News Flat Taxes and Corporate Perks Leading to an Unfair Distribution of Wealth?

[Loren Booda]

U. S. corporations paid 60% of the budget 50 years ago compared to 16% today. Would a flat tax introduce a more fair distribution? (Another example of corporate rights overtaking individual rights.)

 

[Pengwuino]

Im pretty sure that's wrong as i believe the top 10% of US citizens (which includes corporations) pay roughly 60% of US taxes. And a flat tax wouldn't really hurt corporations because a corporation doesn't really buy anything from anyone unless its for resale (if you resell a product, you don't pay the tax, the final reseller is responsible for collecting the sales tax; ie. wal-mart or best buy or your local small business owner).

Scratch that. Richest 30% pay 60% of US taxes... wait let me go find some more detailed data.

Ok scratch all of this, I got someone playing the bongos inside my head and i can't concentrate enough to find the figures.

 

[SOS2008]

A flat tax is still problematic if applied to income taxes for the self employed--believe me, they can show no income far too easily. But corporations--that needs to be dealt with to compensate for this, especially those that want to show earnings/good performance to their stock holders. But as long as Dubya is around you can forget it.

 

[GENIERE]

Coorporations don't pay taxes, the tax plus the expense of the corporation's proof of compliance is passed along to the consumer. It's simply a hidden sales tax, bad for the consumer, bad for economic growth and bites the low income earner where it hurts the most.

 

[Pengwuino]

So if you reduce taxes for businesses, you create economic growth eh geniere? (fall into my trap please :D)

 

[GENIERE]

Why play games? Got a point - make it.

 

[Kerrie]

honestly, i don't think the lower waged american would go for a flat tax rate because it would mean doing away with deductions such as educational credits, dependents, and child care deductions-all that helps increase tax refunds.

 

[Loren Booda]

Does anyone have a scheme that would simplify and balance taxation?

 

[Pengwuino]

Why play games? Got a point - make it.

no real tax on cooperations means lower prices for the people, woo woo

 

[Pengwuino]

Does anyone have a scheme that would simplify and balance taxation?

Everyone does. Does a perfect one exist? no. Does one stand out above the rest? no. A flat tax, or 'consumption tax' or 'value added tax', is used widely in Europe. The draw back of this is that the lower-classes are hit hardest by this as they have to pay a good 15-25% more in taxes. Another is that low-income people can't get any credits or tax cuts like people in America do so they pay their fair shair (which with modern era federal budgets would be painful as hell). Advantage htough is that wealthy can't get the credits or cuts either like in America so they pay their fair shair (and no, there's no conceivable way to help the poor out in a flat tax situation unless you start asking everyone what their income is on every purchase hehe).

The US income tax system of course brings in all these tax cuts and credits and benefits and what not. So advantage, poor get credits and cuts, disadvantage rich get credits and cuts (I hesitate to call it a disadvantage that the rich get credits and cuts because it seems unfair to call that a bad thing when i immediately say its good for another thing. So I am basically going off the popular anti-evil-coporation/business view of looking at things). You also have a massive system that collects the income taxes (IRS) which is another government organization (which means more wasted money/time).

So you really don't have many choices and no choice is obviously better then the other.

 

[BobG]

U. S. corporations paid 60% of the budget 50 years ago compared to 16% today. Would a flat tax introduce a more fair distribution? (Another example of corporate rights overtaking individual rights.)

Corporate taxes are a flat tax. The tax is passed on to consumers in higher prices and becomes a virtual hidden sales tax, even for those products normally exempt from sales tax. If you want a truly progressive tax system, eliminating all corporate taxes and sales taxes and just rely on income tax.

The fairness of a progressive system as compared to a flat tax is a little dubious, but I think there has to be some progression built into your tax rates - it's smart even if not necessarily the fairest system. It's easier to pry money from people with incomes well above subsistence levels than from someone barely getting by.

More important is that the tax rates bring in as much as the government spends. Giving a tax cut while running a deficit is a lie. Either cut services or increase taxes so people can feel the impact of government decisions now instead of letting the impact sneak up years down the road.

