1,470 people who made more than $1 million in 2009 paid $0 in federal income tax.

Not much different here really. We have the minority that are driven to be successful, but most are happy to accept what the government has to offer and not much else.

The whole issue of making the rich pay more or their "Fair Share" is an illusion. The rich will continue to get richer. They will simply require a higher income to offset the tax increase or invest in ways that minimize the taxes. In the end all it amounts to is politicians pandering to the masses to look good. The poor are actually the ones getting screwed the worst in the end. They just are not smart enough to realize it.

Laz nailed it.

True Laz, most peeps don't realize that the wealthy will simply move more money overseas and the net result will be minimal. Not sure why the Repubs don't let it happen just to prove the point. If they would have done it a year ago, Obama would have had to go after the middle class to keep up with the spending, and that would have made him a one-timer guaranteed.

I remember Hillary challenging Obama's desire to raise taxes on capital gains in a debate. She pointed out that it might actually result in lowering the amount of taxes collected by the federal government. His response was that his objective was a "fair" tax regardless of the results. The idiot was still elected.

I remember Hillary challenging Obama's desire to raise taxes on capital gains in a debate. She pointed out that it might actually result in lowering the amount of taxes collected by the federal government. His response was that his objective was a "fair" tax regardless of the results. The idiot was still elected. Originally Posted by Laz

The poor, uneducated and pitiful will always buy into this political fight.

the 50% that dont pay taxes will be screwed even worse?

Iam of the opinion the market plays a very large part of personal the wealth that resulted in record numbers of millionaires here, now. The tax $$ they dont pay on dividends ends up in offshore accounts anyway.

All the more reason to scrap the income tax.

the 50% that dont pay taxes will be screwed even worse? Originally Posted by CJ7

Eventually yea, the teat will run dry quicker, the faster you drive the wealth out of the country.

True Laz, most peeps don't realize that the wealthy will simply move more money overseas and the net result will be minimal... Originally Posted by nwarounder

It's not even necessary to do that, since you can greatly reduce your tax burden in a variety of ways if you receive income from investments. For instance, if you invest in commercial real estate such as apartments, industrial space, or warehouses, much of your cash flow is sheltered by depreciation. And should you decide it's time to sell, you can just do a 1031 exchange through a financial entity known as an "exchange trust" when you've identified an acquisition target you'd like to trade for. Such entities match buyers and sellers and handle all the requisite simultaneous closings. That way, you won't have to pay capital gains taxes -- ever! Very sweet deal.

I remember Hillary challenging Obama's desire to raise taxes on capital gains in a debate. She pointed out that it might actually result in lowering the amount of taxes collected by the federal government. His response was that his objective was a "fair" tax regardless of the results. Originally Posted by Laz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894

(Gibson, although obviously no conservative, seems to know a bit about the history of cap gains taxation.)

so by not collecting revenue before it leaves the country, the teat goes dry faster ??

Ive noticed the teat is pretty damn dry right now, funny how 3000 millionaires wont share isnt it?

Warren Buffet is already about four years behind on his personal taxes. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Are those words more of the same outlandish rumors from Professor Bullshit?

The tax troubles actually do involve a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary but it is doubtful that Buffet had any personal input into the legality or intent of the accounting methods.

It seems to be one of those "unclear" areas of the tax codes where the "powers that be" change the way they look at certain things. Perhaps a closer look is warranted.

Like Capt Midnight said, it's a division of Berkshire Hathaway (NetJets). Lots of celebrities and athletes use NetJets for convenience and privacy instead of going through the hassles that go with flying on commercial airlines. Most of the time, the fares are sold in time/passenger increments rather than by destination and the sales are not destination specific at the time of sale.

From the Huffington Post


"At the heart of the tax battle is whether NetJets and a sister division should have collected a special transportation tax — often called a “ticket tax” — from the fractional owners of its fleet. (Fractional owners own a stake in a private jet, entitling them to a certain number of flight hours a year, in a way that’s similar to someone owning a time-share vacation property.)


You and I — the rest of us who fly commercial — pay a federal excise tax when we fly (7.5 percent of the ticket price plus $3.80 for each leg of travel.) People who own an entire plane outright have not been subject to the same tax since, ostensibly, there is no ticket to buy.


The air gets a lot foggier when it comes to fractional owners."

people who own a plane pay $2-$10 million up front ... Ticket Please?

$250K will get you 25 hours flight time, not counting fuel, catering, repositioning fees, etc etc ... you can get a free cookie at the lounge though

lol

so by not collecting revenue before it leaves the country, the teat goes dry faster ??

Ive noticed the teat is pretty damn dry right now, funny how 3000 millionaires wont share isnt it? Originally Posted by CJ7

Hmmm, no. Not collecting revenue AFTER it leaves the country will make the teat go dry faster. If I made 10 million now at 15% I would pay 1.5 mil in taxes. If the Buffet rule was passed, I would move assets overseas and limit my income to 1 million here, and only pay 150,000 in taxes. Net loss for the gov of 1.35 mil.

I'm not an expert on the Uk situation by any means, but...

- the Guardian is considered a slightly left of centre paper. So it is my normal reading material . I usually read the Telegraph, but that is so I know what names to put in my black book come the revolution.

- I think most agree the disparity is large and growing, and certainly much greater than in, say, Nordic countries.

- this may be partly because London (which is very different from the rest of UK) is very attractive place for people to reside in, it attractcs great wealth. Of course, city of London also pays enormous salaries and bonuses.

- there is certainly a resentment by many 'normal' UK citizens about the high level of salaries and bonuses earnt by the few, particularly of course wrt the banks.

- there is a funny battle going on between prospective myors of London, Boris Johnson (on the right) and Ken Livingstone (on the left). They are accusing each other of tax evasion. Boris is probably winning the argument, but Boris makes far more than Ken. Boris gets £5k per week for a column which he says takes 30 mins to write. Ken's income is far far less.

= It is the normal British tendency to see virtue in poverty! But Ken's problem is that he once accused people of being rich bstds who should pay full tax, so any tax loopholes he uses are fair game for the shit to come down on him.

- it's basically too complex to detail here, but y'all in US would find it amazing. Poverty a virtue? Originally Posted by essence

*I rather like Ken Livingstone. But, I would wouldn't I;-) He's a liberal and a fellow Yid lol! In my opinion Boris is a twat. He will sadly no doubt win. As for London--In my opinion its a nice enough place to visit on "awaydays" when we are playing the Arsenal or Chelski but sadly it has become quite a violent and dirty city. Not to mention the stabbings in the east end! For that matter the stabbings and muggings in south London. There really isn't too much nice about London unless you go north of Tottenham up to Watford. Or, have enough money to live in Fulham or the nicer part of Chelsea. I understand down south around Wimbledon it has started to get a bit more posh. Then there is the parking issue...bloody nightmare I tell ya! The coppers hand out traffic tickets like shops do biscuits at tea hour. Then there are the people--Londoners have got to be the rudest people in all of Britain. I think the father north you go in Britain the nicer the people. We do have a bit of crime in Manchester as well but nothing like it is in London. To get that sort of debauchery I can go over to Liverpool for a day. I need not drive hours south to London lol. Anyway, just me two pence worth mate. Sorry for the wee rant.