Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California   (finance.yahoo.com ) divider line 220
    More: Sad, Mr. Young, high taxes, University of Nevada, Gerard Depardieu, cnnmoney, income taxes, Phil Mickelson, David Geffen  
•       •       •

16115 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2013 at 1:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-08 03:21:27 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)


Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.
 
2013-02-08 03:25:06 AM  

HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,


Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.
 
2013-02-08 03:32:23 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Yup. Also, I've always thought of SS and a wonderful social pact. Each generation looking out for the one before, we're all in this together, E pluribus unum, and all that.
 
2013-02-08 03:35:28 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Easier fix:  make all social taxes opt in.  If you want to ever be allowed to draw from it, you have to pay.  But it's blatantly unethical to force one person to pay for someone else's parents, grandparents, redneck twat that decided to have 6 kids and never work another day in her life, etc.  It goes against everything the country was originally founded on.
 
HBK
2013-02-08 03:43:29 AM  

Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.


Shut up.  There are already too many California transplants ruining Austin.
 
2013-02-08 03:44:40 AM  

Lorelle: jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.


Good, we don't want you.  You can live in your high-tax, gun-free liberal utopia.
 
2013-02-08 03:55:39 AM  

Meatybrain: You deduct state taxes. It doesn't add to your tax burden, it just moves it around a bit.

If you're too stupid to realize this, you don't deserve to be a farking millionaire, you gilded asswipe.


Wrong

It comes off your income not your fed taxes. So you don't pay fed taxes on the amount that the state takes. You do not get to take it off your fed taxes directly.

You'd have to be a moron to not know this
 
2013-02-08 03:58:42 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Lately I've been thinking of ways to skirt tax laws, because ever since the dollar's gone to shiat my tax burden has been pretty hefty, even though I live and work overseas.

What if you weren't taxed on your income, but on the percentage of your income left over after deducting all your expenses. Food, housing, repairs, fuel, toys, video games, TVs, every expense. Since you're spending that money, it's going back into the economy, so it's not being hoarded and removed from the economy. Then, at the end of the year, if you spent everything you have, you aren't going to get hit by a tax bill that sends you into debt. Rather, you'd owe nothing since you've already passed along the money.

The remainder of the unspent income could be taxed, which would put a greater burden on high-income earners who would either pay taxes on a larger amount or would spend in greater amounts. Either way is a net benefit to society. Low-income earners who are eking out their existence wouldn't pay any tax at all.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?

It would punish people who are trying to save and help people who are in debt. At the end of the year, if you are +-0 you pay no taxes. On the negative side of that you'll get a refund of some percentage of that amount and on the positive side you get to pay taxes on that amount.

But on the other hand, any money saved could be left untaxable, so saving would still be possible, you'd just have to take the tax off the front end of it.


Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.
 
2013-02-08 04:03:21 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY


California is pretty awesome. I get great weather, I'm not a major fault, I am within driving distance of beaches and mountains, and I live next to a major port city so it is easy to get just about anything I could ever want.

California is a great place to live.
 
2013-02-08 04:04:23 AM  

dmax: And treasure? It's under da big W.


You're mad. Mad mad even.

California here.  Two things.

Salaries and Rents are high in California.  That make living here expensive. That makes providing government services expensive.

Property tax rates in California are low, half what they are in a lot of other states.  Other taxes go up to compensate.

And California only gets 79 cents for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.
 
2013-02-08 04:05:22 AM  
Prob is if you tax something that is movable then when it moves your up the creek.

Been to Cali nice weather. Too many people.
 
2013-02-08 04:06:24 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Lately I've been thinking of ways to skirt tax laws, because ever since the dollar's gone to shiat my tax burden has been pretty hefty, even though I live and work overseas.

What if you weren't taxed on your income, but on the percentage of your income left over after deducting all your expenses. Food, housing, repairs, fuel, toys, video games, TVs, every expense. Since you're spending that money, it's going back into the economy, so it's not being hoarded and removed from the economy. Then, at the end of the year, if you spent everything you have, you aren't going to get hit by a tax bill that sends you into debt. Rather, you'd owe nothing since you've already passed along the money.

The remainder of the unspent income could be taxed, which would put a greater burden on high-income earners who would either pay taxes on a larger amount or would spend in greater amounts. Either way is a net benefit to society. Low-income earners who are eking out their existence wouldn't pay any tax at all.

Are you going to subtract credit card debt from the leftover money? What about investments? Wouldn't you be punishing people who are trying to save money to buy a home or start a business?

