- This topic has 1 reply, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]. I was a faceless petty bureaucrat working for [/quote]
me too :(, different state
[quote=”loraine”][quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”beansandbooks”]The whole concept of estate taxes is just nuts-I think it’s a fair assumption that most of us will have been taxed one way or another while building up whatever nest egg we have, then when you croak, before your survivors can divvy up the surviving remains you have to pony up in absentia and make one final payment. What for? I fail to remember anyone from the government helping me add to the pile. Did I miss the memo?[/quote]
It gets pretty stupid at some point, you are taxed on the income that you used to build your nest, then taxed on the profits made from that, then in order to pass that on to your kids, taxed at 55%. Land of the free? I think not. It really pisses me off that the government feels entitled to 55% of what ever is left after I die. At what point do they raise it to 55% of what you have every year? I know in California, New York, and Hawaii they are at 52%, 51%, and 51% respectivley. Time to pack up my toys and go home I think.[/quote]
If they want, tax us through the nose on earned income only…let us be tax free on the unearned income whether it be from investments, real estate, estates, etc.[/quote]
at one time, maybe still, Malta had a law that you could not tax inherited property-not sure if that mean only home or, home+ buisness.again, things may have changed and not sure about money inherited, might have been a limit…..either way, recalling reading some yrs ago the law there and was surprised how much better it was then the USA, and they have a national healthcare to boot.
Likely, might change as savings eatne up and things morepricey now they joined the EU…..and the Euro, well……[quote=”davidd”] is that I should be penalized more because I am successful???[/quote]
for one, no…..
For two, that is a line repeatedly, at nauseum, quoted by Limbaugh,et al…it is tiring.No one is punishing, but many ealthy due have many breaks and offshores, havens, etc. Plus access is much easier for them, big checks tend to open doors.
Your investment, congrads you did not lose your shirt, but, many people due and then get bailouts.
My wife for instance, sold a piece of land for slightly over 100K, but slightly under valued amount-she paind no taxes on it.
Great and fine, it was inherited land, and land that had been taxed for at least 150 yrs, inc 4 yrs back taxes in 1865.
We also, due to expenses, medical and taxes on other things, got back money that year.
great and fine…..But, what about those making millions, and pay nothing or little? We still paid income taxes and a variety of endless local and state,etc.
From the early 1970’s to late 90’s, early 2000’s, middle income wage earning men in the USA have had stagnated growth in incomes. Since then, that number has now gone down.
Yet, since early 1980’s, CEO pay has skyrocketed, even in companies that the CEO has bankrupted or did little for growth. And most, if not all, got huge severance packages. The employee did not……he got the shaft…..There has to be more a fair balance between no/little taxes or massive ones that stymie growth, investment and never, should a man have to be forced to sell something. my wife has other land, that-longstory short, is part of family famr, again 150+ yrs family owned, that in 2006, valued at 5 million $$.
IRS immediately sent notice we all jointly owed 1 1/2 million in taxes.
Now, that rules out a family ruin, working farm for some. Corporate farms, no worries.
and that is a lot of $$ we could have used and had.
Plus now, 6 yrs of taxes, fines, feees to extend the paying of that and lost income in lowered offers 2nd to economy,inflation,etc.
Never mind the 150 yrs of taxes paid………Simply,neither Party, nor “liberal/conservative” and esp, Libertarian, has an answer………
[quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”DavidCMurray”]Making profit, interest, dividend, rent and other unearned income taxfree would certainly be a godsend for the already uberrich, loraine. Those are the greatest sources of their incomes. So you and I could pay to educate their children, pave their roads, provide their security and a thousand other public functions while they’d be free to spend all their wealth on expensive trinkets.
It’d be Paradise on Earth (if you were one of the lucky few).
[/quote]David, are you opposed to a flat tax? Whereas everyone pays the same rate? Do away with deductions, loopholes and the like? To me, someone making $1,000,000 pays $150,000 and someone making $50,000 pay $7,500 is “fair”. Just because someone has been more succesful than someone else, should they pay a different tax rate? Just thinking out loud there.[/quote]
I am, its another scheme that tomorrow, could be raised-flat could start out at say 18%, then go up to ?? eventually….
The wealthier, should pay more, but some caps as well, as they have more access,etc……There is nothing inherently unfair in graudated taxation, per see and if wealthy, you could easily invest and step up charities…….
