Obama's Speech: Dysfunctional Three Ring Circus

[drankin]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.

Can you provide an example?

 

[Evo]

Can you provide an example?

Celebrity royalties flow into Dutch tax shelters - Business - International Herald Tribune

The rock powerhouse U2 has transferred lucrative assets to Amsterdam, as have other pop singers and well-known athletes, all of whom have used or continue to take advantage of the Netherlands' tax shelters, according to a Dutch tax lawyer who requested anonymity because of client confidentiality agreements.

Entertainment companies and others that benefit handsomely from Dutch shelters include EMI, the record label, and CKX, the entertainment company that owns stakes in "American Idol," the Elvis Presley estate

continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-taxhaven.4461776.html

 

[WhoWee]

What about celebrities? They're filthy rich, do nothing, unless you consider lip synching, reality tv, and standing before a camera doing something for the public good. Yet their tax accountants find them tax shelters & loopholes to protect their money.

Aren't the celebrities in CA the only ones propping up inflated real estate prices, keeping the doors open on Rodeo, as well as the big restaurants? My guess is their agents, attorneys, accountants, and managers take a healthy share pre-tax as well.

 

[Evo]

Aren't the celebrities in CA the only ones propping up inflated real estate prices, keeping the doors open on Rodeo, as well as the big restaurants? My guess is their agents, attorneys, accountants, and managers take a healthy share pre-tax as well.

I don't know that celebrities are mainly in CA, they're all over the country, athletes, reality tv stars, music stars, etc... we're not talking Hollywood of the 30's-40's.

 

[WhoWee]

continued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-taxhaven.4461776.html

Opps - you're talking about U2 and the Stones. They are global citizens - unrestricted by the rules of anyone country. Wasn't the top tax rate 90% in the UK in the late 1960's - just before the "British Invasion"?

 

[Evo]

Opps - you're talking about U2 and the Stones. They are global citizens - unrestricted by the rules of anyone country. Wasn't the top tax rate 90% in the UK in the late 1960's - just before the "British Invasion"?

No, those are just 2 rock groups mentioned. Read about the American celebrities.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know that celebrities are mainly in CA, they're all over the country, athletes, reality tv stars, music stars, etc... we're not talking Hollywood of the 30's-40's.

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

 

[daveb]

Ok, why not give it a go in your field. NRC budget for 2012 is ~$1B. How much would you cut it? For my part I'd begin by zeroing out NRC Chairman Jaczko's salary.

Oddly. most of the NRC's budget is recovered through licensing fees.http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/plans-performance.html"

 

[Evo]

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

Here are some that messed up with bogus tax shelters or just refused to pay taxes at all and owe millions to the IRS.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/14/hollywood-uncle-sam-taxes/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Once again, our good Senator Merkley's [D] office is the first to respond in specific terms.

Thank you for contacting me with your support for raising our nation's debt limit in a responsible manner. Like many Oregonians, I also believe that Congress must immediately act to raise our nation's debt limit to avoid throwing our economy back into a recession.

I have been deeply frustrated by some proposals which would raise our nation's debt limit only after requiring draconian cuts to domestic spending, which could result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and dismantling programs like Medicare. Without a doubt, bringing our nation's annual deficits down is a priority. But we must do so in a balanced way that does not cost jobs now or damage our long-term economic competitiveness. Most importantly, Members of Congress should not be holding our nation's economy hostage by threatening to allow a default on obligations which we have already made.

Congress needs to act in a fiscally responsible manner when making policy decisions. Yet, it is important to recognize that our recent annual deficits are largely the result of massive tax cuts on the wealthiest among us, the cost of two long wars, and a new Medicare drug benefit, none of which was paid for. While our spending on non-defense programs is at the same level it was in 2001, defense spending has risen 74 percent, and spending on mandatory programs like unemployment insurance is up more than 30 percent due to the financial crisis and recession. At the same time, our revenue, reflected as a percentage of gross domestic product (the nation's total economic output), is at its lowest level since 1950, again as a result of the financial crisis and recession, as well as the Bush tax cuts. It is simply irresponsible for some in Congress to push for cuts in basic programs that middle class families and retirees rely on to educate our kids, protect our air and water, and provide a safety net for those in need – while continuing to hold special interest tax loopholes and tax cuts which benefit the very wealthy and well-connected off limits as a part of the deficit debate.

As the Senate continues to debate and work through budget issues, I will certainly take your views into consideration. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and please keep in touch.

All my best,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

 

[WhoWee]

Once again, our good Senator Merkley's [D] office is the first to respond in specific terms.

Did he vote to extend the tax cuts (that were Bush's until they became Obama's and now they're Bush's again)?

