Scraping By On $500,000 A Year

[doctalaughs]

Fair enough. I will refuse, however, to bargain principals because "it is only 0.2% and no one will care". You don't need a rebellion. Sometimes all you need is awareness and subsequent action.

Also, it doesn't appear that the populace needs to be convinced. They have already introduced the bare bones bill. ;-)

Just need some politicians to come on board. That is the hard part. Principals don't often exist in the Swamp.

Physicians are in the group that pays the HIGHEST tax rates in the country (ie those that make 200k-couple mill). Those who make less income obviously pay lower rates. Those who make more (in that 0.2%) also often pay lower rates as they have access to complex tax structures and armies of Lawyers/accountants. It's a travesty that you can make 100million/ yr and somehow pay 10% when a physician making 650k pays 39%.

Therefore I don't feel bad about the estate tax trampling the "rights" of that group. Introduce an ironclad minimum tax rate and we can revisit the topic. Believe me, they have ways to avoid a lot of that estate tax above 5 million as well.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ignatius J]

Physicians are in the group that pays the HIGHEST tax rates in the country (ie those that make 200k-couple mill). Those who make less income obviously pay lower rates. Those who make more (in that 0.2%) also often pay lower rates as they have access to complex tax structures and armies of Lawyers/accountants. It's a travesty that you can make 100million/ yr and somehow pay 10% when a physician making 650k pays 39%.

Therefore I don't feel bad about the estate tax trampling the "rights" of that group. Introduce an ironclad minimum tax rate and we can revisit the topic. Believe me, they have ways to avoid a lot of that estate tax above 5 million as well.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I am sympathetic to this point as well. Perhaps we should simplify the tax code and get rid of most loopholes and deductions then. I really wish someone would propose doing that.......

I was a vocal Trump supporter and have an ear for Populist rhetoric as it is in my DNA as each side of my family came from rural farming communities. So believe me I have no pity for the uber-rich. However, as mentioned, my political views are not based on pity. They are based on principles and what I think is common sensical. Fleecing dead people who have earned their income and investments isn't cool. Figure out how to free that money up when they are alive at least. Give them a chance to have a voice.

 

[deleted480308]

Physicians are in the group that pays the HIGHEST tax rates in the country (ie those that make 200k-couple mill). Those who make less income obviously pay lower rates. Those who make more (in that 0.2%) also often pay lower rates as they have access to complex tax structures and armies of Lawyers/accountants. It's a travesty that you can make 100million/ yr and somehow pay 10% when a physician making 650k pays 39%.

Therefore I don't feel bad about the estate tax trampling the "rights" of that group. Introduce an ironclad minimum tax rate and we can revisit the topic. Believe me, they have ways to avoid a lot of that estate tax above 5 million as well.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

How does you being wronged make wronging someone ok?

Just lower/eliminate all the income/estate taxes.

 

[GravelRider]

How does you being wronged make wronging someone ok?

Just lower/eliminate all the income/estate taxes.

Depends on your interpretation of morality. There are many people who subscribe to the "eye for an eye" school of thought.

These extreme idealistic notions are fine as a starting point, but when it comes down to actual politics and getting things done then compromises have to be made.

 

[Ignatius J]

Depends on your interpretation of morality. There are many people who subscribe to the "eye for an eye" school of thought.

These extreme idealistic notions are fine as a starting point, but when it comes down to actual politics and getting things done then compromises have to be made.

Let's do a birth tax on the rich. Like the death tax. In any given year, only a small amount of rich people will have babies, so just take money from them like you do when they die. No one will care. It's only 0.2% of the population.

 

[GravelRider]

Let's do a birth tax on the rich. Like the death tax. In any given year, only a small amount of rich people will have babies, so just take money from them like you do when they die. No one will care. It's only 0.2% of the population.

You're right. No one would care. No one is losing sleep on any tax on the wealthiest 0.2% of the population. The playing field is already stacked in favor of the wealthiest by an unbelievably high margin. They don't work for their money...their money works for their money.

We live in a democracy and I am pretty certain a tax on the wealthiest 0.2% would have a good deal of support.

 

[deleted480308]

You're right. No one would care. No one is losing sleep on any tax on the wealthiest 0.2% of the population. The playing field is already stacked in favor of the wealthiest by an unbelievably high margin. They don't work for their money...their money works for their money.

We live in a democracy and I am pretty certain a tax on the wealthiest 0.2% would have a good deal of support.

Which is an indictment of democracy

 

[pgg]

We live in a democracy and I am pretty certain a tax on the wealthiest 0.2% would have a good deal of support.

Well, then, why don't we make it the top 1%?

Or 5%?

Or would that affect you and make it a bad idea?

Lots of horribly repressive ideas to harm small populations would have "a good deal of support". Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, or rounding up undesirable people to stuff in ovens.


For the record, I favor simplifying the tax code so that all income from all sources, active or passive, short or long term, is taxed the same. I favor federal rates above 50% for income >$10M/year or thereabouts.

And I'm OK with a federal estate tax - albeit with a large exclusion, so that parents could still pass on family homes or businesses to their kids, but so that truly massive wealth transfers are limited. An ultra wealthy multi-generation aristocratic class isn't in the best interest of democracy.

I would oppose a federal wealth tax or property tax. What's yours should be yours without annual taxing. My state of residence has a non-real-estate personal property tax and I hate it more than I would hate a higher state income tax.


But before we see any such tax reform, I expect we'll see some progress on the far more attainable goals of world peace and tame housetrained miniature ponies for every little girl in the world.

 

[pgg]

Which is an indictment of democracy

Fortunately ours has a Constitution and a high court of unelected robed clerics to make people follow it. Mostly.

 

[doctalaughs]

Let's do a birth tax on the rich. Like the death tax. In any given year, only a small amount of rich people will have babies, so just take money from them like you do when they die. No one will care. It's only 0.2% of the population.

No one is going to buy that the 0.2% is oppressed, short of the guillotine coming back ala the french revolution.

The reason why is because everything is SO stacked in their favor (laws/taxation/loopholes/political influence etc). You can't take a rule and isolate it from everything else to determine if it's right or wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

No one is going to buy that the 0.2% is oppressed, short of the guillotine coming back ala the french revolution.

The reason why is because everything is SO stacked in their favor (laws/taxation/loopholes/political influence etc). You can't take a rule and isolate it from everything else to determine if it's right or wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

So a group that pays the bulk of taxes has odds stacked in their favor over groups that don't even pay any net income taxes at all? How does that work?

 

[doctalaughs]

So a group that pays the bulk of taxes has odds stacked in their favor over groups that don't even pay any net income taxes at all? How does that work?

The top 0.2% does not pay the bulk of taxes because there are so few of them. The top 5% does though.

For example, the top 400 highest US earners in the USA (> 250 mill) pay an average effective tax rate of 18% which Is substantially lower than mine and I bet yours:

SOI Tax Stats - Top 400 Individual Income Tax Returns with the Largest Adjusted Gross Incomes

How is that fair?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

The top 0.2% does not pay the bulk of taxes because there are so few of them. The top 5% does though.

For example, the top 400 highest US earners in the USA (> 250 mill) pay an average effective tax rate of 18% which Is substantially lower than mine and I bet yours:

SOI Tax Stats - Top 400 Individual Income Tax Returns with the Largest Adjusted Gross Incomes

How is that fair?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It's right at about mine. Again, I am sympathetic to closing loopholes on deductions and what not, as Trump has demonstrated he is too.

But I will maintain that I don't see how someone paying 18% tax has odds tilted in their favor compared to 40-50% of Americans who pay no net income taxes. Because they have earned more money? Being smarter and more successful is unfair?

 

[GravelRider]

Well, then, why don't we make it the top 1%?

Or 5%?

Or would that affect you and make it a bad idea?

I never said anything about whether it was right or wrong. The way the rule works is that a tax is levied on estates over a certain monetary threshold. It just so happens that it only affects 0.2% of the population. In theory it could affect 0% or 100%. Therefore, a population is not being targeted, but rather a monetary value is being targeted. Saying that the estate tax is an unfair tax on the top 0.2% is a non-sequitur because that is not how the current tax is structured. Next year it could affect 10%, 50%, or 0%.

 

[Ignatius J]

I never said anything about whether it was right or wrong. The way the rule works is that a tax is levied on estates over a certain monetary threshold. It just so happens that it only affects 0.2% of the population. In theory it could affect 0% or 100%. Therefore, a population is not being targeted, but rather a monetary value is being targeted. Saying that the estate tax is an unfair tax on the top 0.2% is a non-sequitur because that is not how the current tax is structured. Next year it could affect 10%, 50%, or 0%.

Not really. Not at all. It's unfair because you are stealing from dead people. Not because the percentage of people affected.

 

[GravelRider]

Which is an indictment of democracy

What's a better option? Are we going to find Plato's philosopher king anytime soon? Maybe Trump is that Philosopher king and we just don't know it yet?

 

[GravelRider]

Not really. Not at all. It's unfair because you are stealing from dead people. Not because the percentage of people affected.

We already went through this. You can't steal from someone who doesn't exist anymore. Should we grant the dead voting rights too?

 

[Ignatius J]

We already went through this. You can't steal from someone who doesn't exist anymore. Should we grant the dead voting rights too?

Answer this: if someone is lifeless on the floor can you take his wallet?

 

[GravelRider]

Answer this: if someone is lifeless on the floor can you take his wallet?

No, that's stealing. But, I would not be stealing from the person that used to be. I would be stealing from what is now his estate...or if he was married I would be stealing from his wife. That body is no longer a person. It is food for vultures and worms...and maybe even people.

Can you steal from a rock? Can you steal from a piece of wood?

 

[doctalaughs]

It's right at about mine. Again, I am sympathetic to closing loopholes on deductions and what not, as Trump has demonstrated he is too.

But I will maintain that I don't see how someone paying 18% tax has odds tilted in their favor compared to 40-50% of Americans who pay no net income taxes. Because they have earned more money? Being smarter and more successful is unfair?

Well it's about 10% less than my effective rate and I don't like it. I suspect those that make 2-3 mill/year (actually working) like it even less because their effective rate approaches 40%.

In any case I suspect we agree more than disagree. I just think we need to close the gaping loopholes BEFORE we talk about lowering rates and abolishing estate taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

No, that's stealing. But, I would not be stealing from the person that used to be. I would be stealing from what is now his estate...or if he was married I would be stealing from his wife. That body is no longer a person. It is food for vultures and worms...and maybe even people.

Can you steal from a rock? Can you steal from a piece of wood?

His estate is just that- HIS. Legally speaking, you would be charged with burglary of him. The law does define that dead people do have rights. If a rock or piece of wood had any estate, yes you could certainly steal from them. However, this is another non-sequitur because we know they do not.

 

[GravelRider]

His estate is just that- HIS. Legally speaking, you would be charged with burglary of him. The law does define that dead people do have rights. If a rock or piece of wood had any estate, yes you could certainly steal from them. However, this is another non-sequitur because we know they do not.

Then it stays his and doesn't become his kid's estate. If you want it to become his kid's estate then you have to pay.

I may have to pay a fee to transfer funds between my bank accounts. The estate tax is fee for the ability to pass a significant amount of wealth to someone else.

 

[Ignatius J]

Then it stays his and doesn't become his kid's estate. If you want it to become his kid's estate then you have to pay.

I may have to pay a fee to transfer funds between my bank accounts. The estate tax is fee for the ability to pass a significant amount of wealth to someone else.

Fair enough. I can see this point of view.

 

[deleted480308]

What's a better option? Are we going to find Plato's philosopher king anytime soon? Maybe Trump is that Philosopher king and we just don't know it yet?

Better option is not justifying that something is ok just because more people want it

 

[deleted480308]

Then it stays his and doesn't become his kid's estate. If you want it to become his kid's estate then you have to pay.

I may have to pay a fee to transfer funds between my bank accounts. The estate tax is fee for the ability to pass a significant amount of wealth to someone else.

Describe exactly how you gain moral placement to interfere in a father giving something to their kid...

 

[GravelRider]

Describe exactly how you gain moral placement to interfere in a father giving something to their kid...

Where's the morality in a society where a child born into poverty starts with nothing...sometimes less than nothing?

 

[GravelRider]

Better option is not justifying that something is ok just because more people want it

Never said anything about right or wrong. Just stated a fact...or a likelihood. You have to compromise ideals in any society in order for that society to function. Your ideals are not the same as your neighbor's ideals.

 

[deleted480308]

Never said anything about right or wrong. Just stated a fact...or a likelihood. You have to compromise ideals in any society in order for that society to function. Your ideals are not the same as your neighbor's ideals.

The ideal of "don't take people's stuff" is totally attainable

 

[deleted126335]

"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society"
-Oliver Holmes, Republican Supreme Court Justice

As somebody else said, "I think of taxes as the dues that I pay for living in a country club with a billion person waiting list to get in"

 

[GravelRider]

The ideal of "don't take people's stuff" is totally attainable

Well, the Cayman Islands is still an option for you if taxes really bother you as a form of stealing. You don't have to be a U.S. citizen.

 

[Ignatius J]

Where's the morality in a society where a child born into poverty starts with nothing...sometimes less than nothing?

Scholarships, opportunity, government assistance, lenient tax systems, etc. Not sure what else someone can do?

 

[GravelRider]

Scholarships, opportunity, government assistance, lenient tax systems, etc. Not sure what else someone can do?

I'm having a hard time following. We're eliminating all forms of taxation because it's stealing, immoral, "non-aggression," and libertarian buzzword du jour and now we're providing government assistance and lenient tax systems. Are we taxing or not? I forget.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm having a hard time following. We're eliminating all forms of taxation because it's stealing, immoral, "non-aggression," and libertarian buzzword du jour and now we're providing government assistance and lenient tax systems. Are we taxing or not? I forget.

We still have too much govt and taxes, hope that clears it up

 

[GravelRider]

We still have too much govt and taxes, hope that clears it up

That is a statement I can agree with.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Taxation is theft. Period. If you can't afford to run the country without federal income tax then it means you have too much government. The federal government has 2 jobs: 1. To protect the country and provide a strong national defense and 2. To provide a court system to protect people from each other individually or through a business. Everything else is unnecessary and should be disbanded.

 

[Ignatius J]

I'm having a hard time following. We're eliminating all forms of taxation because it's stealing, immoral, "non-aggression," and libertarian buzzword du jour and now we're providing government assistance and lenient tax systems. Are we taxing or not? I forget.

I'm having a hard time following as well. Are you saying we don't currently look after the poor adequately?

 

[Mman]

Taxation is theft. Period. If you can't afford to run the country without federal income tax then it means you have too much government. The federal government has 2 jobs: 1. To protect the country and provide a strong national defense and 2. To provide a court system to protect people from each other individually or through a business. Everything else is unnecessary and should be disbanded.

So you'd disband the Interstate highway system? I'm seriously not getting drawn into this debate but I find your post odd. I do not believe that the US could even fund the things you want to (as currently funded) without income tax. Tax receipts aren't big enough from other areas to cover the few things you want to spend on.

 

[Ignatius J]

So you'd disband the Interstate highway system? I'm seriously not getting drawn into this debate but I find your post odd. I do not believe that the US could even fund the things you want to (as currently funded) without income tax. Tax receipts aren't big enough from other areas to cover the few things you want to spend on.

The Interstate Highway System didn't even exist until 1944. There are plenty of ways to pay for things without the government. I'm surprised people don't recognize this. And by the way, the management of the system sucks.

 

[GravelRider]

I'm having a hard time following as well. Are you saying we don't currently look after the poor adequately?

Well that is debatable and beyond the scope (as if we aren't already). You responded to my response to another poster's response and that response was out of context of all the other responses. Follow?

 

[Ignatius J]

Well that is debatable and beyond the scope (as if we aren't already). You responded to my response to another poster's response and that response was out of context of all the other responses. Follow?

Haha, I think.

 

[ToldYouSo]

This thread is a mess. If you're "scraping" by on 500k (400, 300, 200...) a year you have a problem rofl

Sent from my SM-N920P using SDN mobile

 

[Mman]

The Interstate Highway System didn't even exist until 1944. There are plenty of ways to pay for things without the government. I'm surprised people don't recognize this. And by the way, the management of the system sucks.

Well sure it didn't exist forever, but that's not a relevant fact to much of anything. And of course there are other ways to pay for things. That doesn't mean they are better ways of paying things.

I'm a strong fiscal conservative and would like to decrease federal income taxes, but the idea we'd be better off without them is just stupid and not someone in search of a real discussion. And the idea that government should be nothing more than defense and some judges is even more insane. I'd love nothing more than to see a balanced budget and start trimming the federal debt a little bit. I'd start by paring back defense spending. I'm all about having a strong defense, but I can't see a logical argument for spending more on defense than the next like 20 countries combined. I mean we aren't going to fight all 20 of them at once. Then you can start cutting back on some entitlements while spending a little more on things like job training to get people back to work.

but like I said, i'm not getting sucked into stupid political arguments so I will drop it right here

 

[Ignatius J]

Well sure it didn't exist forever, but that's not a relevant fact to much of anything. And of course there are other ways to pay for things. That doesn't mean they are better ways of paying things.

I'm a strong fiscal conservative and would like to decrease federal income taxes, but the idea we'd be better off without them is just stupid and not someone in search of a real discussion. And the idea that government should be nothing more than defense and some judges is even more insane. I'd love nothing more than to see a balanced budget and start trimming the federal debt a little bit. I'd start by paring back defense spending. I'm all about having a strong defense, but I can't see a logical argument for spending more on defense than the next like 20 countries combined. I mean we aren't going to fight all 20 of them at once. Then you can start cutting back on some entitlements while spending a little more on things like job training to get people back to work.

but like I said, i'm not getting sucked into stupid political arguments so I will drop it right here

I don't think we are better off without them. We are just better off with a lot less of them and more private control.

 

[pgg]

but like I said, i'm not getting sucked into stupid political arguments so I will drop it right here

You're a stronger man than I

I just can't help it

 

[Goro]

Taxation is theft. Period. If you can't afford to run the country without federal income tax then it means you have too much government. The federal government has 2 jobs: 1. To protect the country and provide a strong national defense and 2. To provide a court system to protect people from each other individually or through a business. Everything else is unnecessary and should be disbanded.

The Founders would only partially agree with you. Note bolded.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.