Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:22:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 15:08:59 GMT -5
Of course you will understand I won't be answering any of your questions on avoiding taxes. I will respond that your statement on basic fairness, is a double edged sword. OK, so that infers that what you are doing is not..... legal tax avoidance. If that is the case then there really is no argument that would apply in the context of this conversation. Legal schmegal. You know how much self reporting grey area there is ?? I feel it's my duty to avoid every tax possible. Is there any other context ?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 25, 2019 15:10:27 GMT -5
And I pay at least $50k in federal income tax a year. I still think we have a revenue problem. I'd gladly pay more if freeloaders like you paid their fair share. OK. I probably make up more than the difference in property tax. I can't do nothing there.So, you CAN do something? Like what? What can you do to lower your property tax?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 25, 2019 15:12:19 GMT -5
"The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?"
That UN-taxing helps fund future growth of new business, ie new tax revenue to the Treasury. How is that a 'problem'?
You seem so sure of that Phil. When I make capital investment it goes to depreciation and expenses. Both those line items come before we calc the net income. I'm assuming Amazon does the same. So their UN-taxed $11 billion in profit doesn't do any of those things you mentioned as they are already baked into the cake.
Furthermore, it could be said that the future tax revenue to the treasury you mentioned also won't occur, as in this Amazon example where the Treasury gets doodly squat of the $11B and we sucker taxpayers owe them money.
Who knows...maybe x = 23 will now be able to tell us again how that is a spending problem.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,326
|
Post by swamp on Feb 25, 2019 15:16:29 GMT -5
property tax funds local operations. apples to oranges. we're talking about federal income tax. I also pay a big chunk in property tax. waterfront property isn't cheap. Tax is money out. I don't care about the label, or where it goes. It matters when we are discussing federal tax policy. You can't pipe in, "Oh, I pay my property taxes." It's irrelevant. You also can't do much tax planning to avoid local property taxes. You may get some tax relief through a business development program, but eventually the tax will kick back in. You either pay them or lose the property.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 25, 2019 19:28:40 GMT -5
where the Treasury gets
I was referring to the Corporate Treasury, not the Federal Treasury - my bad.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 25, 2019 19:37:35 GMT -5
Capital T Treasury, on a thread about Amazon paying no income tax to the Treasury where your biggest concern in the "corporate treasury". Wow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 19:59:26 GMT -5
OK, so that infers that what you are doing is not..... legal tax avoidance. If that is the case then there really is no argument that would apply in the context of this conversation. Legal schmegal. You know how much self reporting grey area there is ?? I feel it's my duty to avoid every tax possible. Is there any other context ? not arguing, but why did you choose the word DUTY here?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 20:02:16 GMT -5
That UN-taxing helps fund future growth of new business, ie new tax revenue to the Treasury. How is that a 'problem'?
there is no evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves. none.
does that answer your question?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 20:07:29 GMT -5
"But, the debt has grown 2 trillion in 2 years."
If you are an investor or a business person you will recognize that as "recency", ie , extrapolating a recent trend into the far future - and getting incorrect results.
fine. let's take the last (15) years then. the deficit has grown about $15T in (15) years.
extrapolating the trend, we are going into debt $1T/year.
taxes have been decreasing the entire time, and so have revenues.
of course, this is precisely what OTA Paper 81 says.
this issue has been settled for (15) years. i don't know why people keep bringing it up as if it is not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 20:30:24 GMT -5
i just read this at a website about the Reagan Tax Cut:
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.
this is precisely why i prefer analysis to raw data. OTA Paper 81 factors out background growth, and gives a truer reflection of the impact of tax cuts, which are ALWAYS negative in terms of revenue. ALWAYS. or, to put it in terms everyone can understand:
the fiscal impact of cutting taxes NEVER makes up for the revenue loss. EVER.
as far as the GDP growth argument: GDP has been lower in every decade since the 50's, despite repeated tax cuts. this means one of three things:
1) tax cuts have an ADVERSE impact on GDP growth, not a positive one 2) tax cuts have NO impact on GDP growth, and we are simply in a declining economy 3) tax cuts have a POSITIVE impact on GDP growth, and we would have done even worse without them.
the supply side folks seem to want us to believe #3, even though they can offer no evidence to support it. the evidence for #1 is there, but i happen to think that the more likely possibility is #2: that taxes don't impact GDP growth, and that therefore decisions about them should be made INDPENDENT from this idea. there is vast evidence to support that, for the record. far more vast that #1, which there is scant evidence for, and #3, for which there is literally NO evidence whatsoever.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 25, 2019 21:02:52 GMT -5
Willful ignorance is a hard thing to fight.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 25, 2019 21:06:19 GMT -5
1) tax cuts have an ADVERSE impact on GDP growth, not a positive one 2) tax cuts have NO impact on GDP growth, and we are simply in a declining economy 3) tax cuts have a POSITIVE impact on GDP growth, and we would have done even worse without them. the supply side folks seem to want us to believe #3, even though they can offer no evidence to support it. the evidence for #1 is there, but i happen to think that the more likely possibility is #2: that taxes don't impact GDP growth, and that therefore decisions about them should be made INDPENDENT from this idea. there is vast evidence to support that, for the record. far more vast that #1, which there is scant evidence for, and #3, for which there is literally NO evidence whatsoever. 'Evidence' is nice if you are trying to prove a postulate, create theory. But we are not - there is no theory that states that either supply-side or demand-side works, some situations call for one, some call for the other. The solution involves optimizing the tax rates (and other metrics) to fit a specific economic condition. If the tax rate is below optimal, and you reduce it further, you will fail. And conversely. As for extrapolating from 15 yrs of $1T/per year into a plan - no, not even close - the need is for 2, 3, and 5 year predictions. The predictions need to avoid history, avoid recency, and be based on original derivation. A linear extrapolation is almost certainly not an answer.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 21:09:18 GMT -5
Willful ignorance is a hard thing to fight. you know, I would be perfectly OK if rich folks just said this:
"I don't want to pay taxes, because I just would rather keep them."
that's fine. that's legit. we could have a real discussion about why rich folks (or really ANYONE) should HAVE to pay taxes, if that is how we started the conversation, rather than pretending like tax cuts for me will mean a better life for you- because, candidly, it won't. not unless you are a friend or family member of mine. my tax cuts go into making MY life better, not yours, or anyone else's. that is just how it works. I am old enough, and have been through enough tax cuts to know this for absolute certain. I have 0% doubt about it. my 20+ employees have gotten 0% benefit from my 50% tax reduction in the last 25 years. there is NO reason they should support the tax cuts on that basis.
only pure adoration for the rich could drive someone to give up a social benefit for MY private benefit. and if that is what you are all about, I gratefully accept your gift- but you will get nothing in return. businesses are not charities. we give away nothing more than we have to. period. end of discussion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 21:13:38 GMT -5
even though they can offer no evidence to support it. the evidence for #1 is there, but i happen to think that the more likely possibility is #2: that taxes don't impact GDP growth, and that therefore decisions about them should be made INDPENDENT from this idea. there is vast evidence to support that, for the record. far more vast that #1, which there is scant evidence for, and #3, for which there is literally NO evidence whatsoever. As for extrapolating from 15 yrs of $1T/per year into a plan - no, not even close - the need is for 2, 3, and 5 year predictions. The predictions need to avoid history, avoid recency, and be based on original derivation. A linear extrapolation is almost certainly not an answer.
A: there is scant evidence for #1, and none for #3. sorry if that was unclear.