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Yes, I am vehemently opposed to all the existing flat taxes (of which there are plenty) and any new ones. It isn’t a matter of fairness, which they are not. It’s a matter of the remaining disposable income.
Consider a family living on (say) $30,000 a year. If they paid the 17% Steve Forbes proposed in 1999, they’d have about $25,000 left to meet their living expenses. Contrast that family with one earning (say) $300,000 per year who would have to eke out an existence on just $250,000. The latter might be constrained to belonging to just two country clubs while the former would be living on Gravy Train — the dog food, that is. Would the impact on the children, innocent in this scenario, meet your definition of fairness?
(As an aside, responsible economists calculated that Forbes’ rate would have to be closer to 22% to equal then-current government revenues.
Try this simple experiment: from your last year’s federal income tax return, write down your total gross income, the income the flat taxers would propose to tax. Then write down your own net tax. Now, compare the net tax you actually paid to 22% (or 17%, if you prefer) of your total gross and tell us (honestly, now) which amount you’d rather pay.
And if you divide your actual income tax payment by your gross income, you’ll get your “flat tax” rate. I’ll bet you’ll be shocked at how much less than 17 or 22 percent you paid.)[/quote]
flat taxes still do not tackle the important issues of loopholes, inflation, fake money, Federal Reserve, out of control spending, a bloated and expensive system that is largely, a militarized hegomonic structure, aggressive foreign “policy”, though could better go to other things. A more decentralized Union, where the original intent-states having most power and money. National health care, not going to work nationally in the USA, but might work, esp, in smaller states if they want it….but they need a decentralized economy and power…..
[quote=”davidd”][quote=”Scott”][quote=”VictoriaLST”]I am still waiting to get a reply on how to set up an offshore trust to prevent capture of funds by the US government. Does anyone have an attorney who knows how to do all that?[/quote]
The professionals I know Victoria in any of the ‘safe’ and ‘respectable’ offshore jurisdictions won’t even reply to your emails if they know you are a U.S. citizen (or a Green card holder) and they will only consider working with $1 million [i]minimum[/i] accounts for [b]NON-U.S. citizens[/b].
U.S. citizens are NOT wanted by any – I repeat any – of the [i]thousands[/i] of offshore investment management companies I have connections with … There’s freedom for ya!
Scott
[/quote]You can’t blame them. by doing business with Americans.. you all of a sudden become partners with the United Sates of America. 😀
Victoria
there are options that you can always research BUT they are more bolder options and may not fit your comfort zones.
your best bet would be just to sit back and enjoy the ride.
David[/quote]
partners today w/USA, drone bombs tomorrow if you cross the US or, we have no more need for you……:( but true
[quote=”davidd”][quote=”DavidCMurray”]And people whine about hungry folks getting Food Stamps!
I just wonder how many country club memberships the executives of any of those negative tax payers were finally able to afford with their corporate welfare.
What percentage of the federal government’s deficit spending would have been offset by just the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion you’ve listed, Scott? And how much more did you miss?
What do you suppose would have been the impact on the deficit had just these corporations paid income tax, at the lower corporate rate, on their $115.16 [b]B[/b]illion in profits?
[/quote]
David
I don’t want to sound disrespectful because your obviously an smart guy and I have enjoyed many of your posts here. and just the fact that you had the courage and moxie to leave the U.S. and live here tells me alot of your character. .
but I have just come to the conclusion that our viewpoints regarding some of these topics are so opposite it amazes me.
for example;
these corporations comply with the laws that the government provides to keep companies like these in the U.S. there is a very fine line of how much abuse these company’s will take
it’s not like the average worker who has ties to the communities and family. corporations have no ties to communities and if push come to shove they migrate to the most friendly business environment.
why else are companies like Rawlings.. that makes baseballs and Intel are here.??
If Corporations were operating illegally.. that would be a totally different thing. BUT they are not.
so why should we blast them for maximizing their tax obligations.
If David C Murray incorporated and built a business that was generating revenue you would also be able to hire accountants instead of H&R Block to minimize tax obligations.
and it would be more intense if you were a public company since you also have shareholders to account to.
all of this negative flack towards these companies
what about JOBS!!! they actually provide.
how many jobs do these companies actually provide
NOT Government jobs where they pay salaries by stealing money from the tax payer to pay them BUT from revenues that these companies produce.
