millionaires

[Bob Hubbard]

Bruno, I ran the numbers back in 2008. I think I came up with a 10% increase in revenue back then. It's somewhere in the election archives I think. The basic jist of it is that half the people in the US don't pay taxes now. This would serve to put them on the tax rolls, everytime they buy a MCD burger or a DVD or a pair of Nike's, they'd add revenue to pay for the social services they use. Rich people who spend alot more, would pay alot more. I just 'borrowed' Forbes notes though.

 

[Bruno@MT]

But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?
I mean, I remember paying sales tax for my Spyderco. It was listed separately on the bill. Can't remember quite what it was, but IIRC it was about 8%, and I bought it in Utah (I think. Close to the petrified forest)

 

[Big Don]

But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?

There is no federal sales tax at this time. Some states have sales taxes and some don't.
Federal tax laws are incredibly complex, and should not be. A national sales tax would simplify collection of taxes.

 

[WC_lun]

The problem is that they are not really saying, "Tax Us" they are really saying "hey, raise the tax rates, which won't effect us because we are really rich, but really soak that guy who is just starting out, hiring people and creating new jobs. Do this because one, we like telling other people how to spend their money, two, it doesn't effect us so much, three, it hurts people who are trying to compete with us and our businesses. So that is where the problem is with these losers.

If a new bussiness or small bussiness is doing well enough that the owner's NET profits are over $250,000 dollars a year they aren't struggling. If they have enough profit and growth to employ new people, they are doing very well. Anyone making a over $250,000 a year is in the top %2 in this country and doing well, so putting thier tax rate back to the Clinton era is really not going to "soak that guy who is just starting out."

If you actually have a problem with the rich in this country paying more taxes, that's cool. However, the reasons you give so far don't hold much water. Sounds more like your ringing a bell for the conservative cause and thier talking points without checking out the valdity of those points.

 

[dancingalone]

If a new bussiness or small bussiness is doing well enough that the owner's NET profits are over $250,000 dollars a year they aren't struggling. If they have enough profit and growth to employ new people, they are doing very well. Anyone making a over $250,000 a year is in the top %2 in this country and doing well, so putting thier tax rate back to the Clinton era is really not going to "soak that guy who is just starting out."

Implicit within your argument is the erroneous idea that net profits flow directly into a business owner's pockets. They do not. Small businesses constantly need reinvestment for equipment and other infrastructure costs like insurance, etc. Not to mention hiring NEW people.

$250,000 sounds like a lot to some, but it ain't much at all. Frequently, this is actually a critical time in the business' life cycle where prudent reinvestment can make the enterprise really grow and take off.

How about the millionaires who want higher taxes just take out their check books and voluntarily write whatever they want EXTRA to Uncle Sam? The IRS will happily accept donations.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How about rather than give the money to Uncle Sam, who will waste it on bloated and ineffectual projects, they use it to start civic improvement projects in their own communities, which are managed as well and as tightly as they did their enterprises? I'm sure they could have more clinics, better roads and an enhanced infrastructure in short order, at half the cost of comparable government bloat projects. See, cuz Bill Gates doesn't pay $500 for a hammer....

 

[jks9199]

But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?
I mean, I remember paying sales tax for my Spyderco. It was listed separately on the bill. Can't remember quite what it was, but IIRC it was about 8%, and I bought it in Utah (I think. Close to the petrified forest)

Sales taxes are currently state & locality based. For example, here in Virginia, I pay a 5% sales tax on all retail sales, except for some medicine items. (The definition of medicine items is flaky -- and I miss the days of a simple tax on everything...) On top of that, I pay a restaurant tax where I live on prepared foods; it's essentially another 5%, as I recall.

But -- my dad lives in Delaware. No sales tax.

A national sales tax would add a fairly small amount to each sale. How much tax you pay would be largely in your control, unlike the current income tax system where even the IRS can't figure out the rules consistently. Don't want to pay as much in taxes? Buy cheaper stuff or avoid buying anything you don't have to. And I'd be willing to bet that each paycheck would go further... because more than a third of it wouldn't be vanishing...

 

[WC_lun]

Implicit within your argument is the erroneous idea that net profits flow directly into a business owner's pockets. They do not. Small businesses constantly need reinvestment for equipment and other infrastructure costs like insurance, etc. Not to mention hiring NEW people.

$250,000 sounds like a lot to some, but it ain't much at all. Frequently, this is actually a critical time in the business' life cycle where prudent reinvestment can make the enterprise really grow and take off.

Sorry, you are mistaken here. Money that goes back into the bussiness is a tax write off as a bussiness expense. So is money spent for insurance. New hires are also part of the cost of running a bussiness, so that money is not profit. None of this is counted as profit, if the bussiness's books are being kept very well at all.

$250,000 a year in net profit puts them in the upper 2% of earners. By definition, if you are in the top 2%, you are making a lot. Once again, if you have a problem with the rich paying more, then that's okay. However, it seems that the reasons a lot of people are giving for thier belief isn't valid, just regurjitation of talking points.

 

[crushing]

The current complex system of various rates and deductions is a jobs support program for the most powerful lobbyists in America, lawyers and their accountant friends. I don't see any real progressive changes that would threaten the accounting industry coming anytime soon.

 

[dancingalone]

Sorry, you are mistaken here. Money that goes back into the bussiness is a tax write off as a bussiness expense. So is money spent for insurance. New hires are also part of the cost of running a bussiness, so that money is not profit. None of this is counted as profit, if the bussiness's books are being kept very well at all.

Really? You think all capital acquisitions like buildings, heavy equipment, computer/software systems, etc, all qualify for federal tax deductions and at a 100% rate at that? Obviously not. Even if a fraction of it can be 'written off', the majority is not and reflects an opportunity cost for growth to the gain of Uncle Sam.

