Not So Fast. The Rich Pay Their Fair Share

phaethon · March 8, 2013, 3:25pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.
[/quote]

Investment would indeed plummet. People would only invest in businesses they knew were solid and run by reliable, decent, and honest folk.

I think the take home message is that corporations owe their existence to society and so it is only fair that society can set limits on what the corporations can do.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:26pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Well that is basically what we do. We recognize Harvey the Rabbit as a separate entity with the force of the law behind him.

Would you like to get rid of limited liability?[/quote]

Yes, it’s absurd. I think more business would be responsible and successful 1 without taxes and 2 with personal liability for your own decisions.[/quote]

I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.

You can argue they’d be more successful without taxes, but again who pays for the roads Corps use, the natural resources they consume, etc…?[/quote]

But limited liability also allows the owners of a business to get off the hook when they owe you money. Take money from people for a contracted service, spend it, declare corporate bankruptcy and walk away.[/quote]

Not really, it allows individual stock holders off the hook when they owe you money. Bankruptcy is a different issue entirely and needs to an over hall, but creditors still recoup some if not all of their loss. It’s not like a company can make $10B and then just declare bankruptcy keeping it all.

DoubleDuce · March 8, 2013, 3:28pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?[/quote]

It means ownership and taxation aren’t affected by voluntary arrangements. I could take my earnings and lock them in a safe that I can’t open, doesn’t mean I don’t owe the tax on them. Same with buying a part of a company.[/quote]

You said, "No. Considering a corporation is a piece of paper and a name. There is no such thing as corporate earnings. All earnings are some individual’s money. The government grants them personhood, and that’s just foolish. "

In which I replied Bill Gates can’t take assets from the company. It illegal. I don’t understand how your arragment (you are basically paying for a service) Have to do with Gates “ownership” of Microsoft via shares and his inability to take assets if he chooses to. They are two entirely differnt things.

Also stop paying your rent, I bet your land lord gets some of your stuff.

[/quote]

My landlord entered a contract on his capital. So did Bill gates. He can’t walk in and take what he wants because he contracted out of that ability. He still owns X% of what’s in the store though. It isn’t actually harvey the rabbits.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:29pm

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So is this Flacco character going to end up on food stamps or something? On a more serious note: why should anyone who posts here care what he pays in taxes? None of us are making anything close to what he makes and probably never will. Worry about your own taxes and let Flacco worry about his.

I wonder if the reason why people who are not wealthy, like those who post here (yes, I know some of you would refer to yourselves as rich but relative to who?), is because it makes them feel that they too are part of that club. It’s as though by defending the rights of the rich they will become rich.

Do you think Flacco worries about the NFL downsizing or shipping his job overseas? Is he worried about health insurance or his pension? And why is it this forum is so anti-union yet multimillionaire athletes feel the need to have the protection that a union offers them? Flacco is just like Obama: a wealthy socialist. [/quote]

You should care because it’s an unjustified amount of taxes for anyone to pay. You should care because eventually the middle class will pay these absurd taxes.

I’m not even going to address the remainder of your post. It is so full of assumptions and BS it’s a waste of time. [/quote]
And in the meantime Flacco will be worried about the issues facing the middle class so it evens out, right?

I just read an article about some singer called Lady Gaga who spent over 50K on some koi imported from Japan. What, she couldn’t buy American? We have fish here too. But I should worry about how much she pays in taxes. I bet she voted for Obama as well so she doesn’t seem to be too worried about things.

You use words like fair and justice but what about what’s fair for those with less money than Flacco? What does fair even mean? Is Flacco standing up and saying that the people who sell beer and hotdogs in the stadium should make more money? But those same people should be worried about how much Flacco pays in taxes? [/quote]

I don’t care what Flacco thinks, I care about the future of my family. I also don’t care what the rich buy with their money, why should I?

