Definition of 'rich' changing... already

[Fosco33]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

[falco]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

[MJZiggy]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

[Fosco33]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Mr. Bob Barr... but he's not much of a figure that can bring the party into light. I was hoping Ron Paul would stay true and not sell out to the Republicans. Either way, my vote in CA would not have been for Obama and knowing that McCain taking CA would be impossible, I'm voting for 'none of the above' and Barr.

Democrats and Republicans (and the right/left media) won't allow the threat of a many party nation (even 'barring' them from public debates). People say, 'the 2 party system works'.... well if this is 'working' then I really have little faith in the populace wanting more options.

[HowardRoark]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Ziggy, the fact that you "may" be a Libertarian....PLEASE do not vote for Obama. Stay home! Do anything, but Obama is the antithesis of a Libertarian.

BTW, have you seen the movie The Savages?

[ThunderDan]

Retailguy-

First the social security limit on wages in 2008 is $102,000.

Now let's look at a couple of examples. Let's use 2007 tax rates because I'm not at my office.

Example 1.
Single individual making $45,000 a year all W-2 wages. Just graduated from school and was lucky enough to get a full academic ride to UW-Madison. He lives in an apartment and doesn't itemize because he doesn't qualify.

He pays $3,440 in payroll taxes and has an AGI (adjust gross income) of $45,000. His taxable income is $36,250 so he pays $5,490 in income tax. He is in the 25% tax bracket. In total he pays $8,930 in taxes. His effective tax rate is 19.8%.

Example 2.
Family of 4. This guys a little older. He is the owner of his own business. Let's make it an S-Corporation so he does have to worry about double taxation. His company makes $200,000 a year in profit. He takes $100,000 on his W-2 and take $100,000 in S-corp earnings on his K-1. Lets make this simple. He doesn't have any investment accounts which would actual lower his effective tax rate. He only has his 401(k) thru the company. His gross income is $200,000.

He pays $7,650 in payroll taxes and his AGI is $185,000. What??? I thought his income was $200,000. He maximizes his 401(k) contribution to $15,000 from his W-2 wages; I'm goning to ignore the $5,000 his company pays for the employer portion of the 401(k) that because he is the owner he no longer has to pay tax on. He get's limited because of his $100,000s in wages. Most clients me maximize their W-2 wages to allow a $29,000 employer match.

But wait, his taxable income isn't $185,000. He owns a house. A nice house. He pays $18,000 a year in mortgage interest and $9,000 a year in property taxes. He has 7% withheld in state withholdings of $7,000. He and his brothers bought a cabin up north and pays $3,000 a year in mortgage interest and $1,000 in real estate taxes. He also gives $1,000 to his church because he is doing well. He only gets to itemize $38,100 because of income limitations. His taxable income is $133,300. He pays $26,320 in income tax. He is in the 28% tax bracket. In total he pays $33,970. His effective tax rate is 16.9%.

Hold on how can that be!!!

The man making $45,000 is paying 19.8% and The man making $200,000 is paying 16.9%

That's a regressive tax system. The wealthier man is paying almost 3% less in effective tax rate.

Now lets talk about the points I ignored.
1. Man 2 could be effected by the alternative minimum tax. But because I'm not at the office I can't tell you for sure. Or at least I don't wont to spend the time to calculate that.
2. Man 2 also got $5,000 in employer match put into his 401(k). Since he is the owner he effectively is not paying any income or social secuirty tax on an additional $5,000.
3. He owns the building his S-Corporation works out of in an LLC. So the $60,000 per year in rent he is paying is going back into his own pocket. I'm assuming between taxes, interest expense, depreciation and other expenses it nets to zero. Usually its a loss but it would then be limited by passive activity rules anyway. So that's another $60,000 he effectively isn't paying tax on.
4. He takes clients out to dinners and golfing. They are his friends because he is a very successful business owner. He spends $15,000 a year in meals and entertainment. You only get to deduct 50% so he is really not paying tax on another $7,500.

So in total he is not paying taxes on another $72,500 in "phantom income". Benefits he enjoys and gets to deduct on his S-corporation tax return.

I'm his CPA so I am looking out for his best interest. He tells me he is going to retire in a couple of years and wants to move to FL. I tell he great. I'm glad you told me this far in advance.

You see he bought his building for $400,000 20 years ago and it's now worth $850,000. If he sold the building he would have to pay 25% on his previous depreciation expense taken and 15% on top of the recapture. So let's say that works out to $75,000 for recapture and $67,500 on the gain. He would have to pay $142,500 in taxes in selling his building.

Instead, I have him do a like-kind exchange for investment property in FL. His gain is differed into his new building. This means that the $142,500 in taxes doesn't have to paid until he sells the FL piece of property he just bought.

Now we wait two years. We convert the investment property to his personal home and after living there for 2 years the $67,500 in taxes gets wiped away. He never has to pay it. It get's better. He passes away and he gets to step-up the value of his home to its fair market value. Now he doesn't even have to pay the tax of $75,000. I just saved my client $142,500.

So, once again don't believe everything you hear at face value. A lot of the campaign "talk" isn't the actual truth just like the effective tax rate in the USA. Of coursee we can pick different examples and come out all over the map but flat out saying people who make more money pay more in federal taxes isn't honest.

