We could go on forever. @cdaquila I think it’s time for some cleanup.
1 Like
Even after the revised tax code (circa 2019) eliminated much of my deduction for charitable donations, I continued to donate to charities and–in fact–I have increased those donations as I get nearer to the end of my life. I agree that there should be a tax-related incentive for charitable donations, but some people–like me–will continue their donations, even when incentives are reduced/eliminated.
The super wealthy have many more tax right-offs that lower their effective tax rate to well below my tax rate.
1 Like
The super-wealthy - the 0.1% of earners pay about the same as the 1% ers
From the link below.
The analysis also found that the top 0.1% of earners, with at least $3.8 million in annual income, pay an effective federal tax rate of 25.7%, which is a hair lower than the 25.9% tax rate for the top 1%.
That said, the tax write-off portion is true…
Ultra-wealthy households often have access to tax loopholes and write-offs that aren’t available to salaried workers who receive W2s, and much of their income can also stem from capital gains, which has a lower tax rate than earned income.
But that is a trick everyone can use. Once you get to the point of owning your home and cars outright, the income needed to maintain your lifestyle drops way down as I expect you can appreciate.
And it hints at taxing wealth, not income, which is a whole 'nother issue.
No. When you can pay lawyers to set up tax shelters that’s not a trick everyone can use.
More important, the wealthy get more government service: the armed forces protect a lot more of their wealth, the law protects a lot more of their property, they can afford lawyers who shield them from legal liability. Calling it ‘personal’ may make people think it’s personal, but it inures to one’s assets as well.
Because I would eliminate the stepped-up basis on death that would create a wealth tax without needing a constitutional amendment which many seem to think a Warren/Sanders-type wealth tax would.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears you’re lumping all lower income individuals together. How about people that make a conscious choice to live on a low income? I have started, grown, and sold five businesses and I can say that many people choose to make less money because they would rather spend their time rock climbing or doing art than working for a higher wage. Now, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that but it’s a choice and I’m not sure those people need to be subsidized, do you?
I had a manager in one of the businesses that started at $80K/year. He was a great manager and could have made $100K in very short order. After a year, he decided he’d rather work less
and live frugally, so he got a job making $30K/year in order to rock climb more. He then proceeded to apply for housing assistance and bought a house through a taxpayer-funded housing subsidy because his $30K income qualified him for that. I had another manager that wanted to pursue art so she quit making $70K to work part-time to pursue art. Both individuals chose to make less money and you want to subsidize their income when they’re perfectly capable of making a living wage on their own?
Now, before you go calling me cold-hearted, we have a neighbor that has two kids and a physical disability due to injuries suffered in an abusive relationship and is, therefore, unable to work. I recently put a starter in her Oldsmobile because she obviously can’t afford that and bought her two beds for her kids to sleep in because they were sleeping on moldy(!) mattresses. I couldn’t believe the kids were sleeping on those things when I brought them to the dump. The smell was unreal. This lady needs the help that would go to the two managers choosing to work less. What I’m trying to say is that when we refer to “lower-income individuals”, it’s not accurate to paint all of them with the same brush. But, if that’s the price to pay to make sure those in need get help, I respect that point of view.
1 Like
Good post. This is exactly what causes a system of government to break down. When the “makers” decide to become “takers”, the system cannot sustain itself when taxpayers decide they’ve had enough and drop out of the workforce when it becomes more desirable to quit and file for benefits than work.
2 Likes
How do we discriminate between those that choose to have a low income to pursue other interests and those that are prevented in some way from getting ahead? I’m not sure that’s possible. All large institutions are inefficient. Do you want to provide money to people that don’t deserve it or keep it from those that do?
1 Like
Waiting to see if any of this gets flagged.
I’ll just say people need to consider their deep motives. Is it greed, envy, or misguided beliefs that make people want to find more and more ways to take assets from one group and give it to someone else? And where does that ultimately end when there is nothing left to take?
1 Like
Please, @texases !
We will have none of that factual posting here!
Says he with the new Lexus paid for with cash?
Sorry, that was low. I know you earned it as others have.
Me too, just because we have money doesn’t mean we think unending tax breaks for rich property investors are right.
2 Likes
+1
While I am “comfortable”, and am not in any way complaining about my resources, the fact remains that I am paying far more in taxes each year than many multi-millionaires–and corporations–are paying.
In reference to tax rates as high as 90%… which no one ever paid…
If we look at tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it has remained remarkably flat for 75 years.
I’m just saying that while thinking that taxing current wealth may sound nice but is a fools errand and unsustainable in the long run.
The viscous circle of adding to our 39 trillion debt with the interest largely paid to China, and then looking for more ways to pull wealth from citizens is unsustainable. At some point it will come crashing down on us.
The story of a disabled woman from an abusive relationship and with two kids is not unusual and our hearts go out to them. We help support several women’s shelters that do great work, but I’m a preventative type of guy. How does one choose such a companion in the first place and is drugs or alcohol involved? If your truck is stuck in the mud, you have to call a tow truck, but the idea is to avoid the mud in the first place. This is just as important to be taught in schools as math and science. In my humble view.
1 Like
Your point is well taken and is why I mentioned this:
I certainly don’t want to see the people that need it not get it. The hard part is that there’s a finite amount of dollars so for every person that could make it on their own and chooses government assistance, it’s my opinion that they are stealing from those who really need it or the from the taxpayers that contributed their hard-earned tax dollars. I’m not sure I’m ok with just saying “Well, that’s the cost of doing business.”. If that’s your opinion, I certainly respect that.
Narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths can be very charming for a long period of time. Mud is not charming and is easily avoided.
Or maybe the bad boy syndrome.
Before we were married, at a park in the spring in Sioux Falls. Got the car stuck in the mud. Went looking fo4 any scrap of wood or anything to get some traction. Got it out but don’t know if my to be wife was very impressed.
+1
I lost count of how many of my high-achieving female counselees chased after the constantly-flunking, acting-out bad boys. In the most extreme case, the “bad boy” that the girl was chasing wound-up in prison by the time that he was 18.
Thankfully, that girl soon developed good sense, and today she is the very successful owner of a real estate agency.