Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How To Pay No Taxes  
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

With April 15th just 2 days away I thought everyone would be interested in how to avoid taxes in the future.

BusinessWeek (not a pinko, liberal mag) has a pretty good article listing some of the more popular games people play - and get away with.

So when you send in your returns this year you'll be able to understand how you can beat the game next year.

And when people write "We Don't Have The Money!" you will have a clearer understanding why.

Quote:

Eleven shelters, dodges, and rolls—all perfectly legal—used by America's wealthiest people

For the well-off, this could be the best tax day since the early 1930s: Top tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, estates, and gifts will remain at or near historically low levels for at least the next two years. That's thanks in part to legislation passed in December 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

"This is clearly far and away the most generous tax situation that's existed," says Gregory D. Singer, a national managing director of the wealth management group at AllianceBernstein (AB) in New York. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...+-+how+to+pay+no+taxes_top+stories

I haven't read all the Comments to the article, but the first one caught my eye:

Leonia Hemisley is right, "taxes are for the little people"

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6299 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

I think it's funny how the people who seemingly don't want to pay taxes are also the ones who want a government payout or government assistance the most...

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sw733 (Reply 1):
I think it's funny how the people who seemingly don't want to pay taxes are also the ones who want a government payout or government assistance the most...

Actually on a percentage tax basis - "rich" people pay less taxes

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
Actually on a percentage tax basis - "rich" people pay less taxes

Yet the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income. They are paying nearly double their "fair share" (38/20). How does that compute with what you said?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

About Buffet, he has the finest tax attorneys in the world. I think it's pretty disingenuous of him to complain about how low his taxes are while paying some accounting firm a substantial amount of money to make sure he pays the minimum possible. If he feels bad about it, he can always fill out his forms himself and not take any deductions.

I also note that in the past 15 years there have been several attempts to eliminate the current tax code (that's all you can do at this point - you can't fix it, it has to be eliminated, burned and started again), mostly from the right. I never see the left supporting that effort, even if it means eliminating all those special deductions and loopholes. I wonder why?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
How does that compute with what you said?

I meant on a direct tax rate comparison basis.

While a "rich" person might end up paying an effective tax rate of 10%, a "poor" person might end up paying 30% effective tax rate.

While the "rich" 10% makes up the 97% of total tax revenue is true - they still pay less of their paycheck (on a percentage basis) than a "poor" person

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
even if it means eliminating all those special deductions and loopholes. I

If you close the loopholes, it means that companies like GE would have to pay more taxes. That is just wrong, and communist of you.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
While the "rich" 10% makes up the 97% of total tax revenue is true - they still pay less of their paycheck (on a percentage basis) than a "poor" person

Wrong. They may pay a lower tax rate on their overall revenue, but not on their paycheck. Earned salary (in whatever form) pays income tax rates. But the very wealthy also receive a disproportionate amount of revenue from dividends and capital gains - money that has already been taxed separately before distribution. So your comparison is flawed.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
If he feels bad about it, he can always fill out his forms himself and not take any deductions.

Why? That would be doing taxes "wrong." I hear what you are saying, but he didn't get rich by donating his money to the govt and govt employees. Personally I am glad he stuck to business, where he employed a lot of people.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
While a "rich" person might end up paying an effective tax rate of 10%, a "poor" person might end up paying 30% effective tax rate.

That is mostly apocryphal. Okay a billionaire may pay 10%. I suppose that is wrong. A rich surgeon will pay 36% of income, plus sales taxes, plus property taxes, plus state income tax (in some cases >10%). That "rich" person easily can pay over 50% of income in taxes, even today. And I know many who do. It would not be easy to raise rates on them and expect a good result. The ease of that has been overstated.

I was "low income" for several years in the 00s and paid approx 2% in taxes. The govt does not collect taxes from poor. Who was paying for the military... NOT I. Yes, there are sales taxes on certain goods in some places. Again... 2%, roughly. People are getting bent out of shape over GE and Warren Buffet (i.e., large and sophisticated capital gains claimants). The broader overall story is, the affluent people finance the great majority of federal and state governments in the US. I'm talking the top 20%. Others, who have a lower income, have kids, then receive Medicare / Social Security, have the potential to reap large public benefits without ever paying in a similar amount. Hence, they (or I) would tend to favor such benefits in the sense a welfare recipient favors large welfare checks.

My argument is just about the present situation we are in, who is responsible, and what can be done about it. The people funding the govt right now are the affluent income earners and small business owners. Not megacorps such as GE (although their payroll / income taxation is nevertheless huge). And, to be realistic, the people in the bottom 50 percentiles are also not pulling any weight. However that may be distorted in people's emotional arguments.


User currently offlineCMHSRQ From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 990 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

A much simpler version is to get fired from your job then let the entitlements roll in. That way, not only do you not pay taxes but the government pays you.


The voice of moderation
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
Actually on a percentage tax basis - "rich" people pay less taxes

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Quoting mt99 (Reply 4):
I meant on a direct tax rate comparison basis.

This is one of the most disengenous arguments that keeps getting regurgitated. This is comparing Apples to Oranges. The percentage he pays on his investment income is lower than the rate he would pay on salary income when it comes to the federal taxes. That does not mean he is paying a lessor percentage of income taxes compared to his Secretary. You cannot compare income to investment income when it comes to taxes.

And the second thing is how many tax attornesy and accountants do you thinks he has to protect his money from taxes. DId he not recently put billions into a tax shelter for charity instead of donating it to the federal government?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
They may pay a lower tax rate on their overall revenue, but not on their paycheck.

You are correct in the overall income clarification. I should have been more clear.

But the important thing, is that you agreed with me that they par a lower tax rate.  



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2295 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 7):
A much simpler version is to get fired from your job then let the entitlements roll in. That way, not only do you not pay taxes but the government pays you.

Really? Maybe you can tell me where to get some of those "entitlements". When I lost my job, I had to pay for health insurance myself, and my unemployment payments are taxable...



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24813 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Yes I read the article last week - however much of its suggestions are not to not pay taxes, but simply to defer them.

For example why get a bonus today and be socked by a large tax bill at once, if you can work that instead into the future and pay taxes only as you take the money out in smaller chunks based on your needs.

Really basic tax-101 planning.


Btw - Tax day this year is April 18th, due to the 15th being a holiday in some places including in DC.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
So your comparison is flawed.

Since income "should" be considered "income" the comparison is fair. Even Buffett agrees that the situation is out of balance.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 8):
You cannot compare income to investment income when it comes to taxes.

But we should be able to. I don't favor double taxation of dividends, but believe that the tax cut should be on the corporate side paying the dividends. That puts the decision on dividends in light of other payments, like new facilities or more R&D.

It also brings into focus the realistic need to tax investment income at the same rates as wages & salaries.

People may cry that such a change would "discourage" people from investing, but I believe that is bull. People invest in a company because they believe it will be profitable. Apple hasn't paid a dividend in the years of Jobs II, yet look at the stock on a 5 year chart. Dividends haven't counted, nor has the capital gains rates. People have invested because of the performance of the company and the increasing value of the stock. That is how it should be.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24813 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
People may cry that such a change would "discourage" people from investing, but I believe that is bull. People invest in a company because they believe it will be profitable. Apple hasn't paid a dividend in the years of Jobs II, yet look at the stock on a 5 year chart. Dividends haven't counted, nor has the capital gains rates. People have invested because of the performance of the company and the increasing value of the stock. That is how it should be.

Maybe you don't realize it, however one of the largest investment (after simple CDs) income vehicles for elder American's is dividend producing stocks. A hell of a lot of people buy funds, or specific stocks solely for their rather predictable dividend income streams, especially now in a time of low interest rates the dividends can out produce anything you get at the bank. (average dividend fund in 2010 produced 7%+, (some as high 16%))



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):

Yet the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes.

And yet we don't have enough money. There's a budget crisis. You yourself have said you don't want new taxes.

So how about instead of new taxes, we close the loopholes.

There is no reason that I should be paying 40% of my taxes to Uncle Sam when GE, with $13Bn(?) in profits is paying negative taxes. No new taxes, just make sure they pay the taxes they're supposed to be paying and not using little loopholes and games to evade them. Tax evasion is a crime for a reason.

