The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
01-04-2012, 09:10 AM
#781
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I await your strawman reply.
G1: We need people to take more responsiblity for themselves, what can we do?
G2: Hey, let's start the OPR (Office of Personal Responsibility) funded by the taxpayer, to employ worthless pencil pushers that come up with cool new ways that people don't have to think for themselves and point out all the loop holes they can use to make their lives easier by living off the govt's programs.
Last edited by Braineack; 01-04-2012 at 09:46 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 09:44 AM
#782
G1: We need people to take more responsiblity for themselves, what can we do?
G2: Hey, let's start the OPR (Office of Personal Responsibility) funded by the taxpayer, to employ worthless pencil pushers that come up with cool new ways that people don't have to think for themselves and point out all the loop holes they can use to make their lives easier by living off the govt's programs.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 10:17 AM
#783
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
I do wish the class warfare proponents would stop grandstanding this misrepresentation or that the tax code would be changed to separate corporations from the income tax on individuals. The leading proponents of class warfare are well aware of this misrepresentation when they present it, but they are typically of the opinion that the ends justify the means. And their minions will not ever question what they are told as long as it fits their existing worldview.
I encourage you to search this out for yourself and not simply take my word for it, because knowledge is power and understanding is liberation.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 10:46 AM
#784
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
didn't i post this here:
Forbes 400 list of richest Americans–their combined $1.5 trillion of wealth would barely cover the forthcoming $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 11:11 AM
#785
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
What you have in your top 400 taxpayers is a straw man fallacy. Those will not be individuals but small corporations (sole proprietorships, or S-corps) being taxed as individuals. And being corporations they have operating expenses that can be claimed as tax deductions, thereby lowering their tax rate percentages. We have been over this again and again.
Actually - on further investigation it looks like the top 400 income earners averaged well over
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 01-04-2012 at 11:33 AM. Reason: corrected typo
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 11:51 AM
#787
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Net business income (schedules C and F) was less than 1%. Dividends and taxable interest combined were about 15%.
However, as I suspected, the majority (50%+) of the income comes from "Capital gains subject to preferential rates" (aka long term capital gains). To me, that is the sale of property like commercial or residential real estate, a business, shares of stock in a business or other investments. Generally, I would expect that a majority of the people on the Top 400 list are only ever on there once.*
Amazingly, to me, 17% of the Top 400 tax filers by AGI in 2008 did qualify for the under 15% tax bracket. That is down significantly from previous years (as high as 65% in 1999). Those people would qualify for the LTCG tax break up to the point they got pushed out of the 15% marginal bracket.
About 60% of the filers were in the 35%+ bracket.
*Aha! Found it.
Originally Posted by IRS document on top 400 tax filers by AGI
Over the 17 tax years a total of 6,800 returns were identified for the table. There were 3,672 different taxpayers representing the top 400 returns of each year. Of these taxpayers, a little more than 27 percent appear more than once and slightly more than 15 percent appear more than twice (see columns 2 and 3). In any given year, on average, about 39 percent of the returns were filed by taxpayers that are not in any of the other 16 years (see columns 4 and 5). In each year, 4 (or 1.0 percent) of the returns are for taxpayers who can be found in all 17 years. Thus, the data shown in the table mostly represent a changing group of taxpayers over time, rather than a fixed group of taxpayers.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 12:58 PM
#789
What you have in your top 400 taxpayers is a straw man fallacy. Those will not be individuals but small corporations (sole proprietorships, or S-corps) being taxed as individuals. And being corporations they have operating expenses that can be claimed as tax deductions, thereby lowering their tax rate percentages. We have been over this again and again.
I do wish the class warfare proponents would stop grandstanding this misrepresentation or that the tax code would be changed to separate corporations from the income tax on individuals. The leading proponents of class warfare are well aware of this misrepresentation when they present it, but they are typically of the opinion that the ends justify the means. And their minions will not ever question what they are told as long as it fits their existing worldview.
I encourage you to search this out for yourself and not simply take my word for it, because knowledge is power and understanding is liberation.
I do wish the class warfare proponents would stop grandstanding this misrepresentation or that the tax code would be changed to separate corporations from the income tax on individuals. The leading proponents of class warfare are well aware of this misrepresentation when they present it, but they are typically of the opinion that the ends justify the means. And their minions will not ever question what they are told as long as it fits their existing worldview.
