EXACTLY. It’s not that hard to figure out.
I’m a former math teacher, current accountant and tax preparer. So sometimes what seems obvious to me in the tax world isn’t to most people.
This one, however, is really simple to understand.
This isn’t due to convoluted tax deductions but in the difference how capital gains are taxed compared to income.
It’s cute that you still believe that wealth is determined strictly by “hard work” and “brains”.
Do you know where Mitt Romney got most of his wealth from? His daddy. Yes, he built on it, and yes, he has worked throughout his life. Well, maybe not during his “missionary” time living in a glamorous flat in Paris, but whatever. But his wealth is due in no small part to the luck of being born into a wealthy family.
Did you know that Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family?
Did you consider the Walton family (owners of the Wal-Mart fortune, and 4 of the 10 most wealthy people in America if not the world), to be super-hard workers? Their daddy was the actual founder of Wal-Mart BTW.
Feel free to pull out a few self-made wealthy to counterpunch. I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that they are an extreme minority. Most wealthy people inherited their wealth, have never had to punch a card or choose between being treated like shit at work and eating.
Did you know that tax rates on interest and investments are LOWER than tax rates on earned income. So sitting around watching your money grow is rewarded over actual work. If you read any of Ben Franklin, George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson’s writings you will find that the is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how the founders view wealth and earned income.
Did you know that while the news like to talk about the “high” tax rates on businesses in the US, they always use the 35% on paper and don’t use the 9% of ACTUAL average tax rates paid after credits, deductions, overseas assets, etc are taken into account.
Did you know that the wealthy are the largest recipients of tax breaks and grants in this country? Everyone likes to bitch about food stamps, Social Security and Medicare but those don’t even take up 1% of the federal budget. And my mom would miss her SS check far more than Chevron would miss its annual tax break.
Do you know how this system came to be? Because Wal-Mart, Chevron, etc have paid lobbyists that do nothing but take lawmakers out for lunch/dinner/vacation/drinks. Many bills, especially those related to tax law, are written by lobbyists and the lawmakers don’t even bother reading it before rubber-stamping through to law. My mom can’t afford to pay a lobbyist to campaign for her. Neither does that single mom working at McDonalds while trying to finish school.
Finally, I’m not saying we should go back to the 90% tax rates of the 1950s. But the tax code has been tweaked to death in ways that allow the wealthy to keep money in their pocket at the expense of the rest of us. Change the capital gains rates to be in line with earned income, maybe up the income limit for SS taxes, don’t reward companies for moving funds and jobs overseas.
I have to ask, when did socialists ever have an opportunity to try their policies out?
Do you remember that $300 check that Dubya sent out to taxpayers in the beginning of his term? That cash was nearly all spent immediately. Which stimulates the economy. Which was the point.
That’s the closest real-world example I can come up with, but giving the poor money has proven to be a better way to stimulate the economy that giving the wealthy money.
Supposedly that’s what the government is for. Not to protect the wealthy’s money, but to protect the nation’s economy.
Not exactly correct. Distributions to employees are an expense, deducted from gross income to get the business’ taxable income. I’m unsure if dividends paid are considered a deductible expense.
Wrong.
A higher proportion of 1 percenters (two in five) than 99 percenters (one in five) has inherited money, according to the Federal Reserve survey. The top earners got 10 percent of the inherited wealth in the country. Still, a majority of those earners reported no inheritance.
Unless you think “two in five” is “most”.
And there is this: The Decline of Inherited Money - WSJ
-
According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
-
According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
-
A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
YES, thank you. The “double taxation” crap from Faux News just won’t die.
I do taxes for businesses, they take money in, spend it, report the remaining revenue. If it’s a partnership or an LLC those funds just trickle down to the personal return where it gets put together with all of the other income for the year. If it’s a corporation, they pay taxes on net revenue, AFTER all of the expenses have been deducted.
The figure I saw must have been for the Billionaires, like those I listed as examples, as opposed to just the 1%. But my point still stands.
Bring your sources. And seriously, if in order to make your point you have to go that much narrower than “just the 1%”, your point isn’t worth much.
“Inherited wealth only counted for 9% of their net worth”
I never said that’s where ALL their money came from. Just that it’s easier to stay at the top than to get there. The American public is led to believe that if they work hard and save their money they can be just like Donald Trump. It is a bald-faced lie.
If my mom could lend me $10K, I could start a business, work hard and watch it grow. If it was successful, it would be worth far more than $10K. But I would never have been able to do it without that leg up in the first place. As it stands my husband and I have a startup that we’ve been working to get off the ground, but we don’t have the ability to work on it all the time because we both have work FT to pay the bills. If I could get $10K out of my mom my husband could quit his job and devote all of his time to the startup which would then give it a better chance of success.
But I can’t get $10K out of my mom. A bank won’t lend it to me. My boss was able to get money from his parents to start the company I work for.
All that said, we were talking about tax rates. The wealthy pay less overall tax, the system is designed to keep them wealthy and the rest of us not. The tax code could easily be written to be a bit more equitable.
But that is assuming the US actually wants the population to be successful. Personally, I believe they prefer watching those of us at the bottom fight each other over scraps while they look down on us from Mount Olympus.
You probably live in a different America than I do. In mine the public is led to believe that if they work hard and save their money they can be comfortable. And that is true. No one is “led to believe” that you can get fabulously wealthy on salary.
Yes, cuz the design of the tax system should be NOT to keep the wealthy wealthy. Right?
Yes, that’s right. The tax system should not be designed in such as way that it’s markedly easier for the wealthy to stay wealthy, and get wealthier, than for the poor to become, as you put it, “comfortable.”
It’s not that simple. Dividends are subject to a corporate tax: they come out of a company’s profit. When referring to other expenses, it gets more complicated. Not all expenses are deductions. You can generally deduct the cost of making your product, including employee salaries (although you pay payroll taxes on them). When you buy new equipment, it’s a little different: you capitalize the costs, instead of deducting them: that is, you’re getting an asset in return for the money you claim. You can then claim depreciation on your assets in later years. I don’t really understand all the rules, but at least for dividends, it is very fair to claim that the money is being taxed twice (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s fair to say that).
Even being comfortable is difficult to come by these days. What you describe was the case for my parents and grandparents and hopefully myself. I don’t see it working for people 10 years younger than me, much less my son who is in high school right now if the current trends continue.
The design of the tax system should be to keep the economy healthy, however that happens. Concentrating the wealth at the top does not do that. That’s what we’ve seen over the last 30 years.
The era that the American news looks back on fondly in the mid-20th century involved high tax rates, federal investment in infrastructure and an understanding that workers are the basis of a strong economy. None of that is true anymore, in practice. Rhetoric, sure, but practice no.
That doesn’t mean I believe in “socialism”. There are always going to be people at the top and people at the bottom. The gap between those, however, hasn’t been as wide as it currently is since the 1890s. Are the people at the top working comparatively harder than those at the bottom now vs. the 1950s? Because back then they were still doing quite well, even though the top tax rate was 90%.
Red herring. I didn’t say anything about the “relative ease”. And yes, the tax system should be designed to (not as a goal, but as a “don’t do harm” kind of thing) allow the wealthy stay wealthy unless they screw themselves up. Tax system should not be designed to make the wealthy poor. Or poorer. It is stupid to undercut the branch on which you are sitting.
Ok, seriously, that “90%” canard should be forbidden in any discussion about taxes. Go research what the effective tax rates were on the “rich” at the time the top tax rate was 90%.
The effective tax rate was lower (it always is). What’s your point?
I have a dozen or so cousins and second cousins that are younger than I am by 10-20 years. Every one graduated college, every one is working productively, and every one is at least middle class, with some in high upper middle class. I should mention that every one comes from an immigrant family that came to the US with about $100 per person around 30 years ago.
What was it? Was it anywhere (and I mean anywhere) near 90%? It wasn’t? Then what’s the point of repeating that 90% canard?
That’s why I threw in “luck”.
It encompasses inheritence, lottery, being born in an area with many opportunities, having a skill and being born in a time when that skill is valuable (e.g. programming), and every other advantage that was not personally created.