Boone buys 4k tickets for the Gonzaga game

Apparently Denver believes that the super rich play by the same rules as the rest of us.
 
I would posit that not only is Boone's rate lower than the popcorn seller but he may also pay less in actual taxes. In fact he may pay something approaching zero in actual taxes depending on how good his accountants are.

You are not rational. The Top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes in this country. The top 1% pay 36.73% http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html These are facts not opinions.

You want to take an isolated case from a uique situation and argue that most rich people are not paying taxes. That simply isn't true. Most rich people are paying a lot in taxes including a lot more on an effective basis than a middle class family.

A family of four making $75,000 taking a standard deduction had AGI of $49,000 and paid income taxes of $6,504 for an effective tax rate of 8.67%. Romney's 13% is almost double that rate. It is fine to debate what rates should be and whether the current system is just but be both informed and honest. Additionally, don't confuse employment taxes with income taxes. They are different and there are reasons the systems work they way they work.

I think a rate of 13%, 15% or even 25% is too low for a person making the kind of money that Romney or T. Boone makes but I am not going to pretend middle class people are paying more in total dollars or on effetive basis because they are not. To make such a claim is either ignorance or a lie.
 
I notice you don't factor in other taxes like payroll taxes when you talk about the "family of four"...hmmm. Wonder why that is? And we don't know what Romney's taxes were from 2002-2009 because he refused to release them, hmmmm. Wonder why that is?

You also seem to think that the 15% rate for the super wealthy actually means something. It doesn't. They have countless ways of legally not paying that amount.

We also seem to be talking about two different things. I'm talking about the super wealthy. You're talking about the top 10%. People like Pickens and Romney and pretty much any Wall Street investment banker fall into the top 0.0001%.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing accurate about making a distinction between payroll and income taxes. That is a shell game meant to mislead. Both taxes end up in the same pot to fund any and all expenditures. As a matter of fact over $5 trillion of our supposed $16 trillion in debt is really just $ that was derived from payroll taxes but used to fund tax cuts. Tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the top 1/2% with no tangible economic benefit.

The wholesale changes to the tax code were made in 2001 and 2003, were temporary and are set to expire. The experiment is over. It failed.
 
Apparently Denver believes that the super rich play by the same rules as the rest of us.

everybody has the same oppurtunities. The tax code allows anybody to have capital gains taxes.

I don't understand why people ***** about this. What the rich pay has no direct affect on you. What you pay has a direct affect on you. If you don't like what you pay in taxes, find a loophole, invest more,etc. Stop worrying about everybody else
 
Apparently Denver believes that the super rich play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Actually I just know what I am talking about and you don't. I have proven it with specific examples but why should facts influence you when you can be ruled by envy, bias and jealousy.
 
Everybody does not have the same opportunities. But setting that point aside for a moment, if a guy gets super wealthy through hard work and intelligence I applaud him for it. All I'm saying is that it's likely that Pickens pays nowhere near 15% in taxes, period. I'm not *****ing about the super wealthy having their own set of rules, just pointing out that fact.
 
everybody has the same oppurtunities. The tax code allows anybody to have capital gains taxes.

I don't understand why people ***** about this. What the rich pay has no direct affect on you. What you pay has a direct affect on you. If you don't like what you pay in taxes, find a loophole, invest more,etc. Stop worrying about everybody else

Everyone doesn't have the same opportunities at all. That's the way of the world, but it's a fact. Some are, as that old saying goes, born on third base and brag about hitting a triple.

I have no complaints about the opportunities I've had. I'm grateful for them. As a white male growing up in the 1960s and '70s, I had a head start on women and male minorities. I also had very supportive and loving parents who did everything they could for me (we weren't wealthy or even upper-middle-class, but I wanted for nothing important). But to pretend that I had the same opportunities as Mitt Romney did is beyond silly. And there are so many people who had fewer opportunities than I did. That's a simple fact.

As for "finding loopholes" and "making investments," there are millions of people who can do neither. The kind of loopholes the rich benefit from aren't there for people of limited means, and the money that might be invested is needed to keep their families fed and clothed and with a roof over their heads. Besides which, as we all know, investing carries no guarantee of a positive return.

There's a reason Mitt Romney wouldn't release his tax returns. The average schmo doesn't have any idea what loopholes are available to the super rich and just how little they get away with paying in taxes, but Romney's returns, had he released them, would have made that perfectly clear.

And as for the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes, that's largely because of the huge income disparity in the country right now, which is higher than it's been since the 1920s. The 400 richest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the country.

And of course, all that money buys power and influence, in Washington and elsewhere.

In 2007, the six Wal-Mart heirs were worth a combined 69.7 billion dollars, equal to the total wealth of the bottom 30% of the country. That's one company--hell, it's one family! And they spent plenty in lobbying for lower taxes and other benefits for the wealthiest Americans (in 2005 alone, they spent $3.2 million on lobbying).

$3.2 million buys a lot of lobbyists and influence, but at that, it's just .000045 of those six Walton heirs' combined worth.

Now, you might say, SoonerBounce, in continuing with your idea that we should all just do as the wealthy do, that the poor and the middle class should lobby Congress, too.

Well, my wife and I make somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k a year, combined (doesn't go all that far in NYC, lemme tell you, but lots of folks have it worse, obviously). If we were to spend the same percentage of our income as the Waltons do on lobbying, we'd be able to pony up $4.50 a year.

How far do you think we'd get with that? We could buy some congressman or senator a latte, I guess.
 
There is nothing accurate about making a distinction between payroll and income taxes. That is a shell game meant to mislead. Both taxes end up in the same pot to fund any and all expenditures. As a matter of fact over $5 trillion of our supposed $16 trillion in debt is really just $ that was derived from payroll taxes but used to fund tax cuts. Tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the top 1/2% with no tangible economic benefit.

The wholesale changes to the tax code were made in 2001 and 2003, were temporary and are set to expire. The experiment is over. It failed.

You don't know what you are talking about. Employment taxes and income taxes are seperate systems. All federal taxes end up in the same pot. Should we discuss estate taxes with income taxes? How about excise taxes and gasoline taxes with income taxes? (Employment taxes were not always in the same fund, Johnson screwed that up in the 60s and it may be the biggest mistake ever made by our government.)

Employment taxes are different because they are designed to fund social security, medicare and medicaid. Benefits under those programs are capped. As a result, they have always had a wage base. This means that employment income in excess of the wage base is not subject to employment taxes because the taxpayer has already made his maximum contribution to the system. So if you contribute $10,000 a year (employer and employee contribution) on $100,000 of income you get a $2,500 per month payment in retirement (I made up the numbers but they are good enough for discussion purposes). You don't have to pay $20,000 on $200,000 because you will never get more than $2,500 (or the maximum benefit).

The more you make and contribute to this system the worse the return on your contributions. Therefore, it would be extremely unfair to continue to take this tax from people on all their income.

The tax cuts were not paid for with employmet taxes. They were not paid with anything. Also the tax breaks to the super rich amount to about $250,000,000,000 per year. The deficit has been close to 1.5 Trillion over the last four years. It was less than 500 Billion under Bush (and he did a bad job with respect to fiscal responsibility). Even if the Bush tax cuts were taken from employment taxes it could only be 2.5 Trillion not 5 Trillion as you say but that really isn't true because the government took in more in employment taxes than it paid in benefits over the last 12 years.

You are arguing politics. I am providing facts. I am actually in favor of higher taxes on the super rich. I just won't lie to justify it like you will.
 
As for "finding loopholes" and "making investments," there are millions of people who can do neither. The kind of loopholes the rich benefit from aren't there for people of limited means, and the money that might be invested is needed to keep their families fed and clothed and with a roof over their heads. Besides which, as we all know, investing carries no guarantee of a positive return.

Identify the loopholes? They don't exist. I can identify lots of things designed to tax wealthy people at higher rates such as the hobby loss rules, the passive activity rules, the phase out of itemized deductions, the requirement that miscellaneious itemized deductions must exceed 7.5% of either gross income or AGI (I can't remember which) and the graduated tax rates.

I doubt you can name a single thing designed to benefit the rich. You might be able to identify some policies, like reduce capital gains rates which are designed to stimulate investment, or IRA deductions that are designed to stimulate retirement savings, that tend to be utilized more by wealthy people but they were not implemented to benefit wealthy people. Far from it. Like the mortgage interest deduction they were implimented to influence behavior.

What is true is that if you give everyone a 1% break on taxes, the more you pay the more you save. That is absolutely a fact and perhaps when the Bush Tax Cuts were passed people making over $500K a year should not have received any benefit (or it could be $1mm or even something less than $500K). That is a worthy discussion. However, this notion that the tax code favors the wealthy is simply not accurate. It punitive to wealthy people with the possible exception of the super rich due to historically low capital gains and dividend rates.
 
I've gotta be honest.

I was not expecting a tax policy debate when I clicked on this thread...

:D
 
Everyone doesn't have the same opportunities at all. That's the way of the world, but it's a fact. Some are, as that old saying goes, born on third base and brag about hitting a triple.

I have no complaints about the opportunities I've had. I'm grateful for them. As a white male growing up in the 1960s and '70s, I had a head start on women and male minorities. I also had very supportive and loving parents who did everything they could for me (we weren't wealthy or even upper-middle-class, but I wanted for nothing important). But to pretend that I had the same opportunities as Mitt Romney did is beyond silly. And there are so many people who had fewer opportunities than I did. That's a simple fact.

As for "finding loopholes" and "making investments," there are millions of people who can do neither. The kind of loopholes the rich benefit from aren't there for people of limited means, and the money that might be invested is needed to keep their families fed and clothed and with a roof over their heads. Besides which, as we all know, investing carries no guarantee of a positive return.

There's a reason Mitt Romney wouldn't release his tax returns. The average schmo doesn't have any idea what loopholes are available to the super rich and just how little they get away with paying in taxes, but Romney's returns, had he released them, would have made that perfectly clear.

And as for the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes, that's largely because of the huge income disparity in the country right now, which is higher than it's been since the 1920s. The 400 richest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the country.

And of course, all that money buys power and influence, in Washington and elsewhere.

In 2007, the six Wal-Mart heirs were worth a combined 69.7 billion dollars, equal to the total wealth of the bottom 30% of the country. That's one company--hell, it's one family! And they spent plenty in lobbying for lower taxes and other benefits for the wealthiest Americans (in 2005 alone, they spent $3.2 million on lobbying).

$3.2 million buys a lot of lobbyists and influence, but at that, it's just .000045 of those six Walton heirs' combined worth.

Now, you might say, SoonerBounce, in continuing with your idea that we should all just do as the wealthy do, that the poor and the middle class should lobby Congress, too.

Well, my wife and I make somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k a year, combined (doesn't go all that far in NYC, lemme tell you, but lots of folks have it worse, obviously). If we were to spend the same percentage of our income as the Waltons do on lobbying, we'd be able to pony up $4.50 a year.

How far do you think we'd get with that? We could buy some congressman or senator a latte, I guess.

Is there a law saying only wealthy people can invest or be successful? No. Everybody has the same opportunity. Get off your as and do something about your status if you aren't happy with it. The tax code isn't discriminating against any class
 
Is there a law saying only wealthy people can invest or be successful? No. Everybody has the same opportunity. Get off your as and do something about your status if you aren't happy with it. The tax code isn't discriminating against any class

I agree except I might argue it discriminates against high wage earners. It certainly makes them pay more in taxes and at higher effective tax rates.
 
*Well, my wife and I make somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k a year, combined (doesn't go all that far in NYC, lemme tell you, but lots of folks have it worse, obviously).

No one forced you to choose to live in NYC where 100,000 "doesn't go all that far"
 
Q: If T. Bone Pick didn't care about income taxes, why doesn't he live in his home state of Oklahoma? Why does he live in income-tax free Texas? Why doesn't he just have OSU eminent domain him 100 acres near campus so that he attend all of his beloved Poke athletic events without worrying about hopping on a private jet every game?

But seriously now, it's generous of him to try to get people to show up to the Zags game. I wish most big money boosters did this with their school's mens basketball programs, because attendance is down everywhere except the Dukes.
 
Wonder how many tickets he's going to be buying these days???
 
Money is fungible. The government can call it whatever it wants. Social Security Tax, Income Tax, Medicare Tax, it all ends up funding spending. Of course, there are some pieces of paper saying that the U.S. will repay Social Security for all that money that it borrowed (used to fund other purposes) over the years. But where will the money to repay come from? Your pocket and mine.
 
Back
Top