 

[loseyourname]

U. S. corporations paid 60% of the budget 50 years ago compared to 16% today. Would a flat tax introduce a more fair distribution? (Another example of corporate rights overtaking individual rights.)

As others have pointed out, corporate taxes are simply expenses passed on to the consumer. Taxing them more isn't going to help anybody that buys from them. Unless you obtain all of your goods and services from small propietorships, you'll see no benefit. The other thing to consider is that corporations are collections of individuals. There is no such thing as 'corporate rights v. individual rights.' If corporate taxes were not passed on to the consumer, then corporate employees and stockholders would simply have their incomes taxed twice, which is hardly what I would call "more fair." Heck, this even happens to some extent to small business owners. Taxing the money they make lowers the amount they are able to spend on employees. While I highly doubt eliminating all taxation on business owners would result in their paying their employees more, doing so might create a few more jobs here and there, in which case additional income tax revenue would come in anyway. Of course, having self-employed people exempt from all taxation would still be seen as unfair, even if it did result in more jobs and more tax revenue (who knows whether or not it even would). It seems that all taxation is going to be unfair whether we like it or not. The only truly fair system that could be implemented is one in which user fees were used as the source of revenue, rather than taxes (the way public authorities that own toll roads and bridges do), but then we'd have the dilemma that people who couldn't afford it wouldn't receive any government services.

 

[Pengwuino]

You know what sucks... you can't run a government with people lol. Think about it. Tax cuts are a nice short term goal... but once the economy hits a slump, it comes back to haunt ya.

This is why I am rather sympathetic towards the wealthy class. You have 2 options to really. You can 1, cut programs. Problem with this is that what happens is peoples mail gets bombarded with "OMG OMG the government is cutting blah blah program!" and you get people up in arms about this. Every single program in this friggen country seems to have a dozen special interest groups representing it ready to send mail out like crazy when they lose a few dollars here and there.

Second option is raising taxes (which is another short term goal that ends up screwing u in the end). If you raise taxes on the poor or middle class, might as well gather up congress and commit mass suicide. Or you could raise taxes on the wealthy (wealthy + business + corporations in actuality). This is why I am sympathetic. The general public doesn't care if the rich have to pay. The general public wouldn't mind all the wealthies income being taken away. There faceless people who cheated and lied their way and buy cuban cigars in their free time. They are the reason your life sucks. Well of course... this is simply an unfortunate factless mindset the people have. Hell my parents were almost at the wealth/middle class barrier for a while but ****, it was because of 2 jobs, 2 side businesses, and 2 rental houses which meant worken 9-5 on weekdays only was only a dream. Kinda sad when people like my parents are told to pay for the government's splurging while being criticized for having more money then other people.

In my opinion, program cuts are the best because raising taxes is like a person getting a new credit card. YOu know he's going to fill up that credit card to its maximum soon enough and then he's going to get yet another one and another and another. Every new tax the government creates is like a new credit card. You know there nto going to stop. Screw the balanced budget amendment. There should be an anemendment on how much % of the GDP can equal the federal governments budget.

 

[Pengwuino]

@Loseyourname

I believe a coropration is actually 1 individual in the US government's eyes. It has its own SSN and it pays 1 income tax. The only thing different is that it doesn't collect SSN and can live forever. I don't think the board of a corporation really means much as far as taxation goes.

Im starting a business and I swear taxes are going to kill me. Its incredibly unfair when i come to think about it. IF i even show a profit, its going to be very little. Then the government will get to gobble up a bunch of money. PLUS i have to pay social security for any employees i decide to get. No i don't mean the employer will... I will have to! Yes, double payments! I have to match my employees social security payments... Incredible. Plus, if i profit $1200... there's my years income... plus of course the government gets to take their 'fair share' of it. Any other job besides owning a business gets at least $10,000 a year and its gauranteed as long as you work. No such guarantee for business owners. Grrr i dunno, I am just mad :D I am crunching numbers left and right to see if my business is even worth wasting my time on lol.

And the idea of a user tax would suck because most government services are directed towards the people who need their money the most (the poor). I mean... how many things do the wealthy use that the government funds 100% (that doesn't have its own user fees such as the dmv or post office) besides say, keeping the roads and highways together...

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone have a scheme that would simplify and balance taxation?

Simplify deductions, make only a handful of tiers.

 

[Pengwuino]

But if you increase deductions, wouldn't people start being ablet og et away with a lot more things? Like... couldn't someone deduct a rolex under a vague/simple deductation category of 'anything that helps your business' because they might say it helps keep time lol.

 

[loseyourname]

But if you increase deductions, wouldn't people start being ablet og et away with a lot more things? Like... couldn't someone deduct a rolex under a vague/simple deductation category of 'anything that helps your business' because they might say it helps keep time lol.

I knew a business owner that deducted his car payments because he had the name of his company on the rear windshield (making the car an advertisement expense). I think Russ wants us to decrease deductions.

 

[SOS2008]

With regard to taxing corporations, especially those that are public, if nothing else some kind of tax may help keep them a little more honest about their earnings, though the cost no doubt is passed on to the consumer.

Tax deductions have long been used to encourage or discourage behavior such as buying a home rather than renting, having children, etc., though some of these life choices are questionable if not unfair to others, such as single people etc. A flat tax would remove influence on the market in such ways, but the idea is that a flat tax would also remove loopholes (the ability to lie about deductions, etc.).

However, the problem of collecting the taxes remains. People who are self-employed (often business owners) can show little to no income very easily, even losses to gain refunds. It gets back to cooking the books before taxation (similar to the argument above about corporations). Another problem with collection is the large number of people who owe money to the IRS. Then those who do pay the money back, usually negotiate payments pennies to the dollar. This often is a result of people not electing proper withholdings, even W2 folks.

Unless these other issues can be resolved in some way, a flat tax won't necessarily increase revenues collected. So far the only sure and fair collection is sales/usage taxes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What could possibly be the point of collecting a flat tax?

 

[Loren Booda]

In order to spend it!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While I think it's unfair that people who make more money have to pay larger percentages in taxes I couldn't even begin to fathom what it would take to create a balanced workable tax system.

 

[Pengwuino]

I knew a business owner that deducted his car payments because he had the name of his company on the rear windshield (making the car an advertisement expense). I think Russ wants us to decrease deductions.

Well that practice is actually very common in a few industries. Real estate would be the #1 industry where this happens. Leased cars usually target this market. You lease a really nice as heck car and put your info and picture and company on it to make a good impression.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In order to spend it!

If there is a connection between taxing and spending, I don't know what it is.

What is the point of collecting say 20 cents of every dollar? The same effect can be achieved more efficiently by simply declaring that from now on, one dollar is worth 80 cents. In fact that is already being done. It is called inflation. No forms to fill out. No dodging.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa, that's way wrong jimmy. If you inflate the dollar and make the dollar worth 80 cents, the same inflation occours to the government because it uses the same money we use! With inflation, ALL prices change, not just the money in the public. And yes, there is a connection between taxation and spending, a few studies show it and a general look at various administrations economic policies show a few common traits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

With inflation, ALL prices change, not just the money in the public.

You lost me here. Are we talking about a flat tax or not. In a flat tax, each dollar is worth a fixed percentage less, just like inflation.

there is a connection between taxation and spending, a few studies show it

Name one. I conducted no less than 37 studies myself. Each one showed that there was no correlation. In fact, some years the government spends more than it taxes and other years less. Never has it come out even. What connection did your studies show?

 

[russ_watters]

But if you increase deductions, wouldn't people start being ablet og et away with a lot more things? Like... couldn't someone deduct a rolex under a vague/simple deductation category of 'anything that helps your business' because they might say it helps keep time lol.

"Simplify" means decrease. Make less things deductable.

You lost me here. Are we talking about a flat tax or not. In a flat tax, each dollar is worth a fixed percentage less, just like inflation.

Jimmy, taxes have nothing at all to do with what money is worth. Taxes are simply money taken from you so that the government can pay its operating expenses. A flat tax means the government takes a flat percentage, ie, 20% of your income goes to the government. In the US, we have a tiered or graduated system where the more you make, the higher the percentage you pay.

Inflation means that money has lost value. That value doesn't go anywhere, it just vanishes. 20% inflation means the money you have is worth 20% less - it does not mean that 20% of your money has gone to the government (and the government's money is also worth 20% less).

Name one. I conducted no less than 37 studies myself. Each one showed that there was no correlation. In fact, some years the government spends more than it taxes and other years less. Never has it come out even. What connection did your studies show?

You have conducted 37 studies? Huh? In any case, I don't think Pengwuino was talking about the budget, but rather how taxes affect the spending of the people who pay them: ie, if you get taxed less, you'll spend the money that you otherwise would have paid to taxes.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In any case, I don't think Pengwuino was talking about the budget, but rather how taxes affect the spending of the people who pay them.

If you are right, then Pengwuino didn't follow the thread. And if you are wrong, then you didn't.

 

[sid_galt]

Does anyone have a scheme that would simplify and balance taxation?

Repeal the 16th amendment

 

[ron damon]

Rich people consume a smaller percentage of their wealth than the large middle class, since their money is in bank accounts and stocks. Thus a flat tax has a redistributive effect, mainly, the middle class would expectably shoulder a heavier burden of taxation. On the other hand if, as a result of lower taxation on investment, a greater percentage of the nation's income goes towards capital and knowledge generation, productivity gains would presumably accrue, improving the marginal product of labor, thus increasing worker income. A flat tax involves a huge gamble, yet if it was up to me, I would advice in favor of it.

 

[SOS2008]

More Gallop Poll information - April 13, 2005
Public: Mixed Reaction to Federal Income Taxes

Here's one interesting finding:

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the percentage saying [taxes are] "fair" jumped to 58%, up from 51% the previous April. In April 2003, shortly after the Iraq war was launched, the percentage jumped even higher to 64%, about the level of the post-World War II sentiment. ...one could attribute some of the change in opinion to the actual tax cuts that have passed during the Bush administration, though history suggests it is national security rather than tax cuts themselves that more significantly influence people's opinion on this issue.

It would seem so, because these findings were found as well:

Majority of Upper-Income People Say They Pay Too Little Taxes; Lower- and Middle-Income People Agree

While most Americans say the amount of taxes they pay is fair, large majorities also say the amount corporations and upper-income people pay is too little, and a slight majority says the amount lower-income people pay is too much.

About 16% of all Americans identify themselves as either "upper class" or "upper middle class." A majority of this group, 52%, says upper-income people pay too little taxes. Among people who identify themselves as "working/lower class" or "middle class," large majorities agree -- 77% and 67%, respectively.

As posted earlier, a concern is that of collecting taxes:

Recent news reports suggest that the federal government fails to collect up to $350 billion in taxes every year because people cheat on their returns. But this year, the Internal Revenue Service says it is making a special effort to go after corporations, upper-income people, and small businesses, to make sure the taxes are paid. The poll shows that Americans are divided over how difficult it is to cheat on income taxes. Thirty percent say it is becoming harder to do so, 21% say it is easier, and 35% say there has been no change.

Over all, people are not as concerned about user/sales tax as they are other taxes:

Which is the worst tax people have to pay? The winner, as it was two years ago, is the property tax, followed by the federal income tax.

With rapid increases in values of real estate, and property taxes being raised accordingly, the property tax is becoming even more unpopular.

 

[loseyourname]

Property taxes are terrible. I hate hearing those anecdotes about old women whose houses have been paid off for 20 years no longer being able to afford the property tax after rate hikes and being forced to move into crappy neighborhoods.

 

[SOS2008]

Property taxes are terrible. I hate hearing those anecdotes about old women whose houses have been paid off for 20 years no longer being able to afford the property tax after rate hikes and being forced to move into crappy neighborhoods.

Yes, and I find it odd to tax something and then extend a deduction for that tax.

 

[Pengwuino]

Property taxes are terrible. I hate hearing those anecdotes about old women whose houses have been paid off for 20 years no longer being able to afford the property tax after rate hikes and being forced to move into crappy neighborhoods.

I hate that bull**** too. These local governments are just as bad as the feds when it come sto random ass taxation.

 

[Pengwuino]

@jimmy

I was talken about inflation, not a flax tax. And when i say spending and taxation, i meant spending on the personal level, not the governments spending.

@SOS

What really sucks though is that in every other class besides the upper class, you get what you work for. Theres a lot of people in the upper class who don't deserve the money they got (inheritance, hollywood actors, sports stars, people with patents, etc) though. Upper class and small business should be seperated. Unless you were one of the few to get into huge untapped markets (like starbucks did), you probably worked your ass off and sacrified your lifes work to get past the $100,000 income barrier or whatever it is. Far from the work people who inherit money or people in hollywood who earn $25 million for a few months work and such.

 

[Astronuc]

Does anyone have a scheme that would simplify and balance taxation?

I favor a corporate tax that is weighted by or is a function of the ratio of "total" compensation of the highest paid person (e.g. CEO, president, etc) to the lowest pay. If a company can afford to pay a CEO (and other managers) tens of millions of dollars, it can afford to pay taxes.

BTW, it is interesting to hear business leaders complain (moan and whine) about an increase in minimum wage, when none seem to complain about CEO salaries when they increase 10%, 20% or 30+%.

 

[ray b]

While I think it's unfair that people who make more money have to pay larger percentages in taxes I couldn't even begin to fathom what it would take to create a balanced workable tax system.

you are falling into the NEO-CON LIE [they love BIG LIES]
rates and what is really paid are two very very different things
and remember most of the rich's net worth is never taxed
there are many ways to do this
credits, corp's perks, loopholes, free stuff like skyboxes and travel, expence accounts ect

take Bill Gates he makes BILLIONS of untaxed riches and pays a very very small % of his NET WORTH to the government in any form of tax
I did his REAL TAX RATE vs his increase in NET WORTH
it came to less then
0.25% vs my workers rate of over 25%
and that was BEFORE the BuSh2 tax cuts.
and the NEO-CONs claim the RICH are over TAXED , THATS A BIG LIE

btw with BuSh2's planned end to the death tax will result in allmost NONE of Bill Gates BILLIONS ever being TAXED

 

[1123581321]

no

All i can say

Fibonacci

 

[wasteofo2]

You know, Russia has a flat tax of 13%. Lots of other countries, such as Latvia, and Ukraine, along with many other Eastern European nations, have a flat tax as well. I don't know all that much about Eastern Europe, but as far as I do know, they're not exactly doing fantastically Economically, especially when compared to the Progressively taxed West. I've heard of corporations outsourcing to India and East Asia for cheap labor, but I've never heard of a company leaving America or Western Europe for the business-friendly environment created in Eastern Europe and Russia by their flat taxes.

The Economist recently (an issue or two ago) had an article all about why a flat-tax would be great, in which they named off nearly every country that has a flat tax. It was kinda odd to read something touting the merits of a flat tax, in which it said things like, "Look how well it worked for Estonia and Bosnia."

 

[russ_watters]

you are falling into the NEO-CON LIE [they love BIG LIES]
rates and what is really paid are two very very different things
and remember most of the rich's net worth is never taxed...

Lie? Umm -- YOUR net worth isn't taxed either.

take Bill Gates he makes BILLIONS of untaxed riches...

Most of Bill Gates's spending money comes from stock options, which are taxed - at the standard rate.

I did his REAL TAX RATE vs his increase in NET WORTH
it came to less then
0.25% vs my workers rate of over 25%

Why don't you compare apples and gravel? It would make more sense.

no

All i can say

Fibonacci

Yeah, that's probably all that needed to be said. Some things I just can't let go, though.

 

[wasteofo2]

As others have pointed out, corporate taxes are simply expenses passed on to the consumer. Taxing them more isn't going to help anybody that buys from them.

If you look at it from a different perspective, consumption taxes and income taxes on workers are expenses on consumers which passed onto producers by lower demand for products. If you look at it from that perspective, it's logical to conclude that the more progressive a tax system is, the better off corporations will be, since they're paying for most of the government's budget and the consumers that fund the corporations are relatively free of restrictive tax burdens and can spend even more money on corporate goods and services.

 

[Loren Booda]

How much have accountants to lose with a flat tax?

 

[loseyourname]

If you look at it from a different perspective, consumption taxes and income taxes on workers are expenses on consumers which passed onto producers by lower demand for products. If you look at it from that perspective, it's logical to conclude that the more progressive a tax system is, the better off corporations will be, since they're paying for most of the government's budget and the consumers that fund the corporations are relatively free of restrictive tax burdens and can spend even more money on corporate goods and services.

It is looked at that way in certain contexts. What you say is true mostly of companies that sell luxury goods. Small consumer disposables such as food and toilet paper and such aren't likely to be consumed at a higher rate just because people have more money to spend. They're going to spend it on designer clothes and better car stereos.

 

[wasteofo2]

It is looked at that way in certain contexts. What you say is true mostly of companies that sell luxury goods. Small consumer disposables such as food and toilet paper and such aren't likely to be consumed at a higher rate just because people have more money to spend. They're going to spend it on designer clothes and better car stereos.

How do you define luxury goods? Are CD's and DVD's luxury goods? I'd buy a lot more of those if I was relieved of my tax burden. I'd also buy a lot more gasoline, concert ticketts and instruments, plus I'd patronize things like restaurants and movie theaters way more often.

 

[loseyourname]

How do you define luxury goods? Are CD's and DVD's luxury goods? I'd buy a lot more of those if I was relieved of my tax burden. I'd also buy a lot more gasoline, concert ticketts and instruments, plus I'd patronize things like restaurants and movie theaters way more often.

Other than gasoline, those are all luxury goods. Basic groceries aren't, but I'll assume that you don't do any grocery shopping and you mean eating out. The other thing about the progressive tax helping companies is that a progressive tax doesn't just ease the load on the average consumer, it increases the load on the wealthiest consumers, and they are the ones buying the most luxury goods. Most lower-middle class people are just going to pay off their credit cards or send their children to better schools without having to take out huge loans, which isn't necessarily going to drive the economy. To be honest, this is probably about the only reason I don't really like having a consumer driven economy. I'd prefer to see savings and investment promoted, myself.

 

[ray b]

Lie? Umm -- YOUR net worth isn't taxed either.



Most of Bill Gates's spending money comes from stock options, which are taxed - at the standard rate. Why don't you compare apples and gravel? It would make more sense.

yes my net worth is not taxed BUT all my income is
but NO it more like comparing pennys and hundred dollar bills with the pennys paying full rate taxes and the hundreds getting a free ride on the pennys taxes
and I get very few perks
Bill Gates gets tax free Limo's, tax free lunch and Dinners, tax free travel,
tax free sports and entertenment all paid by the CORP as do most other CORP officers at major and minor CORPs untaxed to the person and a tax write off to the biz

then there's the major FREEBE stock options like free money untax intill sale
but in Bill Gates case not options but created by him for him as the founder of MS CORP or TOTALY FREE to him and worth many BILLIONS

under current tax laws and BuSh2's plan to kill the death tax most of Bill Gates BILLIONS will never EVER be taxed at all unless sold and then at a low and falling capital gains rate NOT the same RATES I PAY

a FLAT TAX ON NET WORTH might be FAIR
but few hope for a fair tax deal from the GOP neo-CONs

anyway the BIG LIE is working
just like in the Iraq War
why tell the truth
when you can use a BIG LIE

look at the real numbers
do the math
THE RICH ARE NOT AND NEVER HAVE PAID FULL RATE TAXES
on all they get
workers DO
and the RICH ARE NOT OVER TAXED
under taxed is more like it
IF you look at all they REALY GET

 

[plus]

You know, Russia has a flat tax of 13%. Lots of other countries, such as Latvia, and Ukraine, along with many other Eastern European nations, have a flat tax as well. I don't know all that much about Eastern Europe, but as far as I do know, they're not exactly doing fantastically Economically, especially when compared to the Progressively taxed West. I've heard of corporations outsourcing to India and East Asia for cheap labor, but I've never heard of a company leaving America or Western Europe for the business-friendly environment created in Eastern Europe and Russia by their flat taxes.

The Economist recently (an issue or two ago) had an article all about why a flat-tax would be great, in which they named off nearly every country that has a flat tax. It was kinda odd to read something touting the merits of a flat tax, in which it said things like, "Look how well it worked for Estonia and Bosnia."

The new countries in the EU adopted the flat tax rate in order to give motivation to the middle classes to succeed and bring wealth to their countries.
Germany is now suffering heavily by companies relocating in the new member countries of the EU. Most of the new member states are enjoying an increase in wealth and higher standards of living. Estonia is a small country (about 1.5 million) so there are not going to be able to be many companies relocating there, but its wealth has increased. In case you did not notice, under this pressure, germany has changed from advocating EU wide tax rates, to announcing a decrease in corporate tax rates itself.
Eastern Europe is not as poor as India or china, so companies should relocate there for the political stability and infrastructure provided by the EU rather than 1 cent an hour labour. It should also be noted that while India is enjoying a population boom, the populations of east europe and china are stagnating.

 

[loseyourname]

yes my net worth is not taxed BUT all my income is

Then get a better tax preparer. I'm sure you can deduct something. I don't work right now, but even when I did, I hadn't paid any taxes for years because I was a student paying my own way. Are you going to call me out for riding on the backs of the hundreds?

Bill Gates gets tax free Limo's, tax free lunch and Dinners, tax free travel, tax free sports and entertenment all paid by the CORP as do most other CORP officers at major and minor CORPs untaxed to the person and a tax write off to the biz

Come on, man. I got perks at a lesser rate when I was a visual merchandiser, and why not? I was making business trips. Should I have been taxed because my hotel room and gas was paid for? What about when my aunt takes me to Dodger games using the season tickets that her company gives to employees when they are not needed for business? I'm sure that you realize all of these things are paid for, right? I mean hell, if you work full-time, you get paid to take a vacation for two weeks out of every year. Should you be taxed for that?

then there's the major FREEBE stock options like free money untax intill sale but in Bill Gates case not options but created by him for him as the founder of MS CORP or TOTALY FREE to him and worth many BILLIONS

Do you get taxed because your house has appreciated in value? What about classic cars you might own? Rare records? Baseball cards? Not until you sell them, right?

 

[ray b]

well I do my own taxes
and have used income avg, tax credits, and others in the past
but with no morgage, kids grown, no medical bills ect
I am stuck paying full rates without any breaks

my vacation pay is taxed, and everything I spend is paid with TAXED funds
UNLIKE the favored CORP officers who get their stuff TAX FREE
sure it is paid for by the CORP but untaxed to the person and a tax write off for the CORP

btw gifts are TAXABLE and S/B reported,[ like free tickets ]
true few do, but is it wise to boast about it?

local taxes sure do go up as value of home does EVERY YEAR
but the point was NOT how unfair taxes are collected NOW
but a true flat tax SHOULD be on ALL WEALTH INCREASES
not just on pay or once again most of the rich's increases are UNTAXED
and more of the workers IS TAXED

 

[russ_watters]

then there's the major FREEBE stock options like free money untax intill sale
but in Bill Gates case not options but created by him for him as the founder of MS CORP or TOTALY FREE to him and worth many BILLIONS.

Um, if its not taxed until its sale, how is it free money? Its not like he can spend it.

Lots of companies give stock options to lots of people. A buddy of mine was (until 2 years ago) a $50,000 a year salaried engineer at Unisys and he got stock options too. Gates got more, but there is a pretty damn good reason for that...

And yeah, perks: I just got a free trip to Mexico. I guess I should pay taxes on the $3000 or so in travel expenses my company paid...