I am not saying all companies are great and at the top these CEO’s make huge amounts of money.
BUT so do top earners in many fields
what about these idiot celebrities
are they worth the money they make BUT we don’t hear much about that.
Johnny Depp made $100 million dollars from royalties from his last pirates movie. one hundred million dollars!!!!! and actor!!!
that is our whacky culture.. the examples are endless.
anyway.. this is all just conversation because I am living here in costa rica and life is good.
and I think David’s life is also good and I wish him well.
david
[/quote]
ao, they get to operate and make profits, and pay little-to-nothing? gee, thats nice, perhaps, I can do that , as long as a I something to my gardner I need to hire.
is it fair that a General practioner, with a thriving practice and a new luxury car every two yrs gets away with giving his employees no health insurance? zip, nada…….yet he has a time share and per his recent Christmas card, has taken several weeks off this last yr to travel the world over.?
He could get a plan or work with other practices to jointly geta plan-he does not.
He is a dual citizen w/Canada and complains about their health system, though part of their system helped put him through med school. He is a perenial GOP voter and during election, had Romney placard in his BMW windows……compalins about hte “left” and loves Steven Harper (read, USA lap dog for Nafta, Cafta and wars).Yet this MD provides nothing to his employees health care and is flat opposed to any govt plan to do what he could and wont. if more did, there might not be a chorus for Govt health care.
That might interupt one of his overseas trips.
a MD with Romney signs in both rear windows of a Beemer-pricelsss!!!!
[quote=”DavidCMurray”][quote=”DavidCMurray”]And people whine about hungry folks getting Food Stamps!
I just wonder how many country club memberships the executives of any of those negative tax payers were finally able to afford with their corporate welfare.
What percentage of the federal government’s deficit spending would have been offset by just the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion you’ve listed, Scott? And how much more did you miss?
What do you suppose would have been the impact on the deficit had just these corporations paid income tax, at the lower corporate rate, on their $115.16 [b]B[/b]illion in profits?
[/quote]
I woke up in the middle of the night trying to do the math on the numbers Scott has provided. If I’m managing the decimals correctly, the $2.488 [b]B[/b]illion in negative taxes (taxes that you and I paid) these companies received would have provided almost 178 million meals to Food Stamp recipients at New Jersey rates.
I wonder how the Hurricane Sandy victims feel about that . . .
[/quote]
esp, since many in Sandy’s wake did not have means to leave or stay extended…my mother, who exonerated Bush of any/all wrong doing in katrina, taking the conservative stance of blame the state/local folks, alone, alos bitched this time about “well , those people knew for days and they could have gotten out”, ergo, they have it coming if they stayed. Never ind the rich CEO has a 2nd or 3rd home, means to go and do things. made the point to mom same as in 2004
-Govt, esp local/state are broke and
-lack resources to evacuate that many, for that length of time and put them up somewhere and then
-provide income lost to pay for debt and taxes,etc
-not enough busses and drivers
-national guard, no help, federalized under Bush and overseas often
-some no car, no money, no family and
-many to sick, old to go
-plus, they did not want to get looted, like in NO, kansas and other areas, some looting done by state/feds/locals govt peeps.[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Taking my chances, I clicked on a couple of the pages that are listed. On one, it makes mention of the fact that adherents to this myth issue their own license plates. In fact, when one of them was stopped by two police officers for not having legitimate plates on his car, he murdered them both. Great company they keep.
I thought it ironic that these guys don’t want to pay their taxes but they’re plenty happy to drive on the roads their law abiding neighbors pave for them.
[/quote]fair and legit taxes, then sadly, fine and pay. A freind of mine, in response to the Romney/you didnt build that debate, had a real pic of a buisness owner with a “yes, obama I did build my buisness” sign, then had in the pci, arrows pointing to the roads, water, sewer,etc the Govt built……and things other nations built, including the sign…….
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Kwhite1, it’s only true that the famous 47% don’t pay [u]federal income taxes[/u]. They still pay federal wage taxes (from which the rich are largely exempt), state and local sales taxes (the ultimate in regressive taxes), gas taxes (also regressive), real estate taxes (regressive), excise taxes on things like phone service, etc.