It would punish people who are trying to save and help people who are in debt. At the end of the year, if you are +-0 you pay no taxes. On the negative side of that you'll get a refund of some percentage of that amount and on the positive side you get to pay taxes on that amount.

But on the other hand, any money saved could be left untaxable, so saving would still be possible, you'd just have to take the tax off the front end of it.

Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.


That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 
2013-02-08 04:10:40 AM  

Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.


Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.
 
2013-02-08 04:16:17 AM  

johncb76006: Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.


Where wil Real 'Mericans (TM) move when Texas turns blue in a couple of years?
 
2013-02-08 04:18:24 AM  

WhyteRaven74: HotWingAgenda: I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way,

Easy fix, get rid of the cap on Social Security contributions. That would fund it out the wazoo from here to eternity.


Or even keep the cap, just start adjusting it for inflation.
 
2013-02-08 04:22:27 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.

 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling
 
2013-02-08 04:23:01 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Been to Cali nice weather. Too many people.


Well do be glad they are in California and not where you are.
 
2013-02-08 04:23:43 AM  

Notabunny: johncb76006: Brontes: We'll gladly take your millionaires in Texas.  Move silicon valley over to Austin while you are at it.

Only problem is that when they do move to Texas they try to turn it into the same type of craphole that they came from kind of like the illegal aliens.

Where wil Real 'Mericans (TM) move when Texas turns blue in a couple of years?


They will move away from Austin and all of those other liberal leaning cities, into real Texas. And trust me, they are going there as more and more liberal minded people are moving there, they feel they are being pushed out.
 
2013-02-08 04:28:16 AM  

HotWingAgenda: 100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)

Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.


Social Security, true. Clusterfark, no. Just as there needs to be a safety net for the temporarily unemployed and the permanently disabled, there needs to be a safety net for the elderly. We will find a way to repair Social Security (just in the nick of time, and crippled perhaps), but I'm not willing to say "fark you, live on the street" to anyone who has no money but is too old (or too sick) to work. Not everyone should be able to  collect Social Security, to be sure, and that's a problem. But to dismiss it out of hand is short-sighted.

/not my threadjack, but I'll take partial responsibility
 
2013-02-08 04:34:25 AM  

davidphogan: fat boy: davidphogan: I had the option when I worked in Washington to move there and skip Oregon's 9% or whatever income tax rate, but still get to shop in Portland with a 0% sales tax.  The problem was, Vancouver would suck to live in, and Portland doesn't.  That 9% penalty was worth it.

I wasn't making anywhere near the $1m to hit the levels they're talking about in the article, but 9% of my salary wasn't enough to live in a shiathole.  You get what you pay for.

Oh now, Vantucky taint all that bad

It's not the worst place I could live by any means.  But, I don't want to live there.

I could have saved a lot of money, saved some time, and sucked it up and dealt with living in Riverside instead of choosing between LA/OC/SD.  I chose San Diego because quality of life is more important than money sometimes.

If people are willing to relocate to somewhere shiattier to save the kind of money in a month that would be a retirement fund to someone like me, great.  Go for it.  It just means that places that are actually decent to live become a little cheaper because you don't have some millionaire asset taking up as much space.

I'd rather live somewhere with a few less millionaires but people who care about having a good place to live.


Your Vancouver hate is perplexing. It's an excellent city to live in.

/lived there two years
//now back in Toronto
///thank god I don't live in Ethiopia or Haiti or America or any other 3rd world nation
 
2013-02-08 04:46:55 AM  
u know i've given it much thought.

and i think what makes Cali stupid is that the name sounds like Cauliflower
 
2013-02-08 04:48:59 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling


I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.
 
2013-02-08 04:49:20 AM  

Meatybrain: You deduct state taxes. It doesn't add to your tax burden, it just moves it around a bit.

If you're too stupid to realize this, you don't deserve to be a farking millionaire, you gilded asswipe.


That's not how it works. You get to deduct what you pay the state from your taxable income, not from the amount of taxes you pay.
 
2013-02-08 04:57:12 AM  
As if I really needed another reason to dislike Phil Mickelson.
 
2013-02-08 04:59:48 AM  
Lorelle: witness protection: If you have to be rich, you don't want to be rich in California

FTFY

I'd rather be here than in a flyover state full of ignorant Teabaggers.


Do all of you douche-bags get this butt-hurt when someone pokes fun of you?
 
2013-02-08 05:08:03 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If you rich people don't want to pay your fair share, then get the hell out.


By fair share, I'm sure you're intending to mean: "ALL OF IT!!"
 