B: here is my projection: we will have deficits of $1T until we change tax policy to one that covers deficits. that would require us to BOTH raise revenues AND cut spending. I have said this many many times. I will probably have to say it many many times more. a 10% spending cut and a 10% revenue increase would cover the deficit. adjusting monetary policy IN THE FUTURE so that the cuts came during times of economic growth, and that the money saved would then be spent during times of retraction would be sensible economic policy.
you know, the kind we have NEVER had?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 21:16:46 GMT -5
PS- we should TARGET federal revenues to 18%-20% of GDP, imo. we should TARGET federal spending to 16-18% of GDP, imo. anytime spending OR revenues fall outside of those brackets, they should be adjusted to fit those brackets. the surpluses should be used to reduce debt until all debt was paid, and thereafter, should be committed to a reserve which would be used in event of downturn for stimulus spending, as a counterweight to corporate retraction.
this is actually really sensible stuff. which is why it will probably never happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 21:21:21 GMT -5
'Evidence' is nice if you are trying to prove a postulate, create theory. But we are not - there is no theory that states that either supply-side or demand-side works, some situations call for one, some call for the other. The solution involves optimizing the tax rates (and other metrics) to fit a specific economic condition. If the tax rate is below optimal, and you reduce it further, you will fail. And conversely. uh...yes there is. there are abundant THEORIES that state that they work.
and then there is the data, which is also abundant and clear.
I don't actually care about optimal taxes. that is for Laffer and others to concern themselves with. I am not interested in a "revenue optimal" government. I am interested in a government that pays it's bills.
there are people that can go broke on a $1M annual income. and there are people that do quite well making $35k/year. the difference between the two is ONLY that one knows how to manage it, and the other doesn't. I am SURE that both of them would say that $1M is more optimal for income than $35k. but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one is going to succeed or not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 25, 2019 21:38:47 GMT -5
incidentally, I think that Laffer's theory is built on not just one, but TWO faulty premises:
1) that people will simply not work if their taxes are over T* 2) that T* is the rate that all taxpayers pay
#1 has been shown completely false. even when taxes were 94% in the top bracket, people continued to work. even people whose incomes were largely in the top bracket. that is because they were making millions upon millions of dollars. and that kind of income is hard to give up once you get used to it.
#2 is the flaw that nobody discusses. it assumes a FLAT RATE TAX, which we don't have. and maybe it is true that EVERYONE would simply refuse to work if they were taxed at 94%**. but clearly, the government knows better than to tax someone making less than $100k at 94%. they reserve that rate for those making huge bank.
**I am actually not even sure it is true for flat tax. IE- if I knew that my housing, food, medical care, and education were 100% paid for through taxes, I might actually tolerate 94%. particularly if I had a relatively low income. so really, this comes down to what social benefit people get for their taxes. in the US, we get very little, because our taxes are not really used for social benefit the way they are in other countries. that, and we lack imagination about how they ever possibly could. it would be nice if we could have a civil conversation about that, but we are too busy arguing about abortion and border walls for that conversation to ever take place, and that is a real shame, imo.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 26, 2019 0:26:45 GMT -5
"PS- we should TARGET federal revenues to 18%-20% of GDP, imo.
we should TARGET federal spending to 16-18% of GDP, imo."
Yes, I'm in agreement. Many years ago I read that the null number was 17% - I wish I could remember who derived that (maybe Milton Freedman?) The 'spread' across the lower/upper population is a way to engineer behavior - ie, 0% up to $40k, 15% from $40k to $80k, 70% above $80k, yada - but the composite value needs to be roughly 17% regardless of the spread.
1) that people will simply not work if their taxes are over T* 2) that T* is the rate that all taxpayers pay
I got my engineering degree in 1963, I've seen tax rates around 90%.
You're right, number 1 is false. But it did kill business expansions. If an owner had a 50-man shop that was turning a profit, he would NOT add to his operation, it made no sense to owners to take the risk of a bad year when he knew at the outset that 94% was going to be taken from his earnings.
And no 2 is also false, progressivity becomes necessary when T* is approached, the low-income people simply cannot survive at that tax rate.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 26, 2019 1:30:01 GMT -5
Can we find anyone that knew they would pay 94% of their income in tax even if they had a bad year?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:22:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 9:48:47 GMT -5
Tax is money out. I don't care about the label, or where it goes. It matters when we are discussing federal tax policy. You can't pipe in, "Oh, I pay my property taxes." It's irrelevant. You also can't do much tax planning to avoid local property taxes. You may get some tax relief through a business development program, but eventually the tax will kick back in. You either pay them or lose the property. Ok , I can agree with the federal tax discussion. I don't pay any, and will continue by any means possible, to achieve this continuing goal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:22:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 9:53:01 GMT -5
Legal schmegal. You know how much self reporting grey area there is ?? I feel it's my duty to avoid every tax possible. Is there any other context ? I would not try to advise against paying as little as possible, legally. That is only common sense. That is what the system is set up for us all to do. There is not really that much self reporting gray area. Although we can squint and make it seem as gray as we want. Again, if you are breaking the law, and it sounds like you are, that is a different discussion entirely. Of course you avoid paying tax! It's mostly legal. Like immigration, don't look at it like it's cheating. I refer to it as undocumented value. So it's ok.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 6:22:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 9:56:36 GMT -5
Legal schmegal. You know how much self reporting grey area there is ?? I feel it's my duty to avoid every tax possible. Is there any other context ? not arguing, but why did you choose the word DUTY here? Old saying from one of our elder statesmen. Wish I could remember who it was.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 26, 2019 11:05:33 GMT -5
not arguing, but why did you choose the word DUTY here? Old saying from one of our elder statesmen. Wish I could remember who it was. I don't recall that, but I have always said that it is my duty as an American to pay my taxes, the lowest amount that I can legally justify. I have added recently, "I do have to pay my taxes, but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave a tip!"
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 26, 2019 11:08:17 GMT -5
On another note, why does a "slight tax increase" cost me several hundred dollars but a "substantial tax cut" saves me a buck-fifty?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 26, 2019 11:46:19 GMT -5
On another note, why does a "slight tax increase" cost me several hundred dollars but a "substantial tax cut" saves me a buck-fifty? "Trumpanomics"
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 26, 2019 11:47:48 GMT -5
Old saying from one of our elder statesmen. Wish I could remember who it was. I don't recall that, but I have always said that it is my duty as an American to pay my taxes, the lowest amount that I can legally justify. I have added recently, "I do have to pay my taxes, but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave a tip!" Anyone who cheats on their taxes and calls themselves "patriotic" are hypocritic liars.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 26, 2019 12:08:59 GMT -5
I don't recall that, but I have always said that it is my duty as an American to pay my taxes, the lowest amount that I can legally justify. I have added recently, "I do have to pay my taxes, but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave a tip!" Anyone who cheats on their taxes and calls themselves "patriotic" are hypocritic liars. You have just described Trump perfectly.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 26, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -5
It matters when we are discussing federal tax policy. You can't pipe in, "Oh, I pay my property taxes." It's irrelevant. You also can't do much tax planning to avoid local property taxes. You may get some tax relief through a business development program, but eventually the tax will kick back in. You either pay them or lose the property. Ok , I can agree with the federal tax discussion. I don't pay any, and will continue by any means possible, to achieve this continuing goal. Why? I put no time nor energy into minimizing my tax payment. There are certainly things I wish our government wasn't spending money on. I just pretend that my dollars are going towards the things that I fully support.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 26, 2019 14:21:28 GMT -5
Ok , I can agree with the federal tax discussion. I don't pay any, and will continue by any means possible, to achieve this continuing goal. Why? I put no time nor energy into minimizing my tax payment. There are certainly things I wish our government wasn't spending money on. I just pretend that my dollars are going towards the things that I fully support. I think about my disabled granddaughter who receives Medicaid, about $700/mo in SSI and food stamps.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 26, 2019 16:26:58 GMT -5
It matters when we are discussing federal tax policy. You can't pipe in, "Oh, I pay my property taxes." It's irrelevant. You also can't do much tax planning to avoid local property taxes. You may get some tax relief through a business development program, but eventually the tax will kick back in. You either pay them or lose the property. Ok , I can agree with the federal tax discussion. I don't pay any, and will continue by any means possible, to achieve this continuing goal. don't want any military, border patrol, or customs, eh?
|
|