Obama wants to end $4B oil industry tax breaks.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by shmike

That same person with children, mortgage interest, education expenses, etc. can have an effective taxe rate of 0% (just ask Paul)..

I'm aware of that, but not everyone has that ability. As I stated, I don't.

And my point was, plenty of "rich" people could easily bring their effective rate down below mine, by using creative deductions. The more assets you own, and the more business endeavors you're involved in, the more likely you or your accountant will be able to dream up "creative" deductions.

Originally Posted by shmike

However, if you think that a ball player, actor, business owner or hot shot banker, attorney or plastic surgeon earning $5mil a year has some magical offshore bank account into which their earnings are paid and not taxed, you are off your rocker.

I only said they were more LIKELY to, compared to the middle class.

Bottom line is, I don't feel sorry for rich people. They have more freedom & opportunity to GET rich in this country than practically any other.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

And my point was, plenty of "rich" people who ordinarily would be in the 35% bracket could easily bring their effective rate down below mine.

And I'm telling you that you are wrong.

To get below the 28% bracket, your AGI would have to be below $82,400 (Single, year 2010). Deductions, creative accounting, etc., your average $1mil plus earner is not paying taxes on $82k or less of income.

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Bottom line is, I don't feel sorry for rich people. They have more freedom & opportunity to GET rich in this country than practically any other.

Truth.

Same goes for poor people.

Ain't this country great?

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by shmike

And I'm telling you that you are wrong.

To get below the 28% bracket, your AGI would have to be below $82,400 (Single, year 2010). Deductions, creative accounting, etc., your average $1mil plus earner is not paying taxes on $82k or less of income.

IIRC, they pay 33% on anything above $175K, and 35% on everything above $360K. It isn't like they are paying those rates on their entire income.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I'm aware of that, but not everyone has that ability. As I stated, I don't.

And my point was, plenty of "rich" people could easily bring their effective rate down below mine, by using creative deductions.


I only said they were more LIKELY to, compared to the middle class.

Bottom line is, I don't feel sorry for rich people. They have more freedom & opportunity to GET rich in this country than practically any other.

I don't think anyone here feels sorry for rich people, but it sure does seem as if there's a lot of people (here and elsewhere) who have a vendetta against them...

For me, it comes down to this... it's unfair to FORCE people to pay more, just because they have more. Asking is one thing... Stealing is another.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

I don't think anyone here feels sorry for rich people, but it sure does seem as if there's a lot of people (here and elsewhere) who have a vendetta against them...

For me, it comes down to this... it's unfair to FORCE people to pay more, just because they have more. Asking is one thing... Stealing is another.

Funny though, isn't it, how many massive financial empires were founded in times of truly onerous taxation though, isn't it?

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[anthonyk]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

For me, it comes down to this... it's unfair to FORCE people to pay more, just because they have more. Asking is one thing... Stealing is another.

Stealing?

The government shouldn't have the ability to enforce current tax laws (however unfair they may seem)? Because that seems to be all that's happening. Don't like the laws? Work to change them.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I'm not sure why I need to show my work. I'm "middle class", or maybe "upper middle", and I paid what, 28-29% or whatever the heck my bracket is? I forgot.

I'm not a family, and I didn't have anything worth deducting this year, so my ability to reduce that is practically nill.

Not sure where they're getting 4.7% from.

And do you deny my claim that rich people are more likely to 1) use an accountant, 2) identify & make use of creative deductions, and 3) shelter money overseas?

If you are talking about your tax bracket (otherwise known as your marginal tax rate) that is irrelevant. That only shows at what rate the last dollar you made that year was taxed.

The somewhat more relevant number is your effective tax rate, the percentage of taxes you paid out of your taxable income, and that isn't perfect either. Compare two people with the same family situation and income. Dude 1 (D1) contributes nothing to his 401k while Dude 2 (D2) contributes 10% of his pre-tax income. D1 will have a higher effective tax rate due to his own decision. Say D1 also rents while D2 bought real estate through a mortgage. D1 can't deduct anything while D2 can deduct the interest, property tax, and some other expenses he pays. Those to factors alone, and there are a ton of them, can affect the taxable income between the two by $10,000, $20,0000, or even more despite their gross income being the same. Additionally that money will be taxed in the top one or two brackets they are subjected to, meaning it will make the largest difference in their effective tax rates.

In the above scenario D1 isn't getting screwed by the government. He can end up with significantly more tax liability than D2 and has nothing to blame other than his own decisions.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

If you are talking about your tax bracket (otherwise known as your marginal tax rate) that is irrelevant. That only shows at what rate the last dollar you made that year was taxed.

The somewhat more relevant number is your effective tax rate, the percentage of taxes you paid out of your taxable income, and that isn't perfect either. Compare two people with the same family situation and income. Dude 1 (D1) contributes nothing to his 401k while Dude 2 (D2) contributes 10% of his pre-tax income. D1 will have a higher effective tax rate due to his own decision. Say D1 also rents while D2 bought real estate through a mortgage. D1 can't deduct anything while D2 can deduct the interest, property tax, and some other expenses he pays. Those to factors alone, and there are a ton of them, can affect the taxable income between the two by $10,000, $20,0000, or even more despite their gross income being the same. Additionally that money will be taxed in the top one or two brackets they are subjected to, meaning it will make the largest difference in their effective tax rates.

In the above scenario D1 isn't getting screwed by the government. He can end up with significantly more tax liability than D2 and has nothing to blame other than his own decisions.

There are plenty of rich people don't own a home either.

The idea that someone should buy a home just because of the deduction opportunities is rather lacking (although I doubt that's what you actually think).

I see your point about 401k's though. Those contributions, along with the standard deduction and personal deduction, are going to be a much bigger benefit to a middle class person than they would to a rich person.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by anthonyk

Stealing?

The government shouldn't have the ability to enforce current tax laws (however unfair they may seem)? Because that seems to be all that's happening. Don't like the laws? Work to change them.

No, the government should have the ability to enforce laws... however, the picking and choosing of what laws to enforce really chaps my ass (but that's another conversation)...

I don't like the laws and I will continue to vote for folks who I feel will provide the best opportunity to change them...

Income taxes, by definition is theft. You take something that isn't yours, without permission... actually by force... that's the definition of stealing. Laws or no laws.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

There are plenty of rich people don't own a home either.

The idea that someone should buy a home just because of the deduction opportunities is rather lacking (although I doubt that's what you actually think).

I see your point about 401k's though. Those contributions, along with the standard deduction and personal deduction, are going to be a much bigger benefit to a middle class person than they would to a rich person.

You are right, that isn't what I think. Notice I didn't judge the decisions of either D1 or D2, I only stated that those decisions are directly responsible for large differences in their effective tax rates.

I also don't care about whether "the rich" own homes or not. I was simply trying to point out the futility of judging the tax system through "I paid this much in taxes" anecdotes.