I encourage you to search this out for yourself and not simply take my word for it, because knowledge is power and understanding is liberation.
This release contains four tables which contain information from the Top 400 Individual Income Tax Returns for each of Tax Years 1992 through 2008.
The data in Tables 1–3 are based on the individual returns with the largest adjusted gross income reported each specific year shown and do not necessarily reflect the same taxpayers over the 17-year time period reflected.
The “Top 400” would benefit very handsomely if business income were taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. According to the IRS, these 400 individuals received nearly $17 billion in S corporation and partnership income in 2007 (the most recent year for which we have these data) — an average of $83 million apiece.
Easy. Take away the option for someone else to be forced to take responsibility for them; that means no gov't intervention. Your default fix for everything is going to the gov't, so I can understand why you'd think that more gov't is required; it's ingrained in your blood, and I don't fault you for it.
I await your strawman reply.
G1: We need people to take more responsiblity for themselves, what can we do?
G2: Hey, let's start the OPR (Office of Personal Responsibility) funded by the taxpayer, to employ worthless pencil pushers that come up with cool new ways that people don't have to think for themselves and point out all the loop holes they can use to make their lives easier by living off the govt's programs.
I await your strawman reply.
G1: We need people to take more responsiblity for themselves, what can we do?
G2: Hey, let's start the OPR (Office of Personal Responsibility) funded by the taxpayer, to employ worthless pencil pushers that come up with cool new ways that people don't have to think for themselves and point out all the loop holes they can use to make their lives easier by living off the govt's programs.
I must admit, I laughed when I realized you intentionally strawmanned my argument, then asked for a strawman back. But that's not my thing unless it's unintentional Brainy.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 01:09 PM
#791
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Not the 400 I was referring to. That what you posted is talking about confiscating the entire net worth of those individuals and what it would add up to. The previous discussion was regarding ~18.5% taxes paid of the top 400 reporters' income. Two different discussions.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 01:16 PM
#792
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Not the 400 I was referring to. That what you posted is talking about confiscating the entire net worth of those individuals and what it would add up to. The previous discussion was regarding ~18.5% taxes paid of the top 400 reporters' income. Two different discussions.
yeah, i already figured that out.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 01:20 PM
#793
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
I have many business owners of multi-million dollar annual income companies as my clients whose business earnings and business expenses are taxed as individuals. It is quite common. Having a business that makes 1.2 million dollars in net taxable income being listed as a "household income" is absurd but that is how the IRS tracks it for many of them. It skews the results significantly.
Most of my other clients' companies are taxed differently but many are counted as individuals.
Most of my other clients' companies are taxed differently but many are counted as individuals.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 01:23 PM
#795
I have many business owners of multi-million dollar annual income companies as my clients whose business earnings and business expenses are taxed as individuals. It is quite common. Having a business that makes 1.2 million dollars in net taxable income being listed as a "household income" is absurd but that is how the IRS tracks it for many of them. It skews the results significantly.
Most of my other clients' companies are taxed differently but many are counted as individuals.
Most of my other clients' companies are taxed differently but many are counted as individuals.
Do you have a source/reference for this? I'm trying to find more information that supports this argument, and I am unable to. Even the IRS is very clear that these are individuals and, while they get income derived from s-corps, they aren't s-corps based on what is said.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 02:14 PM
#796
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Do you have a source/reference for this? I'm trying to find more information that supports this argument, and I am unable to. Even the IRS is very clear that these are individuals and, while they get income derived from s-corps, they aren't s-corps based on what is said.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation's income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns.
Originally Posted by IRS
S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income. S corporations are responsible for tax on certain built-in gains and passive income.
However, of more consequence (in my opinion) is the fact that the list is more of a largely random group of one or two-time members. Lotto winners, a sports star with a big signing contract, a huge year for a celebrity or performer, a guy that finally sold the company he worked to build up for 20 years, etc.
That list, for the most part, is not made up of people that make $30 million a year, every year.
Furthermore, the "tax loopholes" that any of them take advantage of seem to be open to everyone who fits the bill. Make $20 million in S-corp pass-through income? You get the same options as the guy that makes $2k as a sole proprietor.
Make $10 million selling IBM stock you inherited from your great grandmother? You get the same tax treatment as the guy that inherited $1k worth.
Earn all of your income through a salary? You obviously don't get the advantages of pass-through income. You also don't have the many negatives of owning a business.
Don't have any long-term capital gains to take? How is that the fault of the guy that bought shares of AAPL in 2009?
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 02:19 PM
#797
I think you guys are saying the same thing but don't realize it.
I also think you are both technically correct. The average filer on that list (which may include joint income families and is not the top 400 individual persons) earned ~20% of their AGI from S-corp or partnership income, AKA pass-through income.
However, of more consequence (in my opinion) is the fact that the list is more of a largely random group of one or two-time members. Lotto winners, a sports star with a big signing contract, a huge year for a celebrity or performer, a guy that finally sold the company he worked to build up for 20 years, etc.
That list, for the most part, is not made up of people that make $30 million a year, every year.
Furthermore, the "tax loopholes" that any of them take advantage of seem to be open to everyone who fits the bill. Make $20 million in S-corp pass-through income? You get the same options as the guy that makes $2k as a sole proprietor.
Make $10 million selling IBM stock you inherited from your great grandmother? You get the same tax treatment as the guy that inherited $1k worth.
Earn all of your income through a salary? You obviously don't get the advantages of pass-through income. You also don't have the many negatives of owning a business.
Don't have any long-term capital gains to take? How is that the fault of the guy that bought shares of AAPL in 2009?
I also think you are both technically correct. The average filer on that list (which may include joint income families and is not the top 400 individual persons) earned ~20% of their AGI from S-corp or partnership income, AKA pass-through income.
However, of more consequence (in my opinion) is the fact that the list is more of a largely random group of one or two-time members. Lotto winners, a sports star with a big signing contract, a huge year for a celebrity or performer, a guy that finally sold the company he worked to build up for 20 years, etc.
That list, for the most part, is not made up of people that make $30 million a year, every year.
Furthermore, the "tax loopholes" that any of them take advantage of seem to be open to everyone who fits the bill. Make $20 million in S-corp pass-through income? You get the same options as the guy that makes $2k as a sole proprietor.
Make $10 million selling IBM stock you inherited from your great grandmother? You get the same tax treatment as the guy that inherited $1k worth.
Earn all of your income through a salary? You obviously don't get the advantages of pass-through income. You also don't have the many negatives of owning a business.
Don't have any long-term capital gains to take? How is that the fault of the guy that bought shares of AAPL in 2009?
What you have in your top 400 taxpayers is a straw man fallacy. Those will not be individuals but small corporations (sole proprietorships, or S-corps) being taxed as individuals. And being corporations they have operating expenses that can be claimed as tax deductions, thereby lowering their tax rate percentages. We have been over this again and again.
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 02:49 PM
#798
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
I made the erroneous assumption that the top 400 would be made up of these multi-million dollar earning businesses, but forgot the prolific nature of lottery winners and one-time windfalls that would have made the very top of the list. My mistake.
And Scrappy is correct. Thank you, Scrappy, for citing that information. I'm not doing an excellent job of juggling forum involvement and my daily work burden...
Reply
1
1
01-04-2012, 02:53 PM
#799
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
thread needs more pics:
IDs are required in the UK to buy teaspoons because someone killed someone with one once:
IDs are required in the UK to buy teaspoons because someone killed someone with one once:
Pennsylvania Troopers Do Care
I get irritated when people come down on our law enforcement officers, saying that they don’t care about or respect others. Well, here is a story that clearly shows not all cops are in that category.
This story involves Troopers of the Pennsylvania State Police who reported finding a man’s body last Saturday in the early evening in the Susquehanna River near Millersburg. The dead man’s name would not be released until his family had been notified.
The victim apparently drowned due to excessive beer consumption while visiting “someone” in a local bar . He was wearing black fishnet stockings, 4 inch spiked heels, a red garter belt, a pink G-string, purple lipstick, dazzle dust on his eyelids, 1/2 inch false eyelashes and an Obama T-shirt.
The Troopers removed the Obama T-shirt to spare his family any unnecessary embarrassment.
See there, Pennsylvania State Troopers really do care !!
I get irritated when people come down on our law enforcement officers, saying that they don’t care about or respect others. Well, here is a story that clearly shows not all cops are in that category.
This story involves Troopers of the Pennsylvania State Police who reported finding a man’s body last Saturday in the early evening in the Susquehanna River near Millersburg. The dead man’s name would not be released until his family had been notified.
The victim apparently drowned due to excessive beer consumption while visiting “someone” in a local bar . He was wearing black fishnet stockings, 4 inch spiked heels, a red garter belt, a pink G-string, purple lipstick, dazzle dust on his eyelids, 1/2 inch false eyelashes and an Obama T-shirt.
The Troopers removed the Obama T-shirt to spare his family any unnecessary embarrassment.
See there, Pennsylvania State Troopers really do care !!
Reply
0
0
01-04-2012, 02:56 PM
#800
Then it was I, and not he, that was wrong. I know that these s-corps incomes are reported on individual's tax returns and that it skews the numbers regarding the "highest wage earners" that we hear so much banter about. And that these are demagogued as individual incomes that people should not be entitled to keep. And I have read several articles about the misrepresentation of the numbers regarding this information.
I made the erroneous assumption that the top 400 would be made up of these multi-million dollar earning businesses, but forgot the prolific nature of lottery winners and one-time windfalls that would have made the very top of the list. My mistake.
And Scrappy is correct. Thank you, Scrappy, for citing that information. I'm not doing an excellent job of juggling forum involvement and my daily work burden...
I made the erroneous assumption that the top 400 would be made up of these multi-million dollar earning businesses, but forgot the prolific nature of lottery winners and one-time windfalls that would have made the very top of the list. My mistake.
And Scrappy is correct. Thank you, Scrappy, for citing that information. I'm not doing an excellent job of juggling forum involvement and my daily work burden...
I think you guys are saying the same thing but don't realize it.
I also think you are both technically correct. The average filer on that list (which may include joint income families and is not the top 400 individual persons) earned ~20% of their AGI from S-corp or partnership income, AKA pass-through income.
However, of more consequence (in my opinion) is the fact that the list is more of a largely random group of one or two-time members. Lotto winners, a sports star with a big signing contract, a huge year for a celebrity or performer, a guy that finally sold the company he worked to build up for 20 years, etc.
That list, for the most part, is not made up of people that make $30 million a year, every year.
Furthermore, the "tax loopholes" that any of them take advantage of seem to be open to everyone who fits the bill. Make $20 million in S-corp pass-through income? You get the same options as the guy that makes $2k as a sole proprietor.
Make $10 million selling IBM stock you inherited from your great grandmother? You get the same tax treatment as the guy that inherited $1k worth.
Earn all of your income through a salary? You obviously don't get the advantages of pass-through income. You also don't have the many negatives of owning a business.
Don't have any long-term capital gains to take? How is that the fault of the guy that bought shares of AAPL in 2009?
I also think you are both technically correct. The average filer on that list (which may include joint income families and is not the top 400 individual persons) earned ~20% of their AGI from S-corp or partnership income, AKA pass-through income.
However, of more consequence (in my opinion) is the fact that the list is more of a largely random group of one or two-time members. Lotto winners, a sports star with a big signing contract, a huge year for a celebrity or performer, a guy that finally sold the company he worked to build up for 20 years, etc.
That list, for the most part, is not made up of people that make $30 million a year, every year.
Furthermore, the "tax loopholes" that any of them take advantage of seem to be open to everyone who fits the bill. Make $20 million in S-corp pass-through income? You get the same options as the guy that makes $2k as a sole proprietor.
Make $10 million selling IBM stock you inherited from your great grandmother? You get the same tax treatment as the guy that inherited $1k worth.
Earn all of your income through a salary? You obviously don't get the advantages of pass-through income. You also don't have the many negatives of owning a business.
Don't have any long-term capital gains to take? How is that the fault of the guy that bought shares of AAPL in 2009?
Scrappy: Let's say I create a tax "loophole" that is, theoretically, open to anyone. However, in practice, only a handful of a certain demographic are able to utilize it.
Do you feel this is a justified and "fair" loophole for the populace as a whole?
Remember, earlier I advocated removing most loopholes and giving everyone a tax break instead. It boils down to the "fair share" argument of either Okay, I am paying too much, -OR- others are paying too little.
(And yes, Sixshooter, those in the bottom X% are paying too little too imo if I'm paying the "right amount.")
Reply
0
0
