Do rich people pay taxes?

In reply to Ian F :

I hear you. I'm certainly not considering moving to another country right now! (For those who are where the berk would you go?) Which by default means I think the US gives me the best value for my tax dollars of anywhere on the planet.

I think a lot of people gloss over the some of the highest value things the US government gives it's citizens. Things like: excellent job opportunity, predictable financial systems (that enable cheap credit, reliable interest, mostly stable taxes, etc), transportation, power, sanitation, food, and information infastructure that ALLOWS you to do basically whatever you want. Not to mention never really fearing for getting blown up or having the neighboring warlords capture your family while you are at work.

People who don't live here know this well. People who do tend to forget.

Robbie said:

In reply to Ian F :

I hear you. I'm certainly not considering moving to another country right now! (For those who are where the berk would you go?) Which by default means I think the US gives me the best value for my tax dollars of anywhere on the planet.

I think a lot of people gloss over the some of the highest value things the US government gives it's citizens. Things like: excellent job opportunity, predictable financial systems (that enable cheap credit, reliable interest, mostly stable taxes, etc), transportation, power, sanitation, food, and information infastructure that ALLOWS you to do basically whatever you want. Not to mention never really fearing for getting blown up or having the neighboring warlords capture your family while you are at work.

People who don't live here know this well. People who do tend to forget.

I'm considering trying to get transferred to one of our international offices, not as a permanent move, but just to experience living outside the US for a 1-3 years. 

Of our current international offices, Barcelona would be the pick.

In reply to z31maniac :

Funny you mention that, we're currently looking into a move to Barcelona as we speak. Should hear back any day now. GRM Barcelona Challenge?

I look at taxes the same way as Ian F.

In reply to z31maniac :

My company recently opened an office in Canada and we've had a couple in Europe for awhile now.   Part of me would like to live in the UK for a bit, but through cycling I now a lot of people who live there and general security is something of a concern.  Theft seems to be more of an issue in the UK than here.

But moving to Barcelona, you guys would still retain us citizenship and pay us taxes right? I'm not super familiar with the process but I think that is how it works.

There's another hidden benefit of us govt right there....

Robbie said:

But moving to Barcelona, you guys would still retain us citizenship and pay us taxes right? I'm not super familiar with the process but I think that is how it works.

There's another hidden benefit of us govt right there....

Definitely, unless you're out of town for more than 330 days. We wouldn't do it to avoid taxes, just to try something new while we can.

Enyar said:

Robbie said:

But moving to Barcelona, you guys would still retain us citizenship and pay us taxes right? I'm not super familiar with the process but I think that is how it works.

There's another hidden benefit of us govt right there....

Definitely, unless you're out of town for more than 330 days. We wouldn't do it to avoid taxes, just to try something new while we can.

Precisely. 

I think our specific team has offices in London, Brno, Barcelona, Montevideo (Uruguay), Manilla, and a few US offices.

My buddy that helped get me the job here has been to the Uruguay office numerous times (that where the team he works with is) and says it's absolutely amazing. He said if he didn't have kids he would very, very strongly consider a move there. 

SVreX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Ok, so your issue is with inherited wealth.  May I suggest you start a thread about that?

Since US taxes are based on income, inherited wealth is not relevant to this discussion, because no one owes taxes on inherited wealth.

please read American History. We declared war because we didn’t want inherited power to rule us. 

Wealth is power so to remain true to our fundamental values we need to reinstate the inheritance  tax. 

frenchyd said:

please read American History. We declared war because we didn’t want inherited power to rule us. Wealth is power so to remain true to our fundamental values we need to reinstate the inheritance  tax. 

Are you referring to the American Revolution in your first line?  If so, you are mistaken.  

We already have an inheritance tax in the USA.  What is it you believe "our fundamental values" to be, and how will increasing the inheritance tax restore them?

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

At the risk of getting sucked into this and I've tried to stay out as it's been made clear to me that my opinions are not welcomed here I will say this, I am of the opinion that what a man does with his wealth is his business and I expect nothing at all from him and I do not feel he is under any obligation to do anything whatsoever for the betterment of society. 

It's not an issue of how they spend their money (and relatively speaking, they don't spend nearly enough, but that's another issue), I read Gameboy's issue is how they earn it.  

Our economy is pretty much 100% people spending money on stuff, right?  A consumer society.  

So why is it rewarded that the CEO's of companies take their manufacturing out of the country for even lower labor rates?  Over the really long run, the loss of consumers will hurt the economy as a whole.  But decisions at the top are so focused on "shareholder value" that they loose sight of the long run, and only shoot for the time that they are getting stock options as CEO.  And it's pretty clear that the top part of the companies have been getting pretty consistent raises well above inflation when the workers income is pretty flat.

Remember how controversial it was for Henry Ford to give the $5/day salary.  But it did two things- it stabilized his workforce (which was the real reason for it) and added a huge number of consumers for his product.  

The other thing that is really odd to me, which I posted before, why does unearned income get a lower rate than earned income?  Income is income, and should be considered equal.  When you bias taxes to one kind of income, you naturally bias people to want to work in that general area.  Forgive me for asking, but I never have seen how Wall Street actually contributes to the economy as a whole, given that it's trading value of stuff that is not useful to anyone other than people who want to trade value.

People should earn income, not just get lucky.  And earning income adds to the overall value of taking stuff, transforming it into something more useful, and selling it.  

Do what you want with your earned money.  But earn it morally.

In reply to alfadriver :

As long as it's legal I have no issues whatsoever with how another person earned their money. It's like when people complain about how much football players or musicians or actors get paid. It's none of my business and they are worth whatever another person is willing to pay them. I have no problems with it.

There are several very core issues that we differ on. Not just differ but hold completely opposite opinions. 

onemanarmy said:

loosecannon said:

My wife and I disagree on this. One of us thinks, generally speaking, that rich people pay a lot of taxes and one of us thinks the rich pay accountants to find ways where they don't pay any taxes-so, who is right? Any rich people on here? What % of your income goes to income tax?

Why would you/your wife believe that the 'rich' find ways out of paying taxes?  What outlet told you that?

Yes, we (working Americans) all pay too much.   I'm far from the top, but pay more than 30% to the man.  A third of my working day goes to someone else, for many questionable purposes.  That is far from OK.

I do not enjoy my money being spent by this idiot

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-gao-report_us_5ad4c289e4b077c89ceb3656

 

 

No matter how tax money is spent people will object.  Spend it on the military and I can show you 3 billion dollars worth of tanks stockpiled but not useable. Spend it on social needs and someone will show you people misusing it or getting it wrongfully etc.  

buy a box of postits and someone will complain we should have used paper and tape.  

There are 320 million people in this country and few agree on anything. 

So please stop cherry picking the things you find wrong. It will drive you nuts and will never achieve anything.  

Step back and look at the big picture.  Decide what’s important and what you are willing to accept in the goal of compromise. 

That’s really how a democracy works. You’ll never get everything neither will they. So be a statesman.  Find a way to compromise.  

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to alfadriver :

As long as it's legal I have no issues whatsoever with how another person earned their money. It's like when people complain about how much football players or musicians or actors get paid. It's none of my business and they are worth whatever another person is willing to pay them. I have no problems with it.

There are several very core issues that we differ on. Not just differ but hold completely opposite opinions. 

There's legal, and there's good for the overall economy.  And over a long period of time, it does matter.  Putting money in places that never, ever, gets used is not good for the overall economy.

Here's the other thing, based on your note, I'm guessing that you are not exactly in favor of the government handing money out- is that accurate?

So how is it not government handing money out if you made $10M by working for it and pay 35% tax on it, and I earn $10M by good guessing and I pay 15% for it?  Vs you, I would be getting $2M more just because of the way I acquired the money, $2M of is basically the same as welfare.  There's zero difference between handing out money and not taking money- either way, someone is getting it.

Is that really ok to you?

Toebra said:

frenchyd said:

please read American History. We declared war because we didn’t want inherited power to rule us. Wealth is power so to remain true to our fundamental values we need to reinstate the inheritance  tax. 

Are you referring to the American Revolution in your first line?  If so, you are mistaken.  

 

We already have an inheritance tax in the USA.  What is it you believe "our fundamental values" to be, and how will increasing the inheritance tax restore them?

 

 

 

I apologize for the repetition, 

America didn’t get upset because England wanted to tax the tea we bought. America felt that being ruled by the privledged elite who’s only qualification for that priveledge was their parents. 

“All men are created equal”. 

Not the King is better than us, or We should do whatever members of the court say. But”All men are created equal”. 

Money is power!  If I’m rich enough I can buy others to tell you to obey me.  ( because I’m your boss)  if I can make you Then I can break you. 

Fire you and have you put out on the street.  

That’s  power!  

Now if you start Ford motor company or Microsoft etc, well good for you. I can still choose not to work for you etc.  But if I’m working for Bill Gates that shouldn’t mean his son can have me thrown out of my house. Or keep my daughter from a good school. 

frenchyd said:

onemanarmy said:

loosecannon said:

My wife and I disagree on this. One of us thinks, generally speaking, that rich people pay a lot of taxes and one of us thinks the rich pay accountants to find ways where they don't pay any taxes-so, who is right? Any rich people on here? What % of your income goes to income tax?

