Posted on 05/23/2014 6:08:55 AM PDT by Kaslin
Privatize!
It all sounds pretty good except for the part about limiting tax breaks, which is pure hogwash since the rich pay nearly all federal taxes.
Not if they have a tax-exempt foundation with which to shelter the income.
well apparently not many do since:
The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011
The taxpayers with 6-figure incomes pay a ton-load of taxes. The ones wealthy enough to set up foundations and 501(c) "charities" are another story. Have the 501(c)'s pay corporate taxes on their investment income. Tax the income from Harvard's endowment.
I agree...except that these wealthy jerk-offs are the ones still buying candidates to protect their tax breaks and screwing us on important issues. Many of us are done protecting the super wealthy when we are getting little in return. I am for keeping rates low, but not at the expense of losing elections to class warfare tactics that are so effective.
I know this is boring but an across the board flat tax where EVERYBODY pays the same rate with no deductions is the only truly fair way to collect taxes. Taking a higher rate from those who are wealthier is simply the logic Willie Sutton used.
If you are paying federal income taxes then you aren't really rich. Sure you have more money than the great unwashed but the people at the top are laughing at you.
The super wealthy are Democrats, who want to impose socialism on the ‘little people’ to destroy their competition.
Gad I've been at FR for almost fourteen years and you think I've never seen those numbers before? Try thinking for a second before blathering with the knee-jerk response you would direct at a liberal.
"The top 1%" is not the cohort of which I am speaking, which was very clear by how I defined it. In fact, it is THE LEFT that calls "the top 1%" "rich" because it includes a fraction of the upper middle class still fighting to get above the line. By "the rich" (as the article says and not by how you define it for the purposes of bandying the numbers, namely those who own "charitable" foundations as I made perfectly clear and you ignored), I'm speaking of incomes of roughly $1 million per year and up. With foundations to shelter expenses covering everything from yachts to vacations to hirelings, these people do not pay at the rates that those lacking sufficient cash flow to set up and maintain the sheltering infrastructure. Think back to Warren Buffett explaining how he pays lower tax rates than his secretary, or Theresa Heinz laughing about paying only a relative pittance in taxes on her massive income. That is what I am talking about here.
And don't believe for a second that those foundations exist only for charitable purposes. The funds for the vast bulk of regulatory racketeering in the Federal courts of this country by green groups, "safety" hustlers, and others, bringing cases designed to put their competitors out of business, are first laundered through secondary bundlers (such as Tides) but derive from the foundations of major stockholders. THAT is why the rich are so often limousine liberals, because big government makes buying influence is a very good investment.
I've written two books and several articles discussing this topic. Consider this one about the Natural Resources Defense Council. FReepers have been borrowing that data and posting it here for a decade. In fact, that work changed somewhat the way that these creeps launder their money (Drummond Pike should be sending me Christmas cards). Don't be a chump for that "1%" meme as the MSM set you up to be.
It all sounds pretty good except you can find a President and legislature that will do it.
The orthodontist just thinks he's rich.
That hasn't been true since the Reagan administration. It used to be that you could put all of your assets and all of your income in a non-profit foundation, borrow any funds you needed from the foundation, then just never pay it back. Totally tax exempt! It only cost you a law firm to manage the foundation and hand over the money whenever you wanted it.
During the Johnson administration a law was enacted requiring all non-profit organizations to practice fund accounting, which is an accounting method that traces every dollar from income to expenditure without any common accounts to obscure where funds come from or where they go.
During the Reagan administration a law was enacted to make unpaid debts taxable. That pretty much ended the party for tax exempt foundations. Only the Kennedy's escaped. They got a special rider added to the bill to exempt their foundation.
You are not really rich until you can afford your own army. --Crassus
Crony capitalism AND welfare for non-producers. Both ends of the economic spectrum feed off the middle class. And it needs to stop.
I do not hate the rich. I do not hate the poor. They do not need my money. They need to earn their own.
Read post 11.
Excellent point
All too true. Read any of the "Arsenal" books on our industries ramping up for WWII and be astounded - not too strong a word for those brought up under today's regulations.
The one that sticks in my mind was the Kaiser shipyards built in San Francisco bay. The story starts out with Kaiser and engineers overlooking the mud flats as the pilings were being driven in. SIX MONTHS LATER they had a shipyard ready to produce.
If you are richer than 99% of the people... you are rich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.