This idea that the rich should pay no taxes at all while we little schleps carry the burden is indefensible and I can't believe you're defending it.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1618 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
There is no reason that I should be paying 40% of my taxes to Uncle Sam when GE, with $13Bn(?) in profits is paying negative taxes.

Here is a devil's advocate view. Yes GE pays zero on its profits. But. Why tax companies anyway. We do not tax the government (it would be nonsensical). It is actually not very reasonable to tax companies either. Instead, I suggest taxing individuals.

Companies are doing good things. We hope they invest and make as much profit as possible. More jobs, more stuff. If individuals accrue that money as *income*, that is much easier to tax. Also, as you mention, sophisticated companies already do not pay the tax. Smaller firms DO pay the tax... and for what. Tax the owner instead.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
we little schleps

Sorry... most "little schleps" are not paying. You sound like you're in the top 20% (putting it mildly) so you are indeed paying, and you always will. The "evil rich" probably won't pay a lot, but a 25% cap gains rate is a start.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 15):

Here is a devil's advocate view. Yes GE pays zero on its profits. But. Why tax companies anyway.

Because that's the way it's set up and because one of the reasons that governments like companies is because they provide tax revenues.

I could ask the opposite question: why not tax companies and not individuals?


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2986 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):

I could ask the opposite question: why not tax companies and not individuals?


That would cause the tax to be passed on to the end user and we would not want to tax the near 50% of the population that does not pay income taxes.

Okie


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
There is no reason that I should be paying 40% of my taxes to Uncle Sam when GE, with $13Bn(?) in profits is paying negative taxes. No new taxes, just make sure they pay the taxes they're supposed to be paying and not using little loopholes and games to evade them. Tax evasion is a crime for a reason.

The fact that they had profits last year and owed no income taxes does not mean they are evading taxes.

Likewise, it is also possible to have no profits and still owe income taxes. There are a number of expenses that the IRS disallows and different methods are used for things like depreciation expense. If you are looking at an SEC-filed income statement to determine how much a company should have paid in taxes, that is your first mistake because none of those adjustments I cited above are included.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19378 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 18):

The fact that they had profits last year and owed no income taxes does not mean they are evading taxes.

Yes it does. They are doing it legally, but it's evasion.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Yes it does. They are doing it legally, but it's evasion.

No, that's tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is not.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Yes it does. They are doing it legally, but it's evasion.

Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is not. Very similar for sure, but it's all in the word.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1445 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Since income "should" be considered "income" the comparison is fair. Even Buffett agrees that the situation is out of balance

Then why does he hire lawyers and accountants to hide his money. Why not put his money where his mouth is? Send it to the Government instead of tax avoiding charity funds. Lead by example or STFU Mr Buffett.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
It also brings into focus the realistic need to tax investment income at the same rates as wages & salaries

Which is double taxation.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
People may cry that such a change would "discourage" people from investing, but I believe that is bull

And you would believe wrong. Why invest in higher risk stocks if in the end a lower risk Bond will bring you the same yield at the end of the year agter taxes.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
I could ask the opposite question: why not tax companies and not individuals?

Because that make there product more expensive and less competitive in the world market. No taxes on Corporations while flat taxing the purchase or the income of the workers will bring more jobs back to the US by lowering the prices of products made.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11523 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Why do middle and lower class individuals have such a hard time taxing the rich? Why is there such outcry over taxing the very very wealthy? Remember how the rich suffered under Eisenhower? Nixon? Johnson? Kennedy? Carter? Ford? The slums of the rich? How Rockafeller and Taylor and Getty had to stand in the soup kitchens just for a hearty meal? How many of us regular joes fall under the category of "rich"? How many of us regular joes would acutally be affected if the tax rate on those making over $10,000,000 goes up to, say, 75%?


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23):
Why do middle and lower class individuals have such a hard time taxing the rich?

Because most of us realise it is their money and not ours. It was there innovation, creation, drive and hard work that helped them get there. Why should we be able to penalize them because of their success? Why do they have less rights becaue of their success? Why do they have to feel that they owe the system becuase of their creative ability? Is not the fact that the top 5% now pay 95% of the taxes not enough for you?

Quote:
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

We have a spending problem and we do have a tax problem but that is caused by the myriads of rules and regulations not by the amount of income

The Presidential Divider
Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt..


OMG-Obama Must Go
25 LAXintl : Interesting point is that Obama backs LOWER corporate tax rates to aid in competitiveness. As is the US essentially has the highest corporate tax rate
26 Flighty : They are designing significant parts of their business to accrue taxable losses/depreciation. For example their aircraft business. GE's aircraft asse
27 fr8mech : And, this is what it wrong with our tax code. Taxed entities can manipulate the system and pay nothing or something close to it. Our tax code is funda
28 Post contains links seb146 : BTW, we have had "trickle down" or "Reaganomics" now for how many years and how many jobs has it created? Is the unemployment rate near zero as theori
29 fr8mech : Again, the problem is not how much money the government takes in...it is how much it spends that puts a drain on the economy. You can tax all you wan
30 seb146 : So, they are going to cheat anyway, so let's just let them? Well, if that is the case, I should just be able to walk out of Best Buy with a 52" plasm
31 goblin211 : You get away with it by not being a US citizen and living off of a relative and their social security number. You're an artist and you get paid in cas
32 fr8mech : You fail to see my point It's not cheating if you do it within the law. If you have the right people working for you, they can help you exploit our c
33 Post contains links and images FlyDeltaJets87 : Well Buffet and others can put their money where their mouths are and still donate whatever they feel they aren't required to be paying in taxes to t
34 seb146 : The difference is: These people actually had to work. Learn a trade and/or skill. Had to do something other than have a name. People should just be a
35 PPVRA : YES, EVEN THEM. Even they are contributing to innovation, and you can add Paris Hilton to the list too, and not because of her stupid line of clothin
36 DocLightning : That's the biggest line of bull... So you pass the corporate taxes off onto the employees. So one of two things has to happen. Either employee salari
37 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Hmmm.... no response to whether or not you think it'd be right to ship YOUR money off to Africa in the name of wealth redistribution. Well I'm not su
38 Post contains images Ken777 : And yet it is tax free. And generates little incentive for the companies paying the dividends to consider if applying that cash in other directions -
39 PPVRA : I'm hardly an expert on taxes but I still don't get the logic of allowing deductions for dividends. Dividends are not expenses, they are distribution
40 Ken777 : I don't support the double taxation of dividends, but I do believe that it is preferable for the company to have the deduction and not the individual
41 Post contains images Flighty : Yeah, pretty much nothing except business has been invented that actually pay for the living of the people in this country. As for the rich, I agree!
42 goblin211 : Oh, my bad! It is a flaw in the system though, but at least I'm not in that situation. But bottom line is you have to be rich enough to make your don
43 Ken777 : Profits should still be taxed - I just prefer that it be a post dividend profit, with the individuals paying the income taxes on money received. In t
44 PPVRA : They could pay the full $20 million in dividends and owe no taxes at all. Selling stock doesn't involve the stock issuer in most cases unless it's an
45 fr8mech : Doantions are only part of the game. Capital expenditures, trusts, gifts, etc. All of these and more are used by those that have lots of money (not n
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Do You Have To Pay For Licence Plates? posted Tue May 1 2007 22:17:42 by Airfoilsguy
How To Block Your Stolen Mobile! No Joke! posted Sun Jan 15 2006 23:58:18 by Glidepath73
Do Minors Have To Pay Taxes? posted Sun Jan 25 2004 04:47:59 by Venuscat2
How Much Are The USA Going To Pay? posted Tue Mar 11 2003 18:01:22 by Flying Belgian
How To Create A Company? posted Sat Dec 4 2010 20:52:40 by Yazoo
Orly Taitz Ordered To Pay For Frivolous Lawsuits posted Mon Aug 16 2010 14:05:16 by UAL747
Do You Know How To Swim? posted Tue Aug 3 2010 14:38:58 by Tugger
I Got One Of These .... Any Idea How To Make It F posted Mon Jul 19 2010 04:59:43 by Swissy
How To Get From Shannon To Dublin posted Wed May 26 2010 17:22:51 by A318
How To Spend A Lazy Weekend In Tallinn? posted Tue Apr 27 2010 14:39:03 by HT