- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IRS Billionaire leak: Bezos paid $0 in income tax, got a $4k tax credit for his two kids
Posted on 6/9/21 at 11:15 pm to lostinbr
Posted on 6/9/21 at 11:15 pm to lostinbr
quote:
What? That’s not at all how a progressive tax system is defined.
Let’s imagine a flat tax of 25% across all income brackets. Under this system, the top 50% would pay a larger share of total taxes than the bottom 50% - because there are the same number of taxpayers in both groups, but the top 50% have more income. Under your definition, this would be a “progressive” tax system. Except that’s impossible, because a flat percentage tax is NOT a progressive tax, by definition.
A progressive tax system means that the higher earners have a larger tax burden relative to their income. You can argue about whether or not our system is regressive, but it’s absolutely ridiculous to say “how much they pay relative to their wealth” is “irrelevant when it comes to what is or is not a progressive tax system.” (There’s a separate discussion to be had about wealth vs. income, but it’s pretty clear that is not the argument you were making.)
How much federal income tax do you think families earning $50,000 or less pay?
Remember, the bottom 50% of earners pay an effective 4% federal income tax.
1
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:39 am to meansonny
quote:
How much federal income tax do you think families earning $50,000 or less pay?
Remember, the bottom 50% of earners pay an effective 4% federal income tax.
This has nothing to do with my post. I wasn’t arguing about whether or not our tax system is progressive. I was just pointing out that the poster’s definition of a progressive tax system was incorrect.
That being said, yes - the bottom 50% have it pretty easy when it comes to income tax.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:43 am to lostinbr
You are completely and utterly wrong. Every single definition of progressive tax system out there is some form of this:
The above is taken from Tax Foundation.
Or if you prefer, directly from the IRS:
quote:
A progressive tax is one where the average tax burden increases with income. High-income families pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden, while low- and middle-income taxpayers shoulder a relatively small tax burden.
The above is taken from Tax Foundation.
Or if you prefer, directly from the IRS:
quote:
A progressive tax takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from low-income groups and is based on the concept of ability to pay. A progressive tax system might, for example, tax low-income taxpayers at 10 percent, middle-income taxpayers at 15 percent and high-income taxpayers at 30 percent. The U.S. federal income tax is based on the progressive tax system.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:51 am to Centinel
Right.. read the quote from the IRS again:
Now read your post that I replied to:
The term “progressive tax system” has nothing to do with the amount of money collected from each income bracket. It’s the percentage relative to income that makes a system progressive.
But I’m “completely and utterly wrong.”
quote:
A progressive tax takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from low-income groups and is based on the concept of ability to pay.
Now read your post that I replied to:
quote:
The definition of a progressive tax system is that the wealthiest pay the majority of the taxes.
You may not like how much they pay relative to their wealth, but that is irrelevant when it comes to what is or is not a progressive tax system.
The term “progressive tax system” has nothing to do with the amount of money collected from each income bracket. It’s the percentage relative to income that makes a system progressive.
But I’m “completely and utterly wrong.”
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:54 am to Kujo
It's called business debuductions. When you own a business you can debduct countless things. I'm a small business owner and payed 0 in taxes as well.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:55 am to bucknut
quote:
It's called business debuductions. When you own a business you can debduct countless things. I'm a small business owner and payed 0 in taxes as well
Congrats, you're a moron
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:56 am to bucknut
quote:
It's called business debuductions. When you own a business you can debduct countless things. I'm a small business owner and payed 0 in taxes as well.
You think he is writing off his cell phone and mileage?
Posted on 6/10/21 at 10:56 am to bucknut
quote:
It's called business debuductions. When you own a business you can debduct countless things. I'm a small business owner and payed 0 in taxes as well.
Wow.
Just....wow.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:00 am to Kujo
quote:
Bezos paid $0 in income tax
Good for him. Income tax is theft
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:13 am to lostinbr
quote:
“progressive tax system”
I've floated the idea of "maximum wage" instead of minimum wage.
Total amount of change in annual wealth you are allowed to gain, like $100M, anything above that goes to the infrastructure that allowed you to get that and safely keep it.
Like that $30k gold chain guy, he can get $30k, but lives in an area where he can't safely keep it. The US is a structure that allows people to gain vast amounts of wealth, but it's also that structure that allows you to keep it.
We don't want people with so much money that they can buy elections. The founding fathers didn't want a bunch of King George's and Dukes to rule the US.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:16 am to Kujo
quote:
Total amount of change in annual wealth you are allowed to gain, like $100M, anything above that goes to the infrastructure that allowed you to get that and safely keep it.
Do they get a credit the next year when their wealth goes down by $100M?
Are you forcing them to liquidate and send cash?
This post was edited on 6/10/21 at 11:18 am
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:20 am to lostinbr
Funny how people get so faux outraged at this stuff. None of this matters, the system is going to crash anyway.
Until the government gets its spending under control, I support every American keeping as much of their own money as possible. frick DC.
Until the government gets its spending under control, I support every American keeping as much of their own money as possible. frick DC.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:36 am to TDTOM
quote:
Do they get a credit the next year when their wealth goes down by $100M?
Are you forcing them to liquidate and send cash?
You want to get lost in the details. Before looking for ways to say it won't work, let's first see how it could work.
You want to look at it under legal/accounting scrutiny, but let's look at overall personal motivation.
One of the largest issues with communism and socialism is the lack of motivation. The typical "why should I work and everybody else does nothing gets the same pay?"
We have to acknowledge that there is a severe wealth gap. We put these champions of industry on a pedestal as if they were the key reason behind the success. But we know gates and jobs got everything from Xerox. We know Zuckerberg stole. These people's success is more right place right time, than "one of a kind" innovators. Social media would exist, word processing would exist, smartphones would exist, etc.... Without the people we credit with these products.
The maximum wage ($100M) Still gives poor, middle class, and even rich people, the motivation to strive. Unless you feel that people actually think, "If I can't make $200 million I'd rather flip burgers"
Bill Gates would have still tried to make Microsoft, Steve Jobs would have still tried to make Apple, Zuckerberg would have still tried to make/steal a social media platform.
We are just throttling the gap. And it's not unprecedented, in the US we use to have marginal tax rates in the 90% tile.
For every dollar you made over $400k in 1953 you only got $0.08 cents. 92% highest marginal tax rate.
Were the fifties "Great" for America?
This post was edited on 6/10/21 at 11:38 am
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:52 am to Kujo
Yes or no? Answer the questions.
Posted on 6/10/21 at 11:53 am to Kujo
quote:
is a severe wealth gap.
Which only matters to social engineers. Rich people don't play with cash.
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News