Published: Friday, Jan. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
@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."
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...
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.
ECR and Twin LightsCould 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
Lets just eliminate all taxes on rich people since they will find ways to avoid
This would be a much more valid screed if the author listed all the government
services he will be willing to do without.
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.
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] ANDStimlulating 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.
The wealthy won't mind if I pay higher taxes, though.
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 readingReuters: "Tax Time
Pushes Some Americans to Take a Hike"
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments