Taxes - where should top tax rate be set and at what %?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married couples earning more than $150k should be paying 45% or 50% on all income above $150k.

Obviously, the brackets would be adjusted accordingly, but that's a rough idea where it should be.

Why? On what basis do you think it is acceptable to "confiscate" 50% of anyone's earnings?

DH and I both work normal jobs (engineer and program manager) and both make around 100k. I'd be pissed if someone took 50% of my income because DH and I were married. We would immediately divorce so we wouldn't have to pay 50% taxes. Completely unfair to married persons. Frankly, the poor have figured this out that it doesn't pay to be married and that's the number one reason people aren't getting married in the lower class. Who would want to give away any subsidies they receive just for getting married?

You are a world-class idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing about this - to those that are demanding the rich pay more? The rich have their money squirreled away with little tax impact. What do you think all those production companies in Hollywood are for?

Another example of nonsense.

The rich don't have tax shelters? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see how many people here think government and taking what others earn is the answer. We used to be a country of opportunity and now we've become a county of entitlement. We used to strive to guarantee equal opportunity and now so many want to guarantee equal outcomes. There's no one that's owed anything by government, by society, or by other productive workers. Income redistribution is a disincentive to production.

The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% on income that would be the equivalent of $1,000,000. Canada and Germany seem to be doing quite well. Practice what you preach and stop working if our policies are such a disincentive.

NP.

Your response makes absolutely no sense and your reference to old tax rates means nothing. No comparison to current time. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing about this - to those that are demanding the rich pay more? The rich have their money squirreled away with little tax impact. What do you think all those production companies in Hollywood are for?

Another example of nonsense.

The rich don't have tax shelters? Really?

Yep, no tax shelters for the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing about this - to those that are demanding the rich pay more? The rich have their money squirreled away with little tax impact. What do you think all those production companies in Hollywood are for?

Another example of nonsense.

The rich don't have tax shelters? Really?

Yep, no tax shelters for the rich.

Good LORD. I AM rich and trust me, there are tax shelters. Lots of em.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing about this - to those that are demanding the rich pay more? The rich have their money squirreled away with little tax impact. What do you think all those production companies in Hollywood are for?

Another example of nonsense.

The rich don't have tax shelters? Really?

There really aren't any significant shelters left. They left us in 1986. Sure, it's possible to defer income and sometimes change its character, but the notion of a tax shelter (which is not also criminal tax evasion), is largely gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very easy to pay no taxes if you don't get a W-2. You set everything up as a business, run all passive income (dividends, cap gains, rental income, etc) through the business and charge all your expenses to the business and zero everything out. That's the goal of every CPA.

As a business owner I can assure you that what you wrote is BS.

I also own a business, and you can only deduct business expenses. What about rent, food, clothing, the repairman for your A/C, a movie ticket, dinner out with friends, gas, vacations, etc.? (You can deduct housing expenses proportionate to the space allocated for your business, if applicable.) If a CPA is advising what you suggest, it's tax fraud.

The tax system clearly favors businesses over individuals, and the argument of whether or not it should is separate. Businesses earn income, expense everything, and pay taxes on the smaller amount of net/taxable income that's left over. Individuals pay taxes mostly on gross income, and then pay expenses out of what's left. And of course businesses deduct all kinds of expenses that individuals can't, and its not fraud. For example, a business owner will often expense his car payment (lease) and cell phone, both of which reduce taxable income. An individual, again, is taxed first and then pays for his car and cell phone.

PP, you really don't know much about this. And to correct you would take too much time. So, let's just take one area.

A business, and the majority are not corporations so you should specify which before lumping them as one entity, deducts the cost of doing business. They can only expense according to IRS guidelines. Those guidelines are fairly extensive and limiting. As a business owner of a LLC I can only deduct things purchased for my business, cost of advertising, rent, utilities...things directly related to my business. I can deduct some mileage but again, there are rules and logs that have to be kept. What's left is what I pay taxes on as personal income. That's called net income for the business and gross income on my personal. And btw, where your company matches your social security, I pay 100%, not half. I am allowed to deduct half for purposes of income tax liability but that doesn't cover it, just part.

And NO ONE pays tax on their gross income. At the very least they get to take a personal exemption and a general deduction in lieu of itemizing deductions or they itemize. Then they pay taxes on the net after deductions. Some then get credits such as the child tax credit. So, guess what, me, a business owner, takes my gross income, my personal exemptions etc. and pays taxes in full. After that I pay my utilities, car payments, insurance on the cars and house...just like the rest who get a W-2.

Yup! I'm a business owner, too, and it's amazing how people think we get away with all these great ways to save money and/or avoid taxes. I can't tell you how many times I've been out to dinner with a friend, and she'll say....well, I can just have my business pay for it. No....first, I can't just have my business pay for it since it's not business related. And second, do they think that when my " business pays for whatever" (legitimately, as a valid expense) that it's not costing me anything? It's money I won't have to pay taxes on, but it's still an expense that ultimately lowers my net income.

As I read over a lot of these threads, I see a lot of "politics of envy".....the whites have white privilege and enjoy all great perks....no, the blacks get easier admissions to schools and jobs...no, the business owners get all sorts of breaks over employees....etc., etc. Maybe we should all admit that the grass only LOOKS greener on the other side, and until you actually experience the position, you don't really understand the advantages and disadvantages

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so sad to see how many people here think government and taking what others earn is the answer. We used to be a country of opportunity and now we've become a county of entitlement. We used to strive to guarantee equal opportunity and now so many want to guarantee equal outcomes. There's no one that's owed anything by government, by society, or by other productive workers. Income redistribution is a disincentive to production.

The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% on income that would be the equivalent of $1,000,000. Canada and Germany seem to be doing quite well. Practice what you preach and stop working if our policies are such a disincentive.

Tax shelters were very different then. You are comparing apples to oranges and showing your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very easy to pay no taxes if you don't get a W-2. You set everything up as a business, run all passive income (dividends, cap gains, rental income, etc) through the business and charge all your expenses to the business and zero everything out. That's the goal of every CPA.

As a business owner I can assure you that what you wrote is BS.

I also own a business, and you can only deduct business expenses. What about rent, food, clothing, the repairman for your A/C, a movie ticket, dinner out with friends, gas, vacations, etc.? (You can deduct housing expenses proportionate to the space allocated for your business, if applicable.) If a CPA is advising what you suggest, it's tax fraud.

The tax system clearly favors businesses over individuals, and the argument of whether or not it should is separate. Businesses earn income, expense everything, and pay taxes on the smaller amount of net/taxable income that's left over. Individuals pay taxes mostly on gross income, and then pay expenses out of what's left. And of course businesses deduct all kinds of expenses that individuals can't, and its not fraud. For example, a business owner will often expense his car payment (lease) and cell phone, both of which reduce taxable income. An individual, again, is taxed first and then pays for his car and cell phone.

PP, you really don't know much about this. And to correct you would take too much time. So, let's just take one area.

A business, and the majority are not corporations so you should specify which before lumping them as one entity, deducts the cost of doing business. They can only expense according to IRS guidelines. Those guidelines are fairly extensive and limiting. As a business owner of a LLC I can only deduct things purchased for my business, cost of advertising, rent, utilities...things directly related to my business. I can deduct some mileage but again, there are rules and logs that have to be kept. What's left is what I pay taxes on as personal income. That's called net income for the business and gross income on my personal. And btw, where your company matches your social security, I pay 100%, not half. I am allowed to deduct half for purposes of income tax liability but that doesn't cover it, just part.

And NO ONE pays tax on their gross income. At the very least they get to take a personal exemption and a general deduction in lieu of itemizing deductions or they itemize. Then they pay taxes on the net after deductions. Some then get credits such as the child tax credit. So, guess what, me, a business owner, takes my gross income, my personal exemptions etc. and pays taxes in full. After that I pay my utilities, car payments, insurance on the cars and house...just like the rest who get a W-2.

Yup! I'm a business owner, too, and it's amazing how people think we get away with all these great ways to save money and/or avoid taxes. I can't tell you how many times I've been out to dinner with a friend, and she'll say....well, I can just have my business pay for it. No....first, I can't just have my business pay for it since it's not business related. And second, do they think that when my " business pays for whatever" (legitimately, as a valid expense) that it's not costing me anything? It's money I won't have to pay taxes on, but it's still an expense that ultimately lowers my net income.

As I read over a lot of these threads, I see a lot of "politics of envy".....the whites have white privilege and enjoy all great perks....no, the blacks get easier admissions to schools and jobs...no, the business owners get all sorts of breaks over employees....etc., etc. Maybe we should all admit that the grass only LOOKS greener on the other side, and until you actually experience the position, you don't really understand the advantages and disadvantages

Well said.

Envy is a destructive emotion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Close loopholes for hedgies and corporate inverters and it's be fine.

From a revenue perspective, that would be a tear in a salted sea. Every little bit helps, but in the great scheme of things, these changes amount to very little revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Married couples earning more than $150k should be paying 45% or 50% on all income above $150k.

Obviously, the brackets would be adjusted accordingly, but that's a rough idea where it should be.

Yes let's kill the middle class.

It's hardly killing someone to insist that those who have been very successful in this economy pay their fair share toward those who haven't. As a progressive society, this is what we should be striving for.

$150K in this area for a family of 4 is hardly living the high life. I do not consider this being very successful. Successful absolutely but your qualifier is incorrect . This family would not be struggling but they certainly wouldn't have a ton for extras after retirement and college savings.

$150K is far too low to start paying taxes at 50% without impacting the quality of life for the middle class. $150K is two parents at $75K each or one at $100K and one at $50K or some other permutation. However at no point wold anyone say someone making $75K or even $100K has been very successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Close loopholes for hedgies and corporate inverters and it's be fine.

From a revenue perspective, that would be a tear in a salted sea. Every little bit helps, but in the great scheme of things, these changes amount to very little revenue.

Same thing for the inheritance tax. In fact, the inheritance tax would harm a good number of small businesses - businesses that have a lot invested in the business (equipment, goods, etc.), but very in terms of liquid assets.