"Fairness" doesn't have to mean law of the jungle

Post #304,819 by drook 2/27/09 5:38:21 PM Reply	"Fairness" doesn't have to mean law of the jungle Q: Why do you rob banks? A: Because that's where the money is. Q: Why should you tax rich people? A: Because that's where the money is. If I worked at McDonalds flipping burgers, is it "fair" that I don't pay any taxes? Even though all four of my kids go to public school? And we all get treated at the free clinic? Is it "fair" that I pay for the public schools even if I don't have any kids in them? Sometimes fairness has to include the realization that yes, some people have to give more because they're able to give more. Don't bother pointing out how much that sounds like something Marx said. I realize that. That doesn't make the idea wrong. -- Drew
Post #304,823 by beepster 2/27/09 7:43:41 PM Reply	But its not, necessarily, where the money is and even to the TR quote above...income vs wealth. Is it "fair" that someone like Steve Jobs can avoid income tax on salary by paying himself $1? Is it fair that Bill Gates can avoid windfall taxes by creating a not for profit foundation that then pays his and his wifes expenses for attending the foundations functions...and his friends expenses...to the tune of 97 million? None of that is touched. You act as if this system is ACTUALLY redistributing wealth..its not..it doesn't touch wealth...it simply penalizes those that aren't wealthy enough to figure out ways around it. So, in absence of the ability to be "fair" by your definition...I choose the one that applies equally to all. To me, that seems "fair". I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #304,824 by Another Scott 2/27/09 8:27:49 PM Reply	You're bringing up extraneous issues again. TR talked about income and wealth. Wealth generally arises, if it arises at all, from income being in excess of expenses. Sometimes it arises quickly, and sometimes as a result of unproductive activity, and sometimes it doesn't at all. *Is it "fair" that someone like Steve Jobs can avoid income tax on salary by paying himself $1?* Until he sells that $646M (the value at one time) in stock, he has earned no income from Apple. Well, $1. When he sells it, or transfers it, it should be taxed. http://www.mactropol...teve-jobs-salary/ Jobs holds 5.5 million shares of Apple stock, and hasnÂt sold any of them since the Âsecond comingÂ back in 1997. Presumably he has income from other sources, which is suitably taxed. Do you have evidence of something else being the case? *None of that is touched.* You're aware that the one hundred and some odd pages is an outline, not the detailed budget, right? I wouldn't be surprised if the estate and gift taxes are revisited in the near future. *You act as if this system is ACTUALLY redistributing wealth..its not..it doesn't touch wealth...it simply penalizes those that aren't wealthy enough to figure out ways around it.* ?!? Why do I find this funny? Wasn't it you that argued vociferously about the inheritance tax at our old haunts? Your pessimism would be more persuasive if it were more evenly distributed among the players, IMHO. *So, in absence of the ability to be "fair" by your definition...I choose the one that applies equally to all. To me, that seems "fair".* So, I guess you're not a fan of the progressive income tax? Cheers, Scott.
Post #304,836 by beepster 2/27/09 10:32:54 PM 2/27/09 10:33:25 PM Reply	Do you think that's obvious enough?. If you think Steve has earned no "income" from Apple, I'd say you don't know much about expense reports. So, I guess you're not a fan of the progressive income tax? I'd say I've made that relatively clear. I'm for putting a floor amount, under which there is no tax and above which every dollar earned is taxed equally, no exceptions, no deductions, no special circumstance. I also have no general revulsion towards the "luxury" style taxes that apply to non essential items that sell at exorbitant prices. For example, I have no issue with a Mercedes being taxed at a higher rate than a Chevy Cobalt. Houses over a certain amount, etc. And you are right, I have argued against inheritance tax as being arbitrary and harmful, especially given the low levels and the style of implementation. It penalizes ongoing concerns with valuations that have no bearing on the actual income they produce..and where I see badly written and poorly implemented laws I will generally say I'd like to see them go away. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill. Edited by beepster Feb. 27, 2009, 10:33:25 PM EST Expand All History
Post #304,838 by Another Scott 2/27/09 11:39:20 PM Reply	The devil's in the details. *If you think Steve has earned no "income" from Apple, I'd say you don't know much about expense reports.* Maybe not. What do you know about Steve's income from Apple? AFAIK, Apple doesn't pay a dividend. Enlighten me. *I'm for putting a floor amount, under which there is no tax and above which every dollar earned is taxed equally, no exceptions, no deductions, no special circumstance.* So you don't like the progressive income tax, then. Let's look at some numbers. http://www.irs.gov/p...s-soi/histab1.xls As of 2006: Total Adjusted Gross Income: $8,030,842,945,000.00 Total Individual income tax paid: $1,023,916,399,000.00 (Mean Income Tax Rate: 12.75%) Number of returns filed: 92,740,927 (Mean AGI: $86,594.00 - another IRS page - http://www.irs.gov/t...id=102886,00.html - gives the Median AGI as $31,987.00 for 2006) (Mean Income Tax: $11,040.) How do you propose to raise ~ $1T from individual income taxes? What would the tax rate be? What would your floor be? How would you handle complaints about exemptions for children and charitable deductions? Although it's a different pot of money, what about FICA since many people pay more in FICA than in income tax? (BTW, Total Charitable Deductions: $186,646,644,000.00 in 41,437,749 returns claiming them, or a mean of $4504.) Inheritance taxes serve 2 purposes: 1) to raise revenue, and 2) to prevent unproductive concentration of money and power that persists over generations. http://pgt.liebertpu...and_a_history.htm The estate tax raised $24.56B from 49,924 returns in 2007 (mean tax around $492k). We know what the US was like without a federal income tax, and without an inheritance tax. The Gilded Age wasn't a golden age. If those on the political right want to argue that small businesses would be hurt by estate taxes, or increases in the top marginal rates (since many small businesses use individual tax returns), it seems to me that the solution is revise the way we tax small businesses - they shouldn't use the individual tax system. Estate taxes are needed, and those well off have a responsibility to contribute more to the upkeep of society than those who are unable to do so. But I'm repeating myself. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks that those who want to radically change the tax system need to put up numbers to support their case.)
Post #304,851 by a6l6e6x 2/28/09 10:43:41 AM Reply	Re: AFAIK, Apple doesn't pay a dividend. Enlighten me. Apple, more than likely provides Steve with all transportation expenditures. Corporate jet, chauffeured limousine, hotels, etc. Also, security. Security system, guards for his home. If he doesn't eat home alone, meals. Communications systems, phones, broadband, cable, etc. If so inclined, membership in country clubs, gyms. The list goes on. All business expenses! Alex
Post #304,853 by Another Scott 2/28/09 11:15:21 AM Reply	If so, he must pay tax on that, no? If Apple's paying for stuff like that and it's not clearly business related (as in, for an actual business function, not simply because he runs Apple), then it's a benefit to him and he should be taxed on it. And if he (rather than Apple) is claiming a business expense deduction, it can only be applied to tax owed, right? If he doesn't have taxable income from Apple, then how could he deduct business expenses? Presumably due to the AMT and such things, if he could claim such deductions against tax on income from Apple, it can't be used to reduce his tax to zero - I would think, anyway. Thanks. Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks we're doing head-of-a-pin stuff unless Jobs has released his tax return, but would still like to know what Beep was insinuating. ;-)
Post #304,854 by drook 2/28/09 11:43:28 AM Reply	Ever had an expense account? A former boss would take us all out to lunch whenever someone would visit from one of the remote offices. Toward the end of the meal, someone would say, "So ... how's everything holding up in Miami?" "Oh, fine." "Great, good to hear it." So we had just discussed business. And expensed it. -- Drew
Post #304,855 by a6l6e6x 2/28/09 11:47:15 AM Reply	Re: not clearly business related But, it can and would be argued that it is business related. Steve is virtually Apple. All public contact with people reflects on Apple. The damage to Apple if something happened to him at his home or anywhere else is clear. Also much of this kind of thing may be part of the employment contract. Take a look at GE's retired CEO Jack Welch got in his retirement: Among the most significant items, GE provides a company-owned luxury apartment at the Trump International Hotel and Towers on Central Park West in New York City. Besides allowing Welch to live there rent-free, GE picks up the tab for such additional necessities as fresh flowers, wine, laundry and dry cleaning services, a cook and wait staff, a housekeeper, and every other detail down to toiletries, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, even postage. GE also pays a portion of WelchÂs dining bills at the exclusive restaurant Jean Georges, which is located in the building. Additionally, Welch receives a free grand tier box at the Metropolitan Opera, memberships at four country clubs, including GeorgiaÂs prestigious Augusta National, court-side tickets to New York Knicks basketball games, box seats behind the dugout at Yankee Stadium plus a skybox for the Boston Red Sox, prime tickets to the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open tennis tournaments, VIP tickets to all Olympic events, and unlimited use of a corporate Boeing 737 jet. The cost of this last item alone is estimated at $291,869 a month. http://www.wsws.org/...02/wlch-s17.shtml Now, Jack does pay taxes on some of this. I did not even mention big ticket items like life insurance, health insurance, retirement benefits that even some us get in admittedly smaller amounts. Do you pay taxes on any of these? Alex
Post #304,832 by drook 2/27/09 9:14:52 PM Reply	Who was it who talked about outliers? So you generalize an entire population based on 25-30 outliers...and I hear this called "fair". Oh right, that was you. Saying that we shouldn't base a policy on the outliers. So are you now saying that we should base policy on outliers? Or are you saying that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aren't outliers? -- Drew
Post #304,834 by beepster 2/27/09 10:14:02 PM Reply	You said go where the money is thats where the money is. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!