Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I make dividends of a million dollars a year, I pay 15% or 20% on them, right?
If I make capital gains of 500,000 a year, I pay the same...corect?
But if I make those numbers in regular income I pay:
39.6% Federal Tax (on amounts over X)
Plus Medicare and SS on the first 110K or so - employer matched so a total of 16% or so.
You are ignoring risk. When you put capital at risk, you frequently lose it altogether. Just ask investors in General Motors, Lehman Brothers, The Reserve Funds, Washington Mutual, WorldCom, CIT Group, Enron, Conseco, Chrysler, MF Global Holdings, or Thornburg Mortgage.
In contrast, you never lose your regular wages. Even the bankruptcy courts have long recognized the supremacy of labor, as labor is paid wages owed in front of other creditors.
Congress, in its wisdom, has provided a tax incentive for capital to invest. That is how the economy grows, how GDP grows, how jobs are created, how communities thrive, how public sector pensions are funded, how Social Security is funded, etc etc etc.
...A small business runs his income into enhancing the value of the enterprise instead of taking it in income.
You enhance the value of an enterprise via investment in plant & equipment & expanding capacity and employment.
It seems you suggest the alternative that the tax law should require:
(a) no internal business investment, but instead
(b) taxation of profits,
(c) disbursement to owners/shareholders who then
(d) pay personal income taxes on that income, and then
(e) re-invest it in the company to enhance the value of the enterprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Simple cure is tax all income the same.
There are two problems with that sentence.
First, "cure" implies an illness or problem that needs to be "cured." There is nothing that needs to be cured.
Second, it ignores the different characteristic of risk capital. You can lose your risk capital - you can be wiped out. Wage income is quite secure - bankruptcy courts recognize the supremacy of wages owed over other debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
And you might consider making it all subject to an uncapped FICA to fund entitlements.
There is no justification for charging a high income person more for insurance. You might as well then say Milk and eggs at a grocery store should be priced according to personal income.
Americans pay 3X to 10X more for health care than citizens of other advanced countries.
Very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimAZ
Until we start to enforce existing antitrust laws and go after the anti-competitive practices of hospitals and insurance companies, we will never get a handle on costs.
I keep coming back to a long-term decline in productivity in the healthcare industry, where productivity is output divided by labor hours as the input.
I keep coming back to the issue is bureaucratic bloat - far too many paper pushers employed in hospitals, doctors offices, clinics, imaging facilities, etc and and insurance companies.
There are two separate ways to look at excessive payroll in the health care industry and health insurance industry:
1) individual compensation is outsized
2) there are too damn many people on the payroll
I believe #2 is the main culprit. Too damn many people on the payroll means too damn many labor hours in the calculation of productivity (the denominator). Too damn many people on the payroll is the root cause, IMNVHO, of the long term decline in productivity in the health care industry.
Wrong again. You look it up, many were paid way more than 10 miliion per year. LOL at the idea these guys would work for 1m when all the collegues makes way more.
I didn't say it was a cure, its a start.
Peanut, I suggest you contact the Boards of Directors of those corporations and offer to do the job for a mere $1M. I think everyone would win.
Peanut, I suggest you contact the Boards of Directors of those corporations and offer to do the job for a mere $1M. I think everyone would win.
Why would I go work for the devil's industry. lol I couldn't sleep at night knowing there are people dying cause we decided they didn't need the treatments that might of saved their lives. If a product is a 'need' there should be tight restrictions on it.
Love where I am, which is way I'm still working. No one 'needs' what we do.
And I'm done dressing up for work. Being creative, I can look like I'm going on safari or work in my yoga pants and no one bats an eye.
The end of last year, somewhere was published the salaries of the top in the health insurance industry. I think the lowest one was making 8m a year.
^^^ Did you see the list, It was all the major insurance companies. No you just took out of context what I wrote. Just as I stated to START cut salaries of the Ceo's. Does this threathen your job or something? Where's that block button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
Right - it always depends on whether one makes enough money to make the acct. bills worthwhile. That is another place where the regular guy or gal pays more.
For example, I too take a home office deduct. But I own 3 house - and (just as an example, but it's close) I make a living from photography. So when I am in those other states (houses), I am making money. Therefore I should be able to write off a percentage of those houses.
BUT, to do so requires filing tax returns in those states which would eat up most of the savings I would get from the deducts.....
However, if I were a Rich Man (da da da da da da - Fiddler on the Roof song!) - then the accountants fees are tiny compared to the vast amounts I can deduct by using 30% of a Tropical Mansion and expenses as offices.
Advantage=the Top 1%...
I tend to fall into the income bracket where I get hit the hardest...I have written yearly checks over 6 figures for Fed Taxes and I certainly didn't make 6 or 8X that amount those particular years.
Anyway, thread has run off-topic as usual. If we wanted to get entitlement under control we wouldn't have destroyed the possibility of balancing the budget with 1.5 Trillion more borrowed (and more to come).
Trumps health care stuff is gonna raise the entitlement costs...as well as make more people suffer...
So we are going in the opposite direction as we should. It was the perfect time to get the budget under control as we were getting relatively close to balanced compared to former years (Recession-caused). But instead of doing what is right, we did what makes wealthy people even more wealthy. Now THAT'S an entitlement.
Don't think the IRS would allow the deduction on 3 homes, but I get what you are saying. The CPA also has to depreciate that part of our house. They also take the sq ft of the house and how much of the homes you use is what you get to write off. We have 4 rooms that are business. so that is where CPA comes up with 1/3. And a cold storage rental for records/contracts douments etc.
Back to topic. Entitlement, end corporate welfare and farm subsidies. Strong restriction on lobbbyist activities and kickbacks.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but there is a difference between someone getting money back that they personally have set aside (through paycheck deductions) and someone getting a charity handout. I am not saying that we should not help the unfortunate, but just that the circumstances are completely different.
Look, I know that many people get WAY more back from Social Security than they put into it, but all I am saying that it is only fair and right, imo, that we get back as much as we put into it with reasonable interest. If someone were just to give me a check for the balance (plus interest) of what I paid into Social Security and say, "That's it -- that's all you're going to get" -- I personally would not have a problem with that; however, I do understand that many retired people counted on getting Social Security for the rest of their lives, as that is what they were promised, and I don't think it is right to renege on that.
And, to tighten up the rule of 10 year marriage gets you his SS. We know a guy who’s had 4 marriages, each qualifying, and each collecting. That 5 bites at the same apple. And let’s face it, he’s not the the only one martying multiple times. There needs to be some sort of qualifier.
We don't need more laws, we need to do a better job of enforcing the ones we already have.
How about an audit to see who's on it and if they are still eligible to be on it.
I have often wondered how many death certificates were never sent in because a family didn't want to lose their benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
