Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

As incomes of rich slid, tax take fell (VINDICATION!)
Houston Chronicle ^ | Sept. 26, 2003 | DAVID CAY JOHNSTON DAVID CAY JOHNSTON DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Posted on 09/27/2003 12:01:18 PM PDT by Action-America

Sept. 26, 2003, 11:43PM

As incomes of rich slid, tax take fell

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

New York Times

The incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans fell 18 percent in 2001, as did their income taxes, shaving $66 billion off revenues and showing how dependent the federal government has become on its wealthiest citizens.

Overall, Americans had 2.8 percent less income in 2001 than in the previous year. But federal tax revenues fell 9.4 percent because the incomes of those at the top, who pay the highest tax rates, dropped so much more than the average.

The top 1 percent reported $1.09 trillion of income, down from $1.34 trillion in 2000, according to data posted by the Internal Revenue Service on the Internet on Friday without announcement.

The minimum income to reach the top 1 percent was $293,000 last year, down from $313,500 in 2000, but almost identical to the threshold in 1999.

The sharp decline in incomes at the top "is obviously due to the collapse of the stock market boom and the recession," said Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a lobbying group.

The combination of a sharp drop in income, if sustained for several years, and the tax cuts that were enacted this year could result in another sharp drop in taxes paid by the top 1 percent. The top rate on capital gains and dividends has been cut to 15 percent from 20 percent.

Taxes paid by the top group fell to $300.1 billion in 2001 from $366.9 billion in 2000. The decline accounted for the bulk of the $92.7 billion drop in individual federal income tax revenue in 2001.

The large drop in incomes caused the share of income taxes paid by the rich to shrink nearly a tenth. The share of total taxes paid by other groups consequently increased. The top group paid 33.9 percent of all income taxes, down from 37.4 percent in 2000.

The share paid by the next wealthiest group, the 4 percent of Americans just below the top group, grew slightly. The bottom half of Americans, the 64 million households making less than $28,000, accounted for a somewhat larger share of total taxes.

The biggest increase, however, was among those making $56,000 to $92,800, whose share of all income taxes increased to 18 percent from 16.7 percent. They accounted for a larger share of income taxes than the very wealthiest, the top tenth of 1 percent of Americans who paid 16 percent of the government's total income taxes.

Isaac Shapiro, an analyst at the nonprofit Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said the tax rules set by Congress mean broad swings in revenues as the economy moves through good times and bad.

The IRS also released data on the top tenth of 1 percent, the most prosperous 129,000 households. This group had so much income that they made almost as much as the other nine-tenths in the top 1 percent.

This very top group, representing one in a thousand households, had $505 billion in income, for an average of $4 million each. To be counted among this group one needed an adjusted gross income of at least $1.3 million, down from $1.6 million in 2000.

This small group received almost $1 of every $12 earned by all 129 million U.S. households.

Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes, noted that the Bush tax cuts in 2001 did not cause the drop in taxes by the wealthy.

"It is pretty clear that the tax cut played no role by the fact that the average tax rate paid by the top 1 percent actually went up slightly," he said.

This group paid 27.5 cents in taxes on each dollar of reported income, up a sliver of a penny from the previous year. This increase was caused by a drop in income from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than wages.

Overall, the tax rate fell, with Americans paying the government 14.2 cents in taxes on each dollar of income, down from 15.3 cents in 2000.

 


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: axixofevil; expatriation; incometax; irs; nrst; prosperity; rich; tax; taxcuts; taxes; taxrates; taxreform; taxrevenues; wealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

YES!  VINDICATION!

Finally, although they missed the most important point, a major news source skirts the issue.

(I feel vindicated.  This is an issue that I have written about on numerous occasions, since 1996.  Finally, the major media is getting colse to the truth.  See the permanent , annually updated article, Tick-Tick-Tick - The Economy Bomb, that covers this issue in detail.  I will update that article with the just released numbers from the IRS, within a few days.  Also, the article, 1986-2000 IRS Collections Data by Income Group, will be updated to include the 2001 data and links to that newly released IRS data)

One of the primary reason that the incomes of the rich fell in 2001, is the fact that many of our wealthiest taxpayers left the United States in 2001 and took all of their wealth with them.  According to pre-Patriot Act, pre-9/11 estimates from the then, INS, almost 300,000 people would leave the United States in 2001.  How many of those do you think were poor?  Think about it...

In fact, although only a handful of that almost 300,000 expatriates actually bothered to officially renounce their US citizenship, there is much very good reason to conclude that almost all of them were in the upper strata of income earners, with it being weighted heavily toward the very wealthiest 1% of income earners.

Then consider two other facts.  1) Those estimates were made prior to the implementation of the USA (Un)Patriot Act, which was, without a doubt, the greatest assault on privacy and the 4th Amendment in the history of the United States.  2) Many high level business transactions rely upon privacy until they are actually completed and announced.  That combination creates a huge incentive for the wealthy, who have been under attack by both parties for years, to finally make the decision to move to a more wealth friendly country, with a more secure business environment.  The result is that those pre-(Un)Patriot Act estimates are probably far below the actual numbers.

People like Bruce Bartlett are so concerned with looking for economic reasons for such events that they never look for other outside factors, such as emigration of our wealthiest citizens.  They spend all of their time studying the stock markets, the Fed and IRS regulations and trying to relate them to what they see happening, that they often fail to observe the outside social factors that actually may be having a more significant effect on the economy than anything else.  Normally, that would be a safe conclusion, since social factors usually only have a minor effect on the economy.  However, since the people that we are talking about are the same people who pay almost all of our taxes and fund most of our companies, a very small shift in that group can have a devastating effect on our economy.

The problem isn't the tax rate or a dip in the stock markets.  It is the intrusiveness of and the unbridled threat represented by the IRS that is the problem.  The wealthy are leaving, because they are sick and tired of having the IRS scrutinize every transaction, to see if they can squeeze an extra dollar out of it.  But, now that they are having to meet the heavy and time-consuming (Un)Patriot Act compliance requirements, many wealthy people are finding that their ability to do business in a world where the difference in success or failure may rest in your ability to complete a deal in hours, is being threatened by such time-consuming requirements.  Now, they are being forced to seek relief in other countries.

Sure, the wealthy in the US are making less money.  That's because so many of the wealthy are leaving and people with lower incomes are suddenly included in that upper bracket.  The result is that, as the above article shows, the people in the next lower income bracket are going to have start shouldering more of the tax load.  But, that won't happen for long, because as more of the wealthy leave, that extra tax load will have to be distributed downward.  If you haven't felt it yet, you soon will.

It's time to abolish the Income Tax and IRS, repeal the (Un)Patriot Act and HSA and implement a non-intrusive National Retail Sales Tax, that will draw wealth back into this country, before it's too late.

 

1 posted on 09/27/2003 12:01:18 PM PDT by Action-America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Vindication? ... Hah! I can't wait to hear how the lieberal societal engineering goons will spin this truth. Probably respond with a strawman or redherring, rather than address the hard facts.
2 posted on 09/27/2003 12:04:09 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Taxreform

MAJOR BUMP!

Got to go now.  You guys keep it going.

3 posted on 09/27/2003 12:04:49 PM PDT by Action-America (The next country to invade Europe has to keep France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
"Bartlett, an advocate of lower taxes, noted that the Bush tax cuts in 2001 did not cause the drop in taxes by the wealthy.


"It is pretty clear that the tax cut played no role by the fact that the average tax rate paid by the top 1 percent actually went up slightly," he said.

"

but but..I thought Bush was giving tax cuts to the rich???
4 posted on 09/27/2003 12:14:44 PM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
I used to be one of those top 1% taxpayers. This year my income will be well below 15k. I have no interest in earning any more than that. Why? Because it will all be taken in taxes. I've had it. I'm tired of killing myself working myself to death to earn "good money", just to have most of it taken by the government. Find some other sucker to pay the big taxes, from here on I'm going out of my way to earn so little that if anything I'll get free money from the government.

I've learned my lesson. It just doesn't work to try to "get ahead" in America any longer. The minute you make enough to afford the finer things in life, boom, there is the taxman to shaft you out of most of what you've earned. I've learned to enjoy cheap beer and spaghetti for dinner. It tastes a lot better when you realize that you are no longer carrying the weight of a million freeloaders on your back!
5 posted on 09/27/2003 12:17:27 PM PDT by Elliott Jackalope (We send our kids to Iraq to fight for them, and they send our jobs to India. Now THAT'S gratitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
I've learned to enjoy cheap beer and spaghetti for dinner. It tastes a lot better when you realize that you are no longer carrying the weight of a million freeloaders on your back!

