(09-30-2020, 04:29 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2020, 03:50 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]What's a reasonable percentage to you?
When you do your taxes, do you try to pay the reasonable percentage or do you try to pay as close to zero as possible?
Maybe a better word than "reasonable" would be "typical." I think anywhere between 25% and 38% is typical for most high earners, although one can incur even higher percentages due to the Obamacare surtax on investment income. I'm just talking about federal income tax.
In Biden's case, if he earned about $15 million on his book deal and speaking fees, and if he paid about $3.7 million in income tax, that would be about 25%, which I would consider a pretty typical rate. I haven't seen his tax return, I've just read articles about it, so I don't know the details.
In answer to your question, of course I would like to get as close to zero as possible. Trouble is, unlike Mr. Trump, I make money. I don't lose money. So I'm not deducting losses like he is. That's one of the interesting things about his taxes- he loses loads of money on most of his businesses, especially all the golf courses he owns. He made a lot of money on the Apprentice, and that made up for some of his losses on the other businesses, but apparently, he loses enough money that he doesn't wind up with much taxable income. His "fortune" seems to be a house of cards, and maybe an illusion.
If you're making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. The idea that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is a complete myth. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all income taxes. If your are rich, you pay taxes. That's all there is to it. That's one thing that makes Trump's tax bill really unusual for a guy who claims to be rich. If he's as rich as he claims to be, why is his tax bill so incredibly, consistently miniscule?
This is not strictly true.
If you have large reserves of cash, and lots of diverse and esoteric business interests, you can create a new corporation, give it a whole bunch of seed money out of your income. That income is not taxed. Then have it sell you "shares" one year at a low price. Then, 367 days later, have that company buy those shares back at a much higher price. Remember this is not a publicly traded company, so you get to name whatever price you want at both ends. The difference between the two prices would get taxed under the long-term capital gains rate, which varies between 15 and 20%. But if you had just taken your income that year, and not hidden it away in a shell corporation for a year plus one day, that money probably would have been taxed at a marginal rate closer to 40%.
This is the old Mitt Romney trick.
(09-30-2020, 05:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2020, 05:02 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think "obsessed" is the right word for it. "Interested" is what I am. I have spent a lifetime in business and finance, and this stuff interests me.
By the way, I am not a leftist.
And how do his personal finances affect me? Well for one thing, if the President owes someone $300 million, which is going to come due during his second term, and he won't tell us who it is, how do we know his decisions are not affected by that?
The other interesting thing is, is he who he says he is? Is he really this hugely successful billionaire, or is it all an illusion?
And there are a lot of other interesting questions.
Meh... I couldn't care less about his personal finances. Is he "really" a billionaire? millionaire? I really don't care.
As far as personal finances or anything like that affecting the decisions that he makes as President, I'll just look back at his record over the last 3 1/2 years. Being tough with China getting out of the NAFTA disaster by signing the USMCA, getting out of the Paris Agreement and so forth are more important to me when it comes to economics. Those things are good for us as a whole.
The economy was on fire, unemployment was sinking and things were going well before the China virus hit.
There was more employment and gdp growth in the last three years of Obama's presidency than Trump's first three years. Trump slowed down a vibrant economy.
(09-30-2020, 04:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2020, 04:29 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe a better word than "reasonable" would be "typical." I think anywhere between 25% and 38% is typical for most high earners, although one can incur even higher percentages due to the Obamacare surtax on investment income. I'm just talking about federal income tax.
In Biden's case, if he earned about $15 million on his book deal and speaking fees, and if he paid about $3.7 million in income tax, that would be about 25%, which I would consider a pretty typical rate. I haven't seen his tax return, I've just read articles about it, so I don't know the details.
In answer to your question, of course I would like to get as close to zero as possible. Trouble is, unlike Mr. Trump, I make money. I don't lose money. So I'm not deducting losses like he is. That's one of the interesting things about his taxes- he loses loads of money on most of his businesses, especially all the golf courses he owns. He made a lot of money on the Apprentice, and that made up for some of his losses on the other businesses, but apparently, he loses enough money that he doesn't wind up with much taxable income. His "fortune" seems to be a house of cards, and maybe an illusion.
