RedGlare, I hate you! Ok, I might of went overboard on the NEVER, EVER part. But you have to agree that 95 percent of what my boss can do, I can't. The man has non-taxable income that triples my present salary. He has shelters I can't afford until I can move up in salary. I can take advantage of alot of things. You are correct. I do use as much as I can. But I can't compare myself to his charity deductions and donations. I can't compare when it comes to putting his money on a T-Bill that has a minimum balance of 50,000 dollars, let it sit there and grow in non-taxable income. You get my drift? And I totally agree with Will. All the lobbying is ruining the system. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Almu- Just because you aren't rich does not mean that the tax advantages aren't available to you. Anyone can use these tactics. The difference? Money. The rich have the resources available to invest in things like tax shelters and charitable foundations. They have the money to buy big houses and spend a fortune on mortgage interest. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. This brings us to Kagy's consumption tax idea...although you know that would never be instituted. Is that more fair? (oops, forgot the other part) As for the rich NEVER, EVER paying more percentage-wise...that will DEFINITELY happen under the new Bush plan. No matter how rich you are, the tax code has "catches" in it so that all of your income cannot be sheltered. For example, if you were to fund a charitable foundation, you could do so only to the tune of 50% of your income. There are also rules on not deducting losses in passive activities. So while sheltering some income would lead to an overall lower tax rate, I don't think your statement is universally true. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Redglare (edited August 09, 2000).]
I like the consumption tax just because it encourages the kind of consumption that will result in long-term profit. One of the arguments against taxing the rich is that they invest their earnings in new businesses that create new jobs, perpetuating the cycle of economic growth. If spending money to start, acquire, or expand a business were taxed at Y rate and buying luxury items that tend to depreciate in value (60-inch flat panel TVs, etc etc) were taxed at Y times 3 rate (I'm speaking theoretically and generically here), then the rich would seem to have a greater incentive to spend their money in ways that benefit the lot of us. And I know, there are macroeconomic arguments that say when a billionaire buys a 60-inch flat panel TV, he's buying a product built by someone making $8 an hour assembling the components. That part of the argument is true. Someone with a lot more brains than me could put together a coherent consumption tax plan that would work more effectively than anything I could envision. ------------------ I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.
Kagy, I agree with your basic argument. If that were the case, it would also discourage people, like myself (I've bought a DVD player and a brand new TV in the last few months), in buying luxury items they can't afford. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
Well, I still say no tax for people making less than 75,000. Everyone else stays the same. That way, the middle class can save and move up in the social economic ladder. Perfect example? Todays paycheck. That FICA person...he's a thief. He takes like 23 percent of my pay and the other 13 go to that Social Security excuse and the other stuff I just don't wanna discuss cuz it depresses me. Just imagine if I could keep ALL my money! Damn, that would be a boost if I ever saw one. Take a look at yours if you get paid on Friday and tell me that its not highway robbery what that FICA person is doing. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the NBA minimum is more than $50,000, more like $275K? I would love the opportunity to pay taxes on $275K and I wouldn't give a rat's a** what Shaq makes. Yep, it costs a lot to run the government, not just roads (which are pretty much funded by the gasoline tax), and defence, but also things like Medicare, education, not to mention the heaps of money that go to run the executive and legislative branches of government. I don't have a problem with 1% of the people paying 33% of the taxes (or even 5% paying 40% of taxes, whihc is a more widely used statistic. People with money create jobs. Most, with a few exceptions, earned those huge dollars through hard work, risk taking, and good old-fashioned smarts. This is not an egalitarian society where everybody gets the same regardless of what they do. Thank God! Kagy has nailed this issue - to tax on consumption. Almu - I think if you check closely, you'll see that the higest deduction on your paycheck is for FIT (federal income tax), not FICA, which is for Social Security. I think the FICA rate is 6.5%, which is matched by your employer, unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 13%. There's also a smaller deduction, somewhere around 1 or 2% for Medicare. Regardless, your point is well taken, taxes are too high. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
