Comments on: THE TAXMAN COMETH

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:25:24 +0000

“Mike, let me ask you a question: Why should government services cost a wealthy man more than they cost a poor man? Shouldn’t government be providing the same services to each? or…. is it your opinion that a wealthy man should be FORCED BY LAW to pay for needs of the poorer man?”

Simple: Because the idea is to tax disposable income. And we’re not talking about user fees here.

Plus, more likely than not, the wealthy man probably got where he was because of opportunities that were created for him. (Or, created for his parents or grandparents, which in turn set him up for success.)

To quote one of my old friends, there is nothing wrong with being born with certain privileges. The only problem is when we fail to acknowledge the advantages we get.

”Isn’t that socialism?”

No, that’s progressive taxation. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production (natural resources, factories, etc.) are owned by the community as a whole. Sure, our economy has certain socialistic qualities (the postal service and airwaves, for example), but we’re no way near any sort of socialistic system.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:18:15 +0000

“I suppose that they didn’t think it was ‘inherently evil’ but rather ‘prone to evil’ and should be severely limited.”

No…they did checks and balances to reflect the possibility that absolute power corrupts. They even made gov’t inefficient (which costs more money) to protect civil liberties.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:50:38 +0000

“Tax Free Day” is something like July 11th this year. Thus, it’s as if we work two jobs and only get a paycheck for one of them.

Now taxes are necessary, but this is ridiculous.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:53:09 +0000

Greg, most people who are “mega rich” have very little actual income. They have wealth (assets), but not necessarily income. A flat tax would certainly be more fair, but it may or may not make the “mega rich” pay more in taxes.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:49:23 +0000

Greg,

Most of the loopholes and shelters used by the wealthy (net worth over 10 million, let’s say) are set up through various trusts and funds that are only accessible with a large minimum balance.
-
Some wealthy folks in my family, for example, are heavily tied to PNC Advisors, a private trust dicision of PNC Bank. Their least profitable trusts begin with a minimum balance of $500k. Basically, you’ve gotta pay to play. And trust structures can vary, depending on the level of exposure you’re willing to accept to both risk and taxes.
-
Also, if you’ve ever spent time in high wealth areas, like the Caldwells, Bergen, eastern Long Island, north Westchester, etc you can always find a TD branch office tucked away somewhere. Toronto Dominion is one of Canada’s premier tax shelters - Canada’s banking system is probably the leading global tax shelter, quietly reigning over the more notorious but less prestigious Cayman and other island shelters.
.
These shelters are accessible only to the wealthy in the US for one very specific reason. Those who control our politicians have billions of dollars in annual profits to protect.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:29:03 +0000

Basic question. Why does the complexity of our current tax system protect the mega rich through a web of specific tax loopholes? By mega rich, I am talking about people who make more than 1million per year. If there was a true flat tax, then the mega rich would have to pay their X percent, just like everyone else. From what I understand, that X percent would be very much more than they pay now through all the tax loopholes designed by and for the mega rich. I am not talking about a progressive tax system, just an honest across the board flat tax with zero loopholes. What would the Kerry’s, Kennedys, Soros’,Gates, Buffett’s, Bush’s etc. etc. really pay under such a system vs. today?

By: Jon G

Jon G — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:49:41 +0000

At some point common sense must prevail. Perhaps a percentage of your income should go toward taxes, but lets make it the SAME PERCENTAGE RATE for everyone, not this ‘tax bracket’ crap. It is economics 101 that when you let people keep more of THEIR money they spend more and the economy is better for everyone. If we would just make taxing simpler and more fair then everyone would be happier and more prosperous. Of course that would mean government would have to streamline and run more efficiently, we can’t expect that now can we? lol

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:04:13 +0000

Mike, let me ask you a question: Why should government services cost a wealthy man more than they cost a poor man? Shouldn’t government be providing the same services to each?
-
or…. is it your opinion that a wealthy man should be FORCED BY LAW to pay for needs of the poorer man?
-
Isn’t that socialism?

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:40 +0000

Mike,
.
“And just because I’m mature enough to recognize that taxes and government aren’t inherently evil…”
.
It just means that you are out of step with the foundation of our nation. I suppose that they didn’t think it was “inherently evil” but rather “prone to evil” and should be severely limited. Even the worst big government founder would fume with what has happened over the last hundred years.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:52:57 +0000

“Why must someone who is successful pay a higher rate than someone who isn’t?”

Because $100 feels like a lot more money to someone making $30,000 a year than it does to someone making $100,000.

And just because I’m mature enough to recognize that taxes and government aren’t inherently evil doesn’t mean I’m a socialist. (And when did I imply a desire to have more government ownership of businesses?) It means I’m reasonable.