2013-02-08 05:21:39 AM  
 soon enough.....switch the cigarettes to dollars....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8eoEygHyho
 
2013-02-08 05:27:23 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling

I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.


I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.
 
2013-02-08 05:32:26 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: Basically, if there were such a rule, then everyone would just convert all "left over" income into assets and pay no taxes on it.

We accomplish a similar goal--don't hit people with taxes when their gross income barely covers their basic needs--with a 0% bottom bracket and EITC.

That's fine. Those assets are paid for and the money remains in the system. It may lead to asset hoarding, but it also increases demand, which means employment and growth.
 I have $100 of income and a painting that I bought from you last year for $100. You have $100 cash and a painting that you bought from me last year for $100.
I buy your painting for $100. You buy my painting for $100. (Note that neither of us earns any income on those transactions.)Neither of us will owe any tax for the year, we each have exactly what we started with, and there's no extra money "remaining in the system"./aside from maybe some trivial transaction costs and/or a one-off cost to get the ball rolling

I have $100 income from selling you my painting, and I'll pay taxes on that income.
You'll have $100 from selling me your painting, and you'll pay taxes on that income.

We do not have what we started with. You have my painting, and I have your painting. We have transacted, and that transaction results in income for you and me plus the goods we've traded.

If you and I had saved that $100 (which we earned at our day jobs) and were taxed at 20%, after tax day we'd both have $80 and no paintings.

There is a strong incentive to spend your money, but also a reasonable incentive to save, given no tax assessed on assets.

I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.


The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.
 
2013-02-08 05:42:49 AM  
I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.
 
2013-02-08 05:47:50 AM  

HotWingAgenda: 100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)

Don't forget Social Security.  That is a one-of-a-kind populist clusterfark, pulling money from young workers to give to old non-workers.  I can pretty much guarantee that my generation will be the first in US history to never get back any of that money in any way, because it will be bled dry by the Baby Boomers.


Well, you are certainly the stupidest generation to believe that lie, especially given the format of the social security system in the US means that what you describe is literally impossible, but never mind that, some rich guys lackey told you a lie, and in your gut it feels right, so ignore reality and basic economics, you believe what you want to believe.
 
2013-02-08 05:49:29 AM  

TwistedFark: I never really understood this, how much money do you need? I live in a very expensive city, in a very expensive country, with a very high tax rate. I make more money still after taxes and paying my mortgage/bills than the average American makes - actually more than double. Oh, and also about 9% of my income goes yearly towards a retirement account.

I'm not even a "millionaire", but I'm quickly starting to wonder how much more do I need? If had about double the amount of disposable income as I have now, I can't even think about what I would spend it on.


Could you have an debilitating accident that rendered you unable to work and still live off whatever income, insurance, and/or savings for the rest of your life?

If not, then you probably don't have enough.
 
2013-02-08 05:53:19 AM  

Ed Willy: Problem is no Silicon Valley computer scientist wants to live in a state where the education board is dominated by creationists, no matter the low tax rates.


There's more than a few electrical engineers who fancy themselves scientists who are on board with creationism, climate change denial, the moon landing hoax, etc.
 
2013-02-08 06:15:39 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.

The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.



Because your cost basis in the property is $100. If you sell it for $100 your gain is zero. You generally only pay taxes on a sale when there is a gain involved.

(And your friend who has just paid $100 for it won't realize any gain when he sells it back to you for $100 next year, and so on.)

/more complicated in reality, but the point is you could shuffle assets around so anyone with significant money could "spend" it and owe little or no taxes under an "after-spending" tax scheme
 
2013-02-08 06:24:12 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: If, after taxes, you still make more than 10X the amount of the median national income, then you can go piss up a rope about your tax complaints.


...and in Mickelson's case, it's 10x what an average joe makes in a year...EACH WEEK. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1180809/-Multimillionaire-g ol fer-Phil-Mickelson-sorry-for-lamenting-his-mere-eight-figure-disposabl e-income

But, for a moment, let's give Phil Mickelson his nightmare scenario. Let's say he really did pay the "full 63 percent" on his income. Just factoring in last year's income (most of which, incidentally, came from endorsements, which would undoubtedly continue after his retirement), he would have to make do with the meager $17.7 million that would be left over after the orgy of government confiscation.  I am sure that the cops and public school teachers of America (those that still have jobs after a half-decade of "austerity," of course) will be sure to hold a telethon for poor Phil and his family.
Faced with the pain of having to make do on a mere $340,000 per week
 
GBB
2013-02-08 06:24:14 AM  
Real rich people don't pay taxes, regardless of what the tax rate is.
 
2013-02-08 06:49:47 AM  
Why don't people who favor higher tax rates for the wealthy call it a financial success tax?  At least that would be honest.  Yes I know, that would hurt support for their cause.  Well, that's the point, so what's the problem?
 
2013-02-08 06:57:53 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Why don't people who favor higher tax rates for the wealthy call it a financial success tax?  At least that would be honest.  Yes I know, that would hurt support for their cause.  Well, that's the point, so what's the problem?


Same reason the proponents of taxing wages at a higher rate than capital gains don't call it a penalty for working, I guess.
 
2013-02-08 07:00:48 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: sminkypinky: In the uk anyone earning only £40k pays 40pc tax- no wonder the US rich stay rich, they get paid more and pay virtually no tax till they are millionaires! Probably explains why the US debt is measured in Trillions.

If the US was paying for all the same benefits UK residents get for those taxes, the debt wouldn't necessarily be going down. We don't pay as much in taxes, but we have to pay for our own health care - to the tune of at least several hundred dollars a month. (And it doesn't look like that's getting better any time soon.)


Not only that but the difference isn't as big as it might look. A UK resident would only "pay 40%" on income over £35k, the rest would be taxed at 25% and income below £8k not taxed at all. They don't pay 40% on the whole £40k.
The marginal tax rate at that level in the US would be 28%, but you then have to add State taxes which in places like California are 9% at that level.
That difference isn't that huge.
However the NHS (and pensions, benefits etc) is in theory funded by a separate tax called National Insurance which is 12% of your income above £150 a week and an extra 2% on income over £800 a week.
 
2013-02-08 07:01:01 AM  

fusillade762: I'm sure everyone in Hollywood will now flee California to make movies in Texas.



I believe some of those Patriotic Mericans are actually fleeing to Europe .
 
2013-02-08 07:09:13 AM  

Meatybrain: You deduct state taxes. It doesn't add to your tax burden, it just moves it around a bit.

If you're too stupid to realize this, you don't deserve to be a farking millionaire, you gilded asswipe.


As many others have pointed out already:

img502.imageshack.us

Deductions do not work that way.

Do you also think that because a corporation can "write it off" that it costs nothing?
 
2013-02-08 07:16:38 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Lately I've been thinking of ways to skirt tax laws, because ever since the dollar's gone to shiat my tax burden has been pretty hefty, even though I live and work overseas.

What if you weren't taxed on your income, but on the percentage of your income left over after deducting all your expenses. Food, housing, repairs, fuel, toys, video games, TVs, every expense. Since you're spending that money, it's going back into the economy, so it's not being hoarded and removed from the economy. Then, at the end of the year, if you spent everything you have, you aren't going to get hit by a tax bill that sends you into debt. Rather, you'd owe nothing since you've already passed along the money.

The remainder of the unspent income could be taxed, which would put a greater burden on high-income earners who would either pay taxes on a larger amount or would spend in greater amounts. Either way is a net benefit to society. Low-income earners who are eking out their existence wouldn't pay any tax at all.


Would that be a lower tax on the poor? As I understand it, the poor (majority of americans) receive their income taxes back at the beggining of the next year, effectively being an income tax rate of 0.

So the first part of your plan is neutral at best, right?
Now, currently, the "rich" (ideally) pay taxes on 100% of their income, but now should only pay it on the part of the income they cant spend fast enough. Is that correct?

I dont know if that would work, to be honest.
 
2013-02-08 07:19:15 AM  
When anyone here can finally show me the person who, wealthy, became anything less than one of the richest people on earth simply due to the weight of USA taxes, then there will be some legitimate reason to complain about taxes on the rich. So long as the "rich" continue to be the wealthiest tiny subset of humans on earth, despite tax levels, then anyone trying to "defend" them from these "horrible atrocities  is just a god awful idiot. These are the facts, if you're really that freaked out that the "ultra rich" continue to be "ultra rich" with no actual threat to them at all, financially or otherwise, then congrats, you are media sheep who, told to freak out on command, freaked out on command, and you ruin life for everyone else because you're stupid.
 
2013-02-08 07:21:14 AM  
While you're at it, keep believing that since a politician specifically said he was part of your religion, he was definitely being honest, as opposed to just telling you what you wanted to hear, you nightmarish retards..
 
2013-02-08 07:21:52 AM  
I hate when people want to do things with their own money that they earned. I know a bunch of different ways where I could spend it better than they could.
 
2013-02-08 07:37:17 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: AverageAmericanGuy: I said each of us spent $100 on our respective assets in the first place. Selling them to each other for $100 apiece nets neither of us any taxable income.

The selling of the assets would result in income. In what way do you see it not resulting in income?

The transactions are separate and unrelated.


Because your cost basis in the property is $100. If you sell it for $100 your gain is zero. You generally only pay taxes on a sale when there is a gain involved.

(And your friend who has just paid $100 for it won't realize any gain when he sells it back to you for $100 next year, and so on.)

/more complicated in reality, but the point is you could shuffle assets around so anyone with significant money could "spend" it and owe little or no taxes under an "after-spending" tax scheme


In the end, someone is holding the bag. I understand where you're going with this scenario, but whether or not there is a gain, the selling of assets would be income for the person receiving the payment, even if it turned out to be a loss as in the case of a loss of value in securities. In fact, if you were to take a loss of 100% on your investment income, you would have no income tax to pay since you 1) spent it to buy the securities and 2) received no money back when you sold them.

Now, is flushing your money down the drain the same as spending it? Probably not, unless you can get your toilet to print you a receipt.

Back to your example of two people conspiring to "sell" their assets to each other, they have done nothing except transformed the income of each person into a transaction, and in doing so generated income for the other person. The assets they receive would be protected from taxation, as would be the after-tax money they didn't spend.

I'm suggesting that if you spend all of your money, you should pay no tax, regardless of whether you were buying fine art, stocks, or Kraft Mac & Cheese. Anything you earned but didn't spend, as proven by your lack of receipts for them, would be taxed once.

A leap in technology to monitor transactions as well as save receipts safely and securely as well as protect against fraudulent receipts would be necessary, but that's not too difficult of a technology problem as much as that there would be societal resistance to such monitoring.

In any case, it was just a thought experiment to find a way to equitably tax people without overburdening them while still encouraging them to participate in the economy.
 
2013-02-08 07:37:43 AM  
Why shouldn't rich people pay more? I'm barely scrapping by making less than $57k a year, and some asshole get to cruise through life because he has foresight and drive? How is that remotely fair? This is America for God's sake. The land of opportunity. So why don't I get the opportunity to get some of that money? The rich should give up a couple million here and there and let us poorer people enjoy life a little bit too. It's not like they'll miss it. What, they have to buy one less yacht this year? Boo hoo. If you have 3 Dodge Vipers, I should at least be given 1 of them.
 
2013-02-08 07:40:47 AM  
Let's see what's going... crap, just another pity the poor rich guy thread.
 
2013-02-08 07:45:03 AM  

MythDragon: Why shouldn't rich people pay more? I'm barely scrapping by making less than $57k a year, and some asshole get to cruise through life because he has foresight and drive? How is that remotely fair? This is America for God's sake. The land of opportunity. So why don't I get the opportunity to get some of that money? The rich should give up a couple million here and there and let us poorer people enjoy life a little bit too. It's not like they'll miss it. What, they have to buy one less yacht this year? Boo hoo. If you have 3 Dodge Vipers, I should at least be given 1 of them.


One of the problems in California is driving those Vipers on roads which aren't falling into the sea, policed by PDs which aren't bankrupt, through neighborhoods where the streetlights are on. Quality parody (I hope) though.

13% more to live in California rather than Nevada? I'd happily pay 30%. Maybe more.
 
2013-02-08 07:45:40 AM  

Dedmon: Would that be a lower tax on the poor? As I understand it, the poor (majority of americans) receive their income taxes back at the beggining of the next year, effectively being an income tax rate of 0.

So the first part of your plan is neutral at best, right?
Now, currently, the "rich" (ideally) pay taxes on 100% of their income, but now should only pay it on the part of the income they cant spend fast enough. Is that correct?

I dont know if that would work, to be honest.


It could be a flat or graduated tax, I'm not sure that's necessarily a sticking point either way.

The poor would pay a small percentage of their after-spending income on taxes. The rich would pay a small percentage (or large percentage) on their after-spending income.

Ideally, people would be encouraged to buy things to reduce their tax burden but the tax rate wouldn't be so onerous as to eliminate saving. If you've saved, you'll pay a reasonable tax for 'hoarding' your money, but only once. If you've spent, you're not going to be hit with a large tax bill because you've already plowed your money back into the economy. Those with fewer means will spend closer to their income while those with greater means will spend a smaller portion of their income. The result is that those who earn more pay more and those who earn less pay less.
 
Displayed 50 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report