Why would you/your wife believe that the 'rich' find ways out of paying taxes?  What outlet told you that?

Yes, we (working Americans) all pay too much.   I'm far from the top, but pay more than 30% to the man.  A third of my working day goes to someone else, for many questionable purposes.  That is far from OK.

I do not enjoy my money being spent by this idiot

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-gao-report_us_5ad4c289e4b077c89ceb3656

 

 

No matter how tax money is spent people will object.  Spend it on the military and I can show you 3 billion dollars worth of tanks stockpiled but not useable. Spend it on social needs and someone will show you people misusing it or getting it wrongfully etc.  

buy a box of postits and someone will complain we should have used paper and tape.  

There are 320 million people in this country and few agree on anything. 

So please stop cherry picking the things you find wrong. It will drive you nuts and will never achieve anything.  

Step back and look at the big picture.  Decide what’s important and what you are willing to accept in the goal of compromise. 

That’s really how a democracy works. You’ll never get everything neither will they. So be a statesman.  Find a way to compromise.  

Irony. 

dculberson said:

$250k in annual income is top 3% of household income in the US. Anyone consistently making that kind of income is rich. If they've made it for several years and are not wealthy then they are rich and foolish with their money.

I’m sorry but $250,000 a year won’t get you in my neighborhood. Well not on the prime pieces anyway.  Well it will if you actually earned 10 times that but only paid taxes on $250,000   

Actually I’m certain there are people who live ve near me who have a taxable income of 1/10th of that.   

In  the major metropolitan cities  you’ll find airports where private jets are common.  You’ll have to do some searching but eventually a Fortune 500 company will own it and a few others.  ( maybe not own it, lease it or control it somehow) 

Then  ask the pilots  who flies in them.  Yes some of the flights are directly related to business.  Others though are curtesy flights.  Done as a favor to a major stock holder in that company.  

The stock holder doesn’t pay anything for the ride.  He gets it because he voted the way the board  wanted.  That stock holder gets all sorts of free things like that. Trips to Paris, tropical Islands, hunting lodges, etc. limo rides to and from tickets to opera sports theater etc.  

its the way business is done.  

In reply to alfadriver :

Yes it is really okay with me.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

So you are ok with welfare, then?  Yes?  Fair enough.

I think it's a pretty bad idea, and promotes areas of the economy that don't really add much.

alfadriver said:

Forgive me for asking, but I never have seen how Wall Street actually contributes to the economy as a whole, given that it's trading value of stuff that is not useful to anyone other than people who want to trade value.

If you have a 401k or any retirement at all I suggest you go back and rethink you views on this.  As far what it does, it allows companies to fund their business and give something back to those that buy into them.  Without the ability to buy and sell stock options in companies, many would not end up growing or having funds to enlarge past the start up phase.  Almost every retirement plan in the US, including those in the government, are invested in stocks and bonds.  The stock market provides a vital function for the day to day operation of the country, and the world to be honest.  

It's funny reading all of this as most of what people are picking apart is a tiny fraction of the businesses in this country.  As to how we compare to other countries, we currently do business in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, Australia, and even Papa New Guinea.  Once you visit and understand how other countries work, it makes you appreciate the US all the more.  The problems our distributors describe even in France is nothing like what we experience here, and don't even bet me started on countries like Brazil, South Africa, or even Canada.  Of course we have issues and most likely always will, but I have yet to see a system I would want compared to the one we have.

In reply to frenchyd :

Not the King is better than us, or We should do whatever members of the court say. But”All men are created equal”. 

Money is power!  If I’m rich enough I can buy others to tell you to obey me.  ( because I’m your boss)  if I can make you Then I can break you. 

Fire you and have you put out on the street.  

That’s  power!  

There is a flip side of the coin too. Often your money can own you. I've noticed in my personal life that I have had to be more conscious of my actions as I've climbed the income ladder. When I was young and poor, I didn't need to think as hard about the consequences of my actions. Since this a car board, let's say that I didn't make the wisest choices in my driving style. Thankfully I wised up before anything bad happened, but a good part of that was accumulating something to lose. 

Thankfully, nobody in this country is forced to buy anything from anyone. Nobody on that list of the wealthiest people (which was an inaccurate list, it left out the dictators) stole a dime to make themselves rich. You don't like Bill Gates? Stay away from Microsoft. You are free to grow your own food and make your own clothes if you want to. 

I do find it ironic that people in this discussion rail against the rich, advocating for the confiscation of their wealth- and giving it to the richest, most powerful entity on the planet, the U.S. government. 

In reply to racerdave600 :

No, it doesn't.  Go look closer at the gross majority of events at Wall St- most of the sales are trades- which gives companies no money at all.  The only time they ever get money is during the initial stock offering or if they direct sell some of the company owned stock.  

