Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Athens · Nov 17, 2011, 12:47 AM

Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes - Nov. 16, 2011

This is a shock, that millionaires are themselves asking to be taxed more. I also like how they say it does not affect job creation. Im surprised this has not been posted in here yet.

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 12:56 AM

I wasn't invited.

As one of the few on this forum who can speak for the 1%, I'd be fine with letting the Bush cuts lapse, but that's about it.

Now, feel free to pile on and tell me how selfish I am.

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2011, 02:43 AM

Athens, why do you keep posting things about morons, as if this was normal and logic behavior ?

Those millionaires are f*cking hypocrites.

I bet you Obamas balls that ALL of them use tax strategies helping them to minimize their personal income taxes. Nuff said.

-t

Big Mac · 03:27 AM

Yeah, and that mega-crook, Obama buddy/toady Warren Buffet lobbies in favor of higher taxes on the rich while disputing taxes the IRS says he owes that go back ten years. Try that when you're not mega-wealthy and see how far you get.

Also, there's nothing stopping those rich patriots from donating more money to the Treasury. In fact, there's a line on the tax form to do just that.

Athens · Nov 17, 2011, 04:24 AM

Some pointed out its easier for some one who is 80+ to offer to pay more taxes vs a 40 something still building up his wealth. Its a good point but at the same time I don't pity a 40 year old making millions having to struggle a little more to make his millions into double digits.

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 05:02 AM

A 90% tax rate is a "little more"?

Quit trying to disproportionately fund your social experiments with my labor.

If all else fails, I'll stop producing "income". It isn't worth it for a measly 10%. No more real estate transactions, no selling securities, no new investments. I'll just live off what I have, which would be easy. I'll let it sit in big lumps in off-shore accounts, make enough donations to cover the interest, and draw out what I need. All work that I privately do will be directly through my non-profit, with all proceeds going to charity. Then come tax time I'll give Uncle Sam the finger and show the IRS that I actually lost money that quarter/year. "Suck it, no tax monies for jooo!"

I wonder if I could qualify for EBT?

Athens · Nov 17, 2011, 05:16 AM

I would gladly accept a donation of $600 000 to shut up

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 05:27 AM

I don't respond well to blackmail, from the gov't or individuals.

Athens · Nov 17, 2011, 06:39 AM

That isn't blackmail, its a purchase of a service

ghporter · Nov 17, 2011, 07:23 AM

While a number of the most wealthy Americans could be thought of as being hypocritical in "insisting" on increases in their personal taxes, today's US millionaires are not the stereotype "rich kid who inherited it all." Instead, the overwhelming majority seem to be "working rich," having earned their wealth through their own work. They also tend to be workaholics, but that's another story.

But here's where the combination of altruism and self-interest happens: if the US economy takes another huge hit because of the draconian cuts built into the Supercommittee law, these self-made rich folks stand to have a lot less of a chance to continue to make money. Cutting trillions in federal spending starting in FY2013 means that many of the more lucrative parts of the economy will be impacted. Health care stands to lose even more than it already has-and if you don't think the health care industry is having problems, just take a look at how Medicare is already paying significantly less today than it did last year for the same services. "Sorry, Grandma, but we can't afford to get you the physical therapy you need after your hip surgery because Congress couldn't take it off the playground and man-up to make real decisions. You can almost hobble to the bathroom, right? That's good enough for Congress!" (This is not as much an exaggeration as you might think...)

So having a bunch of really wealthy people step up and say "why are you giving us all such a break when you're taxing the working poor at a higher real percentage than at any time in the last 40 years?" is not so much hypocrisy as pragmatism. As far as I can see, the Republicans are offering corporations and the wealthy breaks they aren't asking for...and so far nobody has managed to explain where the Republicans get their ideas about job creation being linked to helping rich people keep more of their income, especially when these same rich people are publicly saying that paying more (and more reasonable) taxes won't hurt what they do to create and improve jobs...

Doofy · Nov 17, 2011, 08:42 AM

Hey Buffett! There's absolutely nothing stopping you from writing a cheque to the government for the extra taxes you think you want to pay. So why not do that and then STFU?

Time to head to Galt's Gulch, methinks.

mduell · Nov 17, 2011, 03:00 PM

How much did they each make in excess payments on their taxes last year?

Oh that's right, they want to tax other people more.

Big Mac · Nov 17, 2011, 03:18 PM

I think the cop out for these hypocrites is that they don't want to pay more unless they're forced to because if they aren't forced by higher rates other rich people won't be as altruistic as they are.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 03:35 PM

Isn't the value of paying more somewhat depenent on the number of people who are paying more?

