Dick Cheney's Tax Return PDF...

Neil Boortz's fair tax seems like a good idea!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 17 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]240859[/snapback]</div>

I'll second the motion. Problem: It'll never happen. A FAIR tax would take too much power out of the hands of Congressmen and Senators. The current system is a "virtual" gun to the head of free market capitalism.

 

"Damn rich people, how dare they give so much to charity and then get a tax deduction! Bastards! I hear that Bill Gates jerk is even worse. Imagine tha fat deduction he gets for donating a BILLION to charity."

I've always wondered why this is "good". One person with so much control. Seems unbalanced. What if all made a decent and fair living wage, then charity would not be needed, would it?

Yeah, I know, perfect world, ain't gonna happen, etc. But just like the Toyota hybrid ad asks 'what if the air were clean', I'd ask what if we COULD change our unbalanced ways? Why does the current system continue? Well, for one, it must be hard to let go of the equality ideal. One person shouldn't be better than another simply because they make more money and are able to help others. Why not, instead, allow others to help themselves. Too simple, I suppose...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 16 2006, 07:49 PM) [snapback]240641[/snapback]</div>

Pardon my ignorance of US tax laws, but don't donations to a charitable organisation count as a deduction?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 16 2006, 08:34 PM) [snapback]240671[/snapback]</div>

I haven't really thought it through, but I think I could get behind a flat tax if the first $50,000 were exempt. For a family of 4, $30,000 is pretty darned poor.

Yes I have been paying attention to Massachusetts' health care plan -- very promising. I truly hope it works.

Peace --

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 17 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]241092[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but you already paid tax on that money AND the deduction is not dollar for dollar equal. (but good point)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 15 2006, 12:58 PM) [snapback]240219[/snapback]</div>

John:

That's why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. My folks learned a long time ago the only way for them to get ahead - asides from backbreaking work and skimping every penny - was to incorporate their business. They never did change their work ethic though.

Once I was done with the Guard and college, my folks drummed into my head the importance of working for myself. Once I had 6 years of experience in my field, that's exactly what I did, starting with incorporating.

Thing is, there is so much material out there about how unfair the tax code is, how corporations are bending us over (What proportion of total taxes do they pay now versus 1950? In your line of work you probably know that answer!), how our government is playing games with massive debt and perpetual indentured servitude to them, etc.

Yet nobody does anything.

They just grumble on April 15 and ignore it until next year.

The "average" person has way more power than they realize, and not just with a vote every 4 years or so.

jay

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 15 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]240311[/snapback]</div>

Karl:

So why don't you do something about it then? I encourage you to ask many tough questions of both Democrat and Republican congresspersons, and potential candidates: they'll look at you like you were painted green.

Face it: your "vote" - such as it is - is nothing more than a proxy for the established institutions to continue as they have been. Neither party would dare change the current legal quicksand of tax code, there is too much lucrative money in screwing us

 

Whats wrong with that? Are you guys some sort of Socialists? Wanting to spread wealth around?

Blah.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Apr 16 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]240594[/snapback]</div>

Donated to what charity(s)?

And would that include those non-profit tax exempt political groups? Like the Swift Boaters?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 17 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]241092[/snapback]</div>

Yes. But there's charity and there's charity.

A very, very rich person can form a charity that he runs and donate money to himself. He has to use it within certain restrictions but he still has use of the money. Therein can lie abuse of the system.

 

I thought you could only declare donations of a maximum of 50% of your income. What's up with that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Apr 16 2006, 07:28 PM) [snapback]240669[/snapback]</div>

And you think "single payer" health care will not have lots of unintended consequences?

BTW, just who is the "single payer"? Oh, it's the government! Oh, that means we ALL pay - right? So what is it with this liberal sham in calling it "single payer". Call it what it is - a huge new government program to paid for by every person who pays taxes. Or, really, just call it socialized medicine.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Apr 17 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]240932[/snapback]</div>

"allow others to help themselves"? I'm not sure I understand? What is keeping people from helping themselves? Certainly not the tax code as 91 million people are currently pay NO tax (BTW - I doubt most are well off, but rather those at the low end of the income spectrum). Personally, I think everyone no matter their income should have to pay something. So in effect, we who are paying taxes ARE helping these people. See source.

 

We're going to have socialized medicine, in some form or another. It will either be sooner, or it will be later. But if the current cost trends are not changed (and don't kid me or yourself -- we as a country do NOT have the cojones to do what it would really take to change the cost trends) -- if the current cost trends are not greatly changed, we WILL have socialized medicine.

And that's okay.

My question is, if we went to a flat tax, what would happen to all the poor CPAs?

 

Here's the root problem with the tax code:

The government (which is to say the rich white men who run the country) has decided to uses the tax code to accomplish all sorts of fiscal objectives unrelated to revenue.

Item: To encourage people to donate to charity, charitable donations are tax-deductible. Of course this benefits the rich more than the poor because the higher your tax bracket, the more the deduction is worth to you.

Item: To support the building industry, which creates jobs, and to encourage home ownership, interest paid on a home mortgage is tax deductible. Of course this benefits the rich more than the poor because the higher your tax bracket, the more the deduction is worth to you.

Item: Because the government seems to think that religion is a good thing, donations to churches are tax deductible. Of course this benefits the rich more than the poor because the higher your tax bracket, the more the deduction is worth to you.

Item: In order to help municipalities raise money through bond issues, interest on municipal bonds is not taxed. Because of this, municipalities can pay below-market interest rates. If your tax bracket is high enough, you still wind up ahead, though you receive less interest than you would on taxable bonds. Of course this benefits the rich more than the poor because the higher your tax bracket, the more the tax exemption is worth to you. Note that certain types of municipal bonds, but not all, are also exempt from the AMT. The key here is that if your tax bracket is lower, you lose the advantage, due to the lower absolute rate of interest.

Item: In order to encourage people to buy hybrid cars, there have been various tax deductions for buying a qualifying car. Of course this benefits the rich more than the poor because the higher your tax bracket, the more the deduction is worth to you. During the Carter administration there were similar tax deductions for installing solar energy systems.

There are uncounted numbers of these deductions and exemptions, each one with its constituency. (Note the vociferousness with which many on this board demand tax deductions for buyers of Priuses.) The end result is a tax code with enough loopholes that a determined and clever person can greatly reduce his taxes, if he is rich enough to take advantage of them.

And a glaring problem is that there is no accounting of the actual cost to the government of these exemptions and deductions, nor any measure of the benefit. How much revenue does the government lose because of the mortgage-interest deduction? Nobody knows! How many jobs are created, and how many people own homes because of it? Nobody knows! How much extra money is donated to charity because of the deduction on charitable donations? Nobody knows! How much revenue does the government lose? Nobody knows!

A flat tax is a very bad idea because it is regressive. But we need a tax system without any deductions or exemptions. Progressive tax brackets, and a two line tax form: Line 1: How much money did you receive from all sources? Line 2: Look up the amount of tax on the tax table and enter it on Line 2. Period.

Note that a flat tax solves NOTHING if you keep the morass of deductions and exemptions in place! All it does is shift more of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. Because unless you eliminate the deductions and exemptions, the rich will shelter a big chunk of their income from taxes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 15 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]240219[/snapback]</div>

How much is fair? My first thought it... the guy has enough money that someone else does his taxes. If they are screwed up, it's someone else that did it, not Cheney. If mine are a mess it's because I somehow screwed up Tax Cut from HR Block. Anyhow, back on point. How much is fair for Cheney to pay in taxes. I want you to send in the percentage of your income that you think Cheney's percentage should be.... Even if that is higher than what the accountant or tax software tells you that you owe.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 15 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]240219[/snapback]</div>

You're calling either Cheney a tax cheat, or Cain, Watters and Associates accounting firm in Texas a tax cheat. Maybe you're saying they both are. I'm curious which it is, would you elaborate on which is that tax cheat and how much they are covering up. You seem to know a lot.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 15 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]240219[/snapback]</div>

Just when we're not sure if you have a clue what you are talking about, we get this little nugget...

Now that you're done bashing the integrity of the tax return of a guy who gave gifts worth $6.869 million to causes that rely on the generousity of individuals to give, I want to know how close to 78% you came to giving away the money you made this year? Between his taxes and his gifts to charity, he gave away 84% and lived on 16%. What are your numbers?


Which brings up the question... Do you ever think before you say something?

Nah.. I didn't think so...

Carry on...

What's the solution for the flat tax where 2 businesses A and B have sales of $1,000,000 a year.

Company A has to spend $950,000 to make the $1 mil. Profit of $50,000
Company B has to spend $100,000 to make $1 mil. Profit of $900,000

Do they both pay flat tax of 17% on $1 mil each owing $170,000? Would that be fair tax?

Is it based on 17% of $50,000 and $900,000... Because if you say yes, we are back to threading that needle as to what a 'business expense' is and what isn't.