If you're making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. The idea that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is a complete myth. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all income taxes. If your are rich, you pay taxes. That's all there is to it. That's one thing that makes Trump's tax bill really unusual for a guy who claims to be rich. If he's as rich as he claims to be, why is his tax bill so incredibly, consistently miniscule?
Why are you and other leftists like you so obsessed with President Trump's taxes? How exactly does his personal finances affect you or anyone else?
That's kind of like saying "why do all the righties(generalizing is dumb) not care about the things that half the country has a problem with?
(10-01-2020, 08:28 AM)KingIngram052787 Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/...fact-check
"The economy was not “booming” in the final year of Mr. Biden’s time as vice president, and Mr. Trump did not “cause” the pandemic recession. When President Barack Obama and Mr. Biden left office, the economy was healthy, though growth had dipped below 2 percent in 2016 [font=nyt-imperial, georgia,]in part because of a contraction in business investment stemming in part from a plunge in oil prices rippling through America’s energy industry. Unemployment had fallen steadily.[/font]
[font=nyt-imperial, georgia,]Under Mr. Trump, economic growth accelerated from 2016, spurred by the fiscal stimulus of tax cuts and increased government spending and continued monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve. The first three years of Mr. Trump’s presidency were similar, in terms of economic and job growth, to the first three years of Mr. Obama’s second term.
The coronavirus pandemic plunged the United States into recession this spring. Mr. Biden and others have criticized Mr. Trump’s response to it, blaming him for deaths from the virus and a contraction in economic activity. But there is no evidence Mr. Trump’s actions caused the recession: every major wealthy country in the world has experienced a sharp economic contraction along with its outbreak of the virus."[/font]
Poor Joe, when you're a Democrat and your lies are so egregious even the NYT calls you out on it then it might me time to quit.
(09-30-2020, 07:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2020, 04:29 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe a better word than "reasonable" would be "typical." I think anywhere between 25% and 38% is typical for most high earners, although one can incur even higher percentages due to the Obamacare surtax on investment income. I'm just talking about federal income tax.
In Biden's case, if he earned about $15 million on his book deal and speaking fees, and if he paid about $3.7 million in income tax, that would be about 25%, which I would consider a pretty typical rate. I haven't seen his tax return, I've just read articles about it, so I don't know the details.
In answer to your question, of course I would like to get as close to zero as possible. Trouble is, unlike Mr. Trump, I make money. I don't lose money. So I'm not deducting losses like he is. That's one of the interesting things about his taxes- he loses loads of money on most of his businesses, especially all the golf courses he owns. He made a lot of money on the Apprentice, and that made up for some of his losses on the other businesses, but apparently, he loses enough money that he doesn't wind up with much taxable income. His "fortune" seems to be a house of cards, and maybe an illusion.
If you're making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. The idea that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is a complete myth. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all income taxes. If your are rich, you pay taxes. That's all there is to it. That's one thing that makes Trump's tax bill really unusual for a guy who claims to be rich. If he's as rich as he claims to be, why is his tax bill so incredibly, consistently miniscule?
This is not strictly true.
If you have large reserves of cash, and lots of diverse and esoteric business interests, you can create a new corporation, give it a whole bunch of seed money out of your income. That income is not taxed. Then have it sell you "shares" one year at a low price. Then, 367 days later, have that company buy those shares back at a much higher price. Remember this is not a publicly traded company, so you get to name whatever price you want at both ends. The difference between the two prices would get taxed under the long-term capital gains rate, which varies between 15 and 20%. But if you had just taken your income that year, and not hidden it away in a shell corporation for a year plus one day, that money probably would have been taxed at a marginal rate closer to 40%.
This is the old Mitt Romney trick.
So, if I understand you correctly, suppose a person has a million bucks, which has already been taxed, and he starts a corporation and seeds it with that million bucks. You say, "then you have it sell you shares..." If you started a corporation with a million bucks, then you would already own all the shares. So the corporation would have to create more shares if it wants to sell you more shares. So let's suppose it does that. It sells you half a million in new shares. That means you just put half a million more into the corporation. That was your money you just used to buy those shares, so it has also already been taxed. So then you say it buys the shares back for a higher price than what you bought them for. So you pay capital gains tax on the shares you sold the corporation.
What have you accomplished, other than to create a taxable event out of nothing? You churned your own money in order to create a capital gain that you have to pay tax on. What income tax are you avoiding? There's no income anywhere in your scenario, other than this artificially created capital gain.
(10-01-2020, 09:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2020, 07:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]This is not strictly true.
If you have large reserves of cash, and lots of diverse and esoteric business interests, you can create a new corporation, give it a whole bunch of seed money out of your income. That income is not taxed. Then have it sell you "shares" one year at a low price. Then, 367 days later, have that company buy those shares back at a much higher price. Remember this is not a publicly traded company, so you get to name whatever price you want at both ends. The difference between the two prices would get taxed under the long-term capital gains rate, which varies between 15 and 20%. But if you had just taken your income that year, and not hidden it away in a shell corporation for a year plus one day, that money probably would have been taxed at a marginal rate closer to 40%.
This is the old Mitt Romney trick.
So, if I understand you correctly, suppose a person has a million bucks, which has already been taxed, and he starts a corporation and seeds it with that million bucks. You say, "then you have it sell you shares..." If you started a corporation with a million bucks, then you would already own all the shares. So the corporation would have to create more shares if it wants to sell you more shares. So let's suppose it does that. It sells you half a million in new shares. That means you just put half a million more into the corporation. That was your money you just used to buy those shares, so it has also already been taxed. So then you say it buys the shares back for a higher price than what you bought them for. So you pay capital gains tax on the shares you sold the corporation.
What have you accomplished, other than to create a taxable event out of nothing? You churned your own money in order to create a capital gain that you have to pay tax on. What income tax are you avoiding? There's no income anywhere in your scenario, other than this artificially created capital gain.
It's a simplified story. The reality is that there are many more shell corporations and business income is churning around and around among them. You funnel any money you make as "consulting fees" through one of these corporations, and the corporation buys one of your shares with that money.
If the "consulting fees" went right into your pocket as ordinary wages, that'd be a top marginal rate of ~35%.
If you had your client pay a "closely held" or S-corp, that's a top marginal rate of ~25%.
If you have your client pay a privately traded shell corporation that you have owned shares of for at least a year, and then have that shell corporation sell you a share at a price equal to the income plus your original cost basis, the top marginal rate is ~20%.
(10-01-2020, 02:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2020, 09:35 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So, if I understand you correctly, suppose a person has a million bucks, which has already been taxed, and he starts a corporation and seeds it with that million bucks. You say, "then you have it sell you shares..." If you started a corporation with a million bucks, then you would already own all the shares. So the corporation would have to create more shares if it wants to sell you more shares. So let's suppose it does that. It sells you half a million in new shares. That means you just put half a million more into the corporation. That was your money you just used to buy those shares, so it has also already been taxed. So then you say it buys the shares back for a higher price than what you bought them for. So you pay capital gains tax on the shares you sold the corporation.
What have you accomplished, other than to create a taxable event out of nothing? You churned your own money in order to create a capital gain that you have to pay tax on. What income tax are you avoiding? There's no income anywhere in your scenario, other than this artificially created capital gain.
It's a simplified story. The reality is that there are many more shell corporations and business income is churning around and around among them. You funnel any money you make as "consulting fees" through one of these corporations, and the corporation buys one of your shares with that money.
If the "consulting fees" went right into your pocket as ordinary wages, that'd be a top marginal rate of ~35%.
If you had your client pay a "closely held" or S-corp, that's a top marginal rate of ~25%.
If you have your client pay a privately traded shell corporation that you have owned shares of for at least a year, and then have that shell corporation sell you a share at a price equal to the income plus your original cost basis, the top marginal rate is ~20%.
You have an astounding number or errors in this post, and as a truly lazy person, I hesitate to take up the effort of correcting them all, but here are just a few of them.
First, you are in error about the S-corporation. An S-corporation does not pay taxes, it is a pass-through. All income of the S-Corporation is taxed to the owner of the S-corporation in his or her personal income tax return, whether it is distributed or not. An S-corporation simply avoids the double taxation of a C-corporation.
So it has to be a C-corporation for this to work. So what happens in the case you set up? The C-corporation takes in the consulting fees, and uses that money to buy back the stock of the owner. Does this actually reduce the tax liability? First, the corporation has to pay income tax on the consulting fee. Then the owner has to pay capital gains tax on the stock buyback. You've double taxed yourself. 25% marginal tax rate on the C-corporation, plus 20% capital gains tax on the stock buyback = 45% tax. Ouch!
And I'm going to stop there, because really I expect that even if I correct all the errors in that post, you will only try it again, and it's too much work for me to keep this up. Just stop. It is not possible for a rich person to avoid paying taxes. As proof, I cite the fact that the top 1%, in spite of all their resources, and all the experts they can hire, still pay 40% of the personal income taxes in this country.
Rich people cannot get out of paying taxes. That is a myth. (Unless, of course, like Trump, they shrink their net worth by losing money, thereby incurring deductible losses.)
(10-02-2020, 07:23 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2020, 02:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's a simplified story. The reality is that there are many more shell corporations and business income is churning around and around among them. You funnel any money you make as "consulting fees" through one of these corporations, and the corporation buys one of your shares with that money.
If the "consulting fees" went right into your pocket as ordinary wages, that'd be a top marginal rate of ~35%.
If you had your client pay a "closely held" or S-corp, that's a top marginal rate of ~25%.
If you have your client pay a privately traded shell corporation that you have owned shares of for at least a year, and then have that shell corporation sell you a share at a price equal to the income plus your original cost basis, the top marginal rate is ~20%.
You have an astounding number or errors in this post, and as a truly lazy person, I hesitate to take up the effort of correcting them all, but here are just a few of them.
First, you are in error about the S-corporation. An S-corporation does not pay taxes, it is a pass-through. All income of the S-Corporation is taxed to the owner of the S-corporation in his or her personal income tax return, whether it is distributed or not. An S-corporation simply avoids the double taxation of a C-corporation.
So it has to be a C-corporation for this to work. So what happens in the case you set up? The C-corporation takes in the consulting fees, and uses that money to buy back the stock of the owner. Does this actually reduce the tax liability? First, the corporation has to pay income tax on the consulting fee. Then the owner has to pay capital gains tax on the stock buyback. You've double taxed yourself. 25% marginal tax rate on the C-corporation, plus 20% capital gains tax on the stock buyback = 45% tax. Ouch!
And I'm going to stop there, because really I expect that even if I correct all the errors in that post, you will only try it again, and it's too much work for me to keep this up. Just stop. It is not possible for a rich person to avoid paying taxes. As proof, I cite the fact that the top 1%, in spite of all their resources, and all the experts they can hire, still pay 40% of the personal income taxes in this country.
Rich people cannot get out of paying taxes. That is a myth. (Unless, of course, like Trump, they shrink their net worth by losing money, thereby incurring deductible losses.)
So tell me, o wise one, how mitt romney's rate got to be 15%
(10-02-2020, 07:35 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 07:23 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You have an astounding number or errors in this post, and as a truly lazy person, I hesitate to take up the effort of correcting them all, but here are just a few of them.
First, you are in error about the S-corporation. An S-corporation does not pay taxes, it is a pass-through. All income of the S-Corporation is taxed to the owner of the S-corporation in his or her personal income tax return, whether it is distributed or not. An S-corporation simply avoids the double taxation of a C-corporation.
So it has to be a C-corporation for this to work. So what happens in the case you set up? The C-corporation takes in the consulting fees, and uses that money to buy back the stock of the owner. Does this actually reduce the tax liability? First, the corporation has to pay income tax on the consulting fee. Then the owner has to pay capital gains tax on the stock buyback. You've double taxed yourself. 25% marginal tax rate on the C-corporation, plus 20% capital gains tax on the stock buyback = 45% tax. Ouch!
And I'm going to stop there, because really I expect that even if I correct all the errors in that post, you will only try it again, and it's too much work for me to keep this up. Just stop. It is not possible for a rich person to avoid paying taxes. As proof, I cite the fact that the top 1%, in spite of all their resources, and all the experts they can hire, still pay 40% of the personal income taxes in this country.
Rich people cannot get out of paying taxes. That is a myth. (Unless, of course, like Trump, they shrink their net worth by losing money, thereby incurring deductible losses.)
So tell me, o wise one, how mitt romney's rate got to be 15%
Look up "carried interest."
But don't act like all rich people run private equity funds. That's a very small number of people.
(10-02-2020, 07:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 07:35 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]So tell me, o wise one, how mitt romney's rate got to be 15%
Look up "carried interest."
But don't act like all rich people run private equity funds. That's a very small number of people.
That's what I was talking about.
They disguise their income as capital gains via a private partnership that was set up for that purpose.
You want to grouse about how I said "corporation" instead of "fund" or "partnership" or whatever the word is, fine, either way, it's a legal fiction created for the purpose of liability reduction. Don't confuse your greater semantic knowledge of the situation for greater ethical knowledge.
I don't think it's a small number of people, and when we're talking about the literally billions of dollars that pass thru the loophole, it doesn't really matter if it was just three people doing it or 300. It's unjust.
(10-02-2020, 10:42 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 07:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Look up "carried interest."
But don't act like all rich people run private equity funds. That's a very small number of people.
That's what I was talking about.
They disguise their income as capital gains via a private partnership that was set up for that purpose.
You want to grouse about how I said "corporation" instead of "fund" or "partnership" or whatever the word is, fine, either way, it's a legal fiction created for the purpose of liability reduction. Don't confuse your greater semantic knowledge of the situation for greater ethical knowledge.
I don't think it's a small number of people, and when we're talking about the literally billions of dollars that pass thru the loophole, it doesn't really matter if it was just three people doing it or 300. It's unjust.
You were arguing with my point that rich people cannot avoid paying taxes. If your best example is a few hedge fund managers who get to pay capital gains rates on their fees, you have finally succeeded in pointing out a tiny number of rich people who have managed to pay a lower tax rate on
part of their income that what you think they should pay.
That does not refute my point that rich people not only cannot avoid paying taxes, and that they actually pay an incredibly large proportion of the taxes in this country. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the income taxes!
(10-02-2020, 12:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 10:42 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's what I was talking about.
They disguise their income as capital gains via a private partnership that was set up for that purpose.
You want to grouse about how I said "corporation" instead of "fund" or "partnership" or whatever the word is, fine, either way, it's a legal fiction created for the purpose of liability reduction. Don't confuse your greater semantic knowledge of the situation for greater ethical knowledge.
I don't think it's a small number of people, and when we're talking about the literally billions of dollars that pass thru the loophole, it doesn't really matter if it was just three people doing it or 300. It's unjust.
You were arguing with my point that rich people cannot avoid paying taxes. If your best example is a few hedge fund managers who get to pay capital gains rates on their fees, you have finally succeeded in pointing out a tiny number of rich people who have managed to pay a lower tax rate on part of their income that what you think they should pay.
That does not refute my point that rich people not only cannot avoid paying taxes, and that they actually pay an incredibly large proportion of the taxes in this country. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the income taxes!
Do they get 40% of the income.
And if so, do they deserve to get that much income?
(10-02-2020, 12:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 12:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You were arguing with my point that rich people cannot avoid paying taxes. If your best example is a few hedge fund managers who get to pay capital gains rates on their fees, you have finally succeeded in pointing out a tiny number of rich people who have managed to pay a lower tax rate on part of their income that what you think they should pay.
That does not refute my point that rich people not only cannot avoid paying taxes, and that they actually pay an incredibly large proportion of the taxes in this country. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the income taxes!
Do they get 40% of the income.
And if so, do they deserve to get that much income?
What does that have to do with what I said?
(10-02-2020, 12:49 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 12:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Do they get 40% of the income.
And if so, do they deserve to get that much income?
What does that have to do with what I said?
You seem to be saying that the tax system is totally fair to these people.
I don't think it is. I think they are racking up unfair advantages.
(10-02-2020, 12:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 12:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You were arguing with my point that rich people cannot avoid paying taxes. If your best example is a few hedge fund managers who get to pay capital gains rates on their fees, you have finally succeeded in pointing out a tiny number of rich people who have managed to pay a lower tax rate on part of their income that what you think they should pay.
That does not refute my point that rich people not only cannot avoid paying taxes, and that they actually pay an incredibly large proportion of the taxes in this country. The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the income taxes!
Do they get 40% of the income.
And if so, do they deserve to get that much income?
No, they get 20% of the total income.
And "deserve"? What kind of lefty idiocy is that? Deserve...cripes.
(10-02-2020, 02:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 12:49 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What does that have to do with what I said?
You seem to be saying that the tax system is totally fair to these people.
I don't think it is. I think they are racking up unfair advantages.
No, I was not giving any kind of opinion about "fairness." Here is what I said. I copied and pasted, so this is exactly what I said:
"That's one of the interesting things about his taxes- he loses loads of money on most of his businesses, especially all the golf courses he owns. He made a lot of money on the Apprentice, and that made up for some of his losses on the other businesses, but apparently, he loses enough money that he doesn't wind up with much taxable income. His "fortune" seems to be a house of cards, and maybe an illusion.
If you're making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. The idea that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is a complete myth. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all income taxes. If your are rich, you pay taxes. That's all there is to it. That's one thing that makes Trump's tax bill really unusual for a guy who claims to be rich. If he's as rich as he claims to be, why is his tax bill so incredibly, consistently miniscule?"
But then you jumped in and wanted to argue with my point that if you are making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. But it is the absolute solid truth. Rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. The top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes. The federal budget office says the average tax rate on the top 1% is 33%.
In spite of their ability to hire the world's best accountants and tax lawyers, rich people still get hit with enormous tax bills. My point was, that makes Trump's tax bill pretty strange for a guy who claims to be rich.
(10-02-2020, 04:53 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-02-2020, 02:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to be saying that the tax system is totally fair to these people.
I don't think it is. I think they are racking up unfair advantages.
No, I was not giving any kind of opinion about "fairness." Here is what I said. I copied and pasted, so this is exactly what I said:
"That's one of the interesting things about his taxes- he loses loads of money on most of his businesses, especially all the golf courses he owns. He made a lot of money on the Apprentice, and that made up for some of his losses on the other businesses, but apparently, he loses enough money that he doesn't wind up with much taxable income. His "fortune" seems to be a house of cards, and maybe an illusion.
If you're making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. The idea that "the rich" can avoid paying taxes is a complete myth. The top 1% pay almost 40% of all income taxes. If your are rich, you pay taxes. That's all there is to it. That's one thing that makes Trump's tax bill really unusual for a guy who claims to be rich. If he's as rich as he claims to be, why is his tax bill so incredibly, consistently miniscule?"
But then you jumped in and wanted to argue with my point that if you are making money, it is really really hard to avoid paying taxes. But it is the absolute solid truth. Rich people pay most of the taxes in this country. The top 10% pay 70% of the income taxes. The federal budget office says the average tax rate on the top 1% is 33%.
In spite of their ability to hire the world's best accountants and tax lawyers, rich people still get hit with enormous tax bills. My point was, that makes Trump's tax bill pretty strange for a guy who claims to be rich.
Right, and before that mitt Romney was another extreme outlier.. it's a pattern.