$447 bil

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by shmike

If you can give me concrete examples or use factual information, I'd love to readdress the debate but since it was based on pure rhetoric, I chose to leave it alone.

From the article goof2 posted:

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

I will grant you, that's a small number of millionaires. But they are clearing $1 million, so there was a loophole of some sort involved somewhere along the line. So what happens if, instead of taxing that 1470 people nothing, we tax them just 25% (assuming they only made $1 million)?

$1 million x 25% = $250,000
$250,000 x 1470 = $367,500,000

Beats Bachmann's "expand the tax base" plan, at least.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

From the article goof2 posted:



I will grant you, that's a small number of millionaires. But they are clearing $1 million, so there was a loophole of some sort involved somewhere along the line. So what happens if, instead of taxing that 1470 people nothing, we tax them just 25% (assuming they only made $1 million)?

$1 million x 25% = $250,000
$250,000 x 1470 = $367,500,000

Beats Bachmann's "expand the tax base" plan, at least.

Not to be a prick or anything but the statistic is kinda useless.

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

1% paid 0.

The quote makes the silly assumption that 99% paid the full kaboodle.

For all I know
1% paid nothing
10 percent paid chump change
30% paid 5% total income
etc etc..

Wheres my fucking chart?
You cant post a quote like that without a spreadsheet or something..

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Wheres my fucking chart?
You cant post a quote like that without a spreadsheet or something..

Would you accept an internet poll?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

From the article goof2 posted:



I will grant you, that's a small number of millionaires. But they are clearing $1 million, so there was a loophole of some sort involved somewhere along the line. So what happens if, instead of taxing that 1470 people nothing, we tax them just 25% (assuming they only made $1 million)?

$1 million x 25% = $250,000
$250,000 x 1470 = $367,500,000

Beats Bachmann's "expand the tax base" plan, at least.

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

What remains that even after factoring in those who didn't pay any federal income taxes, and the investment losses many of the rest of them were able to write off, as a group they averaged an effective tax rate over 29% for only federal taxes.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by goof2

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

You did, and I don't dispute the assumption. That is the most likely reason.

Shmike asked for real world examples of rich people paying no taxes through loopholes*, and since I don't know any rich people personally, that article was the nearest convenient evidence. For the most part I threw it out there because I never appreciate being completely ignored when I feel I've made a good point or asked a valid question during one of these arguments. ETA: And I think shmike's was a valid question.

My back-and-forth with shmike during this thread has been tangential on our original disagreement: whether or not the rich can afford to be taxed as easily as the poor or vice-versa. The post you quoted was more in response to that argument than anything you've posted.

*With that in mind, I do consider to be a loophole any tax break that allows anyone who still takes home $1 million or more to pay no effective tax. And, I believe those 1,470 millionaires who watched their portfolio tank during the recession can still afford to pay 35% in income taxes much more easily than the people taking home $20K a year can afford 5%. Or 0%, because they're still living on $20K a year.