The Economics of Taxing the Rich

[Deleted]

The biggest problem we have now I think is that when 50% of the people in the USA pay no income tax, of course they will vote to raise taxes for everyone else. Now, all a politician that wants to spend money has to do is convince a few percent of those actually paying taxes to go along. How do you do that? Tell the next 15 or 20% of the people that you won't raise their taxes and that you will only raise taxes on even higher earners. And you cloak it all as "fair share". Well, if you made $500,000 last year, given that there are very few deductions any more, you may well have paid $150,000 in income taxes. For a DINK family, is that their "fair share" or do you need another 5% or maybe more? You add say 7% state taxes, social security and medicare, property taxes and sales taxes and what is their total tax burden? And yet, the union teacher in Chicago making $100,000 a year to work 10 months is screaming that this hypothetical couple is not paying their fair share. It is enough to make me think about retiring because at some point (think France's 75% tax rate), I am not going to work to just hand over most of the money to someone else.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< It is enough to make me think about retiring because at some point (think France's 75% tax rate), I am not going to work to just hand over most of the money to someone else. >>>

...you aren't alone... many already have done this... which contributes to the ~50% not earning taxable incomes in the USA... :-\




edited typo

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 17:46:49 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

In the past 3 years, when the economy has been terrible, and reportedly, while everyone has suffered, restaurants, movie theaters, and professional sporting events are packed with people. And not just on the weekends. It's weeknights, too. We have a good amount of higher end restaurants (for us, that's 30-40/plate in a MCOLA) , and none of them have closed.

So the restaurants you cite didn't close. How many did what our neighbors, who own a restaurant, did to keep their restaurant open? Our neighbors, let go a good share of their staff. Dad neighbor took over cooking full time, in addition to managerial activities. One cook lost his job. Mom neighbor returned to waiting tables, in addition to managerial activities. A server lost their job. Son neighbor also began waiting tables after school and on weekends (without pay). A second server lost their job. Business was down, two additional servers lost their jobs because the volume of business didn't justify their pay checks. Business was so slow that further cut backs were needed to escape bankruptcy. The three piece combo who worked Friday and Saturday night were let go. The restaurant is still open, but in total eight people lost all or part of their income because people began to spend less on entertainment.

Oh, and the neighbors lost their house because even after all the cuts, the restaurant couldn't provide enough income to make the mortgage payments.

Or the restaurant started a downward spiral by cutting back on staff, cutting back on quality, and lost passion by the owners. Maybe the owners didn't adjust their menu to the changing times?

[Angel!]

Aug 30, 2012 18:00:50 GMT -5 @mmc said:

Aug 30, 2012 17:46:49 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

So the restaurants you cite didn't close. How many did what our neighbors, who own a restaurant, did to keep their restaurant open? Our neighbors, let go a good share of their staff. Dad neighbor took over cooking full time, in addition to managerial activities. One cook lost his job. Mom neighbor returned to waiting tables, in addition to managerial activities. A server lost their job. Son neighbor also began waiting tables after school and on weekends (without pay). A second server lost their job. Business was down, two additional servers lost their jobs because the volume of business didn't justify their pay checks. Business was so slow that further cut backs were needed to escape bankruptcy. The three piece combo who worked Friday and Saturday night were let go. The restaurant is still open, but in total eight people lost all or part of their income because people began to spend less on entertainment.

Oh, and the neighbors lost their house because even after all the cuts, the restaurant couldn't provide enough income to make the mortgage payments.

Or the restaurant started a downward spiral by cutting back on staff, cutting back on quality, and lost passion by the owners. Maybe the owners didn't adjust their menu to the changing times?

Also, consider those families that have all changed their eating habits so much that local restaurants are laying off a few folks, are giving additional business to local grocers that in turn might need to hire additional staff to stock, check & bag..

People don't stop eating because of taxes. They will just downgrade their eating out choices & buy more at grocery stores.

I don't buy this idea that the economy is going to crash down because the top 2% pay a little more in taxes. The economy sucks as it is & if we don't get the debt & deficits under control the coming suckiness of the economy makes today's economy look fantastic.

We need to take a little pain now or be prepared to deal with a lot of pain down the road. Personally I think everyone's taxes should be raised a bit & spending needs to be cut as well.

[mwcpa]

" The other 400k stayed in a business account and we did horrible, greedy things with it like make payroll. We had to pay taxes on it, even though we never got to access it, and we would be included in the stats of DINK's making half a million a year"

If you spent the 400K, as is noted, you did not pay tax on the 500K collected, our system for federal income tax taxes the "net" profits from business dealings, not the gross collections, so, if you netted 100K, you are one of the group that the President has proposed to keep taxes the same or lowering them.

The problem with our system is that there are many "games" that can be played within the confines of the law that benefit only a few.

Look at how hedge fund managers are taxed for one.... they, through tax avoidance structuring that the IRS has not attacked yet (why I do not know) convert fee (30%+ tax rate) for service into an investment that provides them capital gain (15% tax rate) income when they sell it... now, if John Q Public was given X shares of stock from their employer... guess what, the value of the stock is "salary" (30%+) on the day John got his stock. (Internal Revenue Code Section 83)

[susanb]

Mwcpa - No, we did not net 100k. Our net was 500k for 2011. We only paid ourselves 100k though, so we actually paid more in taxes than we made is salary. Here is why/how:

We have an LLC. Since CPA is in your title, I am sure you understand how this works. It is a pass through entity. Profits must pass through to members at the end of the year. Profits cannot remain in the company untaxed in one year for use in the next year.

We made the net 500k of profit in 2011. We are using 400k of that money to buy services and employ people in 2012. All of that money was taxed and viewed as a distribution to us in 2011 even though we are using it for our business in 2012.

This website explains how this works www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-taxed-29675.html

"This means that each LLC member must pay taxes on his or her whole distributive share, whether or not the LLC actually distributes all (or any of) the money to the members. The practical significance of this IRS rule is that, even if LLC members need to leave profits in the LLC -- for instance, to buy inventory or expand the business -- each LLC member is liable for income tax on his or her rightful share of that money."

[2girlsdad]

WOW! It's comments like CRAFTY SARAH's that scare me. The bar isn't selling cheeseburgers to the top 2%! Are you kidding me? The bar is selling cheeseburgers to the boat builder, the boat mechanic, the dock workers, the boat (yacht) staff, the guy selling diesel to the yacht owner, the guy that sells the yacht owner insurance, the hotel owner/worker where the yacht owner sails his boat to. If the yacht owner doesn't own the yacht, what do these people DO for a living? It's the same on down the line. Big homes, expensive cars, private planes, ridiculously expensive country clubs, etc. Do you people really not see the effect of wealthy people spending money? And just for the record, I am not in the 1%, but do not begrudge them any of it. Methinks they pay their fair share!

[Deleted]

[mwcpa]

"We are using 400k of that money to buy services and employ people in 2012"

that changes the situation then, that was not clear from your original statements... those sounded Joe the Plumberish,

but your situation is not unlike a "C" corporation (or any other business enterprise that pays tax) that retains a profit to pay for goods and services in the next year, they pay tax.....but, assuming for you that 2011 was an unusual year and the profit will not continue at the same pace in 2012 you may end up with a net operating loss that you can "carry-back" and recoup some of those taxes paid on the "phantom" income. I see this a lot, which is why I suggest that clients come to me during the year to review things... in April it's often times too late....

[susanb]

Mwcpa, 2011 was not an unusual year for us. Of course, we have an accounting firm that we interact with throughout the year as well as a bookkeeper who updates and closes out the books monthly. We did have some losses a couple of years ago when the shit hit the fan for everyone that we carried back.

I know that we are not unlike other companies. My point is that we are part of the 1% technically, but in reality, our salaries are much less. Also, that increasing our taxes directly decreases money being spent on employment and services.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 21:26:49 GMT -5 @tbird said:

How about this:

Could the wealthy just pay their taxes like everyone else without slipping and sliding through a million loopholes and end up paying less what is their stated rates?

Romney paid 13.9 when he should have been at 35%. News flash - he's not the only one with the sweetheart deals going on.

The historical average for capital gains taxes in this country is close to 25%. Why would you raise it to 35%? Treating capital gains different is not a new concept.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2012 22:02:32 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Aug 30, 2012 21:57:15 GMT -5 @mmc said:

The historical average for capital gains taxes in this country is close to 25%. Why would you raise it to 35%? Treating capital gains different is not a new concept.

why raise or lower any tax? why have taxes at all? why ask questions? why?

[Deleted]

It's not just one tax. A number of taxes that will affect top earners are slated to go into force over the next couple of years from Obama care, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and individual states raising income taxes on the "rich."

susanb - I know how you feel. We work with a great accountant all year long as we pay quarterlies. Because the income from a few businesses all appears on our tax return although we never actually received it because it was reinvested in the business our taxes sometimes swamp what we actually took away. We grit our teeth and do it but it's not fun.

[lurkedformonths]

I tried to post but think I lost it but will try again.

I can speak from the point of view of the 1% but not "rich".

I earn my pay via a salary so income cannot be hidden (which is an argument frequently used against the "1%".

On an income in the 400k range- I just paid for 2011 federal, state, SS, and medicare taxes of 170k. I believe this is more than my fair share.

Yes, I have an accountant- but in this income range, most deductions are phased out and the AMT takes away most of the remaining ones. Under the AMT, I pay a tax rate of 28% on investment income. I receive no tax credits for the full price tuition I pay for 2 children in college. I cannot contribute to a IRA or roth IRA because of my income. My property tax deduction is capped at an amount below what I pay and I live in a home that is modest.

I support my mother and another family member.

Because I did not start earning this income until after getting an advanced degree and working my way up the corporate ladder- I am trying to play catch up and save enough for retirement. I finished paying off my student loans just a few years before paying for my children's college.

I am already targeted to pay higher taxes next year, thanks to ObamaCare- the medicare tax is being increased and will now be applied to my investment income (eg my retirement savings that I cannot put into IRAs).

By the way, the Obamacare taxes were not indexed to inflation, so just like the AMT, this will start applying to people with lower earnings as the years go by.

I can assure you, that when my taxes increase next year (right now due to ObamaCare) I will decrease spending by that amount. I already only eat out on $5 burger night at the local pub, but I will have no choice, if I ever want to retire (in or case of layoff as I am in my 50's).

This means, I will put off repairs around my home (that means I will not be hiring anyone to do them), stretch out the time between hair appointments (less income to the salon and hair stylist), not take a vacation (less income to the hospitality industry).

If the taxes get too onerous- I will seriously consider leaving my long-hours, high pressure job and taking early retirement.

[happyhoix]

I thought trickle down economics was proved to be a joke years ago? I believe economists did a study that showed when the very rich suffer a drop in income, that's just a little less they stick into their already fat savings accounts.

However, if you increase the taxes on the middle class, they stop eating out as much, shopping as much, traveling as much, etc.

So to keep more money moving through the economy, you need to make sure the middle class has enough money they feel like they can spend some of it.

I agree with others that rather than create a new tax on the wealthy, we should tighten up the tax loopholes. The tax code was written to benefit the very rich, and it's exploited by the very rich, who pay significantly less percentage of their total income in taxes, while those of us stuck solidly in the middle class (who can't afford the kind of creative accountants the rich have) pay a bigger percentage.

Just another way the middle class gets screwed.

[DVM gone riding]

I just want to point out that Ryan at least is STRONGLY in favor of closing tax loopholes! I believe Romney has said that Capital gains should be progressive. Both have been noted for wanting to lower cooperate tax but stop the random favoring of things like gas coperations and tax subsidies to businesses so that there is a net gain in taxes taken in while making it easier on normal business---which I would think MOST of us would agree that allowing business to work, make, and employee people is the most important thing to getting the economy growing again!

Personally I think the solution is a massively simplified tax code that removes most/all "credits/deductions" with possible exception to making children a deduction and keeping parts of the EITC. Increase the minimium "deduction" to 10k start at 5% and go up incrementally from there and gut large portions of the IRS (yes that does mean people loose jobs )

[phil5185]

I agree with others that rather than create a new tax on the wealthy, we should tighten up the tax loopholes. The tax code was written to benefit the very rich, and it's exploited by the very rich, who pay significantly less percentage of their total income in taxes, while those of us stuck solidly in the middle class (who can't afford the kind of creative accountants the rich have) pay a bigger percentage.

I agree, I would close all loopholes. They weren't all written for the rich, by far the largest loophole is home mortgage interest, most of the middle class uses it and it accounts for billions of dollars a year. Congress wrote the loopholes to socially engineer things - the oil exploration loophole to encourage new drilling, farmer loophole to control crop allocations, etc. BTW, they have almost no effect on the companies, they are simply 'pass-thrus' to the final consumer. Eg, if taxes are raised across the board on all oil companies they have to increase the price of their product to pay the tax, ie, we pay at the pump.

As for the urban legend that the rick pay less - most people don't know what their own tax rate is, they know that they are in the 25% bracket, but that usually means that their tax bill is 9% or 10%. So they whine when the rich pay 15% because they wrongly think that they are paying 25%.

I thought trickle down economics was proved to be a joke years ago?

Actually, Dr Laffer's theory of adjusting the tax rate as a way to optimize tax revenue worked very well. But a math challenged Media was not able to grasp the concept so they coined a negative name for it. And then the jokes followed - don't trickle on me, and so on.

[Deleted]

Talking about the "millions" of loopholes just ignores the realities of the current tax code. For individuals, those loopholes are almost entirely gone, unless you are talking about mortgage deductions, state income tax deductions and charitable deductions. Look at the itemized deductions page and see how many will really apply to someone making $300,000. Those are the peole that likely have some form of health insurance so medical deductions are mostly nonexistent. Also, tax rates are not as far from 70% as some might think when you figure in the 12% social security on self employed people (w/o special reduction in place this year), 8 to 10% state and city income taxes, nearly 3 percent medicare tax that has no upper limit. - Right there you are at 60% for at least some of the money a self-employed person makes. Today, even social security does not stop until you hit $110,100. Add to that the Obama tax increases on medicare and other taxes - even without a tax increase and it looks pretty grim. Right now for someone making $500,000 a year, they are probably taking home no more than 50-55% of that most of the time and even less in high tax areas like NYC and California. Now if you are retired and living only on dividends and capital gains, then your current rate is much lower. But that person only got there by working hard over their career and using the 50% that was left to them by the government of their earnings to invest and build their portfolio. How many times does the 70 year old have to pay taxes on the money that was made and taxed for the last 40 years.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< I agree, I would close all loopholes. They weren't all written for the rich, by far the largest loophole is home mortgage interest, most of the middle class uses it and it accounts for billions of dollars a year. Congress wrote the loopholes to socially engineer things - the oil exploration loophole to encourage new drilling, farmer loophole to control crop allocations, etc. BTW, they have almost no effect on the companies, they are simply 'pass-thrus' to the final consumer. Eg, if taxes are raised across the board on all oil companies they have to increase the price of their product to pay the tax, ie, we pay at the pump. >>>


...agreed...





.

[tskeeter]

Personally I think the solution is a massively simplified tax code that removes most/all "credits/deductions" with possible exception to making children a deduction

No, all deductions or credits related to children should go away, too. Why should I subsidize your decision to raise a family? The size of your family is a personal decision. You should be accountable for the decisions you make.

If you want me to share the responsibility of paying for decision you made, I'd like you to help pay for some of my decisions. I'd like to buy a new car every five years. Your share will be $18.70 per year. Send the check to Tskeeter at ....

But, but, but ... my kids are the doctors, teachers, etc. of the future .... they will provide a benefit to all taxpayers.

And my car purchase will stimulate the economy and provide employment for autoworkers, people who make tires, people who mine the iron to make the steel, etc. My stimulation of the economy provides a benefit to all taxpayers. Your share is still $18.70. Please send a check to ...

Let's face it, politicians have used other people's money to buy the votes of parents and grandparents as more and more tax deductions and tax credits have been awarded to taxpayers who make the decision to have children. If we're going to eliminate credits and deductions, the only justification for protecting the child tax credit is to buy the votes of a portion of the population. There is no more financial justification for a child tax credit than there is for a mortgage interest deduction, or any other type of credit or deduction.

[Angel!]

Aug 31, 2012 7:17:16 GMT -5 lurkedformonths said:

I tried to post but think I lost it but will try again.

I can speak from the point of view of the 1% but not "rich".

I earn my pay via a salary so income cannot be hidden (which is an argument frequently used against the "1%".

On an income in the 400k range- I just paid for 2011 federal, state, SS, and medicare taxes of 170k. I believe this is more than my fair share.

Yes, I have an accountant- but in this income range, most deductions are phased out and the AMT takes away most of the remaining ones. Under the AMT, I pay a tax rate of 28% on investment income. I receive no tax credits for the full price tuition I pay for 2 children in college. I cannot contribute to a IRA or roth IRA because of my income. My property tax deduction is capped at an amount below what I pay and I live in a home that is modest.

I support my mother and another family member.

Because I did not start earning this income until after getting an advanced degree and working my way up the corporate ladder- I am trying to play catch up and save enough for retirement. I finished paying off my student loans just a few years before paying for my children's college.

I am already targeted to pay higher taxes next year, thanks to ObamaCare- the medicare tax is being increased and will now be applied to my investment income (eg my retirement savings that I cannot put into IRAs).

By the way, the Obamacare taxes were not indexed to inflation, so just like the AMT, this will start applying to people with lower earnings as the years go by.

I can assure you, that when my taxes increase next year (right now due to ObamaCare) I will decrease spending by that amount. I already only eat out on $5 burger night at the local pub, but I will have no choice, if I ever want to retire (in or case of layoff as I am in my 50's).

This means, I will put off repairs around my home (that means I will not be hiring anyone to do them), stretch out the time between hair appointments (less income to the salon and hair stylist), not take a vacation (less income to the hospitality industry).

If the taxes get too onerous- I will seriously consider leaving my long-hours, high pressure job and taking early retirement.

It is really difficult to take a "Woe is me" post from someone making 400K/yr seriously. You may not consider yourself rich, but most of the country does because that is an income most can't even comprehend.

You may only choose to eat $5 burgers & not spend much, but it isn't for lack of income, but due to choices you make. I'm not going to argue with those choices or say your budget is bad. I just find it silly to hear someone on your income cry poor by saying you can only afford $5 burgers, but at the same time mention possibly taking early retirement.

We are running an unsustainable system here. Money in is far less than money out. The country is living on credit. Keep this up & the country will far apart.

ANYTHING that we do that will keep us from falling over the cliff is going to mean a negative impact. Whether we raise taxes on the rich - leaving them potentially spending less, or cut welfare, leaving the poor to definitely spend less. I can't say how much it will hurt, but personally I would rather see a rich person unable to afford their yacht than see a poor family hungry & living in their car because their food stamps & section 8 were cancelled. Both would have a negative impact to the economy through lower spending, but one of those people had to suffer without a personal yacht & the other is living on the street.

Personally I think taxes need to go up for the top 80% & we are all going suffer some. I prefer that to eventually actually hitting a debt ceiling & watching the govt have to make massive cuts overnight. If that happens, what gets cut & how much of an economic impact is that going to have?

[justme]

Romney paid 13.9 when he should have been at 35%.

Why should he have been at 35%? Even if his income was normal "earned" income, he'd only be paying 35% tax on anything over something close to $300k. Given his income, it'd probably be closer to 35% than it is, but it would be less than 35% since we have a progressive tax system and he would pay less than 35% on the first $300k. Since most (the vast majority? I didn't look at his numbers) of his income was capital gains, which is taxed at 15%, the 13.9% he paid is damn close...only able to escape 1.1% with loopholes.

It's like saying my effective tax rate should be 25% and not the ~10% it is because 25% is my top tax bracket. Not to say I'm not against closing loopholes, though I think they should be closed for simplicity sake and not so much to "get" certain income earners or not.

[happyhoix]

I am interested in what tax loophole the Romney's used to deduct the $70,000 they spent on care for their show horse.

When I fill out my tax form I never see a place where I can itemize pet care. Or have they somehow turned this into a business expense? Or maybe there is a way you can deduct money you spend trying to earn a gold medal for the US in the olympics?

Cause believe me, I have two pooping cat machines who go through a mess of litter.

When I hear about stuff like this, and tax shelters in Luxembourg or the Bahamas, or creative bookeeping to cover flying your kids around in your private jet as a business expense, this is the kind of stuff that gives the middle class the impression that the rich don't pay taxes like we do.

[happyhoix]

Aug 31, 2012 12:58:42 GMT -5 @tbird said:

I agree angel - but I didn't really take that post seriously. Trolling? idk....

that's what I'm wondering because these two statements contradict:

"I will decrease spending by that amount....I will have no choice, if I ever want to retire (in or case of layoff as I am in my 50's)."

"If the taxes get too onerous- I will seriously consider leaving my long-hours, high pressure job and taking early retirement."

On the one hand, trying to save money in order to be able to afford to retire, on the other hand, ready to quit tomorrow for early retirement. Confusing.

[brdsl]

Aug 31, 2012 13:28:21 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I am interested in what tax loophole the Romney's used to deduct the $70,000 they spent on care for their show horse.

The horse is probably not owned by them personally....probably owned through a corporation that shows the horse at many different shows (gaining income through awards, or through commercial sponsorship), has income and writes off expenses.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Aug 31, 2012 13:28:21 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I am interested in what tax loophole the Romney's used to deduct the $70,000 they spent on care for their show horse.

When I fill out my tax form I never see a place where I can itemize pet care. Or have they somehow turned this into a business expense? Or maybe there is a way you can deduct money you spend trying to earn a gold medal for the US in the olympics?

Cause believe me, I have two pooping cat machines who go through a mess of litter.

When I hear about stuff like this, and tax shelters in Luxembourg or the Bahamas, or creative bookeeping to cover flying your kids around in your private jet as a business expense, this is the kind of stuff that gives the middle class the impression that the rich don't pay taxes like we do.

I'll take a stab at this one. They likely make money at horse shows with this horse. So expenses for the horse would be deductible against winnings.

That is just a guess.

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2012 12:58:42 GMT -5 @tbird said:

I agree angel - but I didn't really take that post seriously. Trolling? idk....

If not trolling, certainly lying.

"I earn my pay via salary"
doesn't jive with
"I pay a tax rate of 28% on my investment income"

[Deleted]

Wait, so the horses don't even have to be amateurs anymore? The Olympics have changed.

[Angel!]

Aug 31, 2012 12:49:50 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Personally I think the solution is a massively simplified tax code that removes most/all "credits/deductions" with possible exception to making children a deduction

No, all deductions or credits related to children should go away, too. Why should I subsidize your decision to raise a family? The size of your family is a personal decision. You should be accountable for the decisions you make.

If you want me to share the responsibility of paying for decision you made, I'd like you to help pay for some of my decisions. I'd like to buy a new car every five years. Your share will be $18.70 per year. Send the check to Tskeeter at ....

But, but, but ... my kids are the doctors, teachers, etc. of the future .... they will provide a benefit to all taxpayers.

And my car purchase will stimulate the economy and provide employment for autoworkers, people who make tires, people who mine the iron to make the steel, etc. My stimulation of the economy provides a benefit to all taxpayers. Your share is still $18.70. Please send a check to ...

Let's face it, politicians have used other people's money to buy the votes of parents and grandparents as more and more tax deductions and tax credits have been awarded to taxpayers who make the decision to have children. If we're going to eliminate credits and deductions, the only justification for protecting the child tax credit is to buy the votes of a portion of the population. There is no more financial justification for a child tax credit than there is for a mortgage interest deduction, or any other type of credit or deduction.

Your post confuses me a little. You don't want your taxes raised because you spend your money & therefore it will negatively impact the economy. But, you want my taxes raised (which is what will happen if you eliminate a credit). Does my money not stilimulate the economy?? My eating out isn't as good as your eating out??

I get your point, but at the same time you essentially want to do a large tax increase on middle class families while trying to explain how tax increases negatively impact the economy. Odd.

[tskeeter]

I think we need some more details to really understand the situation with the Romney's show horse. However, if the Romneys planned to put the horse out to stud (and pull in big stud fees), I'd expect that the expenses to maintain and show the horse would be considered business expenses. Very similar to the start up and development costs people incur to open a new business. It's an up front investment in the income you expect to generate later.