Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/10/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert, They are strictly not comparable. Rich people pay 22% average tax on their income, because most of their income tends to Capital Gains and Dividends. Dividend comes out of income where corporate tax has already been paid, so the effective tax rate charged on that income is really much higher. Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate of tax the world over, for reasons of encouraging capital formation, it is nothing unusual or specific to the USA. The earned income exemption to hedge fund managers, on the other hand, is unique to the USA, and a telling reminder of the power of money in campaign politics. Just like your (IMHO idiotic) tort laws distort medical costs for every citizen, this exemption tends to distort the tax revenue of the country. Cheers Jayanand Sent from my iPad On Oct 17, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Robert Meier <robertmeier at usjet.net> wrote: > "Who pays taxes at a lower rate?" Warren Buffet paid 17% last year, not > the highest rate of 35%. A survey found that the average was around 20% > for high income taxpayers. Hedge fund managers, of course, pay the 15% > capital gains rate rather than the 35% earned income rate. > > Robert > > On Oct 16, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Ken Carney wrote: > >> Robert, >> >> Which "news"? If I got my information from TV or even the recently >> discredited WSJ, I would not have a complete view. With regard to Warren >> Buffet, I think a confiscation of income over, say, $1 million would >> accomplish nothing. I stand to be corrected. As always. >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> On 10/16/2011 7:25 PM, Robert Meier wrote: >>> Ken, >>> >>> "The Buffet Rule:" Haven't you been following the news? >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> On Oct 16, 2011, at 7:16 PM, Ken Carney wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/16/2011 6:33 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: >>>>> On Oct 16, 2011, at 6:07 PM, Ken Carney<kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wonder how all these occupiers were able to get off work for so long? >>>>> Many of the Milwaukee "Occupiers" (a one Saturday event) were "laid >>>>> off" or otherwise unemployed; part of that 9.1% as well as the 99%. I >>>>> spoke with quite a few degreed professionals with 20 plus year >>>>> professional careers who have been unable to find "any" work for 4 to >>>>> 12 months. Others have been forced into early retirement. Others are >>>>> serious students who can no longer finance their educations; or find >>>>> employment. The stories are many and sad. Minorities in Milwaukee have >>>>> more than 4 times that 9% unemployment rate. And those rates do not >>>>> include the people who have simply given up on the prospect of finding >>>>> work. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, George >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> I hear you. It also relates to Richard's comments about corporations >>>> hoarding cash and banks not lending...the reason is that there aren't >>>> as many opportunities for investment now. The reverse, actually. The >>>> question is, what can our government do about it? The government >>>> doesn't create jobs, except in a temporary and largely wasteful sense. >>>> Large CEO salaries and taxes on the rich are irrelevant - the most >>>> draconian measures would not put a small dent in the debt. What is >>>> needed, IMHO, is competent fiscal administration, something not present >>>> now (IMHO). I have now escalated into a rant, which needs at least a >>>> couple of constructive suggestions. As a tax adviser, I will probably >>>> be excommunicated for this one, but I think the current policies >>>> regarding transfer of intangible assets offshore should be revisited >>>> (Google, Cisco et al.). All that is happening there is that the income >>>> escaping U.S. tax must be reinvested in another offshore business, else >>>> it will become income subject to U.S. tax. So, the U.S. tax break is >>>> building industries and infrastructure in other countries. A U.S. >>>> citizen is taxable on worldwide income, now matter where earned. Why >>>> should it be different for a corporate business? A second suggestion >>>> is to stop U.S. military intervention in hopeless causes, e.g., >>>> Afghanistan. OK, a third bonus suggestion would be some way to >>>> eliminate federal pork spending, a lost cause I know. >>>> >>>> Lastly, I have numerous clients who have taxable income in excess of $1 >>>> million. They all pay taxes at the highest rate. They are also >>>> usually high charitable givers. Who pays taxes at a lower rate? Two >>>> instances come to mind. One is the risk taker who is able to take a >>>> deduction for intangible drilling costs in the exploration for oil and >>>> natural gas, and that is a temporary thing. The other is someone who >>>> has bitten on a tax shelter, with blowback potential that will greatly >>>> exceed the temporary tax savings. EOR! >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information