Should I use the favorite phrase here, please point out where I said fair and/or justice…I don’t care about the rich, I care about the abuse of taxation powers by our government.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:30pm

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.
[/quote]

Investment would indeed plummet. People would only invest in businesses they knew were solid and run by reliable, decent, and honest folk.

I think the take home message is that corporations owe their existence to society and so it is only fair that society can set limits on what the corporations can do.[/quote]

agreed

DoubleDuce · March 8, 2013, 3:32pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.
[/quote]

Investment would indeed plummet. People would only invest in businesses they knew were solid and run by reliable, decent, and honest folk.

I think the take home message is that corporations owe their existence to society and so it is only fair that society can set limits on what the corporations can do.[/quote]

agreed[/quote]

See I disagree that society can bring things into existence. The law might say Harvey owns something, but Harvey don’t exist.

And without taxes, how successful could good honest business be?

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:36pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?[/quote]

It means ownership and taxation aren’t affected by voluntary arrangements. I could take my earnings and lock them in a safe that I can’t open, doesn’t mean I don’t owe the tax on them. Same with buying a part of a company.[/quote]

You said, "No. Considering a corporation is a piece of paper and a name. There is no such thing as corporate earnings. All earnings are some individual’s money. The government grants them personhood, and that’s just foolish. "

In which I replied Bill Gates can’t take assets from the company. It illegal. I don’t understand how your arragment (you are basically paying for a service) Have to do with Gates “ownership” of Microsoft via shares and his inability to take assets if he chooses to. They are two entirely differnt things.

Also stop paying your rent, I bet your land lord gets some of your stuff.

[/quote]

My landlord entered a contract on his capital. So did Bill gates. He can’t walk in and take what he wants because he contracted out of that ability. He still owns X% of what’s in the store though. It isn’t actually harvey the rabbits.[/quote]

Again I don’t agree. Bill Gates owns X% of Microsoft, your land lord doesn’t own X% of your stuff. He may own the building, but he doesn’t own your stuff. Technically Bill owns X% of Microsoftâ??s assets.

The biggest difference is that Bill’s ownership only amounts to what the market says it amounts to where as your rent is spelled out in a contract.

My entire point is that corporation have to be legal entities otherwise guy like Bill Gates could walk into his office and take X # of company cares because, well he owns them.

phaethon · March 8, 2013, 3:37pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Salary is an expense and corproation are only taxed on profits.
[/quote]

Which is a bad thing in and of itself. It makes it far too easy for a corporation to “cheat” so to speak. And to police the corporations takes an army of accountants and lawyers.

For example I spent over $1k last week on drinks for a work function. The company will write it off as an expense and not have to pay tax on it. Yet as an individual if I wanted the same amount of enjoyment with friends (and spend the same amount on drinks) as I did at the work function I would be taxed.

I have a friend who frequently flies overseas for work. Each time he takes about a week of holidays. At the very least the travel is tax free as it is claimed as a work expense. Often meals and accommodation are too if they schedule things well. Yet the average Joe cannot have a couple of holidays each year tax free.

And that is only at the small end of the scale.

DoubleDuce · March 8, 2013, 3:42pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I disagree. The largest stockholder can’t take corporate assets. Bill Gates can’t walk into a Microsoft store and take what he wants.
[/quote]

My landlord can’t walk in and do what he wants to the house I live in. But it’s still his house and he still pays the taxes on it.[/quote]

Okay, what does that have to do with what you are saying?[/quote]

It means ownership and taxation aren’t affected by voluntary arrangements. I could take my earnings and lock them in a safe that I can’t open, doesn’t mean I don’t owe the tax on them. Same with buying a part of a company.[/quote]

You said, "No. Considering a corporation is a piece of paper and a name. There is no such thing as corporate earnings. All earnings are some individual’s money. The government grants them personhood, and that’s just foolish. "

In which I replied Bill Gates can’t take assets from the company. It illegal. I don’t understand how your arragment (you are basically paying for a service) Have to do with Gates “ownership” of Microsoft via shares and his inability to take assets if he chooses to. They are two entirely differnt things.

Also stop paying your rent, I bet your land lord gets some of your stuff.

[/quote]

My landlord entered a contract on his capital. So did Bill gates. He can’t walk in and take what he wants because he contracted out of that ability. He still owns X% of what’s in the store though. It isn’t actually harvey the rabbits.[/quote]

Again I don’t agree. Bill Gates owns X% of Microsoft, your land lord doesn’t own X% of your stuff. He may own the building, but he doesn’t own your stuff. Technically Bill owns X% of MicrosoftÃ¢??s assets.

The biggest difference is that Bill’s ownership only amounts to what the market says it amounts to where as your rent is spelled out in a contract.

My entire point is that corporation have to be legal entities otherwise guy like Bill Gates could walk into his office and take X # of company cares because, well he owns them.
[/quote]

You are stating it is necessary because of the result of what you are saying is necessary. You can’t argue why the laws are needed looking at a situation that was created under the laws.

And he owns x% of everything, meaning he can’t take 100% of any asset, because it isn’t all his. He owns x% of each Iphone, not x% of the Iphones. But again he agreed to a contract that says he can’t walk in and take his assets. Doesn’t make them not his. He is essentially renting them.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:42pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I doubt it. Investment would likely plummet. Would you buy stock in Apple if you would be liable for copy right infringment for example? How about BP, imagine being liable for the Gulf oil spill even though you own 10 shares.
[/quote]

Investment would indeed plummet. People would only invest in businesses they knew were solid and run by reliable, decent, and honest folk.

I think the take home message is that corporations owe their existence to society and so it is only fair that society can set limits on what the corporations can do.[/quote]

agreed[/quote]

See I disagree that society can bring things into existence. The law might say Harvey owns something, but Harvey don’t exist.

And without taxes, how successful could good honest business be?[/quote]

It’s fine to diagree. I just don’t follow the logic. Again from a philosphical point of view I can see your point, but it’s not reality. Apple, Inc. owns lot of assets, has lots of liabilities, etc… You could theoretically break down ownership of every single assets/liability among the millions of individual owners although it would be a pain in the ass. Making a corp it’s own entity, imo, is more about mitigating going concern risk than anything else.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 4:02pm

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Salary is an expense and corproation are only taxed on profits.
[/quote]

Which is a bad thing in and of itself. It makes it far too easy for a corporation to “cheat” so to speak. And to police the corporations takes an army of accountants and lawyers.

For example I spent over $1k last week on drinks for a work function. The company will write it off as an expense and not have to pay tax on it. Yet as an individual if I wanted the same amount of enjoyment with friends (and spend the same amount on drinks) as I did at the work function I would be taxed.

I have a friend who frequently flies overseas for work. Each time he takes about a week of holidays. At the very least the travel is tax free as it is claimed as a work expense. Often meals and accommodation are too if they schedule things well. Yet the average Joe cannot have a couple of holidays each year tax free.

And that is only at the small end of the scale.[/quote]

That is an issue to take up with Congress. They write the tax code.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 3:52pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You are stating it is necessary because of the result of what you are saying is necessary. You can’t argue why the laws are needed looking at a situation that was created under the laws.

And he owns x% of everything, meaning he can’t take 100% of any asset, because it isn’t all his. He owns x% of each Iphone, not x% of the Iphones. But again he agreed to a contract that says he can’t walk in and take his assets. Doesn’t make them not his. He is essentially renting them.[/quote]

Sure I can. The laws are need, corps need identites, to ensure they last. It is a going concern issue. Banks wouldn’t loan companies money if they didn’t have their own identity.

The second part of your statment isn’t true. At present he owns Microsoft stock, which if he sold would garner him a lot of money; however, if Microsoft went bankrupt he would have nothing. If he owns Bonds in the company; however, he is one of Microsfots creditors and will get X # of products if they go bankrupt.

