Glad you understand now. So, do you now have enough info to answer my question?
The point is gross, or, amount of, dollars, not tax rate or percentage of income.
Why should someone who has more wherewithal provide less of a percentage simply because it comes out to a larger gross amount?
Does the tax attorney decide your opinions? The tax attorney can tell you why a wealthier person would pay less (a smaller percentage) of their income in taxes. However, only you can answer why you think that this SHOULD be the case.For that you need to consult a tax attorney.
Does the tax attorney decide your opinions? The tax attorney can tell you why a wealthier person would pay less (a smaller percentage) of their income in taxes. However, only you can answer why you think that this SHOULD be the case.
There are several issues with this.When you say "more of", you are talking about proportions - percentages. When the value that you're getting more of isn't fixed (i.e. two different incomes), then someone can have more of their value while that actual numerical figure is smaller than another person's.
For example: If Bill and Bob both make $50,000, and Bill pays $10,000 in taxes while Bob pays $5,000, then Bill is paying both a larger value and more of his income than Bob. However, if Bill makes $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes while Bob makes $100,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes, Bob is paying a larger value while Bill is paying more of his income. The impact to Bill's life is greater than the impact to Bob's life - Bill is sacrificing 20% of his income, while Bob is only giving up 15%.
As a further confounding factor, after a certain point, additional wealth or income is essentially meaningless. For example, Michael Bloomberg is worth about $60 billion. You could take 50% of his wealth and he'd still be in the top 10 richest people in the world. His lifestyle would not change. There is nothing that he could comfortably buy at $60 billion that he couldn't also comfortably buy at $30 billion. You can apply this at a smaller scale for income taxes - essentially, your effective tax rate should increase as your income increases because it is easier for you to live on a slightly smaller percentage of your much larger income than it is for a person of lower income to do the same.
For that you need to consult a tax attorney.
And suddenly you can't explain your own assertion.
There are several issues with this.
1. If I have $10 million it is much easier for me to higher the best accountant to find tax loopholes which sounds like cheating, so lets say instead - tax advantaged investments. I used to sell triple tax free bonds from Puerto Rico. So if I invest my $10 million in these bonds I could get $500,000 in tax free income. There are reasons why the government and the poor would want people to invest in these bonds. Making them triple tax free is a way to decrease the interest rate Puerto Rico has to pay which in turn helps all the residents of Puerto Rico. Since you used Bloomberg as an example, saying his net worth is 60 billion let's consider that. What was his income? Many of these super wealthy business owners do not take a salary, so no income tax. If his net worth is in stock we don't tax the gain in the stock's value until you sell it. So you could have $60 billion worth of stock but you don't pay tax on it until you sell it or unless it pays a dividend. Once again, this is a cornerstone of capitalism, allowing people to move money rapidly to fund businesses. It is the reason our country has a more successful economy than the other superpowers. It is also why China has changed their economy.
2. Suppose you decide you don't care about any of that and you are going to tax them on their net worth. They will just move. Anyone worth $60 billion can afford two or three homes. Again, they can afford the best tax accountants who can scour the law. There is always some place willing to give major tax breaks for investments.
Something as simple should be understood by most.
See post #105.
It’s tragic that you have to explain this concept to a grownass adult.When you say "more of", you are talking about proportions - percentages. When the value that you're getting more of isn't fixed (i.e. two different incomes), then someone can have more of their value while that actual numerical figure is smaller than another person's.
For example: If Bill and Bob both make $50,000, and Bill pays $10,000 in taxes while Bob pays $5,000, then Bill is paying both a larger value and more of his income than Bob. However, if Bill makes $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes while Bob makes $100,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes, Bob is paying a larger value while Bill is paying more of his income. The impact to Bill's life is greater than the impact to Bob's life - Bill is sacrificing 20% of his income, while Bob is only giving up 15%.
As a further confounding factor, after a certain point, additional wealth or income is essentially meaningless. For example, Michael Bloomberg is worth about $60 billion. You could take 50% of his wealth and he'd still be in the top 10 richest people in the world. His lifestyle would not change. There is nothing that he could comfortably buy at $60 billion that he couldn't also comfortably buy at $30 billion. You can apply this at a smaller scale for income taxes - essentially, your effective tax rate should increase as your income increases because it is easier for you to live on a slightly smaller percentage of your much larger income than it is for a person of lower income to do the same.
My friend made a business off of selling life insurance to rich people as a way to avoid taxes in passing their estate on to others. The reason AOC complained of the Amazon deal was because of the generous tax breaks NYC was going to give. Ireland has been famous for this. There are tax havens where simply depositing money in the bank is all it takes and they have no tax or an extremely low tax rate. Like I said, triple tax free bonds allows Puerto Rico to sell bonds at a lower rate and also lets the bond holder get tax free income. Hence the law about the minimum tax.Most so-called tax breaks are actually tax deferrals. Eventually these assets will be sold and taxes collected (many are as we speak).
Also most wealth isn't money but the things that money produces. The money is actually always in circulation for any and all to obtain through work and investment.
Then all you had to do was explain it. Instead I was told to consult a tax attorney. So let me make certain I have your claims correct. The rich are over taxed because they should b encouraged to put their money into long term tax investments that will then be used in the economy. Is that correct?
Correct. Wealth is long lasting. It’s owned. Income is transient. Wealth is what one keeps.Wealth and income are two different things in this regard.
Oh? I don't see it as obvious. Can you point to how Trumps policies are detrimental to Russia?
Correct. Wealth is long lasting. It’s owned. Income is transient. Wealth is what one keeps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?