Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piketty's writing doesn't apply to the US. His work applies to Europe, where legacy far outweighs entrepreneurship.
And yet it's the US where wealth inequality is higher.
[deleted]
Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
311–320 of 323 posts
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piketty's writing doesn't apply to the US. His work applies to Europe, where legacy far outweighs entrepreneurship.
And yet it's the US where wealth inequality is higher.
It's easy to fall for that liberal meme, but you (and they) are wrong. Pickety explains it in his book.
In Europe, most wealth is inherited, and power in concentrated in family dynasties.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most small to medium corporations are organized as pass through entities so they don't have to pay the corporate tax rate. In which case they can't defer paying personal income tax to much the same effect. > Also parking profits in different companies doesn't affect the average or marginal effective tax rates because effective and average tax rates are only computed using the profit. They reduce their profits in th…
Do you think their tax rate will be closer to the average tax rate or the statutory tax rate?
> Do you think their tax rate will be closer to the average tax rate or the statutory tax rate?
They are independent variables. The statutory tax rate could be 35% and the average 15% and the company could pay 34% or 3% depending on the nature of their business.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
No link, but the gist in the US is this: 1) Start Business 2) Get Real Clients to buy your stuff 3) Deduct Expenses 4) Pay 40%* of whatever is left over to the Government * The 40% number can go up and down depending on your income amount [and local tax commitments].
That doesn't reduce your taxes, that just has you personally take on the accounting for an enterprise. It would only work if you could relabel personal expenses as a business expense, which is what I think the parent was looking for (and which is a time-honored practice with its own dangers, of course, but is hard for the IRS to stamp out entirely -- you "lose" a "business" pen and keep using it for personal stuff; h…
Use a company car, and company pay for gas. You can deduct that as expense.
Company phone. Company pays your data plan. Deduct.
You register your company at home, okay you can make an office, you can then deduct some expense as facility operational costs. (Of course there are a lot of regulations for this, and you have to document how big the office is, and it can't be bigger than X% of the house, otherwise it'd be income tax hiding - because it'd be the company paying your rent or just giving you money to heat your bedroom, which is not a business expense.)
Company sends you overseas on work? Business expense. But if you go there for 2 weeks and then post beach photos on Facebook for every day, you're in big trouble.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start by getting paid on a 1099 instead of a w2
I wonder then why those Uber drivers so adamantly oppose a path to riches.
Because if you are a contractor then it's your responsibility to provide healthcare for yourself and think of the costs of that and factor that into your prices.
But if you don't set your prices, because you're a one-of-a-million driver, then you're shit out of luck.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#316> You owe the IRS about $38,500 more, assuming each of us pays the maximum with no special deductions. This also assumes the investor has no interest income, which would be unlikely. For a younger person with a big nest egg, this wouldn't be a huge chunk of their assets. But as you age you'd want to shift into less-risky assets, like interest-bearing ones. Also, investors would probably be diversified into real estat…
> "Payroll taxes" includes social security, which the worker will collect until he/she dies The example is citing someone who's pulling in $300k from dividends and capital gains each year from investments. If there's enough of a downturn which would long-term imperil someone pulling in $300k off dividends, it may be big enough to impact social security itself, no?
Well, no.
Big money from some investment now doesn't mean big money forever from that investment.
You can diversify and hedge, but then you're bound to get average market rate, that's basically the rate of Treasury bonds.
But if you get 300K from that per year, good for you.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it's the US where wealth inequality is higher.
It's easy to fall for that liberal meme, but you (and they) are wrong. Pickety explains it in his book. In Europe, most wealth is inherited, and power in concentrated in family dynasties.
I don't get your point and your focus on inherited wealth vs. entrepreneurial wealth. Even if most wealth in America is not inherited, a wealth tax wouldn't inhibit entrepreneurship.
If you have, say a $200K minimum threshold to start owing minimal annual tax, and a progressive scale after that, do you really think it would stop the next Bill Gates?
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to fall for that liberal meme, but you (and they) are wrong. Pickety explains it in his book. In Europe, most wealth is inherited, and power in concentrated in family dynasties.
I don't get your point and your focus on inherited wealth vs. entrepreneurial wealth. Even if most wealth in America is not inherited, a wealth tax wouldn't inhibit entrepreneurship. If you have, say a $200K minimum threshold to start owing minimal annual tax, and a progressive scale after that, do you really think it would stop the next Bill Gates?
I encourage you to read Pickety's book. He argues that inherited wealth is bad because it rewards people for being born.
Why would anyone, including Pickety, want to prevent Bill Gates?
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't reduce your taxes, that just has you personally take on the accounting for an enterprise. It would only work if you could relabel personal expenses as a business expense, which is what I think the parent was looking for (and which is a time-honored practice with its own dangers, of course, but is hard for the IRS to stamp out entirely -- you "lose" a "business" pen and keep using it for personal stuff; h…
Use a company car, and company pay for gas. You can deduct that as expense. Company phone. Company pays your data plan. Deduct. You register your company at home, okay you can make an office, you can then deduct some expense as facility operational costs. (Of course there are a lot of regulations for this, and you have to document how big the office is, and it can't be bigger than X% of the house, otherwise it'd be i…
What is that responding to? I said it has its own dangers and the IRS stamps it out but there are some minor ways where it cant.
Re: Why American Workers Pay Twice as Much in Taxes as Wealthy Investors
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your point and your focus on inherited wealth vs. entrepreneurial wealth. Even if most wealth in America is not inherited, a wealth tax wouldn't inhibit entrepreneurship. If you have, say a $200K minimum threshold to start owing minimal annual tax, and a progressive scale after that, do you really think it would stop the next Bill Gates?
I encourage you to read Pickety's book. He argues that inherited wealth is bad because it rewards people for being born. Why would anyone, including Pickety, want to prevent Bill Gates?
I feel like we're talking past each other at this point, so I'll drop off this conversation.