Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (358687)	2/13/2003 12:39:58 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re my post: "You will note, of course, that's more than 11 full points lower... the 'creme de la creme' paid at a rate (22%) a full 1/3 lower than the average of your "top 1%" club." And, your reply: "The richest of rich that you want to foot the bill for you..." >>> You are assuming things not in evidence. I've never said that. Quit debating with yourself. Re: "... don't make "income" of $110,000,000 per year. The way that number is calculated is the key to realizing how they reduce their effective tax rate, but you don't provide that, and I doubt you know that. Who calculated that number, and how was it done?" >>> Of course they did. Those are the numbers reported to the IRS... although I'm sure their income was in various forms such as exercise of stock options, etc., rather than merely straight cash salary... especially since corporations can't get a tax deduction for the amount of salaries they pay in cash in excess of $1 million per year. Re: "... If they were PAID that much per year they would pay the same tax rates as the other wealthy folks (unless they broke the law)." >>> Apparently not. Anyway, there's 'rich'... and then there's 'really rich'. As I pointed out the best tax advisors are available to the 'creme de la creme', and a number os sophisticated tax loopholes and tax sheltering structures are appropriate for them... but may not be appropriate for a working stiff, lower down on the income ladder. >>> After all, how much of your income is derived from income generating 'intellectual property' assets such as patents or copyrights (film rights, etc.) legally sheltered in a low tax off-shore jurisdiction? How much do you avail yourself of the oil depletion allowance on your annual taxes? Re: "... If you believe they should be forced to do that then your beef should be with corporate tax rules, not Bush's INCOME tax plan. They are two different things. Let me know what their INCOME is per year, and then we can see what their tax rate is. These people use our existing laws to minimize their taxes (as any intelligent person would do), and you have contempt for that. You think they should adjust their income to pay the MAXIMUM amount of taxes, as I am sure that you do (haha)." >>> Here you are just ranting about thing I never said... and repeating yourself. >>> I repeat: your study of people earning over 1/4 million $ in 1999, showed that as a group they paid around 33% in Federal Income taxes. >>> My study (both studies were taken from the IRS data) of people earning over $110 million the same tax year (the top of your 'top 1%' group) showed that they paid at an effective rate fully 1/3 lower: 22%. >>> So, deal with it.