All those taxes fall most heavily on low income individuals and families because, once they are paid, much less is left to sustain the lives of poor taxpayers than is left for the rich.[/quote]
Russo in his movie, Freedom to Fascism, had a long, but partial, list of average taxes paid by a USA citizen…
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]But please remember that a portion of that famous 47% are completely supported by multiple social services (welfare, food stamps, etc) or are earn less than a certain income and get the unearned income ‘refund’. They use the tax maintained roads and highways, are defended by police, fire, and military, in short, use public services for which they pay little or nothing.
The Fair Tax Act is the most reasoned and reasonable solution to the tax issues. It contains provisions to continue to support the poor but it finally imposes a tax on the ‘underground economy’ of the US – people working off the books and people who make a living illegally. It also eliminates the IRS and its gobbledegook regulations.[/quote]
ah, the Limbaugh/GOP mouth piece of CR speaks….underground economy, hmm, like bartering? or Ebay? or a myriad of other incomes….thats a conervative thing, then, tax more and punish…..like co-ops, etc getting raided. Are we now going to tax little Susy that makes a few bucks selling lemonade? or the free internet economy?
and who got those 47% on welfare? Can tell you, BOTH Dems and Repubs have helped increase that!!!! Not that you are known for researching anything, nor beleiving when others do (see thred on GMO’s), but the same people now in power, its a means of control of the many by the few, that flip/flop back and forth in the fake “2” Parties……
that you will not get from NWO mouthpiece Limbaugh and his, what now, 4th? 5th wife? family values!!![quote=”camby”]
Russo in his movie, Freedom to Fascism, had a long, but partial, list of average taxes paid by a USA citizen…[/quote]. . . and?
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]The fixed cost of driving ten miles to work, as a percentage of total income, is far greater for someone earning the minimum wage than for a high income earner. That cost is further exaggerated by the fixed cost of the gasoline tax which they both must pay. The same can be said for every other flat (read: “regressive”) tax.
If you think that the population generally is better off when minimum wage earnners are supporting their families on $4.00 per hour (take home) while a rather small strata are struggling along on $400.00 per hour, then you’re an apologist for regressive taxes. If, on the other hand, you believe that the society is healthier when income is distributed a little more evenly (just a little), then a progressive tax structure is more to your liking.
Me? I’d be happier if the President and Congress made the tax structure much more progressive and if that cost folks in my circumstances a little more of their discretionary income. True, I might have to go downstairs to write this on my iMac, rather than upstairs on my iPad, but if the United States’ many poor and undernourished children ate a little better, or if more of its 50 million citizens without health insurance got covered, it would be worth it.[/quote]
and lets not forget, the drive is often mandatory to make an income, local economies, family buisnesses,etc being sucked up and put out of business. I hate, hate the 45-50 one waydrive I make, daily…..but no other decent paying jobs local and cannot start my own buisness in this environment……now, would not, flat out NOT going to do so in a country I want to flee…..
[quote=”DavidCMurray”][quote=”sprite”]Show me how the Income Tax is an appropriated tax and I will shut up.[/quote]
The President, through the Budget Office, proposes an annual budget to Congress who makes the changes they deem appropriate. Then, a series of appropriation bills are sent to the President for his approval or veto. That’s how income tax is appropriated. Had you been there during your high school civics class, you wouldn’t need to ask.
Remember, you promised.[/quote]
true enough, but since most Congress and President indebted to teh elites, they have to produce for them, or no re-election, speaking tours, boards, NGO’s, think tanks and if you are naughty enough, you becoming a social pariah or a JFK.
Least we forget, that social security is not in a locked box, but should be w/decent interest. Not dependant on the Wall Street,etc (see Albania for what happens there).
Congress winds up spending far more then it takes in and hence, the borrowing and no interest paid over generated, principle never hardly touched……..hence, the Country and its Congress inedbted to The Fed.
[quote=”costaricabillTake a look at any (every) State budget and see just how much money comes back to the States from the [b]federal government.[/b] It is a big part of every state budget![/quote]
problem is, there is little over sight from states. Initially, the states were meant to have most power and money. More localized power then distant D.C.
One of reasons senators were appointed by state legislatures.
Now, even Congress refuses (save Ron Paul) to view the Fed and its operations in any detail. We contonue to borrow money, print more bills and spend more, yr after yr.
What private buisnessmen gets to do that?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
