How the Rich Avoid Paying Taxes

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by gasman

So it will be you determining which level of lifestyle we tax everyone into?

Ahhh, I see I've stumbled into someone who has no interest in debating in good faith. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Because capitalism is an economic system based on coercion and exploitation. It is only legitimate if adequate mechanisms are put in place to ensure the well being of all citizens, and keep wealth inequality somewhat in check.

Also, luck plays a bigger role in a person's economic fortunes, than most people are willing to admit.

We all agree with the bolded part.
Our society is based on the balancing act of allowing economic endeavour, and balancing the needs of all.
Our current tax structures already aim to do just that without choking away business and economic growth.
This is a never perfect and always moving balance, especially depending who governs.

What exactly are you suggesting is the balance we need to strike?
You have to give more than catch phrases about the rich getting richer, inequality and capitalism.

Explain your solution and what societal structure you're looking for.

[rubecube]

I should note that I'm not even sure I 100% support just taxing the rich more. I'd probably like to see what our revenue looks like by closing loopholes and imposing harsher penalties on tax evaders first.

[Mathgod]

I did talk about it in my previous post. Close loopholes, add an estate tax, find ways to tax already accumulated wealth rather than just income.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I did talk about it in my previous post. Close loopholes, add an estate tax, find ways to tax already accumulated wealth rather than just income.

And I think this is something we should focus on. If wealthy people are taking their money and investing it back into society in healthy ways and then profiting off of that again, I don't have as much of a problem with it as I do those who simply hoard or invest their money in ways that hurt working class people (e.g. real estate speculation).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Is there proof of this actually happening in any material way? Or is it just some myth we're told will happen?

I don’t think it’s happening but I worry it might if the NDP can push its agenda.

[RichieRich]

The number of “rich” people is a fraction of the middle class, who, arguably, have more disposable income than the “poor” class. Tax the very rich it’s a relatively small Piece of the pie compared to taxing the massive middle class. For example adding 1% extra tax to 10 million people gains more income than an extra 1% from 100,000 Uber wealthy PLUS those Uber wealthy may just pick up all their marbles and move.
What is NOT politically correct to talk about perhaps are…. Er… never mind. I’ll get shot if I mention tax on the low income earners when they see substantial societal handouts from the government.
What can be done? Like others have suggested is generational tax on estates. Also moreso is the concept of consumption and luxury taxes - aka voluntary tax. For example on high end equipment, cars, homes, certain non essential consumables, etc…

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I did talk about it in my previous post. Close loopholes, add an estate tax, find ways to tax already accumulated wealth rather than just income.

All these things have already had taxes paid on them when the money was initially earned, or have tax payed at some point. So you want to double tax them indefinitely.

Also - Most of the 'loopholes' or tax deferral benefit the average investor, retirement savings, small businesses, etc. So I guess we also want different rules at a certain point for all scenarios because that is 'fair'

You basically just want to take from the 'Rich' and give to the 'Poor' for no other reason then "They have more, and I want some"

If everyone should pay their "fair share" there should be no marginal tax rates and everyone should pay the same amount. (Actually should just be a consumption tax and no income tax but good luck explaining that to the average voter )And guess what - The rich would stay be rich, and even more so. The lowest earners pay ZERO. They are net takers from the economy/world. The 'Rich' are net contributors.

The rich pay more % wise. Maybe not every year, but over the long run to death they will. They pay more real $$ wise - Exponentially more.

It isn't a fair share you want anyone to pay - Because you cant even define what is 'fair' - fair is a construct of opinions

Its a share you deem people should pay because effectively, you want more $$ (Well for the government to provide you services) and want to take it from people who are not you

Maybe you should go into your neighbours backyard next time he's having a BBQ and take his steak off the grill because it's unfair that you only had hot dogs on your grill.

If you think having Jeff Bezos pay a bit more in taxes when the US economy is currently at a 2.06 TRILLION deficit through the first 8 months of this year is going to make a difference to your standard of living or the price of housing you are out to left field.

Honest question - Have you ever taken an entry level economics course or read any economic books? Because taxing the rich solves zero of the problems you are complaining about

[you&me]

I would argue that a significant change or increase to estate taxes would see more pushback (or newly creative avoidance) than monkeying with top rates or tightening existing loopholes.

It's one thing to pay a bit more now and I think many top earners would grin and bear it, but estate taxes are a ####ing with someone's legacy and have far higher consequences.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You basically just want to take from the 'Rich' and give to the 'Poor' for no other reason then "They have more, and I want some"

I love how some conservatives have zero ability to see beyond self-interest and just project that on to everyone else.

[mrkajz44]

Just a reminder that Canada already has an "estate tax" mechanism. When you die, you are deemed to dispose of all your assets at fair market value and you have to pay tax on all accrued gains to that point. To add another estate or inheritance tax on top of that would be overly punitive.

It's the US that has an estate tax problem where there is no deemed disposition of assets at death, and the exemption levels for the estate tax are pretty high.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I love how some conservatives have zero ability to see beyond self-interest and just project that on to everyone else.

Do you really believe the government has a problem getting money?

We literally printed/created more money in the last 2 years then the previous 20

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/money-supply-m0

And has that improved any of the problems? Does adding a tiny % of more tax revenue change anything then a slightly, insignificant, lower yearly deficit that is already funded by those same tax payers!!

I love how some non conservatives think giving the government the $$ will solve their problems instead of worrying about self sustainment.

Save me Papa JT

[GGG]

Personally I think all people pay to little in taxes. We need to have a broad base tax increase and then targeted means tested programs to help those who can’t afford it.

The other issues stem around
Social mobility
Housing affordability
Generational Wealth

So working on equalizing the starting points and access.

But overall the rich is the reason we can’t afford social programs and housing isn’t true. As a country we have never paid less in tax regardless of bracket and the wealth of housing starts at the 50 percentile not the 1%.

We could solve the 1% inequality issues and bring them down to the 99% and solve almost no problems.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

All these things have already had taxes paid on them when the money was initially earned, or have tax payed at some point. So you want to double tax them indefinitely.

Also - Most of the 'loopholes' or tax deferral benefit the average investor, retirement savings, small businesses, etc. So I guess we also want different rules at a certain point for all scenarios because that is 'fair'

You basically just want to take from the 'Rich' and give to the 'Poor' for no other reason then "They have more, and I want some"

If everyone should pay their "fair share" there should be no marginal tax rates and everyone should pay the same amount. (Actually should just be a consumption tax and no income tax but good luck explaining that to the average voter )And guess what - The rich would stay be rich, and even more so. The lowest earners pay ZERO. They are net takers from the economy/world. The 'Rich' are net contributors.

The rich pay more % wise. Maybe not every year, but over the long run to death they will. They pay more real $$ wise - Exponentially more.

It isn't a fair share you want anyone to pay - Because you cant even define what is 'fair' - fair is a construct of opinions

Its a share you deem people should pay because effectively, you want more $$ (Well for the government to provide you services) and want to take it from people who are not you

Maybe you should go into your neighbours backyard next time he's having a BBQ and take his steak off the grill because it's unfair that you only had hot dogs on your grill.

If you think having Jeff Bezos pay a bit more in taxes when the US economy is currently at a 2.06 TRILLION deficit through the first 8 months of this year is going to make a difference to your standard of living or the price of housing you are out to left field.

Honest question - Have you ever taken an entry level economics course or read any economic books? Because taxing the rich solves zero of the problems you are complaining about

Coming in hot here.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Do you really believe the government has a problem getting money?

We literally printed/created more money in the last 2 years then the previous 20

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/money-supply-m0

And has that improved any of the problems? Does adding a tiny % of more tax revenue change anything then a slightly, insignificant, lower yearly deficit that is already funded by those same tax payers!!

I love how some non conservatives think giving the government the $$ will solve their problems instead of worrying about self sustainment.

Save me Papa JT

Err yes it did. It helped a lot of people stay out of poverty.

There is also a good chance that it has shown that a lot of things we were taught in entry level economic courses may be wrong.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ahhh, I see I've stumbled into someone who has no interest in debating in good faith. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I was debating in good faith.

You think that making $2MM/year is too much and that person can/should be taxed more.

What about someone who makes $200K/year? Should they be hit with even higher taxes.

100K? 50K?

I think that line is going to depend on where each individual sits. Everyone will think that those that make more than them have an unreasonably rich lifestyle. So someone has to set the level of what we consider "rich".

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by gasman

I was debating in good faith.

You think that making $2MM/year is too much and that person can/should be taxed more.

What about someone who makes $200K/year? Should they be hit with even higher taxes.

100K? 50K?

I think that line is going to depend on where each individual sits. Everyone will think that those that make more than them have an unreasonably rich lifestyle. So someone has to set the level of what we consider "rich".

You are right. I'm confident its something we can handle though consider we already set tax brackets and income restrictions on all kind of government. Not like we are inventing the wheel here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by gasman

I was debating in good faith.

You think that making $2MM/year is too much and that person can/should be taxed more.

What about someone who makes $200K/year? Should they be hit with even higher taxes.

100K? 50K?

I think that line is going to depend on where each individual sits. Everyone will think that those that make more than them have an unreasonably rich lifestyle. So someone has to set the level of what we consider "rich".

I was using $2M as a hypothetical. I'm not sure where the line should actually be. I'm sure there are accountants and economists who would have more insight into where the line should be.

I think there is also something to be said for removing the amount of influence that rich people can have on policy and society through sheer wealth. Whether you address that through taxation or stronger legislation is up for debate, but I suspect reducing their overall wealth wouldn't hurt.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You are right. I'm confident its something we can handle though consider we already set tax brackets and income restrictions on all kind of government. Not like we are inventing the wheel here.

Fair, but at the top tax bracket in Canada (Alberta) you are paying 48% of very dollar earned. I for one don't think someone should keep less than the government for money they earned and worked for.

Especially when the government has proven to be wildly irresponsible with money they don't even have (see earlier post regarding pipelines, elections and lightbulbs)

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by gasman

Fair, but at the top tax bracket in Canada (Alberta) you are paying 48% of very dollar earned. I for one don't think someone should keep less than the government for money they earned and worked for.

Especially when the government has proven to be wildly irresponsible with money they don't even have (see earlier post regarding pipelines, elections and lightbulbs)

Except we know that by studying how production has increased while wages have stagnated, that the capital class are pulling more out of the system than they're putting in. If we can't force them to pay higher wages, how else do you propose that workers start seeing more of the wealth they're creating?