Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: richest 1% got 82% of the wealth

  1. #41
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,351
    No, it's not that I (and you) are pure and others are evil. It's that I (and you) would save pennies at best. The people that have the 82% of the wealth would save enough by gaming the system to make it worthwhile.

    You (and I) are just not rich enough for tax shenanigans to be worth it. You've got to be half a billion dollars worth of tax shenanigans (like trump's family) rich to make it worth trying to play the game. So no, I'm not surprised that your husband didn't bother saving the few sheckels he might have saved with claiming the home office. Little people like you and me have to jump through too many hoops to make such a small deduction worthwhile. But for someone at the Walton or Koch level of wealth, playing those games actually makes a noticeable difference.

  2. #42
    Williamsmith
    Guest
    The average earner shouldn’t have to hire a tax service at anywhere from $100 to several hundred just so they don’t inadvertently overlook a tax savings or a tax obligation. But many do. The IRS is a bloated government entity that has huge power just handed to it and as we have seen in the past gets used to harass and target US citizens. It’s the first alphabet soup agency that needs rid of. A flat tax that taxes money only at the time it is earned and not after investments, inheritance, etc would be ideal.

    This plan to demonize wealthy people as a group, use the IRS to strip them of their property and redistribute the wealth among the more needy is folly. Too many hands, not any of the redistribution will get to anyone who could really use it. And many will be targeted unfairly and as usual the politically connected will escape scrutiny.

    We cant make a moral system out of an immoral system. The root cause is overspending.

  3. #43
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    The average earner shouldn’t have to hire a tax service at anywhere from $100 to several hundred just so they don’t inadvertently overlook a tax savings or a tax obligation. But many do. The IRS is a bloated government entity that has huge power just handed to it and as we have seen in the past gets used to harass and target US citizens. It’s the first alphabet soup agency that needs rid of. A flat tax that taxes money only at the time it is earned and not after investments, inheritance, etc would be ideal.

    This plan to demonize wealthy people as a group, use the IRS to strip them of their property and redistribute the wealth among the more needy is folly. Too many hands, not any of the redistribution will get to anyone who could really use it. And many will be targeted unfairly and as usual the politically connected will escape scrutiny.

    We cant make a moral system out of an immoral system. The root cause is overspending.
    yes to everything here, sing it brother!

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    beyond the pale
    Posts
    2,732
    About half of federal revenue is from taxes on income. If the flat tax was instituted, not enough money would be generated and federal deficits would rise. Again. So our national debt and deficit would grow even more. Can't get on board with that.

    Also wondering how scenarios like a postal carrier delivering mail to a trust fund baby lounging by the pool, and only one of those parties paying any income tax - what's the public relations term - how are those "optics" going to play out?

  5. #45
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Lainey View Post
    About half of federal revenue is from taxes on income. If the flat tax was instituted, not enough money would be generated and federal deficits would rise. Again. So our national debt and deficit would grow even more. Can't get on board with that.
    Wouldn't it depend on the rate of taxation and how much income tax revenues would increase without the common deductions to income and including the standard deductions?

    A lot of our tax structure is intended to benefit a prospering economy. The lower capital gains tax rate encourages people to invest in the stock market. Mortgage interest deductions encourage home ownership. What ever is left of medical deductions and charitable contributions contribute to general social welfare.

    It ain't going to happen in my lifetime, but I'm all for it. Let the chips of the free market fall where they may. I've actually talked about with my CPA who I pay a couple of hundred dollars a year to sort through my taxes and he's actually for it, although it would risk his employment.

  6. #46
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VT/NJ
    Posts
    9,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Lainey View Post


    Also wondering how scenarios like a postal carrier delivering mail to a trust fund baby lounging by the pool, and only one of those parties paying any income tax - what's the public relations term - how are those "optics" going to play out?
    Lainey, from what I've read in some of these posts is that the postal carrier would be a whiney coveter of the trust fund baby's wealth. It's his problem if he's not happy with his station in life. Let him eat cake.

    Certainly this is a philosophical argument. If you view society as extended family, you would say that helping one of us helps all of us. If you view society as a collection of rugged individuals, then you are likely to feel society functions best when directed by self-interest.

    Speaking of everyday folk demonizing the wealthy, Ayn Rand used to demonize the "society as family" folks, making them one-sided cartoons in her books. I don't know why she felt such contempt for people in helping professions. When I'm told that raising issues with gross inequality means I'm just a whiner who is simply looking for a bigger piece of the American pie, that is not the right answer.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  7. #47
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,351
    Does the mortgage interest deduction actually increase home ownership? Or does it just push up prices and amount to welfare for wealthier people?

    https://www.aeaweb.org/research/mort...housing-prices

  8. #48
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Lainey View Post
    About half of federal revenue is from taxes on income. If the flat tax was instituted, not enough money would be generated and federal deficits would rise. Again. So our national debt and deficit would grow even more. Can't get on board with that.

    Also wondering how scenarios like a postal carrier delivering mail to a trust fund baby lounging by the pool, and only one of those parties paying any income tax - what's the public relations term - how are those "optics" going to play out?
    I think the fantasy that the 1% or even the 5% will fund nirvana is equal to the fantasy that a flat tax will solve it all.

    There are plenty of charts that show how much the 5% already pays in income taxes, the lionís share. There isnt enough money in their income streams to solve our problems but let that not deter us from flogging them, the selfish bastards.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Does the mortgage interest deduction actually increase home ownership? Or does it just push up prices and amount to welfare for wealthier people?
    Exactly.

    Although a switch to a flat tax without this exemption would probably crash the real estate market.

    Then there's the exemptions for dependents.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post

    Then there's the exemptions for dependents.
    I thought they were eliminated in the new tax law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •