Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bizurke

The IRS is very unsecure

35 posts in this topic

that's all good and well how the books are set up and how things work "in theory", but in practice there are many many ways to move money and assets into un-taxable areas. the majority of any wealthy person's wealth is not reported because it's in other areas and investments. i know millionares that pay taxes equivalent to $60k a year salary people, legally.

i'm not saying this is wrong, it's what i would do, it just so happens the way it works out the lower classes pay most because the majority of the wealthy's assets are not taxable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's all good and well how the books are set up and how things work "in theory", but in practice there are many many ways to move money and assets into un-taxable areas. the majority of any wealthy person's wealth is not reported because it's in other areas and investments. i know millionares that pay taxes equivalent to $60k a year salary people, legally.

i'm not saying this is wrong, it's what i would do, it just so happens the way it works out the lower classes pay most because the majority of the wealthy's assets are not taxable.

It's not how things work 'in theory', but rather the actual results of the tax receipts. I suspect this is going nowhere though, so this will be my last post on the topic. No amount of factual evidence can combat the power of belief.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:roll: that's a good way to straighten things out, run away.

perhaps i didn't explain clearly enough, the wealthy have far more potential taxable assets than are being taxed. of course the dollar amount is going to be more, but there is a HUGE chunk of missing tax revenue. a larger % of the lower classes' assets are taxed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:roll: that's a good way to straighten things out, run away.

perhaps i didn't explain clearly enough, the wealthy have far more potential taxable assets than are being taxed. of course the dollar amount is going to be more, but there is a HUGE chunk of missing tax revenue. a larger % of the lower classes' assets are taxed.

I'll try once more, as this post seemed more reasonable than the previous...

We don't, however, tax assets as a general rule. Taxation events tend to only be those events which create income. The fact that assets can not really be called missing revenue any more than the fact that we don't tax you for visiting binrev is causing missed revenue.

You seem to have switched your argument, though, and have now gone to the 'its not progressive enough', and it may not be. I don't know, that's a subjective matter, and I don't know how progressive is progressive enough. The statement that the poor pay most of the taxes is objectively untrue. You may, however, say that taxes, as a percentage of disposable income, are higher for the bottom 2 quintiles than for the upper 2 quintiles. That's certainly debatable, but it's an entirely different proposition than the one you originally made.

I, for one, am very grateful they don't tax assets generally. Taxing assets produces a disincentive to save and invest, which has severe negative consequences. As it stands now, we already have several disincentives towards saving and investing (the mortgage tax credit comes to mind), and this is the major cause of the balance of trade difference. It's bad enough they tax income (i'd much rather they tax consumption via something like the fairtax, but that's another matter entirely).

When thinking about potential tax changes, it's important to think about the economic impact of those changes, not just the income derived. This is true in all things, not just taxes. For example, if Stank has 200 people purchasing binrev magazine at 5$ that's 1000$. If he raised the price to 500$, does that mean his revenue will be 100k? No, of course not; there will be a decline in the people purchasing at 500$. The same is true of tax policy; taxes can impact behavior at certain rates and cause people to seek to lower their effective tax rate, either by changing behavior or moving to a location which doesnt tax their behavior as highly. This is all economics 101.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you are forgetting is that many of said assets do in fact generate revenue, and go untaxed.

i'm not trying to debate whether or not this is the right or correct way to do things, it's just a fact that the lower classes have a higher tax burden.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what you are forgetting is that many of said assets do in fact generate revenue, and go untaxed.

i'm not trying to debate whether or not this is the right or correct way to do things, it's just a fact that the lower classes have a higher tax burden.

Again, when you look at objective numbers, they simply do not reflect this. Using the same cbo numbers, we see that the lowest quintile has an effective individual tax rate of -4.5% (yes, the standard deduction is > their total tax liability) while the top quintile has an effective tax rate of around 17% (see table 3).

I simply can't find any evidence to support your assertion. What is the source of data for your claims?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you still do not get this. yes the rates differ, yes the rates are higher for upper class, BUT, if you look at how much someone in the upper class is worth counting investments and other things that generate income but go untaxed and look at how the poor are taxed, it doesn't work out that way. the poor pay more out of thier pockets(not in dollar amount) than rich.

this is an example of something that works great on paper, but not IRL.

again, i'm not trying to debate here, it's just the way shit is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you still do not get this. yes the rates differ, yes the rates are higher for upper class, BUT, if you look at how much someone in the upper class is worth counting investments and other things that generate income but go untaxed and look at how the poor are taxed, it doesn't work out that way. the poor pay more out of thier pockets(not in dollar amount) than rich.

this is an example of something that works great on paper, but not IRL.

again, i'm not trying to debate here, it's just the way shit is.

Fine, then produce hard research substantiating this. Until you do, it's just an opinion. The fact of the matter is that the lowest quintile have a negative effective tax rate. Their refund at the end of the year, as a group, is greater than the sum total of their tax contributions during the year.

You make it sound so matter-of-fact, but have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your hypothesis. If it's 'the way shit is', provide the evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

let me put this in simple terms, the po' folk be gettin hit harder on der taxes yo, fo rich folk it ain't no thang.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1/3 of the IRS is only 35?

Just to clear this up... they were referring only to human employees not the army of monkeys that actually do the processing, come up with tax law, etc.

finally someone answered it.

thanks, i didnt know there were that few people in it.

The auditors called 100 IRS employees and managers, portraying themselves as
"We were able to convince 35 managers and employees to provide us their username and change their password," the report said.

Hence, 1/3rd...

Edited by nazareth2
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0