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.
The middle class doesn't have the money or power to take advantage of all those legal loopholes and pay fewer taxes.
most all the 'loopholes' are credits that only the middleclass and poor can take
most lower middleclass pay very little to none on federal income tax...they may pay out the nose at the state or local level, but federally they pay very little
Yes and no. "Loopholes" were fixed back in 1986, there are no real loopholes left. There are targeted items in the tax code but all of those are used by the government to dictate an activity. (housing credit, etc)
People who receive wages have very few options in saving taxes, no matter what their income level is. Sure, the high income if they have assets can buy some of the targeted tax saving investments but no a lot, there are limits.
People who live off of, investments, rental income etc. have many more options. Most of these people are retired so, they may make $75k and be in the middle class income wise but their taxes can be next to nothing.
Yes and no. "Loopholes" were fixed back in 1986, there are no real loopholes left. There are targeted items in the tax code but all of those are used by the government to dictate an activity. (housing credit, etc)
Take two people. One makes $5 million a year and the other, $50K. Everything else being equal, which of the two has a greater chance to benefit with a lower tax burden, considering capital gains tax relative to income tax?
Your ability to comprehend, and consequently the conclusions, aside, when you accuse government of imposing the suffering, are you suggesting that something like progressive taxation is an example of such suffering imposed on the rich to help the poor? Yes?
Government imposes suffering on many americans. They take peoples homes, they fine people, they impose zoning, they restrict peoples uses of items bought legally, What are you smoking that you dont know this? Do you pretend that the eminant domain process for example isnt suffering on those who had their homes taken from them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Well, considering who that accusation is coming from,
Ahh, the non stop personal attacks.. When liberals lose the argument.. it begins..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
no sire, charities are fine. But they can’t be relied upon without government assistance.
Thats not governments job either.. Have you read the Constitution? Where is supporting charities listed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I know keeping in touch with realities is not your strong suit,
More personal attacks.. Thats a sign of being wrong and losing the argument!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
but charities suffer when times are bad, just when those who need charities are most vulnerable. Besides, many charities are run on religious grounds, with their own motivations.
And? Is there a point you were making because if there is, its not a very good one..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And then, I see idiocy like this, which reminds me of many C-D contributors.
More personal attacks against other posters.. And not only is it attacks, but its a changing of the subject and offers nothing to the topic.. Is attacking all you have the ability to do? Is changing the subject and not being able to follow the topic beyond your ability? Try to follow along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So you’re saying there are going to be fewer winners at the expense of most who would lose for one reason or another?
Isnt that the way it is in every nation? Under every political process? Even socialism/communism has their winners, those who are connected, at the expense of those who arent. Where is this imaginary fantasy land which exists that money isnt gained by having others lose? But when those individuals "lose" are they really "losing"? Bill Gates for example gained billions of dollars by having others give him their money.. Is most of society at a "loss" because we now have better operating systems, or did everyone win? Warren Buffet, gained billions by financing corporations which employ hundreds of thousands of individuals.. Are you now claiming the employees would be better off without jobs? Tell me under what legal scenario individuals dont get rich by helping others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Spoken like a grown up. Now, anything meaningful to contribute, or just the desire to prove your genius and talk about your wealth and your patriotism and your grasp of issues and your flawless solutions...
Meaning, you had no real point and couldnt discuss the issue like an adult..
Take two people. One makes $5 million a year and the other, $50K. Everything else being equal, which of the two has a greater chance to benefit with a lower tax burden, considering capital gains tax relative to income tax?
Yes and no. "Loopholes" were fixed back in 1986, there are no real loopholes left. There are targeted items in the tax code but all of those are used by the government to dictate an activity. (housing credit, etc)
Targeted loopholes were fixed in 1986, but trust me, there are plenty left.. I grossed $23M last year (businesses included), and my tax refund is in the tens of thousands.. thats after I paid ZERO taxes...
I think many americans would be shocked to find the number of loopholes which exist.. 1031's, LIHTCs for example..
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
most all the 'loopholes' are credits that only the middleclass and poor can take
Thats not true at all.. Above is 2 such examples.. 1031's allow the rich, to grow their wealth tax free, for generations.... The growth will continue until tax rates drop to the point that it makes sense to pay the taxes... given the current economy, thats not going to happen anytime soon...
Explain with an illustration. I will even give you an example that Warren Buffett brought up, him (paying 17.7% in taxes) versus his secretary (32.9% in taxes). What do you think the secretary could realistically do to drop the taxes to Buffett's level?
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.
