The game is rigged. Wealth begets wealth, my personal anecdotes. (economy, spend)

[moguldreamer]

IRS' current estimate for 2021 (the data is not yet out) is that the bottom 56% of taxpayers will pay ZERO federal income tax.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by 509

Depends on how you define fair share.... The failure of the Democrats is that they have shielded the very rich from paying their "fair" share.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say I have a Magic Wand. I wave my Magic Wand, and the tax code is changed so that it embraces your definition of "fair."

Now, 509, please tell us how your life is better off.
You -509- you personally - how are you better off?

[509]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say I have a Magic Wand. I wave my Magic Wand, and the tax code is changed so that it embraces your definition of "fair."

Now, 509, please tell us how your life is better off.
You -509- you personally - how are you better off?

My life and the lives of the American people will be much better off. Really it is a return to the Reagan tax cuts of 1987. That led to the boom of the 1990's in America. The Bush 2 tax cuts in 2000 led to the boom in China.

Levels the competitive field so investments in non-productive tax oriented businesses like finance and real estate became less and productive businesses that actual make products and employ people are favored. People always make fun of "farmers farming the government", but that is peanuts to the subsidies for financial investments and real estate.

Investments in the private sector would no longer favor Wall Street, but Main Street. Price of housing would drop as the subsidies are removed from the tax codes to Banks and Real Estate Investment firms.

Rich people that engage in productive economic activities would be better off. Less money spent of Trusts, Accountants, various shady investments to get around the taxes, etc. etc. Lawyers would definitely be worse off, what a crying shame.

Tax income to the government would go up just like it did with the Reagan tax cuts. That would allow the government to invest in worthwhile programs. Yeah, there are worthwhile Federal government programs including defense, public lands, research and development in the sciences and a host of others.

It would allow small business to better compete for the oligarchs. Currently, small business strategy is to grow enough that an oligarch is better off purchasing your business than destroying it. MicroSoft, which created very little in new software just purchased their competitors, leaving less competition and innovation in the tech sectors since 2000.

We need small business to become big business, not having big business eliminate competition.

Read the history of the Reagan Tax Cuts of 1987 and their economic impact. It is unfortunate, that the Oligarchs have slowly over the years brought back the "old" tax code that limited economic opportunity in America.

On a personal basis, I would be worse off. Yeah, those real estate subsidies I take advantage of them. They are significant.

I would have never gone into real estate without the "unfair" advantage given to real estate by the tax code.

Don't forget to wave that magic wand.

Here is the view from the left on the 1986 tax reform:https://www.brookings.edu/articles/w...gans-tax-cuts/

Here is the view from the right on the 1986 tax reform: https://www.aei.org/articles/reagan-...evenue-boomed/

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by albert648

Seriously. Taxes are the #1 cause of poverty.

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

According to the IRS for tax year 2020 (the most recent data publicly available):

• We taxpayers reported more than $12.5 Trillion in AGI on 157.5 million tax returns in 2020.
• We taxpayers paid in income taxes of $1.7 Trillion in 2020.
• The average individual income tax rate was 13.63% .

Looking at who paid how much, for 2020 (the most recent data publicly available):

• The Bottom 50% of AGI earners paid 2.3% of all individual income taxes
• The Top 50% of AGI earners paid 97.7%
• The Top 25% of AGI earners paid 88.5%
• The Top 10% of AGI earners paid 73.7%
• The Top 5% of AGI earners paid 62.7%
• The Top 1% of AGI earners paid 42.3%

Nice data Moguldreamer. It's much preferred to the histrionics. At a certain point you see the name posting and just keep scrolling.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by 509

Yes, they DO!!!

But they pay a LOWER percentage of their income than other people.

Why is that an empty talking point??

Obama, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ALL paid LESS as a percentage of their income than my 23 year old daughter!!!

I guess you don't believe in PAYING your FAIR SHARE....just paying less than a 23 year old kid.

If you going to a straight percentage, then that should be every income. Poor people and middle class alike. Why do people who earn more have to pay a higher amount? Is it your way of punishing them because they may be more successful than you? Smarter then you? Worked harder than you. Are you just jealous?

Maybe not after your brag of a million dollar worth.

How is paying thousands more than a 23 year old unfair? Let’s look at the dollar amount. I’ll bet someone making 30 k a year looks at you and can say you don’t pay your fair share either because you are an entitled millionaire who takes tax benefits off real estate when many can’t afford to even buy a house.
You are a hypocrite.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by 509

My life and the lives of the American people will be much better off.

I'm asking about you personally. Your guess about "The American People" doesn't address my question. My question is about YOU and ONLY YOU in your monthly income & expenses during the rest of 2023 plus during 2024 & 2025.

Originally Posted by 509

Really it is a return to the Reagan tax cuts of 1987. That led to the boom of the 1990's in America. The Bush 2 tax cuts in 2000 led to the boom in China.

Levels the competitive field so investments in non-productive tax oriented businesses like finance and real estate became less and productive businesses that actual make products and employ people are favored. People always make fun of "farmers farming the government", but that is peanuts to the subsidies for financial investments and real estate.

Investments in the private sector would no longer favor Wall Street, but Main Street. Price of housing would drop as the subsidies are removed from the tax codes to Banks and Real Estate Investment firms.

Rich people that engage in productive economic activities would be better off. Less money spent of Trusts, Accountants, various shady investments to get around the taxes, etc. etc. Lawyers would definitely be worse off, what a crying shame.

Tax income to the government would go up just like it did with the Reagan tax cuts. That would allow the government to invest in worthwhile programs. Yeah, there are worthwhile Federal government programs including defense, public lands, research and development in the sciences and a host of others.

It would allow small business to better compete for the oligarchs. Currently, small business strategy is to grow enough that an oligarch is better off purchasing your business than destroying it. MicroSoft, which created very little in new software just purchased their competitors, leaving less competition and innovation in the tech sectors since 2000.

We need small business to become big business, not having big business eliminate competition.

Read the history of the Reagan Tax Cuts of 1987 and their economic impact. It is unfortunate, that the Oligarchs have slowly over the years brought back the "old" tax code that limited economic opportunity in America.

Nothing in the above addresses my question. Much of it is incorrect. I won't bother to pick it apart.

Originally Posted by 509

On a personal basis, I would be worse off. Yeah, those real estate subsidies I take advantage of them. They are significant.

You need to be specific.

Originally Posted by 509

I would have never gone into real estate without the "unfair" advantage given to real estate by the tax code.

You need to be specific to address the question.

[509]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

If you going to a straight percentage, then that should be every income. Poor people and middle class alike. Why do people who earn more have to pay a higher amount? Is it your way of punishing them because they may be more successful than you? Smarter then you? Worked harder than you. Are you just jealous?
.

Yep, I would accept a flat tax across every income level.

My 23 daughter paid MORE as a percentage than Obama or Romney or Trump or Hunter Biden....oh wait, he didn't pay his taxes.

How is having the rich pay the same rate as the middle class punishing the rich??

Those THOUSANDS of pages of the IRS code are there for a reason. So the rich, do NOT have to pay their fair share, even when you define it as a flat rate.

As for the real estate portion of the IRS tax code.

Look up 1035 exchange provisions.

Accelerated depreciation schedules.

Reset of values upon death.

Those are just a few.

Here is a novel revision to the tax code.

How much did you make??

How much did you spend to make that money?

Subtract A from B and then multiply that by a flat percentage. Pay that in Federal taxes.

Think that would pass Congress? Doubtful since "we have the best government money can buy".

[Wile E. Coyote]

Real estate more than anything really keeps the economy humming... ...just sayin... There are so many knock on effects... (construction, major appliances, realtors, mortgage brokers, ongoing repairs and maintenance, renovations, property taxes)... The list goes on. There's a reason real estate is favored in the tax code ("it's the economy stupid" if you remember that one)...

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by 509

Yep, I would accept a flat tax across every income level.

My 23 daughter paid MORE as a percentage than Obama or Romney or Trump or Hunter Biden....oh wait, he didn't pay his taxes.

How is having the rich pay the same rate as the middle class punishing the rich??

Those THOUSANDS of pages of the IRS code are there for a reason. So the rich, do NOT have to pay their fair share, even when you define it as a flat rate.

As for the real estate portion of the IRS tax code.

Look up 1035 exchange provisions.

Accelerated depreciation schedules.

Reset of values upon death.

Those are just a few.

Here is a novel revision to the tax code.

How much did you make??

How much did you spend to make that money?

Subtract A from B and then multiply that by a flat percentage. Pay that in Federal taxes.

Think that would pass Congress? Doubtful since "we have the best government money can buy".

So the solution is no write offs at all and a flat tax rate. That includes taxing poor people at the same rate. Is that fair?
I don’t see why you have an issue with the current tax structure. You paid less than your fair share by using real estate deductions. That makes you every bit as bad as as the really wealthy people. Also makes you a hypocrite because you complain about them not paying what they should, yet you didn’t pay your fair share either.

Here’s the thing, it is what it is. You see it and figure how can I make it work for me? That’s what I did and you did yourself.

If your daughter learns anything from you it would be how lower her taxes legally.
We all pay taxes when we start. We all have heard that rich people take advantage of the tax code. I learned about how to lower them and made financial changes and sacrifices to get them . Other people can do it but don’t and just complain.
If you can’t beat them join them.

[moguldreamer]

The reality is that the illterati economica who whine about "The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share" (a) will be no better off if the government confiscated 100% of the wealth and income of the rich and wealthy, and (b) are easily influenced by the Occasional-Cortex wing of the Democratic Party.