People don't get "net worth" vs "income"

[Fezmid]

Figured people here would enjoy reading this hack of an article:

 

http://www.jsonline.com/business/2-wisconsin-billionaires-enjoy-state-income-taxfree-years-k95sagh-160131345.html

 

The first sentence is simply great reporting:

"Here's one way to avoid paying state income tax every now and then: Become a billionaire."

 

And the comments are great -- clearly people don't understand the difference between income and net worth, as one side says, "She's worth billions, she should pay taxes!" Apparently the posters want their bank account taxed every year... Oh wait, they probably don't have any savings anyway.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

so if youre rich, you shouldnt pay taxes?

[Fezmid]

so if youre rich, you shouldnt pay taxes?

 

If you have $10 in the bank but don't earn a penny in a calendar year, you shouldn't pay taxes that year.

 

If you have a $1,000,000,000 in the bank but don't earn a penny in a calendar year, then you shouldn't pay taxes that year.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

"People say you do it to avoid taxes," Joyce said. "Sure, but it's a legal way of doing it. You can't blame somebody for minimizing their legal tax obligation."

 

"In the 2009 and 2010 time frame she experienced significant losses from investments, like many others during that period. Notwithstanding this, she continued to be a major supporter of local charitable organizations and causes in those years," Georgeson said, noting that "Helen's taxes are calculated using the same rules as everyone else."

 

Still, even experienced tax professionals such as Richard Brown, a veteran of 36 years with accounting firm KPMG, who now teaches accounting at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Concordia University, raises his eyebrows.

 

"I am pretty surprised that somebody like her did not pay any taxes," Brown said. He noted, however, that there are many deductions - such as business losses - available to make it possible.

 

Those deductions suggest "that policy-makers need to take a much closer look at the loopholes in state tax laws, and particularly in the alternative minimum tax," said Jon Peacock, research director at the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, a liberal-leaning advocacy group. "Highly paid CEOs should be contributing to the public expenditures that make it possible for their corporations to prosper."

 

As CEO of Johnson Outdoors, Johnson-Leipold was paid $1.8 million in 2010 and $714,201 in 2009. Almost all of that compensation was paid in cash or stock awards that were taxable, according to company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

Johnson-Leipold, whose net worth was estimated by Forbes at $2.5 billion, declined to be interviewed.

 

- this is not a free market but rather state protection of corporations.

 

small or big, the state should not be helping corporations. this is why people are so mad. big business and big banks are not allowed to fail by the state, but when people lose their job and house, nobody helps them.

 

If you have $10 in the bank but don't earn a penny in a calendar year, you shouldn't pay taxes that year.

 

If you have a $1,000,000,000 in the bank but don't earn a penny in a calendar year, then you shouldn't pay taxes that year.

 

 

they actually lost money from investments and were given taxpayer money to help them

Edited June 24, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[KD in CA]

1340541519[/url]' post='2491872']

so if youre rich, you shouldnt pay taxes?

 

Thanks for providing a timely example of the ignorance being highlighted here.

 

 

[Rob's House]

"People say you do it to avoid taxes," Joyce said. "Sure, but it's a legal way of doing it. You can't blame somebody for minimizing their legal tax obligation."

 

 

 

- this is not a free market but rather state protection of corporations.

 

small or big, the state should not be helping corporations. this is why people are so mad. big business and big banks are not allowed to fail by the state, but when people lose their job and house, nobody helps them.

 

 

 

 

they actually lost money from investments and were given taxpayer money to help them

If the state weren't protecting corporations couldn't they just hire mercenaries and protect themselves. I'm guessing with the bill the average MNC gets from the IRS they could afford pretty decent security. Maybe whole new corporations would arise whose sole function is to provide protection for other corporations.

 

Or perhaps, in the alternative, there would be no protection and we'd be the Wild West meets Somalia.

 

Edit: And seeing how corporations are just individuals who have organized, isn't the most fundamental purpose of the government to protect those people's rights? And if the government isn't to protect the rights of the people, what function does it serve? Oh yeah, to make sure everyone has the same amount of stuff regardless of what they contribute (I know, I know, labor is the only valuable contribution )

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rob's House

[3rdnlng]

If the state weren't protecting corporations couldn't they just hire mercenaries and protect themselves. I'm guessing with the bill the average MNC gets from the IRS they could afford pretty decent security. Maybe whole new corporations would arise whose sole function is to provide protection for other corporations.

 

Or perhaps, in the alternative, there would be no protection and we'd be the Wild West meets Somalia.

 

Edit: And seeing how corporations are just individuals who have organized, isn't the most fundamental purpose of the government to protect those people's rights? And if the government isn't to protect the rights of the people, what function does it serve? Oh yeah, to make sure everyone has the same amount of stuff regardless of what they contribute (I know, I know, labor is the only valuable contribution )

But if they hire mercenaries with worthless money, what good would the protection actually be?

[Rob's House]

But if they hire mercenaries with worthless money, what good would the protection actually be?

I'll have to defer to MDP on this one. I'm not sure how his Twilight Zone government handles monetary policy. Maybe in his world instead of money you just get labor vouchers. Perhaps you could print these up, and people would receive them based on the value of their labor (to be negotiated by two parties). Then people could freely trade these vouchers for each others goods and services. Or I guess the strong could just fleece the weak since the government stopped protecting the rights of the people.

 

MDP, can you clarify for us? We've hit a speed bump in trying to synthesize your world view.

[3rdnlng]

I'll have to defer to MDP on this one. I'm not sure how his Twilight Zone government handles monetary policy. Maybe in his world instead of money you just get labor vouchers. Perhaps you could print these up, and people would receive them based on the value of their labor (to be negotiated by two parties). Then people could freely trade these vouchers for each others goods and services. Or I guess the strong could just fleece the weak since the government stopped protecting the rights of the people.

 

MDP, can you clarify for us? We've hit a speed bump in trying to synthesize your world view.

 

If labor is the only true wealth then if you want to become rich you must become a slave owner.

[Rob's House]

If labor is the only true wealth then if you want to become rich you must become a slave owner.

Well isn't that basically true already? You know, except in the case of athletes who aren't happy with their contracts.

[Chef Jim]

so if youre rich, you shouldnt pay taxes?

 

Let me educate you on the world of investing. Wealthy people oftentimes earn their income through capital gains. But sometime they experience these nasty things called capital losses. So if their losses equal or exceed their gains they had....wait for it.....ZERO INCOME. So if they had ZERO INCOME what is it exactly they should be taxed on?

 

Or should we impose a "just because" tax. That way we can tax the wealthy just because they're wealthy.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Chef Jim

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

If the state weren't protecting corporations couldn't they just hire mercenaries and protect themselves. I'm guessing with the bill the average MNC gets from the IRS they could afford pretty decent security. Maybe whole new corporations would arise whose sole function is to provide protection for other corporations.

 

Or perhaps, in the alternative, there would be no protection and we'd be the Wild West meets Somalia.

 

Edit: And seeing how corporations are just individuals who have organized, isn't the most fundamental purpose of the government to protect those people's rights? And if the government isn't to protect the rights of the people, what function does it serve? Oh yeah, to make sure everyone has the same amount of stuff regardless of what they contribute (I know, I know, labor is the only valuable contribution )

 

im talking about economic protection.

 

Let me educate you on the world of investing. Wealthy people oftentimes earn their income through capital gains. But sometime they experience these nasty things called capital losses. So if their losses equal or exceed their gains they had....wait for it.....ZERO INCOME. So if they had ZERO INCOME what is it exactly they should be taxed on?

 

Or should we impose a "just because" tax. That way we can tax the wealthy just because they're wealthy.

 

 

if you make a bad investment, and you lose money, bye bye. creative destruction of free markets. that goes for capital gains or co-ops that lose money from investment.

 

if nobody goes to my bar, im done.

 

the idea that i can invest in a bar, the bar goes under and then the taxpayer can make up my losses is govt protection of bad investment.

 

the point here isnt that they are not getting taxed. the point here is that they are getting taxpayer money when their invesment fails in a market.

Edited June 24, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

 

if you make a bad investment, and you lose money, bye bye. creative destruction of free markets. that goes for capital gains or co-ops that lose money from investment.

 

if nobody goes to my bar, im done.

 

WTF are you talking about? I have no idea why Tom spends so much time on you?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

WTF are you talking about? I have no idea why Tom spends so much time on you?

 

 

the idea that i can invest in a bar, the bar goes under and then the taxpayer can make up my losses is govt protection of bad investment.

the point here isnt that they are not getting taxed. the point here is that they are getting taxpayer money when their invesment fails in a market.

 

why should the state make up your losses?

[B-Large]

"People say you do it to avoid taxes," Joyce said. "Sure, but it's a legal way of doing it. You can't blame somebody for minimizing their legal tax obligation."

 

 

 

- this is not a free market but rather state protection of corporations.

 

small or big, the state should not be helping corporations. this is why people are so mad. big business and big banks are not allowed to fail by the state, but when people lose their job and house, nobody helps them.

 

 

 

 

they actually lost money from investments and were given taxpayer money to help them

 

The way to end that...... Flat tax. Simplfy the tax code so the politicians can't continue to manipulate and control people. Loopholes are gifts to people who know how to use them... And that isn't the family of 4 with a few thousand in the bank

[DC Tom]

WTF are you talking about? I have no idea why Tom spends so much time on you?

 

I was pretty much done with him...but this is too good to pass up.

 

Now he's arguing that capital should be taxed if it's idle...even though if it's invested it generates no income because it's fake money and not entitled to generate any income because capital gains are paid by labor.

 

That's great.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I was pretty much done with him...but this is too good to pass up.

 

Now he's arguing that capital should be taxed if it's idle...

even though if it's invested it generates no income because it's fake money and not entitled to generate any income because capital gains are paid by labor.

 

That's great.

 

 

way to distract from the issue. we are not talking about the how of capital gains, rather when an investment takes losses, the state bails them out....

 

omg! THEY ARE NOT GETTING TAXED. WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why?

Edited June 24, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

the idea that i can invest in a bar, the bar goes under and then the taxpayer can make up my losses is govt protection of bad investment.

the point here isnt that they are not getting taxed. the point here is that they are getting taxpayer money when their invesment fails in a market.

 

why should the state make up your losses?

 

Because someone doesn't pay taxes the state is making up for their losses? Really?? WTF dude. So I invest a million dollars in an investment and I sell it for $500k the state is making up the $500k capital loss? Explain how that works.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Because someone doesn't pay taxes the state is making up for their losses? Really?? WTF dude.

So I invest a million dollars in an investment and I sell it for $500k the state is making up the $500k capital loss? Explain how that works.

 

 

no, people do pay taxes. the question is why should the govt(ie taxpayer) make up for your bad market investments.

 

again, i invest in a bar, and the bar fails/or takes losses. why should the govt make up the money i lost?

Edited June 24, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

no, people do pay taxes. the question is why should the govt(ie taxpayer) make up for your bad market investments.

 

again, i invest in a bar, and the bar fails/or takes losses. why should the govt make up the money i lost?

 

So how does the state make up the loss? It's gone, kaput, lost, blown, disappeard, nonexistent, down the drain. In my example I lost $500k. Please explain how the state makes me whole.