The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

17 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.
 

Anytime some of be tells me there is a simple way to understand our tax burden, I can be 100% sure they are selling a change to the system, and what they are selling isn't going to be in my favor.

 

There is no simplicity in tax laws, not all taxes are income taxes and Tax Incidence is one of the more complex areas of economics.

 

 On the other hand, breaking down complex social, medical, economic , scientific or legal issues into something we can all rathole on is exactly the wheelhouse of this forum.

[laylalex 7,284]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

On the other hand, breaking down complex social, medical, economic , scientific or legal issues into something we can all rathole on is exactly the wheelhouse of this forum.

I'd like to add art appreciation to that list.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I'd like to add art appreciation to that list.

Ok if I can add virology, statistics,  immigration policy, and the sexual practices of women in power.

[Dashinka 24,492]

22 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Anytime some of be tells me there is a simple way to understand our tax burden, I can be 100% sure they are selling a change to the system, and what they are selling isn't going to be in my favor.

 

There is no simplicity in tax laws, not all taxes are income taxes and Tax Incidence is one of the more complex areas of economics.

 

 On the other hand, breaking down complex social, medical, economic , scientific or legal issues into something we can all rathole on is exactly the wheelhouse of this forum.

Yep, we are all scientists/engineers.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

On 6/12/2021 at 6:14 PM, moxy said:

 

Cool.

 

My reply was in response to this post:

You say "cool" because 1) You don't get it, or 2) It doesn't affect you.  But that's ok.  The world continues to rotate.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Just like everyone in America, I strive to lower my tax burden so that I keep as much of my hard-earned pay as anyone.

 

Yet when the people who are rich enough to be able to afford TEAMS of CPAs to keep their money in the bank, suddenly those people are bad?  Or the tax laws are bad?  As I said before, a flat consumer tax is the way to go.  Everyone pays the same rate, it just varies based on the amount of the item purchased.  Why not?  The rich will buy a $5,000 TV, and the poor will buy a $100 TV, and each will pay their fair share.  Doesn't matter how much they make, or how it's made.  It only matters how much they SPEND.

[TBoneTX 45,273]

One point that Rush Limbaugh frequently made was that the income of "the rich" is not from salaries/wages, so there are other ways in which taxes are calculated and paid or avoided.  This point was usually brought up when stories like "Warren Buffett paid less in taxes (or paid at a lower rate) than his secretary did," to coin an example.

[Dashinka 24,492]

7 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Just like everyone in America, I strive to lower my tax burden so that I keep as much of my hard-earned pay as anyone.

 

Yet when the people who are rich enough to be able to afford TEAMS of CPAs to keep their money in the bank, suddenly those people are bad?  Or the tax laws are bad?  As I said before, a flat consumer tax is the way to go.  Everyone pays the same rate, it just varies based on the amount of the item purchased.  Why not?  The rich will buy a $5,000 TV, and the poor will buy a $100 TV, and each will pay their fair share.  Doesn't matter how much they make, or how it's made.  It only matters how much they SPEND.

What is so funny is that many of these rich folks come out and say they should pay more taxes.  It all seems like empty rhetoric, all they have to do is write a bigger check to Uncle Sam, and then come out and state they made huge contributions to the Federal bureaucratic machine.

[moxy 1,051]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

One point that Rush Limbaugh frequently made was that the income of "the rich" is not from salaries/wages, so there are other ways in which taxes are calculated and paid or avoided.  This point was usually brought up when stories like "Warren Buffett paid less in taxes (or paid at a lower rate) than his secretary did," to coin an example.

Sooo... a rich guy was richsplaining to his listeners about why rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes and how it's all perfectly cool.

 

Next up: pharmacies explain why insulin costs over $1,000/month for the average consumer, and how it's all perfectly cool.

[Dashinka 24,492]

2 hours ago, moxy said:

Sooo... a rich guy was richsplaining to his listeners about why rich people don't pay their fair share of taxes and how it's all perfectly cool.

 

Next up: pharmacies explain why insulin costs over $1,000/month for the average consumer, and how it's all perfectly cool.

You can always lobby your Congress person to change the tax laws and create a wealth tax so you have to value your wealth every year to make sure you pay your fair share.  Beyond that, we have income tax laws that specify what is in fact income.

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

You can always lobby your Congress person to change the tax laws and create a wealth tax so you have to value your wealth every year to make sure you pay your fair share.  Beyond that, we have income tax laws that specify what is in fact income.

Yep. You understand now.

 

The tax the rich movement is doing exactly what you are describing. Lobbying congress, putting pressure on them to get rid of these ridiculous loopholes and special tax mechanisms that keep the wealthy from having to pay their fair share. Nobody (except the far right talking heads) is saying Jeff Bezos isn't paying his legally required taxes. We're saying he isn't taxed at the rate he ought to be taxed.

 

You may not agree, but I'm glad you at least understand now.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Yep. You understand now.

 

The tax the rich movement is doing exactly what you are describing. Lobbying congress, putting pressure on them to get rid of these ridiculous loopholes and special tax mechanisms that keep the wealthy from having to pay their fair share. Nobody (except the far right talking heads) is saying Jeff Bezos isn't paying his legally required taxes. We're saying he isn't taxed at the rate he ought to be taxed.

 

You may not agree, but I'm glad you at least understand now.

It is quite questionable that a wealth tax is even constitutional which is probably why we see it all as bloviating by a bunch of Leftist politicians with little action, then they will raise the top marginal income tax rate that almost nobody pays, and when that doesn't bring in the wildly over estimated tax revenue, it will be time to increase income taxes on the rest of us.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Dashinka

[moxy 1,051]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It is quite questionable that a wealth tax is even constitutional which is probably why we see it all as bloviating by a bunch of Leftist politicians with little action, then they will raise the top marginal income tax rate that almost nobody pays, and when that doesn't bring in the wildly over estimated tax revenue, it will be time to increase income taxes on the rest of us.

If the middle class is eventually taxed because we can't get the revenue from the rich then that's obviously a failure in the goal of making the rich pay their fair share. But again, I don't expect you to agree; it sounds like you're fine with the ultra-wealthy continuing to enjoy benefits that were written by the rich, for the rich. I don't understand why anyone would be ok with that, but we're not going to resolve that here. I just appreciate that you understand the "tax the rich" argument now.

 

[Dashinka 24,492]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

If the middle class is eventually taxed because we can't get the revenue from the rich then that's obviously a failure in the goal of making the rich pay their fair share. But again, I don't expect you to agree; it sounds like you're fine with the ultra-wealthy continuing to enjoy benefits that were written by the rich, for the rich. I don't understand why anyone would be ok with that, but we're not going to resolve that here. I just appreciate that you understand the "tax the rich" argument now.

 

I am fine with people keeping what they earned through their hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking and knowledge.  The fact that most of the wealth these folks have is on paper only, how do you propose to value it for tax purposes, in your words, "fairly"?  Do we value their stock holdings based on the 52 week high or low, or some sort of average?  How do we value their possessions?   Of course with stock holdings, you would force these folks to liquidate some of it just to meet their tax burden.  Beyond that, my other questions on this topic remain, how does the Left get over the constitutionality hurdle, and if they do, who decides what is "fair"?   

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

I am fine with people keeping what they earned through their hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking and knowledge.  The fact that most of the wealth these folks have is on paper only, how do you propose to value it for tax purposes, in your words, "fairly"?  Do we value their stock holdings based on the 52 week high or low, or some sort of average?  How do we value their possessions?   Of course with stock holdings, you would force these folks to liquidate some of it just to meet their tax burden.  Beyond that, my other questions on this topic remain, how does the Left get over the constitutionality hurdle, and if they do, who decides what is "fair"?   

There are mechanisms that have been used in the past to do what you're talking about, I believe through a series of luxury taxes. I honestly can't speak intelligently to how those mechanisms work, so I won't. But we put men on the moon, so I'm sure smarter minds than mine can figure it out. As a private citizen and not a tax accountant, my interest is simply in the rich paying their fair share. Obviously I also want the mechanisms to make that happen to also be fair.

 

I don't know that there is a constitutional hurdle. Taxation has been found constitutional for over 200 years. And the rich used to be in much higher tax brackets before (iirc) the 80s, so unless it was unconstitutional then, and nobody noticed, then it'll probably be constitutional again.