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 4:02pm

Again, the OP is about INDIVIDUALS paying extremely high taxes. We can debate corporate tax structure as well. The threads point was to point out one person will pay over 50% of his income in taxes or about $60 million (obviously that’s not 100% true because he will itemize like everyone else).

pittbulll · March 8, 2013, 5:15pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 5:21pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax
[/quote]

No Pitt, the reason Flacco will pay this much is because that is how the tax code is written. It has nothing to do with other rich people or how much other rich people pay. That is the whole point of this thread. This is what the majority of the top 10% pay in tax. They don’t live off that magical 15% capital gains rate we hear so much about. Instead 50%+ of thier income is taken, by force, by the various governments they live “under”.

We could simplify the code, have it tiered, with no deductions and he would still pay 50%+.

dmaddox · March 8, 2013, 5:35pm

The Golden Rule of Washington D.C.

“He who has the Gold, makes the Rules.”

With Congress voting their own pay raises, and benefits, don’t you think they will write the tax code to benefit themselves? Look at Ted Kennedy. He owned a lot of Real Estate during his life. The tax code is very favorable to Real Estate Investors. Do you think that is a coencedence (my spelling sucks)?

pittbulll · March 8, 2013, 6:53pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax
[/quote]

No Pitt, the reason Flacco will pay this much is because that is how the tax code is written. It has nothing to do with other rich people or how much other rich people pay. That is the whole point of this thread. This is what the majority of the top 10% pay in tax. They don’t live off that magical 15% capital gains rate we hear so much about. Instead 50%+ of thier income is taken, by force, by the various governments they live “under”.

We could simplify the code, have it tiered, with no deductions and he would still pay 50%+. [/quote]

I know a few people that make a million plus a year . One person left America to avoid paying less of a percentage than Mitt’s 14%.

Discussing tax code is not my area of expertise .I doubt it is your either .

My point is tax code needs to be simple enough so you and I to have a conversation with out relying on that RAG called Breitbart Report .

If some one making the same amount as he a paying 8% than that is where the disparity lies . I promise you not every one in his tax bracket pays 52%

anon50325502 · March 8, 2013, 7:10pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I wanted to put this out there for all those that feel the rich don’t pay their share. Flacco will likely pay, “a combined marginal income tax rate of 51.98 percent.”

I would venture a guess as to say most of the “rich” are folks like this. They aren’t living off capital gains, although Flacco will one day. They are instead living off wages that are heavily taxed.

The government is going to take more than half of what he is contracted to make. Not to mention all of the other taxes he will pay, such as sales, gas, etc…

How can you defend this?[/quote]

I agree he paid too much in tax , I bet our Beans could have helped him . The 2 points I will make is this is Breitbart and second is Flacco is not your typical person in his income bracket .

A simple tax code would take care of this problem . 1rst $30 k tax free from 30 k to 50k %10 and so on . The reason Flacco had to pay so much is that too many wealthy people pay little or no tax
[/quote]

No Pitt, the reason Flacco will pay this much is because that is how the tax code is written. It has nothing to do with other rich people or how much other rich people pay. That is the whole point of this thread. This is what the majority of the top 10% pay in tax. They don’t live off that magical 15% capital gains rate we hear so much about. Instead 50%+ of thier income is taken, by force, by the various governments they live “under”.

We could simplify the code, have it tiered, with no deductions and he would still pay 50%+. [/quote]

I know a few people that make a million plus a year . One person left America to avoid paying less of a percentage than Mitt’s 14%.

Discussing tax code is not my area of expertise .I doubt it is your either .

My point is tax code needs to be simple enough so you and I to have a conversation with out relying on that RAG called Breitbart Report .

If some one making the same amount as he a paying 8% than that is where the disparity lies . I promise you not every one in his tax bracket pays 52%[/quote]

Everything you need to know is in the code. It can be complicated, but even if you simplified the code by eliminating deducitons and having a tiered system like you’ve said, the amount we pay isn’t going to change. I promise you that the majority in the highest tax bracket are not paying 8%.

dmaddox · March 8, 2013, 7:14pm