BUMP to that! The wife and I have, let's say, downsized quite a bit, and are feeling much better about it. We are in our 50's, and "been there and done that" so to speak. We do not require much now, and cheap beer and spaghetti were always my favorites.

FReegards,

FMCDH

6 posted on 09/27/2003 12:31:08 PM PDT by nothingnew (The pendulum is swinging and the Rats are in the pit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
Even if you are only taking care of yourself I fail to see your point. Having more money may mean paying more taxes, but having money also allows hiring an accountant to help your money make money. It also affords one better (safer) cars, insurance, doctor and dentist when you need it, a better house in a better neighborhood, being able to contribute to political campaigns, lend support to people and programs that will help get rid of the socialist crap that is costing us so much, and the list goes on.
I'll also add your "free money from the government" is a big part of what contributes to high taxes in the first place.
7 posted on 09/27/2003 12:36:28 PM PDT by visualops (Costs of fighting the War on Terror are significant, cost of not fighting are unimaginable-Gillespie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
I used to be one of those top 1% taxpayers. This year my income will be well below 15k. I have no interest in earning any more than that.

Roger that, Elliott.

I, however, am not, nor have I ever been in the top one percentile. I'm currently busting my tail to get a minimum "critical mass" of savings, where upon, I'll promptly backslide into a lazy stupor of a "living wage" job and semi-retire. Screw 'em and their thirty percent. I'll sweep the floors for 15 grand and take the food stamps.

8 posted on 09/27/2003 12:40:15 PM PDT by woofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
bttt
9 posted on 09/27/2003 12:40:52 PM PDT by lodwick (I fear for our Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops
The point that you are missing is that when the money is taken away in taxes, it is used for programs and policies that are used against me and my interests. Tax money extracted from me is used to import Somalis into my neighborhood, and housing for sex offenders to be moved in next door, and free goodies for criminals who then rip me off. It's a no-win game, and I refuse to play any longer.

This system is too big, too powerful and too corrupt to be brought down by any means other than the means that brought down the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not "brought down" by external forces, it collapsed under its own weight when the majority of its citizens gave up trying to get ahead any longer. That's when their overbloated system finally fell. Not by force of arms, but by the death of a million cuts, each cut being inflicted by another "person of ability" throwing in the towel and giving up on being productive. This is how the Soviet Union was ended, and this is how our current socialist regime will be brought down as well.
10 posted on 09/27/2003 12:49:46 PM PDT by Elliott Jackalope (We send our kids to Iraq to fight for them, and they send our jobs to India. Now THAT'S gratitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
The top 1 percent reported $1.09 trillion of income, down from $1.34 trillion in 2000, according to data posted by the Internal Revenue Service on the Internet on Friday without announcement.

Perhaps it's time for the "biggest contributers"(middle class like me) to realize that it isn't Governments determination or control that drives the largest economy in the world.

The Government is the entity that generate's that "sucking" sound NOT oversea's countries.

Perhaps a drastic cut in Government spending would create more job's here instead of them going overseas.

11 posted on 09/27/2003 12:54:45 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
The Government is the entity that generate's that "sucking" sound

BUMP!

12 posted on 09/27/2003 1:06:37 PM PDT by StriperSniper (The slippery slope is getting steeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
I've only taken a quick look, but it appears to me that the States in the most financial trouble now have income tax rate tables that focus on the upper income workers.
13 posted on 09/27/2003 1:12:37 PM PDT by helper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Funny thing. I am considered "rich" and my last year's income was down 20%. Same this year. It will be at last year's level. Although, next year is looking great for a 100+% increase.
14 posted on 09/27/2003 1:16:36 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (Read Travis McGee's Book! www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
P.S. I used to employ 65 people. I now employ no one. Life is better that way; more quality time.
15 posted on 09/27/2003 1:17:50 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican (Read Travis McGee's Book! www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Is it still true that those that make over 200,000 pay 95% of taxes? I know several of my wealthier friends have left the country for places like Las Hadas Mexico to live, and another to Europe. I can believe that their absence and moving their companies off shore would influence in a big way the amount of taxes taken in every year.

One friend was griping to me that the IRS calls him and has his bank on the other line and the money he owes is transfered right then and there to the IRS. He really hated those calls, he hated not being able to move money without having to tell the bank and the IRS what he was going to do with the money, they even had the nerve to start making suggestions like, do you really think you need to redecorate your home at this time?

I made the comment on FR that unless we start caring about what is happening to the other guy, the rich especially, that we are going to pay a price.
16 posted on 09/27/2003 1:23:57 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
did he owe those taxes? why shouldn't he pay them? no disrespect intended to you, but who the hell does your friend think he is?
17 posted on 09/27/2003 1:25:38 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
generally speaking, the federal government should be moving towards consumption taxes and taxes on foreign imports to fund the treasury. but it will never happen.
18 posted on 09/27/2003 1:28:41 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; Principled; Taxman; Libertarianize the GOP; ancient_geezer; Free the USA
BUMP!

Bump your tax lists, folks!

19 posted on 09/27/2003 1:31:38 PM PDT by Action-America (The next country to invade Europe has to keep France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
Anyone who thinks that throwing in the towel and doing nothing is some sort of a "plan" to affect change is sadly mistaken. If you want to be swept along through life like a leaf in the wind, all the time moaning "it's out of my hands, I can't change anything" etc etc, so be it. I think that makes you a non-participant, and I have to wonder why you're a member of FR.
20 posted on 09/27/2003 1:34:40 PM PDT by visualops (Costs of fighting the War on Terror are significant, cost of not fighting are unimaginable-Gillespie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
I used to be one of those top 1% taxpayers. This year my income will be well below 15k. I have no interest in earning any more than that.

Yup, I'd rather make $15K and not pay much in taxes than make millions and pay those high taxes. Can you imagine what Micheal Dell's taxes must be? I'll be he wishes he only make $15K.

21 posted on 09/27/2003 1:35:48 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
He's a guy that gets to keep 50 cents on the dollar, that's who he is. He thought he was free to make something of himself in America the land of the free, without being overly punished for it. He's a guy flustrated on every side by not being able to replace and upgrade equipment because he is only allowed to declare wear on equipment once. He is a guy that pays not only 40% of his wealth to the Fed but 10% to the state, but also pays capital gains tax and whose kids will lose everything having to pay the death tax.

He's a guy that thinks he knows more about how to grow wealth and jobs than the Fed who only knows how to destroy and spend it.

Your question marks you as a envious liberal putz who never questions the fact that the government has no right to play Robin Hood by ripping off what belongs to someone else and giving it to you. That's who he is.
22 posted on 09/27/2003 1:36:18 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
what are you talking about, my point is, we are all in the same boat paying these taxes unless we "drop out" like some of the other posters here have done. my point is, what makes your friend so special that he feels he doesn't have to pay like everyone else? like you, and like me? Its one thing to argue for lower taxes, thats fine, its another to feel you have some special right to skirt the law and not pay.

And FYI, no one pays the inheritance tax unless they want to. get a good estate planning lawyer.
23 posted on 09/27/2003 1:40:08 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All
Read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead.....
24 posted on 09/27/2003 1:40:54 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Looking for a Shrugged Atlas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Elliott Jackalope
"... I used to be one of those top 1% taxpayers ..."

I made it there for a year, a few years ago. My taxes for that year were more than my average earnings for the last 5 years at IBM, before I retired from there.

Now, between pension and social security, my wife and I "earn" almost 4k per month just for waking up on the first day of it.

I might do a little teaching, and I might do a little more consulting on a very short-term basis, but for the next year, after a small exemption, earning a dollar will cost me 50 cents and cost my wife 50 cents, and that dollar will be 100 percent taxable instead of 85 percent.

I'm developing an attitude....
25 posted on 09/27/2003 1:41:08 PM PDT by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
and I'll add, no one is giving me anything, I don't know where you got that idea from.

you sound like you would defend Arianna Huffington, living in a 7 million dollar house, private jets, essentially writing off every function of her life (meals, homes, travel, cars) as a "business expense" and paying $771 in federal income taxes. that is wrong.

since when does being a conservative mean that you have to excuse tax evasion? not me, I will not excuse it.
26 posted on 09/27/2003 1:43:04 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
I think most of the 300k who left are probably retired people who can live very well somewhere else on their savings. I doubt that they are wealthy, maybe 10,000 were wealthy. I do know many people moving to florida and nevada to live off their savings as there is no state income tax. I'm sure you are right about some of the 300k who moved, but I think most are upper middle class, and not the wealthy.
27 posted on 09/27/2003 1:44:55 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StriperSniper
The Government is the entity that generate's that "sucking" sound

BUMP!

Perhaps a drastic cut in Government spending would create more job's here instead of them going overseas.

Bigger "BUMP"! : )

28 posted on 09/27/2003 1:47:01 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
What you ARE saying is that it is perfectly ok for a government to grab 50% of an individuals wealth. No human being should be ripped off for that much money. God only asks for 10%, who is the Fed to demand more?

When the money is left in the hands of the one that made it, he reinvests it, builds companies, invests in experimental things, starts up business's for friends and family, makes loans interest free, and creates jobs. What does the Fed invest in? Poverty, and making darn sure that everyone is growing ever more poverty stricken every year.

This principle is the very foundation of conservative ideals, maybe you should re-examine your priciples and see if you really are a conservative.
29 posted on 09/27/2003 1:49:40 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
but but..I thought Bush was giving tax cuts to the rich???

The $400 rebate per kid does not apply for those making more than the princely sum of 130,000.

30 posted on 09/27/2003 1:50:38 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
The Government is the entity that generate's that "sucking" sound NOT oversea's countries.

fyi, trade deficit=500 billion, federal govt. taxes = 1.9 trillion.

31 posted on 09/27/2003 1:54:22 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

You would think the feds would get the idea when they see that this is exactly the rip-off-the-rich-to-buy-votes-from-the-poor strategy that has brought California to the brink of bankruptcy. But they don't. They forget that the rich can live anywhere in the world they want to live. They do not have to stay in the US and be cursed and robbed.
32 posted on 09/27/2003 1:54:54 PM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
God only asks for 10%, who is the Fed to demand more?

Apparently to some, the Government is a deity that is worthy of more than 10%. (and I might add, for the taking, NOT the asking)

33 posted on 09/27/2003 1:55:07 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
fine, argue for lower taxes. elect people to enact them.

but obey the law once its in place, and people shouldn't complain that the IRS is coming after them if they don't, while millions of other Americans are working just as hard as your friend and paying honestly.
34 posted on 09/27/2003 1:57:07 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
fyi, trade deficit=500 billion, federal govt. taxes = 1.9 trillion.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with running a deficit, at home OR abroad, It is a part of keeping us solvent and in times of need it is a necessity, however redistribution from the productive to the non-productive to strive for equality (and in most cases political equality) does NOT strike an incentive for more production.

35 posted on 09/27/2003 2:01:49 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
When the tax revenues fall to a level that will not sustain the beast, something will be done about the Marxist income tax. It is the progressive income tax that is the cause of all of these problems.

There is a solution to be debated. It will be put forth by a prez if/when his numbers indicate that he needs a bump.

He will propose eliminating the income tax code and replacing the revenues with a national retail sales tax.

Again, this will happen as soon as it is clear that the beast can no longer survive without its big-earners, who are leaving (along with their wealth) at an obviously alarming rate. ANd when wealth departs, what departs immediately? Jobs...Jobs go overseas where those wealth earners went due to lower tax rates. Look around, it's already happening. Wealth leaves for a more profitable place to be. The wealth creates jobs elsewhere. THen there's less wealth here for jobs, so jobs are lost "to overseas".

So when these two things happen at once, the NRST solution will be proposed:
1) tax revenues fall to a level that will not sustain gov't
2) a politician needs a boost

I don't think it will happen unless BOTH these occur simultaneously... let's hope soon.

36 posted on 09/27/2003 2:03:22 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: visualops
He's *shrugging*. That's the point.
37 posted on 09/27/2003 2:06:07 PM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
He pays his taxes, he doesn't owe a penny. The IRS makes darn sure of it too. How would you like them to call you on the phone every quarter with your bank on the other line and transfer your funds then and there?

You would RESENT it. You would resent having to go through reams of paper work to open a new account because you are going to start the account with too much money in it to pass without being questioned, up front and personal, by the IRS about where the money is coming from and what it is going to. You would RESENT it.

You would resent having to explain every check over ten grand or every deposit over ten grand, even the employee making the deposit for you has to be investigated by the IRS even though they may make only 30 grand a year. The IRS wants to know who they are so they have to file paperwork, I know, I have had to do that.

You would resent even more, being asked if your doing the right thing with your own money, like, "do you really need to redecorate?" Mexico or Europe would begin to look pretty good to you also.
38 posted on 09/27/2003 2:09:29 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
"They do not have to stay in the US and be cursed and robbed."

I would imagine some of these "rich" are the ones who own companies who are LEAVING THE U.S....due to heavy regulations and TAXES.....also.

39 posted on 09/27/2003 2:21:04 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Looking for a Shrugged Atlas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
more likely, they leave the US to employ foreign labor to increase their profits even more. lets get real, Nike sneakers cost $120 a pair even though they are made using slave labor for $2 a day. who pockets the increased margin?
40 posted on 09/27/2003 2:25:10 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
We are 300 million people. The world is over 6 billion-we are less than 5% of the world. the way our government and corporations track our finances and identities has created a vast data base for the 95% of the world to potentially exploit at our risk. IMHO we can do business and pay taxes more efficiently and safely in anonymity rather than as we do now, branded and certified "USDA Grade A no1" .
41 posted on 09/27/2003 2:27:33 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
Every time I hear of this issue, I keep thinking back to a story I heard about Russia a while back. How a couple years ago, with an incredibly onerous tax code, the Russian treasury was almost depleted. So they instituted a 13% Flat Tax. And surprisingly enough, the money began pouring in (Forgot specifics, though. Anyone remember the story, and got a link with info on this?).

What people like Arianna Huffington don't understand (And which Arnold Schwarzenegger does, since he pointed it out in the California debate), is that if you start taxing people to high, they don't just sit there and take it. They LEAVE. They go somewhere else where the taxes aren't so onerous. People complain all the time about how all these corporations having tax shelters in Haiti or wherever, yet NO ONE bothers to ask why these companies felt the need to set up their corporate headquarters outside of the US borders.

Well, there's my personal rant. Whatever the case, I completely with you about the National Retail Sales Tax. I'd love to bury the IRS for good, and get rid of the Income Tax, altogether.
42 posted on 09/27/2003 2:36:50 PM PDT by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Green Knight
I agree with your points, except one: Arianna Huffington is having no problem with the current tax code it seems, she is writing off her entire life, somehow. Why the IRS isn't raking her over the coals, I do not know.

The corporate issue is something a bit different. Corporations that make profits in the US but then seek offshore tax havens are basically dishonest. They want the markets and the protections of the US system, they make profits, but then try to run and hide when the taxman comes.
43 posted on 09/27/2003 2:42:05 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"...people shouldn't complain that the IRS is coming after them if they don't, while millions of other Americans are working just as hard as your friend and paying honestly...."

Years ago, I worked part time for H&R Block so that I could take their advanced tax classes.

In one class, I made the statement, "The IRS is a little dishonest."

"They are a lot dishonest," replied the female instructer, who was an Enrolled Agent (qualified to appear before IRS), with 20 years experience in the tax business.

44 posted on 09/27/2003 2:42:15 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
"...but then seek offshore tax havens are basically dishonest..."

Tell us what the tax law is and then tell us how this is dishonest, please.

45 posted on 09/27/2003 2:46:58 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Action-America
"One of the primary reason that the incomes of the rich fell in 2001, is the fact that many of our wealthiest taxpayers left the United States in 2001 and took all of their wealth with them"

The bursting of the tech bubble, the catastrophic attacks, then the anthrax scare and nobody knowing when or where the next attack would come had nothing to do with the loss of incomes for the rich?

46 posted on 09/27/2003 2:51:05 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gatex
I see, so we should allow all these corporations to earn profits in the US market for their goods, employ offshore so they provide no jobs for americans, and then incorporate offshore in jurisdictions in which they earn no profits so they can avoid US taxes.

tell me then, if we should allow all of that, what the hell do we need those coporations for? what are they doing for our country, if they provide no tax base through employment, and no tax revenue from their profits.
47 posted on 09/27/2003 2:55:41 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
It is dishonest to maximize profits by all available, legal means?

Is it, in your eyes, dishonest that I itemize to reduce my tax burden?...dishonest to pay quarterly taxes to reduce burden?...dishonest to put money into an IRA?...

Good greif.

Your assertion that minimizing tax burden using legal means is dishonest is absurd. I can't really believe any grown individual would say that. Maybe you don't like it, but that doesn't make it dishonest. Again, FR needs to implement an eligibility test for new members.

48 posted on 09/27/2003 2:56:57 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
You avoided the explanation of how it is dishonest---

And you did not tell us what the tax code says.

49 posted on 09/27/2003 2:58:12 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
...had nothing to do with the loss of incomes for the rich?

ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS... please re-read

50 posted on 09/27/2003 2:58:35 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson