entrepeneurship by allowing you access to more tax benefits through small businesses and investments.

For myself, I would like to change the tax code as well, but your method thoroughly destroys what made the U.S. of A. great – entrepeneurship, rewarding of risk taking, and personal success through work ethic, ability, and ambition.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[Ash Housewares]

three words: Swiss bank account

[Ash Housewares]

three words: Swiss bank account

[Ash Housewares]

three words: Swiss bank account

[Ash Housewares]

three words: Swiss bank account

[Ash Housewares]

three words: Swiss bank account

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[robson]

I couldn’t agree more with xbox’s comments. The point of taxes is to presumably improve society- economically, socially, etc by pooling the citizens’ resources and using it to provide things they can’t purchase or provide individually (like freeways, an army, an organized judicial system). Taxing income probably slightly discourages the incentive to earn. Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save. Both of these behaviors are good for society as a whole, so why discourage them? Utility taxes disincentive actions that hurt society, like smoking, drinking, polluting.
The main distinction I would make to disqualify your air example is that utility taxes target behavior that is freely chosen by the individual. If you choose to pollute extra in order to increase revenue in a production process, you damage society and should have to pay for it. It is a choice with consequences you should pay for. Breathing is not.

[nostradamus]

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the standard pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Start a business on the side. Use part of your home for a home office. Open an HSA. Go green.

Lots you can do but like others mentioned it takes some work and most W2 wage slaves don't want to know or think about it.

[nostradamus]

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the standard pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Start a business on the side. Use part of your home for a home office. Open an HSA. Go green.

Lots you can do but like others mentioned it takes some work and most W2 wage slaves don't want to know or think about it.

[nostradamus]

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the standard pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Start a business on the side. Use part of your home for a home office. Open an HSA. Go green.

Lots you can do but like others mentioned it takes some work and most W2 wage slaves don't want to know or think about it.

[nostradamus]

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the standard pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

Start a business on the side. Use part of your home for a home office. Open an HSA. Go green.

Lots you can do but like others mentioned it takes some work and most W2 wage slaves don't want to know or think about it.

[Raybyrnes]

fat_lazy_union
“Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?”

I am currently assiting a family who have a kid getting ready to go to school. Mom works a part time job and dad has a S corp. Household income is 80 k and they are complianing that there is no financial aid for them.

Problem here is that they uneducated and are not going to make an effort to learn. Mom is eligible to put up to 70% of her income into a 401K yet elected not too because the company doesn’t match in the first year of employment. Ask if they could live without the income and the answer is yes. So her making 20 means the she could have packed away 14K therefore reducing AGI

Husband owns a business. Does he have a SEP or SIMPLE. Of course not. So he could set that up and reduce his income. Not only does this reduce current tax liability but now by both of them contributing to their retirement accounts they now can get their income down to around 50K where all of a sudden they qualify for CAL grants for their daughters education and Subsidized stafford loans that are interest free while the kids are in school.

So I would say that even you everyday worker can do a lot for himself or herself. These people benefit becaseu they are frinds and I am knowledgeable on these area. But they could have been doing a lot of this for themselves.

What I don’t like hearing is when people say they are screwed becasue they are middle class, or becaeu they aree white or all the other excuses.

Why not admit I am screwed because I am uneducaated and I am too lazy to turn the TV off for an hour each evening to do a little self study. Spend 1 hour 4 nights a week studying somthind and at the end of a year you will know it pretty well.

[Coronita]

Raybyrnes, Nos, and surveyor,

Thanks for the info. The reason why I asked is that I think I'm pretty much doing everything I can for us (wife and I) both being a w-2 wage slave. I was just double check with you guys if you had any other experience that you wouldn't mind sharing.

We're pretty much maxxed out on all the pre-tax deductions, and the itemized things include the standard mortage/property tax/donations stuff we normally do. We haven't setup a business to be able to take more deductions there, but this will change this year 🙂

In 2006, i think our effective federal rate was about 12-13% (maybe I'm off a bit, don't remember exactly), though it could have been lower if we didn't get hit with AMT. We've been getting hit with AMT, even though we don't have any weird situation from ISO stock option sales. i hope somehow this year AMT isn't going to be an issue. I'm just wondering if there are additional things we can do to get into the 10% or lower fed range. But thanks for everyone's input.

I think this year, I need a new accountant as my taxes will probably get more complicated. If anyone got one they can recommend, I'd appreciate a lead.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Raybyrnes]

Why not get your insurance or real esate licenses (even if your are not going to use them that much) set up an LLC (small cost) and start writing off expenses. A good one is mileage for your car.

My own situation is that my wife recently passed her dental exams so while whe will start out working for a dentist I will be actively looking for opportunities to incorporate as soon as the cash flow situation provides.

I am expecting AMT to be a challenge next year to work around.

[Raybyrnes]

Why not get your insurance or real esate licenses (even if your are not going to use them that much) set up an LLC (small cost) and start writing off expenses. A good one is mileage for your car.

My own situation is that my wife recently passed her dental exams so while whe will start out working for a dentist I will be actively looking for opportunities to incorporate as soon as the cash flow situation provides.

I am expecting AMT to be a challenge next year to work around.

[Raybyrnes]

Why not get your insurance or real esate licenses (even if your are not going to use them that much) set up an LLC (small cost) and start writing off expenses. A good one is mileage for your car.

My own situation is that my wife recently passed her dental exams so while whe will start out working for a dentist I will be actively looking for opportunities to incorporate as soon as the cash flow situation provides.

I am expecting AMT to be a challenge next year to work around.

[Raybyrnes]

Why not get your insurance or real esate licenses (even if your are not going to use them that much) set up an LLC (small cost) and start writing off expenses. A good one is mileage for your car.

My own situation is that my wife recently passed her dental exams so while whe will start out working for a dentist I will be actively looking for opportunities to incorporate as soon as the cash flow situation provides.

I am expecting AMT to be a challenge next year to work around.

[Raybyrnes]

Why not get your insurance or real esate licenses (even if your are not going to use them that much) set up an LLC (small cost) and start writing off expenses. A good one is mileage for your car.

My own situation is that my wife recently passed her dental exams so while whe will start out working for a dentist I will be actively looking for opportunities to incorporate as soon as the cash flow situation provides.

I am expecting AMT to be a challenge next year to work around.

[Coronita]

Raybyrnes, Nos, and surveyor,

Thanks for the info. The reason why I asked is that I think I'm pretty much doing everything I can for us (wife and I) both being a w-2 wage slave. I was just double check with you guys if you had any other experience that you wouldn't mind sharing.

We're pretty much maxxed out on all the pre-tax deductions, and the itemized things include the standard mortage/property tax/donations stuff we normally do. We haven't setup a business to be able to take more deductions there, but this will change this year 🙂

In 2006, i think our effective federal rate was about 12-13% (maybe I'm off a bit, don't remember exactly), though it could have been lower if we didn't get hit with AMT. We've been getting hit with AMT, even though we don't have any weird situation from ISO stock option sales. i hope somehow this year AMT isn't going to be an issue. I'm just wondering if there are additional things we can do to get into the 10% or lower fed range. But thanks for everyone's input.

I think this year, I need a new accountant as my taxes will probably get more complicated. If anyone got one they can recommend, I'd appreciate a lead.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Raybyrnes, Nos, and surveyor,

Thanks for the info. The reason why I asked is that I think I'm pretty much doing everything I can for us (wife and I) both being a w-2 wage slave. I was just double check with you guys if you had any other experience that you wouldn't mind sharing.

We're pretty much maxxed out on all the pre-tax deductions, and the itemized things include the standard mortage/property tax/donations stuff we normally do. We haven't setup a business to be able to take more deductions there, but this will change this year 🙂

In 2006, i think our effective federal rate was about 12-13% (maybe I'm off a bit, don't remember exactly), though it could have been lower if we didn't get hit with AMT. We've been getting hit with AMT, even though we don't have any weird situation from ISO stock option sales. i hope somehow this year AMT isn't going to be an issue. I'm just wondering if there are additional things we can do to get into the 10% or lower fed range. But thanks for everyone's input.

I think this year, I need a new accountant as my taxes will probably get more complicated. If anyone got one they can recommend, I'd appreciate a lead.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Raybyrnes, Nos, and surveyor,

Thanks for the info. The reason why I asked is that I think I'm pretty much doing everything I can for us (wife and I) both being a w-2 wage slave. I was just double check with you guys if you had any other experience that you wouldn't mind sharing.

We're pretty much maxxed out on all the pre-tax deductions, and the itemized things include the standard mortage/property tax/donations stuff we normally do. We haven't setup a business to be able to take more deductions there, but this will change this year 🙂

In 2006, i think our effective federal rate was about 12-13% (maybe I'm off a bit, don't remember exactly), though it could have been lower if we didn't get hit with AMT. We've been getting hit with AMT, even though we don't have any weird situation from ISO stock option sales. i hope somehow this year AMT isn't going to be an issue. I'm just wondering if there are additional things we can do to get into the 10% or lower fed range. But thanks for everyone's input.

I think this year, I need a new accountant as my taxes will probably get more complicated. If anyone got one they can recommend, I'd appreciate a lead.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Raybyrnes, Nos, and surveyor,

Thanks for the info. The reason why I asked is that I think I'm pretty much doing everything I can for us (wife and I) both being a w-2 wage slave. I was just double check with you guys if you had any other experience that you wouldn't mind sharing.

We're pretty much maxxed out on all the pre-tax deductions, and the itemized things include the standard mortage/property tax/donations stuff we normally do. We haven't setup a business to be able to take more deductions there, but this will change this year 🙂

In 2006, i think our effective federal rate was about 12-13% (maybe I'm off a bit, don't remember exactly), though it could have been lower if we didn't get hit with AMT. We've been getting hit with AMT, even though we don't have any weird situation from ISO stock option sales. i hope somehow this year AMT isn't going to be an issue. I'm just wondering if there are additional things we can do to get into the 10% or lower fed range. But thanks for everyone's input.

I think this year, I need a new accountant as my taxes will probably get more complicated. If anyone got one they can recommend, I'd appreciate a lead.

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Raybyrnes]

fat_lazy_union
“Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?”

I am currently assiting a family who have a kid getting ready to go to school. Mom works a part time job and dad has a S corp. Household income is 80 k and they are complianing that there is no financial aid for them.

Problem here is that they uneducated and are not going to make an effort to learn. Mom is eligible to put up to 70% of her income into a 401K yet elected not too because the company doesn’t match in the first year of employment. Ask if they could live without the income and the answer is yes. So her making 20 means the she could have packed away 14K therefore reducing AGI

Husband owns a business. Does he have a SEP or SIMPLE. Of course not. So he could set that up and reduce his income. Not only does this reduce current tax liability but now by both of them contributing to their retirement accounts they now can get their income down to around 50K where all of a sudden they qualify for CAL grants for their daughters education and Subsidized stafford loans that are interest free while the kids are in school.

So I would say that even you everyday worker can do a lot for himself or herself. These people benefit becaseu they are frinds and I am knowledgeable on these area. But they could have been doing a lot of this for themselves.

What I don’t like hearing is when people say they are screwed becasue they are middle class, or becaeu they aree white or all the other excuses.

Why not admit I am screwed because I am uneducaated and I am too lazy to turn the TV off for an hour each evening to do a little self study. Spend 1 hour 4 nights a week studying somthind and at the end of a year you will know it pretty well.

[Raybyrnes]

fat_lazy_union
“Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?”

I am currently assiting a family who have a kid getting ready to go to school. Mom works a part time job and dad has a S corp. Household income is 80 k and they are complianing that there is no financial aid for them.

Problem here is that they uneducated and are not going to make an effort to learn. Mom is eligible to put up to 70% of her income into a 401K yet elected not too because the company doesn’t match in the first year of employment. Ask if they could live without the income and the answer is yes. So her making 20 means the she could have packed away 14K therefore reducing AGI

Husband owns a business. Does he have a SEP or SIMPLE. Of course not. So he could set that up and reduce his income. Not only does this reduce current tax liability but now by both of them contributing to their retirement accounts they now can get their income down to around 50K where all of a sudden they qualify for CAL grants for their daughters education and Subsidized stafford loans that are interest free while the kids are in school.

So I would say that even you everyday worker can do a lot for himself or herself. These people benefit becaseu they are frinds and I am knowledgeable on these area. But they could have been doing a lot of this for themselves.

What I don’t like hearing is when people say they are screwed becasue they are middle class, or becaeu they aree white or all the other excuses.

Why not admit I am screwed because I am uneducaated and I am too lazy to turn the TV off for an hour each evening to do a little self study. Spend 1 hour 4 nights a week studying somthind and at the end of a year you will know it pretty well.

[Raybyrnes]

fat_lazy_union
“Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?”

I am currently assiting a family who have a kid getting ready to go to school. Mom works a part time job and dad has a S corp. Household income is 80 k and they are complianing that there is no financial aid for them.

Problem here is that they uneducated and are not going to make an effort to learn. Mom is eligible to put up to 70% of her income into a 401K yet elected not too because the company doesn’t match in the first year of employment. Ask if they could live without the income and the answer is yes. So her making 20 means the she could have packed away 14K therefore reducing AGI

Husband owns a business. Does he have a SEP or SIMPLE. Of course not. So he could set that up and reduce his income. Not only does this reduce current tax liability but now by both of them contributing to their retirement accounts they now can get their income down to around 50K where all of a sudden they qualify for CAL grants for their daughters education and Subsidized stafford loans that are interest free while the kids are in school.

So I would say that even you everyday worker can do a lot for himself or herself. These people benefit becaseu they are frinds and I am knowledgeable on these area. But they could have been doing a lot of this for themselves.

What I don’t like hearing is when people say they are screwed becasue they are middle class, or becaeu they aree white or all the other excuses.

Why not admit I am screwed because I am uneducaated and I am too lazy to turn the TV off for an hour each evening to do a little self study. Spend 1 hour 4 nights a week studying somthind and at the end of a year you will know it pretty well.

[Raybyrnes]

fat_lazy_union
“Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?”

I am currently assiting a family who have a kid getting ready to go to school. Mom works a part time job and dad has a S corp. Household income is 80 k and they are complianing that there is no financial aid for them.

Problem here is that they uneducated and are not going to make an effort to learn. Mom is eligible to put up to 70% of her income into a 401K yet elected not too because the company doesn’t match in the first year of employment. Ask if they could live without the income and the answer is yes. So her making 20 means the she could have packed away 14K therefore reducing AGI

Husband owns a business. Does he have a SEP or SIMPLE. Of course not. So he could set that up and reduce his income. Not only does this reduce current tax liability but now by both of them contributing to their retirement accounts they now can get their income down to around 50K where all of a sudden they qualify for CAL grants for their daughters education and Subsidized stafford loans that are interest free while the kids are in school.

So I would say that even you everyday worker can do a lot for himself or herself. These people benefit becaseu they are frinds and I am knowledgeable on these area. But they could have been doing a lot of this for themselves.

What I don’t like hearing is when people say they are screwed becasue they are middle class, or becaeu they aree white or all the other excuses.

Why not admit I am screwed because I am uneducaated and I am too lazy to turn the TV off for an hour each evening to do a little self study. Spend 1 hour 4 nights a week studying somthind and at the end of a year you will know it pretty well.

[Coronita]

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let's see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let's see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let's see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let's see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

Thread hijack… Are there really that many variables that w-2s wage slaves can really play, beyond just the normal things one does: pretax deductions, maximizing capital gains treatment, home tax and mortgage deductions?

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[bubba99]

Aecetia,

“In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…”

Every thing you say here is true, but the more telling detail is the top 1% of the richest, earned 70% of everything. Although a 19% of total tax seems high compared to their 1% status, is seems a little low when compared with their 70% of earnings!

[bubba99]

Aecetia,

“In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…”

Every thing you say here is true, but the more telling detail is the top 1% of the richest, earned 70% of everything. Although a 19% of total tax seems high compared to their 1% status, is seems a little low when compared with their 70% of earnings!

[bubba99]

Aecetia,

“In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…”

Every thing you say here is true, but the more telling detail is the top 1% of the richest, earned 70% of everything. Although a 19% of total tax seems high compared to their 1% status, is seems a little low when compared with their 70% of earnings!

[bubba99]

Aecetia,

“In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…”

Every thing you say here is true, but the more telling detail is the top 1% of the richest, earned 70% of everything. Although a 19% of total tax seems high compared to their 1% status, is seems a little low when compared with their 70% of earnings!

[bubba99]

Aecetia,

“In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…”

Every thing you say here is true, but the more telling detail is the top 1% of the richest, earned 70% of everything. Although a 19% of total tax seems high compared to their 1% status, is seems a little low when compared with their 70% of earnings!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[alarmclock]

Thanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:

Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!

Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”

Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.

Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”

Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.

The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.

[alarmclock]

Thanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:

Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!

Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”

Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.

Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”

Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.

The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.

[alarmclock]

Thanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:

Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!

Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”

Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.

Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”

Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.

The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.

[alarmclock]

Thanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:

Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!

Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”

Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.

Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”

Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.

The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.

[alarmclock]

Thanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:

Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”

Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!

Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”

Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.

Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”

Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.

The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Wealthy, productive people can just leave the US and renounce their citizenship to escape taxation. The whole wealth tax is based on envy.

Some people are hard-working, extremely talented, lucky or all three. They are bound to be wealthy.

Merit and wealth are well correlated in this country. To be wealthy in some other countries you have to be in politics or just be the best thief.

I think it is disgusting that people are talking about this now and we don’t even have a depression yet. Just wait 20 years and there will be a civil war.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Wealthy, productive people can just leave the US and renounce their citizenship to escape taxation. The whole wealth tax is based on envy.

Some people are hard-working, extremely talented, lucky or all three. They are bound to be wealthy.

Merit and wealth are well correlated in this country. To be wealthy in some other countries you have to be in politics or just be the best thief.

I think it is disgusting that people are talking about this now and we don’t even have a depression yet. Just wait 20 years and there will be a civil war.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Wealthy, productive people can just leave the US and renounce their citizenship to escape taxation. The whole wealth tax is based on envy.

Some people are hard-working, extremely talented, lucky or all three. They are bound to be wealthy.

Merit and wealth are well correlated in this country. To be wealthy in some other countries you have to be in politics or just be the best thief.

I think it is disgusting that people are talking about this now and we don’t even have a depression yet. Just wait 20 years and there will be a civil war.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Wealthy, productive people can just leave the US and renounce their citizenship to escape taxation. The whole wealth tax is based on envy.

Some people are hard-working, extremely talented, lucky or all three. They are bound to be wealthy.

Merit and wealth are well correlated in this country. To be wealthy in some other countries you have to be in politics or just be the best thief.

I think it is disgusting that people are talking about this now and we don’t even have a depression yet. Just wait 20 years and there will be a civil war.

[gold_dredger_phd]

Wealthy, productive people can just leave the US and renounce their citizenship to escape taxation. The whole wealth tax is based on envy.

Some people are hard-working, extremely talented, lucky or all three. They are bound to be wealthy.

Merit and wealth are well correlated in this country. To be wealthy in some other countries you have to be in politics or just be the best thief.

I think it is disgusting that people are talking about this now and we don’t even have a depression yet. Just wait 20 years and there will be a civil war.

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[drunkle]

i understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.

your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.

consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.

“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[drunkle]

robson:

the energy market is a perfect example. oil companies get a subsidy (tax breaks and such), one that was initially created to encourage oil exploration. now, the world runs on oil, oil companies make billions of dollars and yet they still get subsidized. now, to make it “fair” for alternatives, they too get a subsidy…

like… wtf! same thing for gamblers… cough, “investors”. meanwhile, market manipulation runs rampant…

boa’s tax benefits may turn out to be godly… countrywide losses over ~1.35 billion are eligible for unlimited tax write offs… considering the massive amount of mortgage losses countrywide may take, the 4 bil purchase price could be the greatest deal of the century.

[drunkle]

robson:

the energy market is a perfect example. oil companies get a subsidy (tax breaks and such), one that was initially created to encourage oil exploration. now, the world runs on oil, oil companies make billions of dollars and yet they still get subsidized. now, to make it “fair” for alternatives, they too get a subsidy…

like… wtf! same thing for gamblers… cough, “investors”. meanwhile, market manipulation runs rampant…

boa’s tax benefits may turn out to be godly… countrywide losses over ~1.35 billion are eligible for unlimited tax write offs… considering the massive amount of mortgage losses countrywide may take, the 4 bil purchase price could be the greatest deal of the century.

[drunkle]

robson:

the energy market is a perfect example. oil companies get a subsidy (tax breaks and such), one that was initially created to encourage oil exploration. now, the world runs on oil, oil companies make billions of dollars and yet they still get subsidized. now, to make it “fair” for alternatives, they too get a subsidy…

like… wtf! same thing for gamblers… cough, “investors”. meanwhile, market manipulation runs rampant…

boa’s tax benefits may turn out to be godly… countrywide losses over ~1.35 billion are eligible for unlimited tax write offs… considering the massive amount of mortgage losses countrywide may take, the 4 bil purchase price could be the greatest deal of the century.

[drunkle]

robson:

the energy market is a perfect example. oil companies get a subsidy (tax breaks and such), one that was initially created to encourage oil exploration. now, the world runs on oil, oil companies make billions of dollars and yet they still get subsidized. now, to make it “fair” for alternatives, they too get a subsidy…

like… wtf! same thing for gamblers… cough, “investors”. meanwhile, market manipulation runs rampant…

boa’s tax benefits may turn out to be godly… countrywide losses over ~1.35 billion are eligible for unlimited tax write offs… considering the massive amount of mortgage losses countrywide may take, the 4 bil purchase price could be the greatest deal of the century.

[drunkle]

robson:

the energy market is a perfect example. oil companies get a subsidy (tax breaks and such), one that was initially created to encourage oil exploration. now, the world runs on oil, oil companies make billions of dollars and yet they still get subsidized. now, to make it “fair” for alternatives, they too get a subsidy…

like… wtf! same thing for gamblers… cough, “investors”. meanwhile, market manipulation runs rampant…

boa’s tax benefits may turn out to be godly… countrywide losses over ~1.35 billion are eligible for unlimited tax write offs… considering the massive amount of mortgage losses countrywide may take, the 4 bil purchase price could be the greatest deal of the century.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[robson]

drunkle that’s a good point. Extending it, I think it begs the question, even if something IS technically legal, if you know it’s morally wrong or deceitful, should you partake? Sure, you can rationalize that it’s ok because everyone else is doing it and the system is corrupt and you’d be a fool not to join in the corruption. But this is the same rationale that led to the housing problem. It’s human nature to play the system and I don’t fault anyone for that, I just think discussion of how to minimize the corruption is worthwhile, even if it is a bit idealistic.

[drunkle]

i understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.

your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.

consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.

“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?

[drunkle]

i understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.

your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.

consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.

“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?

[drunkle]

i understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.

your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.

consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.

“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?

[drunkle]

i understood your post perfectly and think you made some good arguments.

your graph really needs to extend out to the real limits of wealth and income. that would be what, upwards of 50 billion? the significance of that being, a billionaire isn’t sweating campaign contributions.

consider as well, what these guys are talking about with the tax code; the innumerable loopholes, evasion schemes and tax shelters that the current byzantine system allows. a “simple” tax code is farthest from what *those guys* want.

“start” a home based business? as far as i could tell, your business had to have income for you to be able to take deductions. making random deductions on your own for the hell of it is called “fraud”. we bitch about the fraudsters signing liar loans, yeah?

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[robson]

I was anticipating a more simple definition of wealth that didn’t include refrigerators and refrigerators’ depreciation. Obviously this brings up the problems you just acknowledged.
For what it’s worth, even though I was a negative response, I still enjoyed the discussion.
Lastly, I don’t doubt such a tax would benefit most people’s tax burden. I just find it shortsighted to say that this equates to “fairness” or to a net benefit for society.

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[alarmclock]

[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]

Again, thanks for the input. A few things

1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.

2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.

Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.

3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.

I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.

[meadandale]

I find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.

[meadandale]

I find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.

[meadandale]

I find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.

[meadandale]

I find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.

[meadandale]

I find it amusing that most of the people who want to tax wealth don’t have any, just like most of the people who want to eliminate prop 13 don’t actually own property.

[Author]

Posts