When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer

Post by jazzyk » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 1:50 PM UTC

zip1234 wrote: post #69

Iv wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying it will always be possible to murder someone so there is no point in trying to curb chemical weapons sales to children. Every loop closed makes tax evasion harder and riskier. There will always be people who do it, like there will always be people killing other people, but it is worth making it hard and risky enough that most people will consider other solutions before resorting to murder/tax evasi…

Tax evasion is illegally not paying the taxes that are due. If you are taking advantages of legal loopholes, it is not tax evasion.

Post by tici_88 » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

shortstuffsushi wrote: post #23

tici_88 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is that no tax code can close all loop holes because you just can't foresee the creative ways people will out maneuver the tax code." I disagree. I simple flat tax rate where everything is taxed at a single rate would close every single one of the loopholes above, if only by making it moot. The fact that the rich can maneuver themselves into a much lower tax rate than the average person presents a signif…

What would the flat tax actually tax though, income? Wouldn't they just dodge that then by not having income? Sure, for you and me it would make it easier -- my W2 says I made exactly 100k, here's exactly 50k of it, period. For people who have a flexible income, why report any amount that would make you pay in?

Post by SimbaOnSteroids » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

cpursley wrote: post #70

4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever; if you tax e.g. 20% of earnings ,do you believe people who earn $30k a year are impacted the same way as people earning $200k or more? Sure, those who earn more pay more, but it hits them in "extra" earnings, while the poor are taxed on money they need to survive. A (very) progressive tax rate with a few ways of reducing the tax based on social (e.g. number of children,…

> A flat tax rate is not a good idea whatsoever Tell this to the nations which have successfully implemented a flat tax: http://www.economist.com/node/3860731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Countries_that_have_f... It's ironic that a number of former Soviet countries have moved on to the flat tax, while the west has a progressive income tax (#2 plank of the Communist Manifesto).

Post by sddfd » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #37

> The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts — a theory that I once found persuasive, I admit — was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy: The lure of great wealth would inspire business leaders to work harder and smarter, and the economy would flourish. That's one reason I suppose but it's important to note that despite large differences in top marginal tax rates, the percentage of tax revenue as a percent…

Post by quickConclusion » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

JSONwebtoken wrote: post #66

quickConclusion wrote: post #42

"The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts [...] was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy [...] The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the world’s most successful companies are American — not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase." The article fails to mention that even when the tax code was 90% on the highest e…

When the tax code was 90%, the effective tax rate was 10-15%. You clearly aren't informed in your history of American industry. For an individual to make $2 million a year for himself at a 90% tax rate, he would have to own 100% of a company generating $20 million in profit. Assuming the same individual's skills were worth $200k/yr in market salary, you would be suggesting that the individual must have had a greater…