I always love the threads "First 25,000 should be exempt... First $50,000 should be exempt.. First $82000 should be exempt..." Basically, whatever you make should be exempt and anyone making more than you should pay huge.. real nice folks... That one is as much fun as the who's rich thread... Add $20,000 to your income and yell out a number.. great way to figure that out..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Apr 7 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]419544[/snapback]</div>

Which illustrates perfectly why tax systems should be progressive, not flat. No individual needs anywhere near that much to live on, so they can afford to hand over larger amounts above that... A normal person earning $40,000 a year can't afford to give away 84% of their income.

The main thing that sort of money buys you is power - the ability to buy others. It distorts society, and the political process. It should be taxed punitively for the public good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Apr 15 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]240321[/snapback]</div>

Our tax sham surprises you? The wealthy legislators (Congres) write the tax code, that THEY benefit from. It's not a sham to them (our family personally benifit from Corporate tax law as well ... so why would I want to have to pay 33% in stead of 5.7% ??). If THAT's not bad enough, Congress legislates a HUGE life time pension for their self (and then to their spouse, after they kick the bucket) because they'll be damned if THEY have to rely on social security ... all of that, after legislating low taxes for wealthy. Anyone here got the $$$ to change the system? Then quit whining, bend over, and grab your ankles ! ! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 7 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]419488[/snapback]</div>

Sounds to me like this is a wealth re-distribution scheme that encourages wealthy people to take their money and give it away to charitable causes, where it often goes to support feeding the poor, providing homeless shelters, provide drug rehab, etc. All of your examples don't look that bad to me ... given that I don't like the current tax code any more than you do, but for different reasons. I suspect Mr. Cheney was able to give away stocks that had appreciated, and that's how he got such huge deductions. Its a feature of the tax law I don't like, but it does allow someone who has to an easy way divest himself of personal knowledge and control of his investments (as all Presidents and VPs have to now).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 7 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]419488[/snapback]</div>

The truly rich people, who don't know they are rich, are right here on Prius Chat, complaining that they don't get the tax credit because of AMT. So this is a particularly bad example (as are all tax credits that I know of, as they usually phase out with higher income levels). Most people don't know that the median HOUSEHOLD income in this country is just over $44,000, and if they earn above that, they are, by definition, among the top wage earners in the nation. But I'll bet every one of them complains about how much tax they are paying as they are waxing their brand new Prius. Get people in the "middle fifth", as the Census Bureau classifies household income, and you start at just $56,200. These are the "rich people" we need to tax?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 7 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]419488[/snapback]</div>

I would support this, as long as the top rate was no more than 22%. Right now, with all the breaks and incentives, the average highest wage earner pays in just less than 20% of their total income. Include social security, medicare and all of the rest of the taxes the government piles on in that number, and have a "progressive" tax that starts at 5% for every wage earner from the very first dollar, 10% when you earn more than minimum wage (about 15,300 per year in California), 18% for those that earn more than $20,000 a year and 22% for those that earn above $200,000 a year. If you run a surplus in one year, reduce the rates across the board for the next year.

From the NY Times:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washingt...acb&ei=5090

According to the NY Times' analysis of the OMB report, in 2004, the middle income payers paid an estimated 2.9% in income taxes from 5% in 2000, a 42% reduction (in classic mass media bias style, the NY Times says this 42% decrease is "edging down"). For those with 1.25 million in earnings, the top 1%, their effective tax rate went from 24.2 to 19.6 percent; about half the percentage drop that the middle income folks got, yet the NY Times used the more dramatic word "drop" to describe this more modest decrease in taxes actually paid.

These figures look only at the income tax, and not the payroll tax to fund Social Security, which takes something like 7.5% from the employee and 7.5% from the employer, so adding that 15% to the 2.9%, you get closer to 18%. I think the payroll tax is really where we need the reform, but no one would listen to President Bush for that.

The NY Times continues:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washingt...acb&ei=5090

These articles almost never mention the Social Security and Medicare taxes ("payroll tax"), which are "regressive" in that the wealthiest wage earners quit paying it once their wages pass $90,000 in any given year. But even the poorest wage earner pays it from the very first dollar, no deductions, no credits. President Bush actually recommended eliminating this ceiling, but the Republican congress would not do it.

But that aside, the facts are clear, the way to get the rich to pay more is to lower their tax rate a bit. It discourages the more complex tax avoidance schemes, and they pay more. Lower it to 22%, with no deductions, and you take in quite a bit more money to waste.

It doesn't do much for your "class warfare" rhetoric, though. Too bad facts get in the way sometimes.