Trades between two people mean nothing to companies.  

I very much understand that it's a source if "income" to my 401k, too, but one has to bear in mind that it's a gamble that someone will eventually pay me more for what I own than what I paid for it.  Which isn't really that secure.  Look closely at companies that have value to Wall St- they are not the biggest companies with the highest revenues and solid 100 year performance.  Good financial logic does not apply for stocks.  It's more gambling with information than wise finance.  

The fact that we have our retirements invested in Wall St does not make that any better.

I've lived through boom and bust with our stock.  And in the "bust", where our stock bottomed out at ~$1, we still had cash flow to invest and make stuff.  It's barely different now that the stock price is 10x that

It would be great if most of what Wall St does was funding companies, but that's such a small part of what happens, it's not even funny.  And don't get me started on derivatives....

All I want is an even playing field for all kinds of income.  Stocks and bonds earnings should not be any different than my salary, or even gambling income.  Should all be the same.  That will very much even the effective tax rate on the higher incomes, where it is now not.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Nick Comstock :

So you are ok with welfare, then?  Yes?  Fair enough.

I think it's a pretty bad idea, and promotes areas of the economy that don't really add much.

That's a huuuge stretch. 

The only thing relevant in your question was I earned a certain amount and was taxed a certain amount based on how I earned it. You earned the same amount but was taxed a different rate based on how you earned it. My guess is the government does that to incentivize a certain way of doing things. As long as that decision is not based on race or gender or sexual orientation then I'm okay with the government incentivizing a certain way of doing things as they see fit. 

Now what they do with those taxes are beyond my control. Once they have that money they decide the best way to spend it, not me as it's not my money anymore. It's theirs. I certainly would like to see it used for things I agree 100% with however that's an unreasonable expectation. So that money I paid may be used for welfare or war in places we have no business being in or paying off strippers (that's a joke people) but it's beyond my control. It's not my money anymore. 

So just because I'm fine with things being taxed differently in no way means that I agree with welfare. But again the government does and it's beyond my control.

frenchyd said:

dculberson said:

$250k in annual income is top 3% of household income in the US. Anyone consistently making that kind of income is rich. If they've made it for several years and are not wealthy then they are rich and foolish with their money.

I’m sorry but $250,000 a year won’t get you in my neighborhood. Well not on the prime pieces anyway.  Well it will if you actually earned 10 times that but only paid taxes on $250,000   

By your own admission, your neighborhood is way above normal. You seem to consider yourself middle class because you have the income of a bus driver, but you're actually part of the wealthy elite that you rant about. Your minimum estimated value of your home puts your net worth higher than 90% of Americans. And that's the low end of its value without including any other savings or assets. You are the wealthy elite that you so frequently rail against!

You rant about kids inheriting wealth from parents, but you don't seem to realize your own kids have enjoyed many of the privileges of wealthy kids: college paid for, a hefty inheritance when you're gone, eXpensive travel, etc. If you're really serious about your stance on inherited wealth, then why leave your kids with anything? Liquidate everything and donate it to charity, otherwise it's just hypocritical talk.

You spend a lot of time complaining about billionaires, basically because they have things that you don't, and you don't like that. An actual middle class person will have the same complaints about you that you have about the billionaires. And a lower class person is going to have similar complaints about the middle class person, who complains about the millionaire, who complains about the billionaire. There's always somebody with more, and there will always be people that think that's unfair. There will also be people that choose not to complain, and instead work their hardest to climb up a rung or 2 on the ladder of society. 

dculberson said:

Cotton said:

dculberson said:

$250k in annual income is top 3% of household income in the US. Anyone consistently making that kind of income is rich. If they've made it for several years and are not wealthy then they are rich and foolish with their money.

People have different definitions of ‘rich’.  I would consider 250k annual far from rich. 

With a strongly relative word like "rich," I guess there's no way to come up with an absolute definition for it. But to me, earning more than 97% of the people in the richest country on earth is a pretty good starting point. My assumption, too, is that you didn't wake up one morning earning $250k but instead have spent years getting there, earning loads of money but not quite $250k. So you should have a comfortable financial cushion - again unless you're foolish with your money as I stated previously. You should have liquid assets in the high six figures for sure at that point, and would be well into the millions if you put your mind to it. Those two figures combined put you way beyond the 1% on a global scale.

 

I hear you,  my view of what it would take for me to be considered rich is just way different.  It’s less of something like ‘a comfortable financial cushion’ and more along the lines of what would it take for me to retire very early and keep a certain standard of living.   

In reply to Cotton :

Off topic. I read your name and all I could think of was this:

"My name is Cotton Hill, and I killed fiddy men."

Just makes me smile. Sorry if it's been played out already.