Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. That's the strategy the Military uses - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pent... "At a cost of $400 million, some 1,200 auditors charged into the jungle of military finance, but returned in defeat. They were unable to pass the Pentagon or flunk it. They could only offer no opinion, explaining the military’s empire of hundreds of acronymic accounting silos was too illogical to penetrate"
This is just a single example but it was eye opening when my friend told me about one of his clients. He is the chief mechanic at an exotic car dealership and one of their biggest customers is an active duty general in the Marines, this guy has millions of USD worth of cars.
For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
201–210 of 504 posts
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#202> In 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#203I could be persuaded to agree to a tax system that doesn't distinguish between any forms of income, as long as the first 50K was tax-free for everyone and steep progressive taxation after that, whether it's earned or unearned income. A bar set such as my 50K example to acknowledge that basic food/shelter only requires so much if you're willing to migrate, and everyone is treated the same- including the wealthy. They don't need more than 50K a year either, they're human too.
No matter how it's done (I won't argue details with anyone because that's not my point here)- the tax burden shouldn't be on the working class. It should be on the investment class.
Ultimately we'll likely need more worldwide government to track and tax these individuals fairly to eliminate tax scams like the Caymans. Without that I doubt any policy matters. Step one to that is publicly funding elections so those same people don't control our governments.
The default and only tax-avoidance policy needs to be the same one that applies to the working class. If you don't like taxes, stop making money.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
The implication was that they should be distinct but are not.
I didn't get that at all. Can you explain?
Of course, it's also possible the general saved up, or made lucky investments, or married into money, or there was an exaggeration or misunderstanding.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#205That would seem to be a violation of the fourteenth amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#206That is correct, the rich don't pay any taxes at all (whenever the can). The was a recent thread on HN regarding tax audits [0]. What I got from that is that the IRS cannot afford to audit the rich because their taxes are complicated and they don't have enough resources to do so. They choose to audit the poor instead because, it is simpler.. link [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176705
The Pro Publica link you provided does not show they "audit the poor instead". It shows that the IRS audits poor and rich at the same rates. Unfortunately it seems Pro Publica is succumbing to the same forces as other journalistic outlets and has started to engage in sensationalist headlines. Here is their title verbatim: > IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor Here is the article's first sen…
They point out that while the rates may be similar, the impact is disproportionate. The rich have the means to hire a tax attorney, probably have a CPA who kept detailed records, etc. EITC recipients don't even know where to start in responding, and as the article indicates, many don't as a result.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#207That is correct, the rich don't pay any taxes at all (whenever the can). The was a recent thread on HN regarding tax audits [0]. What I got from that is that the IRS cannot afford to audit the rich because their taxes are complicated and they don't have enough resources to do so. They choose to audit the poor instead because, it is simpler.. link [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176705
Careful. The two articles rely on vastly different cherry-picked definitions of who counts as rich, and neither claim is even remotely true anymore if you use the other definition. The top 1% are indeed audited at about the same rate as the working poor, but they also pay higher taxes than everyone else. This NYT article on the other hand picks out the top 400, who apparently pay lower taxes but are much more aggress…
But they don't. That's the point. Your conventional wisdom is wrong.
The USA has a large number of regressive taxes, which tax the poor more heavily than the rich. These have been steadily expanded. And it has one, only one, progressive tax - the federal (not state) income tax - which has been steadily made less progressive in recent years to the point where overall taxation is at best flat and more likely slightly regressive.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#208A couple of points regarding the lower rate of taxation for capital gains: • Capital gains are not inflation-indexed, which is one reason to have a lower rate. Consider three individuals: * Person A earned $100,000 working at BigCo in 2019 * Person B sold shares in 2019 that were purchased in 2017, for a (LTCG) gain of $100,000 * Person C sold shares in 2019 that were purchased in 1965, for a (LTCG) gain of $100,000…
No, it's a good reason to inflation adjust them; not inflation adjusting them and charging a lower rate means that people who can regularly turn over capital so that there is often very little inflation effect (more common with the really rich) pay low real taxes on income, while people who have a few capital assets that are held a long time for use value and then sell them with little real (but much inflationary) appreciation pay taxes at low rate on the nominal income, but often at a high rate on any real income (or, worse, pay positive taxes with no or negative real income). The two features compound the pro-wealth bias in capital gains policy rather than offsetting to approximate fairness with taxation of other income.
Taxes on income should be blind as to whether it is labor or capital income (including those characterized as “payroll” rather than “income” taxes), and, to smooth irregular income streams (which otherwise have undesirable consequences in a progressive tax system) generous allowances for deferment or unusually high income and advance recognition of income should be made, and basis values, and deferred and advance-recognized income amounts all should be inflation adjusted.
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#209That is correct, the rich don't pay any taxes at all (whenever the can). The was a recent thread on HN regarding tax audits [0]. What I got from that is that the IRS cannot afford to audit the rich because their taxes are complicated and they don't have enough resources to do so. They choose to audit the poor instead because, it is simpler.. link [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21176705
The Pro Publica link you provided does not show they "audit the poor instead". It shows that the IRS audits poor and rich at the same rates. Unfortunately it seems Pro Publica is succumbing to the same forces as other journalistic outlets and has started to engage in sensationalist headlines. Here is their title verbatim: > IRS: Sorry, but It’s Just Easier and Cheaper to Audit the Poor Here is the article's first sen…
Re: For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans paid a lower tax rate
#210What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…
- They are NOT speaking of the 1% (such as medical professional or high income technical professionals) - They are NOT speaking of the 0.1 %. - They are speaking of the 0.01%. One person out of 10000. Not multimillionaires. 100 millionaires and billionaires. There is a very good reason why the tax foundating speaks of the 1% and not of the 0.1% or 0.01% : it is usefull to protect billionaires.
2. 0.01% is 32,966 people, not 100
3. There are 585 billionaires in the US [0]
4. Billionaires make up 0.00017% of the population
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...