It was never quite clear to me. I think the goal was either to find someone who paid no income tax because they’d stuffed millions in their mattress, or some IRS FAQ which directly answers the burning question.
This demonstrably not true. How I wish that taxes were just a way to pay for government. They are not. There are a myriad and one tax laws and regulations that punish or encourage certain types of either social or economic behavior. So - no, taxes are not just a way “to pay for the cost of having a government”. They are used, constantly, as a social engineering tool.
They don’t throw the money away. It’s still used to pay for the government.
That specific deductions promote societal changes, that’s a good or bad thing, depending on the change.
Here’s what I wrote:
“How I wish that taxes were just a way to pay for government.”
I took it that you meant, taxes aren’t just used to pay for government. But other taxes, which we don’t need are used for social engineering.
I assumed you were making an argument against our level of taxation. My bad.
But as I say, social engineering is still a good thing if the change brought about is a good thing.
True for any money you earn after the tax is enacted. Your entire net worth at the time of conversion to the new tax is subject to double taxation (previously subject to income tax, and later subject to a national sales tax). It’s a real problem with that system, and I have yet to hear an adequate solution to it.
If you have $1,000 in the bank (that you’ve paid income tax on) when the national sales tax goes into effect, you need a $1,000 exemption on the sales tax in order to avoid double taxation on that money. If you have $500 million in the bank, you’ll need a $500 million exemption - which is cool because you’ll probably never pay tax again in your life. See the problem?
In addition, a Roth IRA turns out to be a poor vehicle in a national sales tax scenario, absent any offsets or credits.
I assume you are reffering to that 49% figure I hear so much. That is federal income tax - it ignores state tax, sales tax, gas taxes (some of which are federal), property taxes, and payroll taxes.
Many of those are regressive. Someone earning 20K a year pays a lot more of his income for a gas tax than someone who is rich - assuming they drive the same.
They also pay payroll taxes on ALL their income at a 6.2% rate - vs the well off - who well - if they are only somewhat well off - there is a cut off around 100k - they pay 0 over that. That 6.2% is around the same as many state income tax rates. Of course the really well off usually don’t have much “INCOME” - they have capital gains - and pay little in income taxes.
How much do you think CEOs that take those $1.00 salaries pay in “INCOME” taxes? Nothing - at least not on their employment “income”. Then when they exercise their options - they pay 15% in fed cap gains.
The “INCOME” tax thing is a red herring.
Taxes are used to pay for government. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Sure they try to effect social change, but what they really are doing is appeasing certain groups that want someone else to pay for it.
Everyone pays taxes one way or another - the poor people just don’t have good lobbyists. I love how we have gotten to the point where being poor is something that has hidden benefits. The rich/red state middle class can make fun of them while they pay their 4.00% mortgages that are federally subsidized and take a tax deduction for that as well. In addition to their subsidized health care plans.
Those two things alone probably get 5% (not necessarily the top 5%) of the population more in gov’t benefits than what bottom 15% make in a year.
Oh - and it used to be when housing prices would increase - if you were married - you could then sell your place - pocket a 500,000 gain - and pay NOTHING in taxes.
Yes those poor people are getting all the breaks. I know this isn’t exactly what you were saying - but just wanted to throw that out there.
“The end justifies the means”.
Quick question on the above quote - is this actually the way that inheritance tax is worded or structured in the US, or is the above comment a general misunderstanding of the tax itself? The person paying the tax is NOT the one who died and left the money, it is effectively an income tax on those receiving the money in the event of a death. [ No one seems to be questioning paying income tax on a lottery windfall, but seem to have a major problem with an inheritance windfall, although both are effectively the same thing]
Or, as I’m asking, is it different your side of the pond? Thanks.
Congratulatios Bricker, I hope the money brings you much happiness!
Those damn welfare fat-cats!
You’ve already paid $70 million in tax, which is more than all the posters in this thread will ever pay, combined. I think you can sit it out a few years.
Fun fact: a stack of $80 million in $100 bills would be 88 meters high.
Okay, so where’s the gotcha? Pretty much everyone seems to agree that you pays your taxes when you gets the money and that’s that.
I think we were just supposed to tax him out of spite for being rich.
The term is lucky duckies.
Rich people find the most preposterous ways to wave their money in your face. Couldn’t you just buy a *Jenga *set like everyone else ?! :mad:
I didn’t say that. What I said is that encouraging behavior via tax incentives is a good idea, if the behavior is good idea for the country.
You are free to ignore whatever incentive the government is pushing. So dressing this up as a freedom issue is silly.
By what possible standard can you construe that as the ends justify the means? Can you at least attempt to be reasonable here?
Has Bricker returned to offer his opinion? I suppose there is a debate to be had over a solidarity tax on wealth ala the French vs. Income tax in the US, but that really didn’t seem to be the point Bricker was going for. Personally, I think a wealth tax is too difficult, too costly, and leads to too much capital flight to be worth enacting in the US (in fact some European countries have abandoned their wealth taxes over the last decade or so). I can’t tell if this thread was supposed to be a bad attempt to discuss that issue or just another failed Brickerthread.
Taxes are supposed to exist to fund the government. Using them as a tool to punish behaviors that the government disapproves of and reward those that the government approves is corrupting that purpose. But if the results are good, corruption is ok. The end justifies the means.
Who says that’s why they are supposed to exist?