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 03:38 PM

Ayup. "We want higher taxes, but we don't want to be the only ones doing it!"

How noble of them.

Hey, I have an idea, they should donate half their profits next year to charity. I did, and I didn't wait for others to come along to validate my convictions.

Shaddim · 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Isn't the value of paying more somewhat depenent on the number of people who are paying more?

Nope. The value in paying more is in that you feel it's of benefit to the world and yourself. You can only choose for yourself. Trying to force others to believe the same way just makes them more likely to evade.

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2011, 03:45 PM

I'd rather see the loopholes closed and capital gains treated as the income it really is, than to see the taxes raised. I don't think it'll make that much of an impact. People intent on keeping their money from being taxed are going to continue doing so no matter what the rate is.

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2011, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Hey, I have an idea, they should donate half their profits next year to charity. I did, and I didn't wait for others to come along to validate my convictions.

The down side to that is that charities don't pave our streets or protect our borders.

Big Mac · Nov 17, 2011, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Isn't the value of paying more somewhat depenent on the number of people who are paying more?

One could argue the point that way, but if they were truly altruistic these generous wealthy individuals would pledge to pay more voluntarily and then follow through. They could all en masse sign a contract to do it, on the penalty that the IRS would hold them responsible with fines if they didn't voluntarily pay more. There are a number of different creative legal solutions that a coalition of truly selfless individuals could adopt if they actually felt personally compelled by civic duty to pay more. But they don't do that. They don't really want to pay more as much as they want to raise taxes on others by force, even if that means their taxes are increased. They're mostly mountebanks-political hacks and crooks-especially the blatant hypocrite-crooks like Warren Buffet.

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The down side to that is that charities don't pave our streets or protect our borders.

Neither does the Federal gov't.

Those probably weren't good choices, TBH.

Big Mac · Nov 17, 2011, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The down side to that is that charities don't pave our streets or protect our borders.

The federal government doesn't pave our streets either. The feds handle highways as part of their legitimate interstate commerce power, and in addition, the highway fund is a pretty cheap expenditure by federal standards. As for national defense, that's one of the highest Constitutional priorities of the federal government and is an absolutely legitimate federal expense, although we should try to ensure that we use military force prudently and that the military-industrial complex isn't taking advantage of the country to enrich itself improperly. There's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the military, and it should be on the table.

But the unconstitutional entitlement pyramid schemes should be at the top of the list to be radically reformed. At the same time tackle unconstitutional/superfluous bureaucracies and bloated federal payrolls that cost nearly as much as the public Entitlements.

Every extra percentage of GDP the government spends, the stronger it becomes at the expense of our individual liberties, until either the dollar collapses from debt or we become functional indentured servants to an all powerful Uncle Sam.

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2011, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Those probably weren't good choices, TBH.

Since they're operating on a deficit (different matter altogether), I'd imagine the Federal Government is short handed when trying to deal with the maintenance of 46,000 miles of interstate highway.

More money will help, but I think a crack down on vendor corruption would be required. We can't continue operating by contracting with companies that charge $180 for a $10 hammer.

Athens · Nov 17, 2011, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The down side to that is that charities don't pave our streets or protect our borders.

Neither does the Government it seems

(Referencing sections of the i5 in Washington)

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The down side to that is that charities don't pave our streets or protect our borders.

Hmm... Now that I think about it, that gives me some ideas.

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Nope. The value in paying more is in that you feel it's of benefit to the world and yourself. You can only choose for yourself. Trying to force others to believe the same way just makes them more likely to evade.

What if it actually is of benefit to the world?

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by subego

What if it actually is of benefit to the world?

Then convince them. Otherwise, they'll find a way to not pay. I pay my taxes, I think they're fair. If that changes and I feel I'm getting shafted, I'll legally stop paying income taxes altogether.

Chongo · Nov 17, 2011, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

A 90% tax rate is a "little more"?

Quit trying to disproportionately fund your social experiments with my labor.

If all else fails, I'll stop producing "income". It isn't worth it for a measly 10%. No more real estate transactions, no selling securities, no new investments. I'll just live off what I have, which would be easy. I'll let it sit in big lumps in off-shore accounts, make enough donations to cover the interest, and draw out what I need. All work that I privately do will be directly through my non-profit, with all proceeds going to charity. Then come tax time I'll give Uncle Sam the finger and show the IRS that I actually lost money that quarter/year. "Suck it, no tax monies for jooo!"

I wonder if I could qualify for EBT?

I'm not even close to being rich, but using Gore math in 25 years I will be a millionaire. That being said, our company now has a Roth 401k. That's where i've been putting my money. Move your money to a Roth 401k and tell the feds to pound sand.

Shaddim · Nov 17, 2011, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

I'm not even close to being rich, but using Gore math in 25 years I will be a millionaire. That being said, our company now has a Roth 401k. That's where i've been putting my money. Move your money to a Roth 401k and tell the feds to pound sand.

I appreciate the advice, but there are a couple of small problems with that.

individuals are limited to contributing no more than $5,000 to a Roth IRA, if under age 50, and $6,000, if age 50 or older. Additionally, Roth IRA contributions are prohibited when taxpayers earn a Modified Adjusted Gross Income of more than $110,000, ($160,000 for married filing jointly).

Chongo · Nov 17, 2011, 10:31 PM

Roth 401k, not IRA. You can contribute up to 17K a year, 22k if over 50.

Chongo · Nov 17, 2011, 10:36 PM

Roth 401(k) or Traditional 401(k)

subego · Nov 17, 2011, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Then convince them. Otherwise, they'll find a way to not pay. I pay my taxes, I think they're fair. If that changes and I feel I'm getting shafted, I'll legally stop paying income taxes altogether.

I'm convinced by merely having a rough idea of what a decade's worth of war footing costs.

Shaddim · 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Roth 401k, not IRA. You can contribute up to 17K a year, 22k if over 50.

Pretty much the same problem. Last year we paid over $400k in taxes.

Shaddim · Nov 18, 2011, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by subego

I'm convinced by merely having a rough idea of what a decade's worth of war footing costs.

I concur, but I've been against all these wars from the beginning and favored a defense cut of 40-50% for years. IMO, we need a smaller army and a much better assassination corp.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Nov 18, 2011, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I wasn't invited.

Well are you an Obama Admin/Democrat shill? No? Then OF COURSE you weren't invited!

Really.. Doug Edwards, and we're supposed to believe this is some grass roots group of millionaires that strolled over to Congress to beg and plead for higher taxes for themselves!

Never mind that Edwards is the same shill that pulled the same staged stunt a one of Obama's town hall meetings. "Oh no way Crash, they just picked him at random out of the crowd to ask a question, no one had ANY IDEA he was there and or what he was going to ask! And now, in a completely unrelated and random incident, here he and some other 'common folks' are asking the same thing of Congress! None of it's staged! It's for really-reals!"

It's not even worth bothering with the usual "Just pay more in taxes then simpleton, if you really felt that way" response- this is just more soviet style staged propaganda from this administration that's so obvious it amazes me anyone actually falls for it.

Hey, maybe Doug Edwards and some other 'random' shills will show up at various stops during Obama's campaign tour- that would sure be clever!

"Excuse me, Mr. President Sir! Um, I have a question! Why don't you raise my taxes, please Sir?"

"Ah, look at that! A very good question, completely out of the blue! Well let me just say I'm working on it, Mr. Random Person I've never met and didn't ask to be here..."

subego · Nov 18, 2011, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I concur, but I've been against all these wars from the beginning and favored a defense cut of 40-50% for years. IMO, we need a smaller army and a much better assassination corp.

I disagree, but even if I agreed, the milk isn't going unspill itself.

Shaddim · Nov 18, 2011, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by subego

I disagree, but even if I agreed, the milk isn't going unspill itself.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, but my portion of the 1%, <$100M philanthropists, aren't going to bear the sole responsibility of putting it back in. They try to push too hard and a lot of people will just sit and cross their arms. There needs to be meaningful conversation, not just a mob with pitchforks trying to find someone to blame and pickup the tab.

subego · Nov 18, 2011, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

The toothpaste is out of the tube, but my portion of the 1%, <$100M philanthropists, aren't going to bear the sole responsibility of putting it back in. They try to push too hard and a lot of people will just sit and cross their arms. There needs to be meaningful conversation, not just a mob with pitchforks trying to find someone to blame and pickup the tab.

By my count, there are several orders of magnitude more people refusing to brook any increase in responsibility versus those calling for the richest to take sole responsibility.

Not to mention that even if you didn't support the war(s), the people who are refusing increased responsibility are in large part people who did support it.

Shaddim · Nov 18, 2011, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by subego

By my count, there are several orders of magnitude more people refusing to brook any increase in responsibility versus those calling for the richest to take sole responsibility.

Like OWS or some of the more vocal members on this forum?

Not to mention that even if you didn't support the war(s), the people who are refusing increased responsibility are in large part people who did support it.

Fine, let them get out their checkbooks, they wanted it, they can pay for it. I'll just pay my taxes until they become too onerous to bare. Then I'll stop, and people can decide if my ~31% was better than 0%.

subego · Nov 18, 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Like OWS or some of the more vocal members on this forum?

I don't use who talks loud on this forum to gauge the entire country, and neither should you.

As for OWS, where are you getting the idea they have some form of unified demand you can ascribe to them?

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Fine, let them get out their checkbooks, they wanted it, they can pay for it. I'll just pay my taxes until they become too onerous to bare. Then I'll stop, and people can decide if my ~31% was better than 0%.

What rate would you consider onerous?

Shaddim · Nov 19, 2011, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by subego

What rate would you consider onerous?

Personally? A progressive 25% on long term cap gains, and a progressive 40%* on regular income and short term cap gains. Beyond that is unacceptable.

*In 2013 this will be the rate anyway, more or less, since the tax breaks on cap gains will end in 2012.

subego · Nov 19, 2011, 01:36 AM

Can you convert that into a single percentage for me?

I apologize for being nosy, but I can't really compare what you pay now to what you'd be willing to pay if I have total vs. split percentages.

Doofy · Nov 19, 2011, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Personally? A progressive 25% on long term cap gains, and a progressive 40%* on regular income and short term cap gains. Beyond that is unacceptable.

Dammit man, when did you turn into a pinko? Even Chavez only grabs 34%.

subego · Nov 19, 2011, 01:54 AM

Doesn't the Queen take 40%-50%?

Shaddim · Nov 19, 2011, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dammit man, when did you turn into a pinko? Even Chavez only grabs 34%.

Well, the state of TN just ended all taxes on cap gains two years ago, so I'm feeling generous.

I'm basically just stating what it was back before 2001, which is shitty but tolerable. A compromise isn't good unless both parties are unhappy with it.

Shaddim · Nov 19, 2011, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Can you convert that into a single percentage for me?

I apologize for being nosy, but I can't really compare what you pay now to what you'd be willing to pay if I have total vs. split percentages.

Say, 24% and 38%, respectively. That's not dead-on, but fairly close.

Doofy · Nov 19, 2011, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Doesn't the Queen take 40%-50%?

Only if one doesn't realise that it's completely voluntary.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Well, the state of TN just ended all taxes on cap gains two years ago, so I'm feeling generous.

I'm basically just stating what it was back before 2001, which is shitty but tolerable. A compromise isn't good unless both parties are unhappy with it.

Ahh!

subego · Nov 19, 2011, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Only if one doesn't realise that it's completely voluntary.

It is, in effect, the same here.

aristotles · Nov 19, 2011, 02:30 AM

That is a game of smoke and mirrors. You can raise the tax rate all you like for the top earners but they will still pay virtually nothing. Why? Tax loopholes.

Don't raise the rates, pass laws that prevent the rich from abusing the tax deductions by placing dollar limits on how much you can deduct. That means that the deduction is worth a certain percentage but only up to a specific ceiling level to allow actual hard working people to still use them to raise families and put their kids through college but not for the rich to use them to avoid paying taxes.

subego · Nov 19, 2011, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Say, 24% and 38%, respectively. That's not dead-on, but fairly close.

To recap then, the most you'll take is a ~2% increase, even though the country is on the hook for a decade's worth of dual wars, and the reason you won't accept a larger increase is because you didn't support that aspect of our foreign policy?

Regardless of if I've made some mistakes above, do you believe not paying your taxes screws over the government? What about fellow citizens who have to make up your gap?

Just **** 'em?

Shaddim · Nov 19, 2011, 04:57 AM

What gap? I pay a much higher %. I think you misunderstood what I said. Currently I'm paying 15% on long term cap gains and 25% on short term (or there abouts), I'm willing and ready to pay 24 and 38%, respectively. That's a healthy bump.

When the current tax cuts on cap gains expire at the end of 2012, if they aren't extended again, they'll go back to their pre-2001 levels of ~19.5 and 38%, my estimate. I'm willing to pay an additional 4.5% increase on long term investments above the pre-2001 level. I think that sucks, but I'd be willing to do that. If it gets onerous, such as a top end of 80-90%, as was recommended by someone else on this forum, I'd just stop producing so much income. What would be my incentive to keep making money? Patriotism? The warm and fuzzy feeling I get for paying into an abused and broken system that I had no part in breaking or abusing? After thinking about it, I'd do more good to just keep doing what I'm doing, keep up to the 25% mark, and dump all the rest into a charitable trust. At least that way I can choose to deal with NPOs that have integrity, and operate with complete transparency so I can see where the money's going.