[SkinBasket]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

[wist43]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Agreed. My dad knows many, and I've met many myself. NONE are democrats as far as I can tell from discussion business and politics with them.

You know, I'm not a Republican, but for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be a democrat... they stand for no good thing.

To me America is about freedom. The Democratic Party is about control - the very antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. They (leftists in general) survive, and even thrive, b/c they've infested our school systems, and long ago targetted and taken over the media and academia. Unfortunately, most people are weak minded sheep and are unable to see thru the brainwashing.

I want to live my life and be left alone. Free from government interference. I don't want to control other people. I don't want to tell them how to spend their money, or how much they should earn - yet, the majority of Americans don't see it that way, and certainly no democrat sees it that way.

Except when the Repubs are messing with our personal lives..then it is ok.

I don't want anybody messing with my life, or with yours, be they Republican or Democrat; either by personal means or by use of the government - which is far worse, and far more dangerous.

As I said, I am not a member of the Republican Party. I am much more of a Libertarian, which given todays definitions is much more in line with what our founding fathers would consider themselves.

Fosco33 wrote, and i agree, so I thought I'd just copy and paste it:


I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

-------------------------------------------------

The limits Fosco33 would be referring to, would be limits upon government, which are republican principles. Our founders talk a great deal about the virtues of republican principles, and castigate democratic principles.

Democracies are very, very dangerous, and always end in tyranny. It may take several decades, or even a couple of centuries to play out, but democracies always devolve into mobacracies.

As for the Libertarian Party... I've met both Bob Barr and Ron Paul on several occassions. Both outstanding men, I especially have a liking for Dr. Paul. Truly a great statesman.

However, the threat posed by Obama, and the mob behind him, should be enough to terrify any person with even the most limited understanding of how societies die; i.e. democracy, mobocracy, anarchy, tyranny.

For that reason, I will hold my breath, close my eyes, and pull the lever for McCain. I feel terrible doing it; but, as I said, I'm just being pragmatic and trying to buy time. I see no stopping the mob in the long run.

[Partial]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

It should have been Ron Paul. Bob Barr is running as a libertarian I believe

[Partial]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

[Partial]

More would succeed if it wasn't so GD expensive. Plan on giving 50% of what you earn back to big brother easily if you're a small business.

P,

Part of the problem is education. We don't "teach" people to be entrepenurial. If we did, the success rates would be higher. You learn as you go, mostly.

Even my business education and my MBA didn't really prepare me for running a business. Running a business, especially a new one is hard.

We cannot expect everyone to go out and run a business and make 100K a year. As freak out said, that's not easy. With the right education, and determination, most could succeed.

The problem is, that MOST don't want to. They want to come home and lose themselves in front of the big screen TV. That's fine, except for the part about wondering why they get left behind. Turn off the damn TV, read a non fiction book, and develop the drive to overachieve.... Then, it is less likely you'll get left behind.

I'm not saying its easy. Nothing in this life worth having is easy. Nobody makes the big bucks at an "easy" job, otherwise somebody could be doing it for 25k.

I agree with you completely. Lack of motivation. Some people don't know what hard work is. Then, they assume that everyone works as little as they do. Thus, they think its unfair that a small business owner is bringing home the big bucks. Little do they know that that person works twice as many hours...

[wist43]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I hate that Libertarians are defined by these lib/con measures.

While there are many variants, libertarians believe that you CAN have basic social programs that are managed (financially) in an appropriate way. It means the government does what it was designed to do - protect your freedoms/safety and get out of the way. It's about individual liberty and personal responsibility (i.e., I don't need (want) the government to help me or most of my neighbors.) You can't take away every social program as some people do need assistance... but there is a limit.

I may be a Libertarian. It would be nice to see them get enough power to actually have a shot at the bigger elections. If they even have a presidential candidate, I don't know who it is.

Ziggy, the fact that you "may" be a Libertarian....PLEASE do not vote for Obama. Stay home! Do anything, but Obama is the antithesis of a Libertarian.

BTW, have you seen the movie The Savages?

I agree with HR... MJ you seem far too intelligent, well informed, and grounded to be falling for Obama's populist nonsense.

[SkinBasket]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

[ThunderDan]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

I never said these were real world averages. But these are very "real" numbers for my clients. And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

I love working with business owners and other professionals because they are usually very interesting, fun loving people who are active in their communities.

[Partial]

Wow. That's a bunch of bullshit.

I completely agree.

It's hard to buy these skewed numbers as the real world average (where of course all 45k earners pay their full lot in taxes with no exemptions and the 200k earner finds every loophole in the tax code) when our family has already paid more in fed+ss+medicare taxes than Mr. 45k makes in a year. We've still got Nov and Dec to go.

And this is before Obamasuckarama lifts the SS limits...

Yipee! I must be rich!

I never said these were real world averages. But these are very "real" numbers for my clients. And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

I love working with business owners and other professionals because they are usually very interesting, fun loving people who are active in their communities.

One situation does not represent the typical state of affairs. Maybe the 45k earner should be a little smarter is my advice. If he can make it through madison as you claim, than he is likely smart enough to figure out how to maximize the system in his favor.

I can think of a few ways that he'd be paying close to ZERO in taxes.