RukusProvider
Banned
It's the job of the gov and regulators to close the loopholes. As a citizen, I'll do what I can to protect my assets and earnings within the framework presented to me. And I'm not apologetic about it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How Wal-Marts Waltons maintain their billionaire fortune
- Thread starter Espresso
- Start date
- Status
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Progressive tax brackets, how do they work? We don't charge income tax on people making $5,000 a year either.
Your uncle paid tax on the money as he earned it. Now it's your turn to pay tax on the money you 'earned' by winning the genetic lottery.
The money you're paid for your job has already been taxed multiple times before it gets to you, and will be taxed multiple times after you spend it. The government takes the money it receives in taxes and puts it back into circulation, where it gets taxed again and comes back.
makingmusic476
Member
I don't understand how anybody cam defend this. The way they spend millions lobbying congress to protect these monstrous concentrations of wealth only exemplifies how such riches are an affront to liberty, as they become a terrible and corrosive influence on the democratic process. These people consistently encourage the gutting of taxation and a minimum wage, enabling them to hoarde ever larger amounts of wealth earned through the hard labor of the American working class. Such people epitomize the "moocher class", a label their PR firms are quick to throw at those who have the gall to ask for a raise.
And the lack of a decent estate tax is a big "fuck you" to any semblance of equality of opportunity.
And the lack of a decent estate tax is a big "fuck you" to any semblance of equality of opportunity.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But why shouldn't you pay on your (inheritence) income?
If I'm landscaping someone's lawn for 30 bucks an hour and they give me 90 bucks for three hours work, I'm sure THEY already paid tax on that 90 bucks. Does that mean I shouldn't have to pay taxes on the 90 bucks I earned?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Did you read the last part of the article though? (the part quoted in the OP that is)
When you have this much money you can afford to influence the system to create and perpetuate such loopholes.
Wealth is power. Its dangerous to divorce the two concepts, to pretend that there's nothing more to being a multi-billionare then "being able to afford a cool yacht"
There's a reason that wouldn't get double taxed: because it is insanely small.
The problem is when people keep applying small money logic to big money, but as I noted the scale really does change everything: imagine making 100k a year then being forced to live on 10k a year from a 90% tax... and then a billionaire getting one billion a year, then having 100 million left after this 90% tax. Nevermind progressive taxes that'd ensure their first 100k's treated the same as anyone else's.
AnotherNils
Member
did she die, and was that candy money transferred from her estate to you?
You're part of the problem.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to get at. Thanks Tech.
Income is income. The uncle isn't being taxed... the nephew is.
General Patton
Banned
I agree. Provided you pay your taxes and earn the money legitimately, how can the government justify taxing your family for your death?
makingmusic476
Member
Money is taxed every time it changes hands. Employer to employee, consumer to business. It's a never ending cycle.
They only rail against estate taxes so hard because such taxes endanger their aristocracy.
It isn't.
40% above $5.25 million is. That's a rather large difference. You'd need to inherit quite an extravagant amount to actually be taxed near the 40% mark on it. If you got $10.5 for instance, you're only taxed at 20%, which isn't very much. A lot of the lower income tax brackets are around that.
Money is taxed when it changes hands. That's how it works. It's just like income tax. Why shouldn't you be taxed on a massive income just because it was your dead mom that gave it to you?
On top of that, if we didn't tax this stuff we would turn into an aristocracy very quickly. Money makes money. The more you have the easier it is. Why should we allow a few to jump so far ahead for essentially doing nothing? You have to even the playing field a bit more, or else you don't have a good market or political system.
I personally don't think we tax it enough. Fuck 40%. I want to see something like 80-90% brackets on some of that shit.
Well, that's kind of hard when you don't really have a viable choice to stop it. It seems when people get into politics their entire scruples change.
Indrid Cold1
Member
Yeah, I'm totally fighting the good fight for my fellow members of the 1%, what with my £400 overdraft and all.
I guess you are right that I am part of the problem insofar as I am honest enough with myself to admit that family is everything to me, I don't really care about the greater society, and if I was ever in a position where I had acquired any sort of significant wealth I would do everything legally in my power to prevent anything but the bare minimum being taken by the state in order that myself and my dependants could enjoy the fruits of my labour, while I'm here and when I'm gone.
And I can't condemn the Waltons for doing the same, while I applaud the Gate's for doing different.
Alcotholic
Banned
My problem is that they dont do anything with that money. They just hoard it. If they went around spending it on local businesses and such, at least it's going some place. But people like this baffle me. What does one person do with 100 Billion dollars? Nothing, apparently.
Actually, the REAL problem probably isn't even just holding on to that money for yourself (as you said you'd do everything you could), so much as ENABLING those that do and making it easier. Gates is to be applauded, but we have to remember he's the exception among the extremely wealthy, and to try to be more attentive and get people who'd REALLY do something about this in. Namely people who wouldn't turn around and screw us over in favor of rich buddies, but it's hard to fully predict what they'll actually do once in office anyway.
phazedplasma
Member
This is why I hate when people talk about raising taxes. We need to fix these loopholes first before we talk about raising.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
There comes a point where the "fruits of your labor" is just money rolling in because money makes more money and it's the system, not seemingly the "sweat of the brow", that causes a massive fortune to accumulate.
It seems the real trick for people like Bill Gates is that they have somehow managed to remain rational and fight the human inability to deal with scale and perspective. The root of the problem may come down to ethics, morality. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, or that other people aren't right to say you're a shitty person for doing it.
I think it's fair to wonder if an ultra-rich person sitting on a dynasty and doing nothing with all the resources they've accumulated and locked away from the human race, may be a bad human being. There's no pride or honor in their accomplishment while much of the world wallows in poverty.
It seems the real trick for people like Bill Gates is that they have somehow managed to remain rational and fight the human inability to deal with scale and perspective. The root of the problem may come down to ethics, morality. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, or that other people aren't right to say you're a shitty person for doing it.
I think it's fair to wonder if an ultra-rich person sitting on a dynasty and doing nothing with all the resources they've accumulated and locked away from the human race, may be a bad human being. There's no pride or honor in their accomplishment while much of the world wallows in poverty.
CharlieDigital
Banned
The sad thing is that your everyday Joe and Jane Republican thinks that estate taxes are going to affect them.
Actually, if your uncle is rich enough, chances are he DIDN'T. The super rich have access to all sorts of loopholes to avoid paying taxes or at least lessen their tax burden.
Bill Gates is so overrated, as is philanthropy in general. Charity does nothing but maintain the status quo. Giving money to pet projects doesn't address the real source of the problem, which is more often than not massive income/resource inequality. If Gates and Warren Buffett really cared about their fellow humans, they'd put their money towards ending the kind of capitalism that allowed them to accrue such ungodly amounts of money.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I refuse to believe there is anything a man or woman can do that should earn them a billion pounds. Maybe develop the cure for cancer. Definitely not being born into a wealthy family.
No losing $900 million dollars is no small thing lol. They are not stealing that money from anyone (if they gaining it illegally than its a different issue). If you want the money to be spread around then the government should actually do something that benefits the poor like raising minimum wage, closing loopholes for businesses to screw their employees.
Not take money someone spent their whole life to earn for their family.
Yeah and Im also against this taxation.
Because its my money and my families money. Its parents right to leave their money for their children and families. No one goes out and earns this much just for themselves. They worked for it so that their families could live a good life, they ended up make a lot more than most but its their money. As long as they are no doing anything illegal it should belong to them.
The only reason you say this shit is because you know it will never affect you but if it was your money you would think differently. And I am saying this as someone who will probably inherit debt not money lol.
LegendofJoe
Member
I used to look at the world this simplistically...when I was a child.
What? Since when is polio a pet project?
besides stroking your ego, it's also seems to me like a good cover for when the peasants act up and call you out for being a parasite.
The problem isn't the super wealthy hiring lawyers and accountants, it's them buying politicians.
It's easy to say "we're just exploiting loopholes" when you own the guys who write in the exact loopholes you (or more accurately, your lawyers and accountants) tell them to write into the laws.
You're absolutely right. It should be about 90%.
This is supposed to be a capitalist society. A key part to a healthy capitalist society is merit based achievement. Wealth inheritance is a direct assault on that, seeings how it gives the rewards of achievement without any of the work to people who have proven zero merit for said rewards, hence why many founders of this nation were advocates of estate taxes.
The real pickle we've gotten ourselves into is that we've allowed this system to exist long enough to where the inheritors 1. own most of our politicians (with many politicians themselves being part of the "inheritor" class) and 2. the inheritors have, thanks to pampered lifestyles, become the least deserving people in society, while wielding financial power that was only ever intended for the most meritorious.
Hell of a bell to try and un-ring. Halfwits who haven't had to work for their wealth but believe they're entitled to it have all the financial and political power to defend it. It will drive the world to a point of violent revolution, likely in the near future.
Indrid Cold1
Member
I'm "a part of the problem" for holding the opinion that the Waltons acquisition and holding of immense wealth while doing whatever possible legally to keep the state from taxing the majority is OK.
You also have a problem with the 2 most prominent billionaires who have vowed to give the majority of their money away to charitable causes.
I'm not seeing that you have a coherent stance on this issue.
Says who? Sure society says it's a parents right to leave some money, and anything after that is taxed, but there is no inherent right to leave money to your children. That doesn't exist. You have a right to try and give your kids a good life, sure, but you don't have the right to give them such an exorbitant amount that it ruins our society. parents on the large shouldn't have the right to give so much that it ruins society. That would be dumb of us to do allow it.
It should be illegal to give that much to your children, in that the tax code should be much harsher on it than it already is. Our tax brackets themselves should be much higher on the high end.
Again, allowing this stuff to continually float upwards and give more and more power to fewer and fewer ruins society. Why the fuck does your bratty ass kid's right to be born with a silver spoon shoved down his throat trump society's right to a fair system overall? Why should one family's kid get shittier and shittier education and opportunities because some rich asshole thinks his kid shouldn't have to ever think about lifting a finger in his life to do jack squat?
I sort of agree with this, all that money just sitting there earning more money does no good. It becomes a game of accumulating, and then social groups form among the elites based on how many billions they have hoarded. There comes a point where accumulating more and more wealth overtakes them, and all that money just sits there being basically useless and it simply a symbol of status- nothing more.
Hats off to Carnegie, Gates, Buffet, ect. They see the bigger picture and society will appreciate them for it.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
bullshit. Humans.
Close these ridiculous loopholes that allow the extremely rich to just get stupidly richer. You and I would do the same if we were in their position, because you would judge yourself against your peers who are all doing the same thing, so you could either go (comparitively) broke by taking the 'high road' or you could excel. Rich people don't get rich by being stupid and they don't stay rich by being stupid. If they broke the law, lock them up, but I bet they didn't, at all.
csquared587
Member
I am not against an estate tax, but how can that high of a percentage be justified? I understand keeping 10-20% of billions of dollars is still a ton of money, but I can't justify taking that much of a persons financial legacy.
LegendofJoe
Member
Your legacy should be built on what you accomplish, not the size of your asset portfolio. Merit based reward is the backbone of a vibrant, successful society. If you want to see what a society looks like without it look up the history of feudalism.
Brian Griffin
Member
There should be a limit to how much money you can hoard because sitting on a ton of money without doing anything with it is just as bad as burning it. Fuck these people.
Well, burning it might actually help control inflation so...
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Don't think on it in emotional terms, think of it in practical terms. That money is better used spread out amongst a country's inhabitants - on infrastrucutre, social security, even defence - than it is bouncing between tax avoidance schemes. Then there is the emotional element - the inheritor did not deserve that; all they did was be lucky enough to be born into the right family. Inheriting even a million pounds/dollars will leave you incredibly wealthy. They should be taking closer to 90% on inheritance over a million (I'm talking GBP here, adjust accordingly to different currencies). But that would be avoided as much as possible, hence a more pragmatic lower rate.
I'm of the belief that because it's society as a whole that makes people like the Waltons and Bill Gates rich, it is their obligation to repay society for that privilage through equitable taxes. Crazy, I know.
Gates and Buffett do though?? And in fact have both said they should be paying more?
Lagspike_exe
Member
All of their money is reinvested through various means,
Do you not understand tax brackets? I'm not advocating taking 80-90% in total. I'm advocating that there should be a bracket near the high end that gets up to that.
Our tax brackets are as such:
10% $0 – $8,925
15% $8,926 – $36,250
25% $36,251 – $87,850
28% $87,851 – $183,250
33% $183,251 – $398,350
35% $398,351 – $400,000
39.6% $400,001+
I think there should be more brackets. Something like:
45% $800,000
60% $2,000,000
70% $4,000,000
80% $8,000,000
90% $16,000,000
And that should account for all of your income.
And then I don't think that inheritance should really be any different. It's income. If I get taxed for working to gain that amount why shouldn't I be taxed the same for not working and getting that amount?
As for justification, it's simple: Money makes money. The more you have the easier it is to earn it. If we want a truly free market wherein the good ideas are the winners, then we can't have money free flowing to the top. That hinders progress in many ways. To put out a very simple idea, if I have a pretty good business idea someone at the top of the food chain can just stomp me out with money very easily if I threaten their existing model. That's shitty. Another example is the kid who has no real drive or work ethic. Through inheritance he can do so much more than a kid who puts his entire heart and soul into everything he does his whole life. Money can do so very many things, and is far to powerful. You can buy the political structure with it. You can create laws with it. You can circumvent laws with it.
The other thing is that in our society money flows upward. It's supposed to flow in a circular fashion. It should be like the chain on your bike tires. It keeps society moving liek that. It should go to the top then get spend downward and so on. You give your money to businesses, and they pay people. It should be a back and forth. It's not working that way right now. Money just goes up and sits there. People on the bottom get shit on. Well, the only way to recirculate that and make sure that society keeps moving is to tax it, then. I'd possibly lessen those tax brackets once society gets to a better equilibrium, but right now we need a lot. The inequality here is unacceptable.
And last, what the fuck is a "financial legacy" and why should it matter to anyone at all?
Vestal
Gold Member
because our system is currently broken.
As it stands right now the system works in such a way that the money remains in just the smallest percentage of the population. After a certain threshold money becomes the easiest and quickest way to earn more with very little of it trickling down to the rest of society. So as we have seen over the past few decades the difference in wealth between that 1% of the population and the rest has become larger. Give it another few decades and we could arrive at a point were more than 75% of the wealth is held by this very small portion of the population.
The only way to correct the system is through higher taxation of the uber rich and increase in wages. Both have to be implemented, one of them will simply not work in correcting the system without the other.
Vestal
Gold Member
Buffett has been screaming it through the rooftops. In an oped he question why his assistant paid a higher % in taxes than he did.
Buffett supported increasing the top rate to 39%, but that does not nearly go far enough. We need radical increases in the capital gains and estate taxes, as well as closing all these loopholes. These are just band aids though. Mostly we need to focus on creating a system that doesn't allow such income inequality to exist in the first place, ie at the very least creating a social democracy. It's the only way we'll ever get real change.
I do have one issue with the whole inheritance tax thing...
I prefer the notion of personal and small group owned business over large corporations. A company run by an individual might be more likely to prioritize differently than a corporation looking to return investments for shareholders. I'd generally prefer it if more companies were able to stay in the hands of individuals rather than large, faceless investor mobs...
However, the inheritance tax seems to necessarily limit the ability of any small group or family from inheriting a business, as the taxes would necessarily require selling off chunks of that business to others so as to retain part of the business.
Now, I'm not saying this is the most common situation, nor am I saying that it would ever apply to me. However, I prefer family/individual/privately held business setups to shareholder setups (which seem necessarily more focused on making money as opposed to taking care of their employees), and it seems as though the inheritance tax system plays directly into the hands of the corporate investor system that has done such wonderful things for our country.
I prefer the notion of personal and small group owned business over large corporations. A company run by an individual might be more likely to prioritize differently than a corporation looking to return investments for shareholders. I'd generally prefer it if more companies were able to stay in the hands of individuals rather than large, faceless investor mobs...
However, the inheritance tax seems to necessarily limit the ability of any small group or family from inheriting a business, as the taxes would necessarily require selling off chunks of that business to others so as to retain part of the business.
Now, I'm not saying this is the most common situation, nor am I saying that it would ever apply to me. However, I prefer family/individual/privately held business setups to shareholder setups (which seem necessarily more focused on making money as opposed to taking care of their employees), and it seems as though the inheritance tax system plays directly into the hands of the corporate investor system that has done such wonderful things for our country.
LegendofJoe
Member
Buffett supports that rate because he's smart enough to know that a large increase in the rate woukd never pass. We have to take small steps towards solving the problem of wealth inequality if we ever want to gain any traction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked