9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

Post Reply New Topic

If you get a tax refund, then you are getting money back from the payroll taxes. Did you stop to take that into account, cause I'm guessing you did not.



You left out the deductions, which could in theory raise the amount before paying taxes a good deal higher.



The money you get back in a tax refund is often the money collected in payroll taxes, which is a hidden tax. Gas tax is hidden from public view and included in the price at the pump. There is no national sales tax, the sales tax is at the state level. Utility taxes are probably going to go through the roof thanks to the power mad EPA.



No, farmers are actually the ones that stand to be hit hardest by some of the state taxes, particularly property taxes. You also neglected to mention that a lot of the rich have left New York taking their money with them.



The income tax is one of the only ones that is completely dependent on income.



If you are wealthy you won't be tapping social security nor unemployment unless you lose everything.




A lot of the wealthy make their money these days through investments which is not the same as getting a paycheck. So why would they be paying a tax for a paycheck that doesn't exist? In case you didn't realize they get taxed on those investments.



I think I just showed that you didn't take everything into account.



Okay, though I would side with Bush, since when is it your business to look at the finances of an individual because they are wealthy.



And you neglected to mention he donates a lot of his money to charity.



Isn't this for the same reason that government can't tax your retirement savings until after you take it out of the market when you retire?

I'm not even wasting my time to point out how the rest of your argument is flawed. I really don't feel like writing page after page just for 1 post.

I have zero attention span and my train of thought is usually all over the place that's why. Also the DSM doesn't mention anything about attention span, it mentions the level of intensity in one's hobbies/interests. Chemistry isn't one of em so I'm lapsing even more in and out of attention.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 14 Apr 2011, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Charity is wasted money. I'd rather the rich dude pay taxes instead.

"Charity" nowadays means donating to churches (WAASTE). Or how about dummy fundations like Autism Speaks (Donating to this is a disservice to mankind.

Charity is not investment and, honestly, I see no reason to think that it is ever good for society and the economy.

And taxes can't be wasted? Nooo a big, monolithic, bureaucratic organization can't possibly be wasteful. The difference is, I can at least check the paper trail of a private charity and I can choose who to donate to. Better for Autism Speaks to be a private organization than a Government project. I sure as hell don't want tax money going into that garbage.

1. Charity is not necessarily money. It could be time, it could be service and it could be blood (quite literally). Your concept of charity is cramped, distorted and bigoted.

I have donated over 60 units of platelets in the last five years, voluntarily given, right from my heart and veins. They tell me at the Blood Service that I have save at least a dozen lives. And you call that wasted?

2. I have record 12 entire text books in physics and math for blind and learning disabled students. I did it voluntarily. That means hundreds of end users will learn some math and physics they otherwise would not have learned. The organization I volunteer for is NOT tax supported. It is entirely supported by voluntary contributes of money and labor. And you call that wasted?

You are a jackass sir.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 14 Apr 2011, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He obviously meant giving money to charity.

/I can't give blood

Depends, there are many charities that have extremely good reputations.

I know that is what he meant and it is a distorted, cramped, constipated and fundamentally wrong view of what charity is. He figures if the government did not steal or coerce the resources from its helpless victims then it is not worthwhile. B*llsh*t I say to that!

At best governments are a necessary evil. There has never been a good government. Ever. There are only bad governments and worse governments.

ruveyn

Well, I don't know how the US works, but usually spending Tax money requires the government to be accountable and keep logs of that stuff.

You can decide to spend on charities that are accountable for, but the rich people currently avoiding taxes can spend in anything they want as the ones spending on charity themselves have no accountability.

To claim charity is comparable or equivalent to paying taxes is to assume that people just want some sort of redistribution of wealth rather than actual investment. It makes you guys sound like the lefty nuts, to be honest.

As long as faux foundations and churches bizarrely count as charity entities. I'd rather have governments direct the spending. At least governments have some little accountability as to what they put their money into. Sure there are charities that have good reputations, but I know your rich people that are avoiding taxes and they are not donating to them.

In the US, giving checks a pastor for her birthday counts as charity to get tax deductions. ( http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/04/09/i ... hday-soon/ ) seriously, don't bring that excuse for not paying taxes ever again.

You aren't understanding what they mean by payroll taxes. While income tax withholding is conducted through the payroll tax system, it is only a small piece of what is considered a payroll tax. Yes, you can get a refund from your income tax piece, if your employer withheld more than you ended up owing in income tax. But you cannot get a refund of the other pieces in most situations. Other payroll taxes include social security, disability insurance (in most states) and, while invisible to you (paid by the employer on your behalf), unemployment insurance. Earn $1 and you will pay non-refundable payroll taxes. Fact.

And please ... don't dream of arguing. This is my career. I DO taxes. There isn't a single political statement or motivation in that paragraph, just an explanation of what actually happens.



Actually, no, he didn't. Those numbers reflect the standard deduction and personal exemption. The deductions are WHY you don't pay taxes until you earn at least $X. And for a simple wage earner at that level, I promise, there are no other deductions to take.



That is perception, not fact. One of my rich clients is also a farmer (seriously, it was his dream, so he bought a farm), and he finds it astonishing how large the tax breaks are simply for agreeing to do a little farming on your land. It may not be the same in every state but, overall, as a nation, we favor farmers right and left. There are huge breaks all over the tax code, all done because the perception is of the poor family farmer. Most of our farms are, however, run by wealthy corporations.



Wrong. Social security collection is not means based. You collect if you put in. You can also collect if you did not put in, in certain situations. But it isn't a savings account with your name on it; today's retirees get back far more than they put in with interest. Every single wealthy citizen over age 65 is collecting social security from the government, and collecting more than they invested. Except the few who have chosen to make a statement by giving it back (isn't Ross Perot doing that? Anyone know?).



That statistic has already accounted for this fact. The article is right, particularly in real estate one can get quite rich and perpetually defer the taxes. Buildings go up in value and yet for taxes you can depreciate them. And when you are done depreciating the building you will sell it in a tax free exchange and get a new property. You may have made a million on that investment, but you haven't paid any taxes yet. Keep it in your portfolio until you die, and you will never pay income tax on the appreciation. There are plenty of similar ways to work it, if you are willing to allow your investment choices to be determined by the tax code.

To be honest, I don't think you've seen enough tax returns or studied enough tax law to debate effectively here. The article was pretty well detailed. Few are going to have the facts at hand to challenge it's points.



And you think that is a valid point when discussing TAX? Charity is charity, for filling in the gaps on things we don't WANT the government to take care of. But tax is paid for the business of running a government, including fighting our wars and running our schools. And ... many middle class Americans donate a much higher percentage of their income and assets to charity than many rich people do. A $1,000,000 donation isn't that laudable when you have $100,000,000. My friend who makes $100,000 and donates $9,000 is much more generous.



Funny, that's how I felt trying to answer you on this.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 15 Apr 2011, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ Sadly, i think you played into his hand by doing so (answering him). >< In that he didn't felt like it, but you did. =/ -sigh- Although i do think it was the right thing to do. His arrogance will be his downfall. <.<

How many times must you tell those on the left? If you tax the rich too much (which won't, and never will be enough for the rest of society) you'll end up with a situation where the rich a) try to get out of paying tax and b) in extreme cases, start cutting their losses and moving abroad in order not to pay your ludicrous levels of taxation.

You can only punish someone so much for being rich until they decide it's just not worth the hassle.

Socialists seem to hate the rich just for being successful. Bollocks to that sort of hateful mentality.

Well tough news bud. EVERYONE on the planet, somewhere, wants your money (to a certain degree, admittedly). ^.- Just moving abroad only changes the problem on the small-mean term.

Also, when said "success" is obtained through dubious / illegitimate means, the left is quite justified in its quest for retribution.

There are a lot of low-tax countries (i.e. in Europe, non-EU states - the EU will try and bully those though) that are more than willing to let you set up business as long as you pay them. Why would you continue to get gouged by a government for no good reason? We live in a global market so a company can take its money elsewhere.

Like i said, even those states you mention will want your money. ^.-

On that note, i find it ridiculous that a company is a lot less restricted in its movements than any individual or collectivity. Yet they always end up being able to avoid responsibility when it's pushed on them for prior mistakes, whereas an individual will hardly be able to do so. Is that what you'd call justice? <.<

They will, no doubt. Just less of it.

If someone was charging you $2,000 a week for something and the other guy was charging $500 or $1,000 for exactly the same privilege, which would you go for?

Very telling, by the way, of talking of 'retribution'.