 

[turbo]

Still, I don't think they keep as much as they'd like us to believe and as a group - they spend.

Entertainers are often taken advantage of by crooks, too. Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick were scammed by Bernie Madoff. Being famous doesn't equate to being sophisticated in finance.

 

[WhoWee]

Here are some that messed up with bogus tax shelters or just refused to pay taxes at all and owe millions to the IRS.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/14/hollywood-uncle-sam-taxes/

I wonder if any of these people in trouble for taxes have financially supported President Obama and the Dems - or have appeared on talk shows supporting the President and Dems or against the Tea Party?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did he vote to extend the tax cuts (that were Bush's until they became Obama's and now they're Bush's again)?

He was first elected to the Senate in 2008. He replaced Senator Smith [R], who I had always supported but abandoned in 2008 due to one vote [don't remember what it was now, but he was supporting Bush in something I couldn't tolerate].

 

[Evo]

I wonder if any of these people in trouble for taxes have financially supported President Obama and the Dems - or have appeared on talk shows supporting the President and Dems or against the Tea Party?

Why on Earth would that matter? Please do explain what your reasoning is. Are you insinuating that they were audited by the Republicans because they contributed to democratic political campaigns?

 

[mheslep]

Does anyone here actually believe "our spending on non-defense programs is at the same level it was in 2001"?

Does anyone here actually believe that most of the Bush tax cuts went "to wealthiest among us"?

 

[Evo]

Does anyone here actually believe that most of the Bush tax cuts went "to wealthiest among us"?

Apparently a study was done and it's true.

Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

 

[talk2glenn]

Apparently a study was done and it's true.

Said what was true? That effective rates paid by the top 20% went down, or that they went down more than for the of the population?

The first sentence is true; the second is not. After passage of the so-called Bush tax cuts, the share of all federal income taxes paid by the top 20% of the population increased from 82% to 85% in 2004, while the share paid by the bottom 50% fell to basically zero.

Ergo, quite clearly, the benefit of the change in tax policy disproportionately benefited lower-income earners relative to higher earners. Whatever happened to rates, the tax incidence was shifted upward.

One must approach with great caution the claims forwarded by the Times in that article. One has to admire their tact - it is quite possible that their statements are true; effective tax rates paid by top earners could have fallen more than rates paid by lower earners. This does not mean that the cuts favored the upper quintiles over the lower. To confirm the latter, all you have to do is look at the actual tax data published by the Treasury for '04, which I did for the analysis above. The Times conspicuously omits it.

 

[Proton Soup]

This.

Remember that this is the President whom renewed the tax cuts from 2003, but then now - for political reasons - wants congress to renig on part of them? This is entirely underhanded and gaming the system. Why wasn't the President and the leftist congress worried about how to pay for the increased spending when they were in control? What's different now that makes it OK to tax anyone more (let alone just the high earners)? You can take the boy out of Chicago...

It's also interesting that he's had 5(?) press conferences in 2 weeks regarding the debt-celing issues, but has given less in the previous several months - even with people asking about our country's position in Libya. Pure political gamesmanship - and I don't like it. President Obama is campaigning for 2012 early, that's for sure.

This game of hot potatoe with our country's financials needs to stop, but unfortunately I feel that any plan the President had supported just keeps the music playing.

ok, I've listened to it now.

oh yes, what a great speech. he starts off by telling us he's not going to bore us with details. yes, those pesky details, who wants anything as boring as an open government mr. president!?

and as for the rest of it... mostly a ramble attacking republicans and fearmongering the seniors with promises that their checks won't arrive. lots of talk of "default", but no talk at all of actually suspending debt payments. nope, as usually, he's a banker's president. lots of talk about taxing the rich, but where pray tell have you heard anyone suggest we go after rich democrats and their trust funds? can we get an amen for going after some of the wealth accumulated by the leisure class?

this is good old fashioned politics. and of course, it's obvious to me that what this is really about is the 2012 presidential election. it's not being treated like a dire emergency by anyone. no creative thinking is being applied, nothing out of the box. just plain old business as usual.

i am disappoint.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a multi-millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars. What we should be considering is the pecentage of income needed to survive in the modern context. In real terms, tax breaks for the lower end of the spectrum barely amount to more than pocket change for the individual.

 

[WhoWee]

Why on Earth would that matter? Please do explain what your reasoning is. Are you insinuating that they were audited by the Republicans because they contributed to democratic political campaigns?

No, no, no - nothing like that. The pro-Obama mania that swept through Hollywood was quite potent and might have pulled some of these folks into a "tax the rich" frenzy - which I would find ironic.

 

[Evo]

Said what was true? That effective rates paid by the top 20% went down, or that they went down more than for the of the population?

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

 

[WhoWee]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars.

What kind of tax "loop holes" are we talking about - President Obama cited depreciation on corporate aircraft - basically taking 2 additional years to write off the cost. I posted in another thread regarding GE's involvement in corporate jet finance - yet they didn't pay any taxes on $Billions of income last year - he might have a point?

 

[WhoWee]

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

And President Obama's tax cuts benefited 95% of taxpayers - unfortunately he reduced the cash flow to Social Security (a program under assault by politicians - they raid the excess funds to spend elsewhere) by roughly 12.5% to accomplish the task.

 

[talk2glenn]

Again, Evo, why cite obscure news articles from half a decade ago referencing obscure studies but providing no direct link to the study or its basis, when the data is published and available from the Treasury department directly? I can't tell you anything specific about the study referenced by that article, because it wasn't linked or cited in any way that I could find. I can tell you that its conclusions, however derived, are just plain wrong.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003, and went into effect in 2004. All data for the top 25% of income earners.

Total Income Tax Paid (2003): $627,380M
Total Income Tax Paid (2004): $705,915M

Average Tax Rate (2003): 15.38%
Average Tax Rate (2004): 15.53%

Total Income Tax Share (2003): 83.88%
Total Income Tax Share (2004): 84.86%

Do your own research, when available. One doesn't need to "study" things that are given. Income tax incidence is published annually by the federal government.

 

[russ_watters]

Beyond the fact that the rich have by far benefitted the most, we are talking about percentages. In terms of real dollars, the amount a multi-millionaire saved on taxes is more than some poor or middle-class people make each year, tax cuts included. [though it seems the middle class actually saw their taxes go up in 2004].

Hypothetically:

1. If there was ever a time you wanted to cut taxes, would you cut taxes only to those not in the top 5%?
2. If there was ever a time you wanted to raise taxes, would you raise taxes only for the top 5%?

When it comes to the uber-rich, the disparity is just plain obscene.

What is nothing but a percentage point to the rich may mean food for a year for a stuggling family, or a year's rent for a single mom. Percentages mask the magnitude of the disparity in terms of real dollars. What we should be considering is the pecentage of income needed to survive in the modern context. In real terms, tax breaks for the lower end of the spectrum barely amount to more than pocket change for the individual.

That's more an argument about income equality than it is about tax rates.

 

[WhoWee]

The cnn political reporter Gloria Borger - commenting on the President's speech - said it's not idealogues - she said for the 87 House members voted into office last fall - it is theology.

 

[Evo]

Again, Evo, why cite obscure news articles from half a decade ago referencing obscure studies but providing no direct link to the study or its basis, when the data is published and available from the Treasury department directly? I can't tell you anything specific about the study referenced by that article, because it wasn't linked or cited in any way that I could find. I can tell you that its conclusions, however derived, are just plain wrong.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2003, and went into effect in 2004. All data for the top 25% of income earners.

Total Income Tax Paid (2003): $627,380M
Total Income Tax Paid (2004): $705,915M

Average Tax Rate (2003): 15.38%
Average Tax Rate (2004): 15.53%

Total Income Tax Share (2003): 83.88%
Total Income Tax Share (2004): 84.86%

Do your own research, when available. One doesn't need to "study" things that are given. Income tax incidence is published annually by the federal government.

I don't know how to search the CBO, there are a number of papers I found that reference the tax cuts.

Since multiple sources say that the CBO study found the largest cuts applied to the wealthy, I will risk assuming their isn't some conspiracy amongst the various news organizations.

Also, do not forget that the wealthy are never going to pay the tax rates on as much of their income as middle and low income people. (unless they're insane)

This was actually shown in an older thread about taxes. While the wealthy might pay a higher percent of tax, they pay it on a smaller percent of income. This reduces the actual percent of taxes they pay compared to middle and low income tax payers.

 

[Char. Limit]

The cnn political reporter Gloria Borger - commenting on the President's speech - said it's not idealogues - she said for the 87 House members voted into office last fall - it is theology.

That reminds me... after 43 Christian presidents, I think it's time for an atheist.

 

[WhoWee]

Also, do not forget that the wealthy are never going to pay the tax rates on as much of their income as middle and low income people. (unless they're insane)

I guess some of the celebrities might fall into the latter category.

The non-insane folks attempt to hire competent accountants, lawyers, and money managers - which (professional fees) might cost more per year than the average tax payer remits in taxes. If the tax code was simplified - the tax experts will have years of audits to work on (don't worry about them) - and perhaps a tax increase might actually result is a cost savings. Something to consider.