What is "too wealthy"?
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
did i not state that allready? 
and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.
Make sense?
Make sense?
Can you explain why, if we had a flat tax rate, the rich would not skirt taxes they should owe? The way I see it, if there was a flat tax rate, and I was rich, I would STILL look for loopholes to reduce my taxable income(assuming all that changed was to a flat tax rate). I wouldn't say to myself "ok I'll pay" just because my rate is lower. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point because of the way you wrote it, but it seems to me like you're saying that the rich would not look for ways to reduce their tax liability if there was a flat tax rate.
:banana:
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
ahhh misguided youth and its colorful disregard for logic and knowledge...
being that we are on an internet forum and discussing the topic at a superficial level, i wanted to be a bit facetious in addressing the issue. to label someone as a misguided youth b/c they are putting out generalities and whatnot is a bit critical, don't you think?
db
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe.
some of the richest people are also penny pinchers....they will look for any opportunity to save or cut corners.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Originally Posted by Salty
I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes 
I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.
BTW, that millionare you mention above is paying 25% in taxes. I pay a higher percentage, even though my best year thus far was substantially less than a million bucks. See the point?
edit: kicks feet up and sips some chai tea. lol
Originally Posted by Salty
You've got to be kidding me? Because they're living off the social security, unemployment, welfare money and government programs their hundreds of thousands of tax dollars funded, right? 
But if we turn the tables and hit the rich harder with a progressive tax then it's okay, right?
Unless said person is a heir to wealth, rich people don't become rich without a LOT of hard work, dedication and willingness to risk. Why should they be penalized for success, dish out six figure amount for taxes (even after tax breaks) when others are paying minimal taxes and taking advantage of government programs?
Skirting taxes, huh?
I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes
I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.
$40K to Uncle Sam instead of $4.5million after writeoff's?! LMFAO
This is true but you can only writeoff so much a year. You make it seem like you can writeoff your entire salary which isn't true at all! Instead you'd get back a very small percentage after every trick in the book because you'd exceed the amount of tax breaks you could take and risk audit like a giant red flag.
I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.
$40K to Uncle Sam instead of $4.5million after writeoff's?! LMFAO
This is true but you can only writeoff so much a year. You make it seem like you can writeoff your entire salary which isn't true at all! Instead you'd get back a very small percentage after every trick in the book because you'd exceed the amount of tax breaks you could take and risk audit like a giant red flag.
:banana:
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,402
From: Bay Area
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Originally Posted by my2003wrx
I would have to agree with salty in that the situation is a little far fetched, you won't be paying 40k instead of 4.5M, that's damn near impossible for an individual.
Originally Posted by my2003wrx
Actually what you said was this:
Can you explain why, if we had a flat tax rate, the rich would not skirt taxes they should owe? The way I see it, if there was a flat tax rate, and I was rich, I would STILL look for loopholes to reduce my taxable income(assuming all that changed was to a flat tax rate). I wouldn't say to myself "ok I'll pay" just because my rate is lower. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point because of the way you wrote it, but it seems to me like you're saying that the rich would not look for ways to reduce their tax liability if there was a flat tax rate.
:banana:
Can you explain why, if we had a flat tax rate, the rich would not skirt taxes they should owe? The way I see it, if there was a flat tax rate, and I was rich, I would STILL look for loopholes to reduce my taxable income(assuming all that changed was to a flat tax rate). I wouldn't say to myself "ok I'll pay" just because my rate is lower. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point because of the way you wrote it, but it seems to me like you're saying that the rich would not look for ways to reduce their tax liability if there was a flat tax rate.
:banana:
Dear Capt asshat,
I regret to inform you but you have missed an important part of this discussion. Please feel free to re review the entire thread in its entirity before you make stupid remarks that are semi out of context.
For your own sake we have attached a portion of a post that you missed.
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
that is the thing, i dont think they should pay more then anyone else. I think the loopholes they use to skirt current tax laws should be shut, and they should pay just as much as i do of their worth.
Plain and simple, you would be a tool to think that they dont get off very lightly on taxes now.
Plain and simple, you would be a tool to think that they dont get off very lightly on taxes now.
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
its called bermuda look it up 

Sincerly yours,
The league of internet *******s for a better internet
PS we care so much about you that you arent worth spell checking for.
haha sorry you caught me in a good mood
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by BlingBlingBlue
BTW, that millionare you mention above is paying 25% in taxes. I pay a higher percentage, even though my best year thus far was substantially less than a million bucks. See the point?
edit: kicks feet up and sips some chai tea. lol
edit: kicks feet up and sips some chai tea. lol
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
To get back on the thread topic, as I see it, there is no such thing as too wealthy. But if you ARE wealthy, you should realize that the best thing to do with your money is to help other people. If the government has to step in and require you to pay more taxes because you're rich, that's fine. If you're in this country to make a lot of money for yourself, then take that money and move to an island where there isn't anyone to add or detract from your life. If you choose to live here and be wealthy, then part of the cost of living in our society with our freedoms and our way of life is to help other people who are less fortunate get their standard of living up too. I'm not saying we should go commie, that obviously doesn't work to the people's advantage in the real world. But meisers with a ton of money who find ways to pay less taxes are A**holes. No other way about it. It's not like taxes ever made a rich motherf***er broke. And the tax money generated from rich people CAN make a whole ghetto area into a safer and better place to live. It's simple...if you care about other Americans, stay in America and pay taxes (more tax if you got more cash). If you don't care about other Americans, then stop taking advantage of the good things about the country without helping the bad parts and get the f*** out of here.
Thread Starter
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by MVWRX
But if you ARE wealthy, you should realize that the best thing to do with your money is to help other people. If the government has to step in and require you to pay more taxes because you're rich, that's fine....If you choose to live here and be wealthy, then part of the cost of living in our society with our freedoms and our way of life is to help other people who are less fortunate get their standard of living up too. ... And the tax money generated from rich people CAN make a whole ghetto area into a safer and better place to live. ... If you don't care about other Americans, ...get the f*** out of here.
But, please enlighten us dimwits with your vast knowledge of social engineering.
Your assignment is to produce evidence that supports your claim that throwing money at a ghetto area safer & better to live.
To distill the task into simpler terms, name one "urban area" that has been rescued by rich people's money.
Paul
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Intollerant...ok maybe I'm being a little narrow minded today...but to get to my "assignment"...
East Palo Alto in Northern California had the highest homicide rate in the US for many years in the 80's. Then the local and state gov't started giving money to EPA to get better police and better schools. Now it's one of the safest places (in terms of homocide) to live in the country. It still isn't great, but it's a HELL of a lot better since tax money started flowing into there to help public issues.
East Palo Alto in Northern California had the highest homicide rate in the US for many years in the 80's. Then the local and state gov't started giving money to EPA to get better police and better schools. Now it's one of the safest places (in terms of homocide) to live in the country. It still isn't great, but it's a HELL of a lot better since tax money started flowing into there to help public issues.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Hey Paul, thought you'd respond to this seeing as you're from the bay area too...anyway, I'll check back in tomorrow to see what you think of my EPA example...


