Comments about ‘The wealthy won't simply stand by and pay higher tax rates’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

Why wouldn't the very wealthy still take the deals they are getting?

They still have a pretty good deal.

Who wouldn't take a CEO job where you get $20 million per year and then get taxed 38% federal tax and 10% state tax. You still end up with half or $10 million.

I know a lot of people who work very hard and are very educated and skilled who get a lot less than that.

Oh and by the way, don't forget the golden parachutes, whereby they get this money regardless of performance. If they screw up and get fired, they typically leave with a payment of about $30 million. If their performance for a given year suffers and their stock options don't pan out, those get repriced so that they still get the money as if their performance was excellent.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

What should be evident by now is it is NOT a matter of revenue; never has been, it is ALL about class envy used to manipulate the masses.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Its unfortunate that Obama chose to waste political capital on an issue he won't win and will slow down him momentium on issues he could have won. With this the Republicans will get a win and will be revitalized.

I voted for Obama, but I am also pro 2nd Ammendment. I knew Obama was a risk to the 2nd Ammendment but I agree with him on most other issues.

Perhaps he is aware of my point here, but didn't want to have regrets that he didn't at least try. He still could have salved his conscience by taking steps which would have helped solve the problem and still done justice to the 2nd ammendment.

1. Offer to allow hunters to use silencers in exchange for requiring gun show back ground checks.

2. Ask for money to explain to parents in advertisements the importance of teaching moral principals to children, including not to tease other children and to stand up for those who are. In other words encourage people to adhere to the golden rule and encourage parents to teach this to children.

3. Provide adequate funding to ensure that all mentally ill people get the treatment they need.

ECR
Burke, VA

Many thanks to Deroy Murdock for taking the time to document the many small-minded people across the planet who apparently find the accumulation of wealth to br most important aspect of their lives. Will the French people will really miss Gerard Depardieu? And I hope he is not disappointed when he discovers the freedoms he will lose under the rule of Vladimir Putin. The French people chose not to extend another term of office to Nikolai Sarkozy and so they may not miss him either if he moves to London.

The tax rates that Murdock, and apparently the wealthiest Americans, are complaining about are the same rates they paid under Bill Clinton and are significantly lower than any they paid in times past. Where was there great migration then? In 1982, a year after the great tax cutter Ronald Reagan took office people paid a 50% rate for income over $106K, equivalent to $199K today. In 1981, apparently before Reagan cut taxes, people paid 70% on income of $212, equivalent to $532K today. Where was there outrage then? Where was the migration out of the country? So what exactly is there beef this time?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Reference Americans renouncing their citizenship. That is an interesting but partial statistic. First, have we actually asked why they are going or is that simply the happenstance? Second, how many have come (with wealth in tow)?

As to Phil Mickelson and his 63 percent tax rate – I can only offer that wealthy folks I knew back when tax rates were much higher than they are now thought that a 17% flat tax would be a tax break for them. Mr. Mickelson must have poor tax advisers.

Finally, I do think folks move from state to state depending on comparative tax rates. But folks leaving the country is another matter. Not to say it doesn’t happen, but it is far less likely.

And if their only tether to America is a particular tax rate, then maybe it would be better to let them leave.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ECR "small-minded people...who...find the accumulation of wealth to br [sic] the most important aspect of their lives."

Your Big Government is built on the backs of these people whom you disparage.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@Nate -Your Big Government is us! Not some mysterious giant in another land. It was build by folks like you and I not they and theirs.
On the other hand, Big Business was and is, built on the toil and labor of others and then described as "I built this."

ECR
Burke, VA

Happy Valley Heretic - Thanks for your comment, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Nate - I'm only disparaging those whose only priority in life is the accumulation of wealth. There are plenty of wealthy folks who are more than happy to pay their share according the tax code. And as HVH points out, the government is paid for by all the people of the nation and the taxes paid by those with the lowest incomes are a greater burden on them that the "$13,800 every day" paid by the wealthy. I'm reminded of the story of the widow's mite...

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Let's see. if a bank increases your ATM use fee by $1.00, that's evil, greedy and unnecessary. But its my patriotic duty to support the most bloated, inefficient, corrupt and wasteful organization in the universe? Liberal have it backwards! The government did not build that! Everyone drives on the roads(and pays fuel taxes for the privilege) but very few produce wealth, invent, invest, create jobs and pay the vast majority of taxes and those people upon whom we all depend are getting fewer and fewer! Last time I checked it was about 47% who are getting a free ride.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

ECR and Twin Lights

Could not have said it better myself... excellent comments. I too have been amazed at the level of outrage over the last few years when today's tax rates across the board are lower than ever. Somehow many have become convinced that going back to the rates under Clinton (great economy, balanced budgets) will take us down the road to serfdom.

The disconnect between reality the caricatured future these folks argue against is truly bizarre.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Lets just eliminate all taxes on rich people since they will find ways to avoid paying anyway.

one old man
Ogden, UT

This would be a much more valid screed if the author listed all the government services he will be willing to do without.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Blackmail is a crime. Yet, our tax system makes it a very profitable and legal activity for rich people and business operations. By playing one government against the other these people are able to bargain for favoritism by the threat or promise of their location.

We need tax reform of the allocation of taxes by residential location. While the income tax is still the most fair way to support our government(s) it is very likely that a persons income is derived from many different areas of the country. This is especially true for the rich and business operations.

The best government financing would be a single flat rate tax on personal income collected in a single fund and allocated to the different levels of government according to the count of citizens. Each person would be allocated the same equal amount for government functions no matter where in America he lives. This would not only be most fair to people, but would provide incentive to eliminate the redundant and unnecessary levels of government.

Special local fees would be needed and allowed by the citizens of that local for such as trash pickup and unique requirements.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Nope, they are not just gonna sit back and pay higher taxes.

They will invest it,
or Spend it.

Thereby they will be taking the tax Deductions [loop-holes, or tax shelters if you will]
AND
Stimlulating the Economy,

...instead of hording it, socking it away in foregin bank accounts and relying on the Government to borrow from the Feds to keep the economy afloat.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The wealthy won't mind if I pay higher taxes, though.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The rest of the story about the 1800 who renounced citizenship:

"The U.S. is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they're living abroad. An estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS.

The IRS, released a report that details the difficulties of filing taxes from overseas. It cites heavy paperwork, a lack of online filing options and a dearth of local and foreign-language resources.

For those wishing to legally escape the filing requirements, the only way is to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship. Last year, IRS records show that at least 1,788 people did, and that's likely an underestimate. The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those who give up their citizenship, and some who renounced say they haven't seen their name on the list yet.

There's also an "exit tax" for the very rich who choose to leave."
I would recommend the following article for further reading
Reuters: "Tax Time Pushes Some Americans to Take a Hike"

Emajor
Ogden, UT

Murdock is grasping at straws if he thinks a 4% hike in income above 250K to return us to Clinton-era levels is at all comparable to France's bonkers 75% top tax rate.

So billionaire Edward Lampert left Connecticut because the tax rate went from 6.5 to 6.7% and he lost $200/yr in property tax credit? Not buying it; he moved to Florida which has no individual income tax, so it wasn't Connecticut's tiny increase that drove him. He probably would have done it anyway, even if the rate dropped down to 6.3%. Zero is still smaller than 6.3.

If someone wants to renounce their citizenship and move to Russia to save a few %, let them. You'll never please someone as fickle or amoral as that, so why hold yourself hostage to them? Government policy in America should be run by elected representatives, not a plutocracy of spoiled brats willing to renounce citizenship or play games with their employees' livelihoods because they can be 4% richer somewhere else.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Interesting but questionable editorial on greed and nonpatriotism. So the wealthy think they don't have enough money. This is something we didn't know already? All we have to do is look at the shrinking wages they pay those who actually produce their wealth, while they stockpile more than they'll ever be able to spend (or even invest, in the present economic climate they've created).

If those who are so up in arms about raising tax rates on the wealthy want to equalize the tax burden more, then let them put their creative minds to work figuring out how to convince the CEOs and industrial tycoons to pay their employees more generously. If they would stop trying to minimize the cost of labor, maybe we wouldn't need to tax them so much. The problem is that the people in their employ don't earn enough to make ends meet, let alone pay more in taxes. So let's solve the right problem instead of focusing on this silly decoy.

Of course, it's hard to pay better wages to American workers if your employees are all in China.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"On April 7, 2011, Peter Dunn raised his right hand before a U.S. consular officer in Toronto and swore that he understood the consequences of giving up his U.S. citizenship. Dunn, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen has lived outside the U.S. since 1986.

As an American, Dunn had to file tax returns and report all of his bank accounts - even joint accounts and his Canadian retirement fund. If he didn't, he would be breaking U.S. law and could face penalties of up to $100,000 or 50 percent of his undeclared accounts, whichever is larger. Dunn says he was tired of tracking IRS policy changes, and he had no intention of returning to the United States. Renouncing his citizenship, as he puts it, was "a no-brainer."

"If it was just me then it would be one thing," says Dunn, a part-time investor who worried that having to share information with the IRS would deter future business partners - and upset his wife, who is Canadian. "Disclosing joint accounts I hold with my wife and anyone I ever want to do business with - that's just too much. My wife's account is none of their business."

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"If you add up all the federal (levies) and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security, and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent." Imagine keeping just 37 cents of every dollar you earn." This statement is absolutely untrue. By the time he qualifies for the top federal tax rate of 39.6% he is in no longer paying any medicare tax or any social security tax or disability taxes on a wage. Adding state taxes to that figure brings him to the mid forties and that only applies to income after deductions, tax shelters, and other loop holes. He is either not telling the truth or he needs another tax accountant. By the way I know some one who knows some one that has a lot of money and he has stuff in the Caymans. His effective tax rate was only about 14 percent.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments