$447 bil

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by shmike

If this thread has shown anything it has shown that the majority of posters in it do not understand the US tax system.

You're going to need an internet poll to back up that claim.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

You're going to need an internet poll to back up that claim.

No I won't.

Paul feels smug because he understands it enough to get to 0% effective rate a few years ago.

Therefore, he'll nod his head in agreement with a stupid smirk on his face and won't question my numbers.

[RACER X]

OMG if i got a 0% rate, i'd pay off my doublewide and buy my kid a shoe.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by shmike

No I won't.

Paul feels smug because he understands it enough to get to 0% effective rate a few years ago.

Therefore, he'll nod his head in agreement with a stupid smirk on his face and won't question my numbers.

Smug about what, being a married homeowner with kids? Not much rocket science involved there.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by shmike

C'mon Jesus.

This is why I have such a hard time not paying attention to these threads.

The "TAX THE RICH, THEY DESERVE IT" crowd seems to feed off emotion.

"OMG, if the Bush tax credits are extended, my blind Granny's taxes are going to be 110% of her income!"

I know your post is more a jab at Ed than a commentary on our tax code but the poor, the blind and the elderly all get tax breaks not available to "regular" citizens.

Dude, look around. The elderly and the poor, are the "regular" citizens now.

I'll grant you that the blind are just freeloaders.

That said, I didn't see you call out Ed for throwing "those escalade/foodstamp people", (that's Ed code for anyone who isn't White or Asian) or illegal aliens (Ed code for everyone else) into the mix. There must be balance in emotional warfare, and I am here to provide just that.

I have Dellortos soaking in Pinesol, I must go.

JC

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Ed's situation is the perfect example of a real issue.

Is it unfair or fair that the tax system penalizes those who are ignorant of the tax system?
Is it right or wrong that the tax system rewards certain behaviors and punishes others?

Should the tax system be agnostic of culture\society and just be a fixed % on income?

1) Fair
2) Right

But, whether the IRS selected the right behaviors to reward, or is doing a good job of reducing abuse, is another subject....

[goof2]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

From the article goof2 posted:



I will grant you, that's a small number of millionaires. But they are clearing $1 million, so there was a loophole of some sort involved somewhere along the line. So what happens if, instead of taxing that 1470 people nothing, we tax them just 25% (assuming they only made $1 million)?

$1 million x 25% = $250,000
$250,000 x 1470 = $367,500,000

Beats Bachmann's "expand the tax base" plan, at least.

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

What remains that even after factoring in those who didn't pay any federal income taxes, and the investment losses many of the rest of them were able to write off, as a group they averaged an effective tax rate over 29% for only federal taxes.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by goof2

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

You did, and I don't dispute the assumption. That is the most likely reason.

Shmike asked for real world examples of rich people paying no taxes through loopholes*, and since I don't know any rich people personally, that article was the nearest convenient evidence. For the most part I threw it out there because I never appreciate being completely ignored when I feel I've made a good point or asked a valid question during one of these arguments. ETA: And I think shmike's was a valid question.

My back-and-forth with shmike during this thread has been tangential on our original disagreement: whether or not the rich can afford to be taxed as easily as the poor or vice-versa. The post you quoted was more in response to that argument than anything you've posted.

*With that in mind, I do consider to be a loophole any tax break that allows anyone who still takes home $1 million or more to pay no effective tax. And, I believe those 1,470 millionaires who watched their portfolio tank during the recession can still afford to pay 35% in income taxes much more easily than the people taking home $20K a year can afford 5%. Or 0%, because they're still living on $20K a year.