 

[WC_lun]

Really? You think all capital acquisitions like buildings, heavy equipment, computer/software systems, etc, all qualify for federal tax deductions and at a 100% rate at that? Obviously not. Even if a fraction of it can be 'written off', the majority is not and reflects an opportunity cost for growth to the gain of Uncle Sam.

When I ran my own bussiness and the bussiness that my family owns, just about %100 of everything that was put back into the bussiness was almost all a write off. For sure it was not considered pofit if it was a bussiness expense. By definition, anything purchased for or by use of the bussiness is a bussiness expense. Yes, there are limitations, but if you are putting money back into the bussiness it is not considered a profit. That has been my and my families experience. Of course I'm not an expert on taxes. If your personal experience is different then by all means say so. If you are basing your assumptions on talking points you have heard instead of personal experence or research, then you might want to rethink it.

I will agree that government spending is not smart spending. There is a lot of waste and corruption that needs to be pruned out of it. That goes on at every level of government.

 

[dancingalone]

When I ran my own bussiness and the bussiness that my family owns, just about %100 of everything that was put back into the bussiness was almost all a write off. For sure it was not considered pofit if it was a bussiness expense. By definition, anything purchased for or by use of the bussiness is a bussiness expense. Yes, there are limitations, but if you are putting money back into the bussiness it is not considered a profit. That has been my and my families experience. Of course I'm not an expert on taxes. If your personal experience is different then by all means say so. If you are basing your assumptions on talking points you have heard instead of personal experence or research, then you might want to rethink it.

I have no interest in dragging this out longer with you or to compare personal credentials. You want the Bush tax cuts to expire and you'd to be happy to see additional taxes at income brackets other than yours. Something along the lines of "as long as it's not me".

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and your vote. I am just noting that you've not considered all the dynamics that go into that arbitrary $250,000 threshold, and your understanding of business is rather black and white rather than I daresay a nuanced view.

 

[elder999]

Warren Buffet says TAX THE RICH

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Buffett said. "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

Warren Buffet? What a "loser!" :lfao:

Looks like he agrees with Georgia and me:

The only thing that trickles down is urine

 

[Big Don]

Warren Buffet says TAX THE RICH

As has been said before, were he serious, he could easily write a friggin check and STFU...
He isn't serious about wanting to be taxed.

 

[elder999]

He isn't serious about wanting to be taxed.

Well, that's an opinion.

A moments reflection, though, would at least bring you to agreeing that raising his taxes to the extent he's speaking of wouldn't effect his (unpretentious and frugal) lifestyle in anyway.

So why wouldn't he be serious?

 

[Big Don]

Well, that's an opinion.

A moments reflection, though, would at least bring you to agreeing that raising his taxes to the extent he's speaking of wouldn't effect his (unpretentious and frugal) lifestyle in anyway.

So why wouldn't he be serious?

It is an opinion consistent with the difference between his self-aggrandizing words (LOOK WHAT A WONDERFUL BILLIONAIRE I AM!!!) and his actions, were he serious about wanting to help the American people, all he would have to do is write a check. Not, do what he is doing, telling anyone who will listen that he wants to be taxed but, the government won't take his money.

 

[WC_lun]

Actually Warren buffet spends a lot of money on charities, so he does write a lot of checks. A lot of these millionaires that are proponants of the Bush tax cuts expiring think this because of the total amount of money it would make for the government. A few millionairs "writing a check" wouldn't really touch that total.

As far as me thinking the tax break should be let to expire on the rich, yes I am for it. Not because it doesn't effect me, but because it makes sense. If someone could tell me a reason that it shouldn't be let to expire I might change my mind. Instead all I'm getting is crap talking points that aren't based on reality.

 

[dancingalone]

Instead all I'm getting is crap talking points that aren't based on reality.

I was trying to be polite.

<shrugs>

If stating that you don't know the first thing about how business taxes really work is 'crap talking points', I guess I am guilty as charged.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Not everything that a business spends it's money on is a tax write off. The thing is, there are a lot of things that are. The system is set up for the rich, there can be no denying that, and one need not really show a profit, just an investment.

The cool thing about it, though, is that most people can do it if they have even a minimal financial education, which schools don't teach. For instance, if I were smart (and was really dedicated to doing so), I could start a property company. The first thing that I would do with the business, is buy my house, then rent it to myself. But, in actuallity, I would maybe start two properties, one to own the land that my house sits on, and one to own the actual house itself.

What are the benefits, you ask.

First, I am CEO of an LLC. As such, say, I need a car. Rather then buy the car out of my own pocket, the business buys it for me as an expense. Now, not only am I "not paying for the car", but the car note is a tax write off "for the business" (at the current rate, I can write off up to $75,000 per vehicle). So what costs you $75,000 would not cost me the same amount. Secondly, as two businesses, I can write off the same expenses twice.

Next, although you can't do this for the land itself, I can write off depreciation of the building itself, as well as items inside of it, such as dishwashers, washing machines, etc. I may have to sell the pay back the depreciation when I sell the house, but only if I don't do a 1031 tax exchange on the property.

If improvements need to be made, I can now write it off as an expense.

So, although not every expense is a write-off, there is a lot of things that are. And by incorporating, business owners save a ton of money on taxes for things that you and I do not.

In short, WC and Dancing, you are both correct, but I think the confusion is that you aren't exactly speaking about the same thing.

 

[WC_lun]

Perhaps you are right Kenpo. I am talking of incorporated bussinesses. In my experience, just about every bussiness is incoporated because it limits possible liabilities and is much better tax wise. I don't know of a real reason a bussiness wouldn't incorporate, unless lacking the funds to hire a lawyer and file the paperwork. Of course, if that is the case, I doubt they'd be making over $250,000