事实上富人实际的税率不到 1% - USANews版

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档，一周内的贴子最多显示50字，超过一周显示500字访问原贴

USANews版 - 事实上富人实际的税率不到 1%

相关主题
● 希腊衰退压力加剧	● the rich are taxed lower than middle class
● Biden: 'Yes, We Do' Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars	● 202 trillions in red (转载)
● Taxing the rich is never going to be the solution	● 5 Reasons Why Obama’s Plan to Increase Taxes on the Rich, Is the Reason for High Unemployment and Po
● The issue is not taxing but spending	● 一群小左傻逼.
● 哈,原来obama也是个茶袋子.First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes	● 60% American support a tax raise on top 2%
● 这儿有几个老中达到美国平均水平了？	● The sanity of taxing the rich
● 老美搞经济的水平也就这样	● 大总统：富人就是要多交税！
● 谁在支撑着这个国家 - Who is Paying Taxes？	● 收入25万以上,典型都是什么人啊?

相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: tax话题: wealth话题: usa话题: income话题: my

进入USANews版参与讨论

(共1页)

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

用你想不到其他避税手段。
不如 warren buffet 的资产 44 000 millions
如果用来买收益最差10年期 2% 收益的国家债卷。
年入 880 millions.
但是实际上，比如在 2010 年股市大好形势下，warren buffet 的收入是
adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038,
taxable income of $39,814,784,
a federal income tax bill of$6,923,494.
所以他的实际税率 7 millions/880 millions( 最低估计）= 0.79%
所以你就不用替富人操心了。
其实我也是同意单一税的，对财产的单一税收，1-2%。不管你是穷人和富人都一样。
我也不妒忌他们赚的钱多，但是反对他们交的税少。
现在的情况是像warren buffet 一样的富人的缴税比例是这样不合理的：
有4 百万的投资资产，每年平均回报至少10%（只对于超级富人）
warren buffet是15%。
所以年收入40万。随便哪个中产也的交8万的税加2万其他的税。
但是富人只要交相当于$600元的税。
同时他们还欺负美国人数学太差，假装是税收的受害者，
宣传他们交的税太重了，要进一步降他们的税。
满地打滚威胁，只有进一步减税，你们中产才有工作。
事实上中产缴税的比例是富人缴税的比例要高至少100倍。
单一税将大大减轻中产的税，但是富人的税可能要增加50倍。
所以我给富人加税没有用，那是完全胡说。如果富人缴税和剥削我们中产交的税那么恨
的话，（我们交2%property tax加上收入税），像 warren buffet 一样的富人将多交
120倍的税。富人的缴税将增加几个trillions。每年我们就有多于1个trillions的富余
。所有的美国债务能在10年轻零。根本就没有spending的问题。
关键是富人不想缴税，还要想这法子的少缴税。要我们没有钱和资产的中产去还债务，
那就悲剧了。

l******a
发帖数: 3803

remember this guy is Odumba's "friend".
he rants about rich paying little tax,
but he still hold unpaid tax (ok though its one of
his business). This sucker is a role model of
democratic rich people - no matter what oDumba does,
it won't hurt them a hair.
Government sues Buffett's NetJets unit for unpaid taxes
inShare
3
Share this
Email
Print
Related News
Buffett: My successor is in the dark too
Mon, Feb 27 2012
Berkshire identifies Buffett successor, not by name
Sat, Feb 25 2012
Who pays the highest taxes?
Thu, Feb 9 2012
Analysis & Opinion
Essential tax and accounting reading: Swiss eager for U.S. deal, E&Y auditor
/advocate, slow refunds, and more
Essential tax and accounting reading: Taxing the rich, Germany and the
financial transactions tax, global tax dodges, and more
By Jonathan Stempel
Fri Mar 9, 2012 5:43pm EST
(Reuters) - NetJets Inc, a private jet-sharing company owned by Warren
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), was sued for $366.3
million by the government to recover unpaid taxes, four months after sued
the government for nearly twice as much.
Four NetJets units have "failed, neglected or refused" to pay excise taxes
and related penalties between 2003 and 2009, according to the countersuit
filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio, where NetJets
is based.
NetJets Aviation Inc owes $302.1 million, NetJets International Inc owes $53
million, Executive Jet management Inc owes $10 million and NetJets Large
Aircraft Inc owes $1.19 million, according to the countersuit.
Colleen Nissl, NetJets' general counsel, said the company does not comment
on pending litigation.
On November 14, NetJets had sued to recoup $642.7 million in taxes and
penalties, accusing the Internal Revenue Service of having mistakenly
imposed a "ticket tax" meant to apply only to passengers who buy seats on
commercial or charter aircrafts.
NetJets said that as a manager of private aircraft, it was not required to
pay the tax because its services were not "taxable transportation." It also
said the IRS put it at a disadvantage to rivals that did not have to pay the
tax.
Last year, NetJets posted a $227 million pretax profit, continuing a
turnaround after prior management had racked up $1.9 billion of debt and
regularly posted quarterly losses.
"A few years ago NetJets was my number one worry: Its costs were far out of
line with revenues, and cash was hemorrhaging," Buffett, the world's third-
richest person according to Forbes magazine, wrote last month in his annual
letter to Berkshire shareholders. "These problems are behind us."
Berkshire is based in Omaha, Nebraska.
The case is NetJets Large Aircraft Inc. v. U.S., U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Ohio, No. 11-01023.
(Reporting By Jonathan Stempel)

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 用你想不到其他避税手段。
: 不如 warren buffet 的资产 44 000 millions
: 如果用来买收益最差10年期 2% 收益的国家债卷。
: 年入 880 millions.
: 但是实际上，比如在 2010 年股市大好形势下，warren buffet 的收入是
: adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038,
: taxable income of $39,814,784,
: a federal income tax bill of$6,923,494.
: 所以他的实际税率 7 millions/880 millions( 最低估计）= 0.79%
: 所以你就不用替富人操心了。

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

I am not happy with the following policy:
Mitt Romney deliberately molded his economic policies so that people like
him (the mega-wealthy) would pay much less in taxes.
While those mega-wealthies have already passed so many tax loopholes
specifically designed to benefit them and only them, by hiring their lapdogs
, think tanks, lobbyists and unfortunately congressmen from both left and
right.

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

富人缴税比例是非常非常低的
相到于你有
44 millions可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $7000的税
4.4 millions可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $700的税
$440,000可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $70的税

l******a
发帖数: 3803

man, how much should I tell you so that you know the mounting issues America
faces today, now, is not rich tax too little, rather it's the stagnant
economy - so the government cannot collect enough tax to support its
spendings anymore. This has been apparent in state and municipal level.
the spending has grown so large, the meager over-tax that can be collected
by overhauling the tax code will be negligible. A fraction.
The tax, class war, is not coming out of nowhere.
It's from the kingpins of liberals that try to clear way for reelection of
the dumb shit in White House. To do that, you have to distract people
suffering an economic depression from real issues that Odumba failed.
Liberals are NOT for economic growth, period.
They are just after the REDISTRIBUTION of other people's hard-earned wealth.
The past 3.5 years has proven that a liberal extremist like Odumba only
knows how to turn everything into a chaos so they can stir up dusts for a
war. And they hope they would turn this to their favor.
People who pay tax in this country, no matter partisan or independent,
should clear their eyes and get down on hard numbers, and ask themselves a
fundamental question: are you better off from 4 years ago?
Then, let's get rid of Odumba's Readership once and for all!
OK, I settle my case here.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 富人缴税比例是非常非常低的
: 相到于你有
: 44 millions可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $7000的税
: 4.4 millions可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $700的税
: $440,000可用于投资的资产的时候，一年交 $70的税

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

I would beg to differ. My idea is that super wealthy should pay property tax
like middle class. We pay 1% to 2% of our house property value to support
our schools and local police stations etcs. How about 2% property tax on
super wealthy like we are paying every year and year after year.
Remember, my friend, super wealthy hold 70 trillions wealthy. 2% tax like
our middle class will yield 1, 400 billions new tax.
Although we middle class are paying this 2% on our property every year, this
fair tax is not likely . Because this means 1000% increases for wealthy on
their tiny tax they are paying right now.

America

【在 l******a 的大作中提到】

:
: man, how much should I tell you so that you know the mounting issues America
: faces today, now, is not rich tax too little, rather it's the stagnant
: economy - so the government cannot collect enough tax to support its
: spendings anymore. This has been apparent in state and municipal level.
: the spending has grown so large, the meager over-tax that can be collected
: by overhauling the tax code will be negligible. A fraction.
: The tax, class war, is not coming out of nowhere.
: It's from the kingpins of liberals that try to clear way for reelection of
: the dumb shit in White House. To do that, you have to distract people

l****z
发帖数: 29846

U think they are stupid? Most of the properties are not in US.
France government tries to get 75% of income tax of super rich and they all
move out of the country.

tax
this
on

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: I would beg to differ. My idea is that super wealthy should pay property tax
: like middle class. We pay 1% to 2% of our house property value to support
: our schools and local police stations etcs. How about 2% property tax on
: super wealthy like we are paying every year and year after year.
: Remember, my friend, super wealthy hold 70 trillions wealthy. 2% tax like
: our middle class will yield 1, 400 billions new tax.
: Although we middle class are paying this 2% on our property every year, this
: fair tax is not likely . Because this means 1000% increases for wealthy on
: their tiny tax they are paying right now.
:

p*******9
发帖数: 1860

富人有年收入1个亿，税率1%，交税100万。
楼主年收入3万，税率10%，交税0.3万。
富人对社会的贡献比楼主大300倍。
更不要说富人的钱用于再投资，创造了无数财富和就业机会。

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

you are right. Rich may contribute more 300 fold more tax than me.
But I will not suggest to cut their tax rate to 0%, as Mitt Romney proposes.
It make no sense to agree to such proposal, as a middle class.

【在 p*******9 的大作中提到】

: 富人有年收入1个亿，税率1%，交税100万。
: 楼主年收入3万，税率10%，交税0.3万。
: 富人对社会的贡献比楼主大300倍。
: 更不要说富人的钱用于再投资，创造了无数财富和就业机会。

l******n
发帖数: 9344

富人消耗的社会资源也是楼主的300倍 ...

【在 p*******9 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● 这儿有几个老中达到美国平均水平了？	● the rich are taxed lower than middle class
● 老美搞经济的水平也就这样	● 202 trillions in red (转载)
● 谁在支撑着这个国家 - Who is Paying Taxes？	● 5 Reasons Why Obama’s Plan to Increase Taxes on the Rich, Is the Reason for High Unemployment and Po
进入USANews版参与讨论

D*****a
发帖数: 2847

就业机会嘛

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

: 富人消耗的社会资源也是楼主的300倍 ...

l****z
发帖数: 29846

怎么300倍了? 你哪来这个结论的? 实际上他们消耗的要少吧. 小孩去的是priviate
school,出门又不用坐地铁和bus.

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

: 富人消耗的社会资源也是楼主的300倍 ...

l****z
发帖数: 29846

掠夺他人劳动? 马克思主义已经被扫进了历史的垃圾堆,你还要去拿点垃圾出来现?

g******s
发帖数: 68

The rich paid property tax as you did. They also paid their income tax every
year. Your idea is to tax their wealth. A double tax as they already paid
for the tax of their income over year. For example, both you and I are
making 200K/year. we all paid 20% tax and take home 160K. You then spend all
of them every year. On the other hand, I only spend 60K/year and save 100K
for investment. After 10 years, you have 0 but I have more than 1.5million
(with 50% investment return over 10 years). According your idea, I should
pay 2% for those 1.5 million every years($30K). The worst part is that I
used those 1.5million to buy a 5 million dollars properties and I don't have
30K cash to pay those tax, which means that I have to sell those properties
to pay tax. If I was force to fire sell my 5 million dollar properties for
4 million, I will only have 500K left after paying my loan. And you think
this is fair?
Within 10- 20 years, everyone will end up broke even for Warren Buffet. He
has 40Billion. we are going to tax him 2% for his 40B wealth, so he has to
pay another 800M a year on top of his annual income tax. He better makes
sure that he keeps a lot of cash, otherwise, he may no able to pay this
every year. For this prupose, he cannot really invest for long term, and his
return will be lower than 2% ( remember that not all his wealth is
investment, his home, car, jewry,paintings and all kind of collections may
not produce cash retrun.) So he has to start to dig into his 40B wealth
every year. Within 20 years, his wealth will be less than half or even worse
.
So what is the incentive for people to work hard, save more and invest
wisely? This will make sure that no one will ever get rich in the long run.

tax
this
on

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

l****z
发帖数: 29846

very well said

every
all
100K
5million
have
properties

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: The rich paid property tax as you did. They also paid their income tax every
: year. Your idea is to tax their wealth. A double tax as they already paid
: for the tax of their income over year. For example, both you and I are
: making 200K/year. we all paid 20% tax and take home 160K. You then spend all
: of them every year. On the other hand, I only spend 60K/year and save 100K
: for investment. After 10 years, you have 0 but I have more than 1.5million
: (with 50% investment return over 10 years). According your idea, I should
: pay 2% for those 1.5 million every years($30K). The worst part is that I
: used those 1.5million to buy a 5 million dollars properties and I don't have
: 30K cash to pay those tax, which means that I have to sell those properties

g**********r
发帖数: 605

怎解？社会资源不同于自然资源？

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

: 富人消耗的社会资源也是楼主的300倍 ...

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

Your are too ideal. Rich live in different universe with different tax laws.
They lobby congress passing tax laws only good for them. They can use those
laws and you can not. Rich receive no tax on so many things that you can
not image, and even tax subsidy (refund) for doing things.
It is not working as what you said.
Otherwise tax code will be 100 pages instead of millions pages. I guess you
have not read those hidden in those millions pages.

every
all
100K
5million
have
properties

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

Annual return for warren buffet 44 billions asset is more than 10%. How
will 2% tax will bankrupt him? Their asset will accumulate slower. This is
exactly what a healthy society wants. The smaller gap between rich and poor.
For this matter, return for rich guy's asset is much higher than middle
classes. This is because they have connections you do not have or good
investment opportunities exclusive for riches. They can call the governor or
the president for passing a favorable law for their "plan".

every
that I have to sell those properties

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

o*****e
发帖数: 379

看到这个算法我就不厚道的笑了。

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

y*****r
发帖数: 1295

我不对税收政策下结论，纯粹从技术上说，如果投资获取利润，那么只要在兑现利润时
交税，而不是每年都交税。
巨富交税少，因为他们绝大部分财产都是投资产品，很少有现金产品。就拿你说的10年
期 2% 收益的国家债卷做例子，只要在10年末交税就好了，不是每年都交税。
从理论上说，这样鼓励富人投资，增加就业机会，鼓励创造新财富。如果投资没有税收
上的好处，那么投资成本必然增大，投资额度减小，工作减少，经济发展减速。
当然万事都有个度。到底鼓励投资到什么程度合适，从操作上如何防止富人拿了税收上
的好处却不真正承担投资风险，谁也没有万全的办法。

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● 一群小左傻逼.	● 大总统：富人就是要多交税！
● 60% American support a tax raise on top 2%	● 收入25万以上,典型都是什么人啊?
● The sanity of taxing the rich	● 如果税是保护费
进入USANews版参与讨论

l******n
发帖数: 9344

富人家外面来个记者，他打个电话去police那里，来了几十个警察维持次序
这些钱谁付？还不是所有的tax payer
你打个电话去，来一个就不错了
更不要说富人家的drama，那叫一个多，搞个case去court,拖个2，3年，费用常常上M，
他们自己付钱了吗？
自己想想吧

【在 l****z 的大作中提到】

: 怎么300倍了? 你哪来这个结论的? 实际上他们消耗的要少吧. 小孩去的是priviate
: school,出门又不用坐地铁和bus.

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

10年期 2% 收益的国家债卷是每年发钱，所以每年缴税
我有二个rental duplex，每年交2.2%的税。不管你有没有收入。
你的房产也是要交税的，不管有没有收入。
否则就给政府没收。所以政府是不支持middle class投资的。
但是对于富人，则要用不同的税法。
我要求的是富人的法律和我们的法律是一样的。
而不是富人不缴税。

【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】

: 我不对税收政策下结论，纯粹从技术上说，如果投资获取利润，那么只要在兑现利润时
: 交税，而不是每年都交税。
: 巨富交税少，因为他们绝大部分财产都是投资产品，很少有现金产品。就拿你说的10年
: 期 2% 收益的国家债卷做例子，只要在10年末交税就好了，不是每年都交税。
: 从理论上说，这样鼓励富人投资，增加就业机会，鼓励创造新财富。如果投资没有税收
: 上的好处，那么投资成本必然增大，投资额度减小，工作减少，经济发展减速。
: 当然万事都有个度。到底鼓励投资到什么程度合适，从操作上如何防止富人拿了税收上
: 的好处却不真正承担投资风险，谁也没有万全的办法。

l****z
发帖数: 29846

搞个case去court,拖个2，3年，费用常常上M，他们自己付钱了吗？
========
原来他们请的律师是免费的?

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

: 富人家外面来个记者，他打个电话去police那里，来了几十个警察维持次序
: 这些钱谁付？还不是所有的tax payer
: 你打个电话去，来一个就不错了
: 更不要说富人家的drama，那叫一个多，搞个case去court,拖个2，3年，费用常常上M，
: 他们自己付钱了吗？
: 自己想想吧

l****z
发帖数: 29846

你打过电话嘛?
我打过, 看你报警是什么东东, 但通常几分钟内就会来两辆警车.
富翁通常自己有保镖滴.

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

l****z
发帖数: 29846

又在扯蛋.
你的房子交的是income tax还是property tax? 先搞搞清爽再来说话

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 10年期 2% 收益的国家债卷是每年发钱，所以每年缴税
: 我有二个rental duplex，每年交2.2%的税。不管你有没有收入。
: 你的房产也是要交税的，不管有没有收入。
: 否则就给政府没收。所以政府是不支持middle class投资的。
: 但是对于富人，则要用不同的税法。
: 我要求的是富人的法律和我们的法律是一样的。
: 而不是富人不缴税。

l******n
发帖数: 9344

我说的是court的费用,不是律师的费用

【在 l****z 的大作中提到】

: 搞个case去court,拖个2，3年，费用常常上M，他们自己付钱了吗？
: ========
: 原来他们请的律师是免费的?

g******s
发帖数: 68

There are never any equality in human history and there will be no equal
society in term of rich/ poor and society resource in the future. People are
all different. Smart people like Steve Jobs and Gates are always going to
make much more than regular guy. The uneqality also comes from something
happened long time ago. I may be happy that I am in the USA now. But couple
geneartions later, my great great grand children may complain why they live
in the USA not China. Their unequality may simply come from the choice of me
staying here right now.
People have considered how to limit the gap between rich and poor for long
time and no solution ever work except communism. And we know how will that
end up in the long run. Other than communism, there are two ways to tax. One
is to tax on wealth, which is what you suggested. The other one is tax
differently for different income levels, a system very similar to what we
have today except that there are so many loopholes for income evation now.
Fix this may provide better answer than tax on wealth. For example we can
put a 99% tax on imcome over 5 millions or even 1 millions. The problem is
why would anyone want to invest and take a risk if they believe that putting
all they have to create a Facebook or a biotech company will end up only 1
million or 5 million maximum a year. I don't want to open a restranaut, and
I will not put in a penny for some college kid who is going to startup a
company called Facebook if I already have have 1 million annual income. So
forget about job creation. Yes, now nobody is rich, and most likely,
everyone is poor.
Now let us consider your method of taxing on the wealth. Suppose that I am a
farmer with 1000 acres of land. I use this land to produce crops/ live
stocks and make 250K a year after income tax. I need 50K for my 3 kids'
college. (with 250K income, I won't get financial aid.) I also need 50K cash
reserve for next season's seeds, fertilizer etc. I also need 100k to make
my ends meet for my food, cars, travel etc. Unfortunately I spent 50K to
upgrade the road/equibment for my farm this year. So I have 0 left this year
. If you tax me on wealth, my land values at 4 millions and I will pay 80K
(2%) or 200K (5%). God forbiden there was a natural disaster last year
that wiped out all of my saving over the years. Well, I will have to sell
my land to pay the tax. Since a small farm will lose money, no one want to
buy part of my land. So I sell all of them for 3.5 millions( Damn, those tax
agency always over estimated my land value). As a farmer, I don't know
anything about investment, so my 3.5 millions will only get me 2% a year
from now on, but I will still have to pay 2% for those 3.5 millions every
year. And my family need 150K/ year to surive. I may be fine. But my kids
will never become a farmer any more. So congratulation, you wipe out my
wealth and make it even harder for anyone to accumulate it. Everyone will be
a poor fellow and no one should become a farmer or a fisherman etc. Wait,
I am going to buy gold with my 3.5 million and bury it in my backyard. When
you come for taxing on my wealth, I will tell you that I have lost all of my
gold while fishing in the sea. This will last me several more years in case
I live into my 90s. In reality, it is extremely hard to calculate wealth.
My 1950 Ford truck can worth 0, or it could be 2 million dependent on IRS.
In summary, taxing on wealth is utopia. Tax on income may have some value
but fix the loophole is more important. Mr. Obama said he will raise my tax
after making 250K. I will tell myself stop working hard and don't bother to
ask for a raise if my current salary is almost 250K. If my boss promote me
and I make it to 251K, I will only serve the purpose for spreading the
wealth. Again, we come back to the incentive not just for super rich people,
but for ordinary people like me.

poor.
or

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: Annual return for warren buffet 44 billions asset is more than 10%. How
: will 2% tax will bankrupt him? Their asset will accumulate slower. This is
: exactly what a healthy society wants. The smaller gap between rich and poor.
: For this matter, return for rich guy's asset is much higher than middle
: classes. This is because they have connections you do not have or good
: investment opportunities exclusive for riches. They can call the governor or
: the president for passing a favorable law for their "plan".
:
: every
: that I have to sell those properties

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

自己扯蛋还不知道。你知道为啥同样$100可以被分成不同的钱，然后证不同的税率。
同一目的：
为富人避税。同时要让中场阶级交重税。
我的房子, 我只有30%的产权，银行70%的产权。但是我要交100%的产权的税。这就是
扯蛋。

【在 l****z 的大作中提到】

: 又在扯蛋.
: 你的房子交的是income tax还是property tax? 先搞搞清爽再来说话

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

当然是要保护富人的利益的。这是美国，资本主义社会。
但是我反对过分剥削中场，财富向富人集中。
现在美国这个社会，中场交了房地产税，联邦税，州税，养老税，医保税等等税之后没
有多少钱可以花的。
这个度就是要贫富分化不能加剧。
过去这二三十年，财富向1%集中，中场的收入在过去50年没有增加（扣除inflation) .
这就有点过于保护富人了。
The Middle Class Is Broke: Pew Study Reveals Real Problem With Economy
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/middle-class-broke-

【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】

l******n
发帖数: 9344

看看谁在制定政策吧

.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 当然是要保护富人的利益的。这是美国，资本主义社会。
: 但是我反对过分剥削中场，财富向富人集中。
: 现在美国这个社会，中场交了房地产税，联邦税，州税，养老税，医保税等等税之后没
: 有多少钱可以花的。
: 这个度就是要贫富分化不能加剧。
: 过去这二三十年，财富向1%集中，中场的收入在过去50年没有增加（扣除inflation) .
: 这就有点过于保护富人了。
: The Middle Class Is Broke: Pew Study Reveals Real Problem With Economy
: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/middle-class-broke-

相关主题
● Google捐了4百万支持难民	● Biden: 'Yes, We Do' Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars
● 骆家辉奥巴马愣是把习近平推到世界领导人的高度	● Taxing the rich is never going to be the solution
● 希腊衰退压力加剧	● The issue is not taxing but spending
进入USANews版参与讨论

y*****r
发帖数: 1295

房子涨价了，你分银行赚的钱吗？你出租房屋，分银行利润吗？

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 自己扯蛋还不知道。你知道为啥同样$100可以被分成不同的钱，然后证不同的税率。
: 同一目的：
: 为富人避税。同时要让中场阶级交重税。
: 我的房子, 我只有30%的产权，银行70%的产权。但是我要交100%的产权的税。这就是
: 扯蛋。

y*****r
发帖数: 1295

每年都发钱的债券，无论穷人，富人买，都要每年交税，不是同等吗？
富人避税，都是按照法律规定的条款，这些条款主要就是鼓励投资，还有一些什么慈善
之类。这些东西有没有被滥用？有可能。但并不是说看到富人交税百分比少，就一定是
税法有问题。
“平等”本来就很难定义。为什么不是人头税是最平等的？不看收入，有一个头，交一
份税，字面上看绝对平等。你要按收入的某百分比交税，那为什么不再进一步，搞个阶
梯税率？那为什么不再进一步鼓励有钱人把闲钱拿出来投资，而不是消费掉?
当初定下规矩，说好投资回报如果不兑现，就不交税，后来看到别人投资成功，又眼红
，似乎不厚道吧。

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

x******o
发帖数: 2345

没有什么避税手段
你的第一个假设问题就很大
巴菲特一年可没有入帐$880mn
原因非常简单
就是他的公司dividend很低
到手的钱很少
股票增值，不realised是不上税的
就像你所说，他的毛税率大概是17％，实际税率是10％，估计是慈善捐款了一部分，
所以税基更小了

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

l****z
发帖数: 29846

什么叫due process? 你以为和中国法院一样,法官随便判一个就可以了?

【在 l******n 的大作中提到】

: 我说的是court的费用,不是律师的费用

l****z
发帖数: 29846

哈哈, 还拿买房子做例子?
银行那70%的产权是因为你借银行70%的贷款, 怕你不还钱而已. 你不借银行的钱银行不
就没有产权了? 理论上你还款的同时,银行产权的比例也在减少.
现在, 你有没有搞清楚property tax和income tax的分别?

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

中产最大的投资就是他们的房子。免税债卷和投资几乎是富人的专利。
我说的平等是富人的税交的比我们少多了。
富人的钱不是工资收入。他们的收入缴税是和公司一样的。要减去各种费用在缴税的。
中产的收入是多要交的，没有可能降的。
如果中产有权利改变税法，个人收入可以减去各种生活费用，投资上学费用，养老退休
，医疗，吃饭，车子，房子的费用，在留下的钱在缴税，就和富人一样了。
你觉得富人会同意吗？但我们同意富人这样缴税。所以富人的税要低于1%。我们交50%
的税。

【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】

: 每年都发钱的债券，无论穷人，富人买，都要每年交税，不是同等吗？
: 富人避税，都是按照法律规定的条款，这些条款主要就是鼓励投资，还有一些什么慈善
: 之类。这些东西有没有被滥用？有可能。但并不是说看到富人交税百分比少，就一定是
: 税法有问题。
: “平等”本来就很难定义。为什么不是人头税是最平等的？不看收入，有一个头，交一
: 份税，字面上看绝对平等。你要按收入的某百分比交税，那为什么不再进一步，搞个阶
: 梯税率？那为什么不再进一步鼓励有钱人把闲钱拿出来投资，而不是消费掉?
: 当初定下规矩，说好投资回报如果不兑现，就不交税，后来看到别人投资成功，又眼红
: ，似乎不厚道吧。

b***s
发帖数: 398

这个例子举得不好，应该这么举。
楼主年收入1万，所有收入tax exempt,税率0%，交税0。
任何缴税人对社会的贡献比楼主大无穷倍。

【在 p*******9 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

这就是我要说的，凭啥他的收入和可以避免征税。
我当然知道他的收入可以不realized。
我们可以改变这个事实，你个公司赚钱的，
就得realized, NO TAX Shield.
warren buffet 的2010 的收入就应该是4400 millions 而不是69millions.
然后按90%课税（美国40年代到70年代的税率）

【在 x******o 的大作中提到】

: 没有什么避税手段
: 你的第一个假设问题就很大
: 巴菲特一年可没有入帐$880mn
: 原因非常简单
: 就是他的公司dividend很低
: 到手的钱很少
: 股票增值，不realised是不上税的
: 就像你所说，他的毛税率大概是17％，实际税率是10％，估计是慈善捐款了一部分，
: 所以税基更小了

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

NO. the appreciation is mine.
If the property depreciate, banks will not pay me either.
But appreciation is taxable as capital gains. Depreciation is not.
Of course you can walk way by losing your 30% downpayment.
On top of that, I pay property tax which wipes out my appreciation profit.

【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】

: 房子涨价了，你分银行赚的钱吗？你出租房屋，分银行利润吗？

y*****r
发帖数: 1295

我完全同意你这个贴子里的理论分析。还是我那句话，就是个度的问题。
把每个家庭看作一个公司，当然可以刨去一切成本，只对净收入收税。当前美国税法不
是一点没有考虑到这一点。首先，本钱是税前还是税后收入和当前税法无关。我们只看
将来。现在美国法律对于医疗保险（包括flex account），上班通勤费，为上班的搬家
费，职业协会会员费，子女教育费用（529等），退休金（401（k）等），都是减免税
的。
此外，一个中产可以享受的是mortgage利息部分不交税。这是个巨大的好处。利息开销
可是没有什么税务上或财会上的理由减免税的，公司是没有这个好处的，对于个人，完
全是出于社会因素考虑，鼓励中产买房子给出的政策。
现在大部分在美国站稳脚跟的中国留学生，都是刚刚摆脱温饱，但又算不上富裕的家庭
，在税上，可能是重灾区。从我们自身角度出发，可能觉得这个税很不合理，但纵观全
美人口，其实没什么大不了。如果影响的人口足够多，多到能改变大选结果，自然会有
人来尝试解决这些问题。

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 中产最大的投资就是他们的房子。免税债卷和投资几乎是富人的专利。
: 我说的平等是富人的税交的比我们少多了。
: 富人的钱不是工资收入。他们的收入缴税是和公司一样的。要减去各种费用在缴税的。
: 中产的收入是多要交的，没有可能降的。
: 如果中产有权利改变税法，个人收入可以减去各种生活费用，投资上学费用，养老退休
: ，医疗，吃饭，车子，房子的费用，在留下的钱在缴税，就和富人一样了。
: 你觉得富人会同意吗？但我们同意富人这样缴税。所以富人的税要低于1%。我们交50%
: 的税。

相关主题
● The issue is not taxing but spending	● 老美搞经济的水平也就这样
● 哈,原来obama也是个茶袋子.First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes	● 谁在支撑着这个国家 - Who is Paying Taxes？
● 这儿有几个老中达到美国平均水平了？	● the rich are taxed lower than middle class
进入USANews版参与讨论

c****n
发帖数: 21367

French government should not get 75% of income tax, which is stupid
and hurts those who work diligently and earn high income
IMO, 5% flat rate income tax should be more than enough
French government should tax on property, with stepped rates
unless French super rich can wrap up the land, the house, the car
and fly out of the county, they cannot avoid their tax responsibility

all

【在 l****z 的大作中提到】

: U think they are stupid? Most of the properties are not in US.
: France government tries to get 75% of income tax of super rich and they all
: move out of the country.
:
: tax
: this
: on

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

1. are you listening to yourself.
Berkshire current Market value is 200B, Buffet holds a tad over 20% of it.
That s where the 44B net worth came from. One can rest assured he worths
more than that.
Yeah, lets force him to pay tax on paper gains. But mind you, in 2008, the
price of BRK-A tanked 30%. The old man therefore lost 13B in that year. How
would you tax that? if you tax his unrealied gain, you d have to let him
claim
unrealized loss. If you let him carry that 13B loss, he would probably not
have to pay a dime of tax in 2009, 2010, 2011, probably 2012 since BRK-A has
not recovered yet.
2. think about it you d realize how stupid you are.
tax when realized and tax unrealized each year is basically the same!
say if you invest $1, each year you earn $0.1. this lasts for 10 years and
you sell to realize $1 of gain.
Taxing when realized means you pay the prevailing tax rate at the end on the
$1 you made. Taxing unrealized means you pay prevailing rate on $0.1 each
of the 10 years. no difference.
Now if you really want to tax the unrealized, let s say one has some
Mortgage Backed CDOs in his brokerage account that have not sold yet, good
luck having IRS come up with a realistic price to compute the tax on that.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 这就是我要说的，凭啥他的收入和可以避免征税。
: 我当然知道他的收入可以不realized。
: 我们可以改变这个事实，你个公司赚钱的，
: 就得realized, NO TAX Shield.
: warren buffet 的2010 的收入就应该是4400 millions 而不是69millions.
: 然后按90%课税（美国40年代到70年代的税率）

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

When you are saying other people stupid, look at mirrors.
If defered income is not different from paying tax every year, how do you
put money in 401K, which you will pay tax anyway.
If you know the high school math, defering paying tax will save money.
This is why smart people put money into 401K to save tax on capital gains.
For warren buffet case, you are showing your quality, without thinking. Of
course, he will pay much much higher tax if he pays his income from his
company as regular income. Income tax has a cap of 35% and capital gains has
a cap of 15%. He can write off his loss of course. But the loss he can
write off is limited to $3000 every year like any other middle classes have
to.

How
claim
has

【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】

: 1. are you listening to yourself.
: Berkshire current Market value is 200B, Buffet holds a tad over 20% of it.
: That s where the 44B net worth came from. One can rest assured he worths
: more than that.
: Yeah, lets force him to pay tax on paper gains. But mind you, in 2008, the
: price of BRK-A tanked 30%. The old man therefore lost 13B in that year. How
: would you tax that? if you tax his unrealied gain, you d have to let him
: claim
: unrealized loss. If you let him carry that 13B loss, he would probably not
: have to pay a dime of tax in 2009, 2010, 2011, probably 2012 since BRK-A has

c****n
发帖数: 21367

we can have very light income tax, say, 5% flat, or 0 if you really
think double tax is a problem
then we tax the wealth, in a stepped system
we get two benefits:
1. high income is no longer penalized,
diligent smart people should be encouraged to make more
2. holding property and sleep on capital gain is no longer encouraged
if you are smart, your investment make more money than being taxed
if you are not that smart, your money should belong to other people
who is more efficient than you.

every
all
100K
5million
have
properties

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

A*****a
发帖数: 52743

不管交多少税，年收入1万本身对社会的贡献就比年收入10万的人要差很多

【在 b***s 的大作中提到】

: 这个例子举得不好，应该这么举。
: 楼主年收入1万，所有收入tax exempt,税率0%，交税0。
: 任何缴税人对社会的贡献比楼主大无穷倍。

g******s
发帖数: 68

I cannot believe you are still on tax wealth system.
First, it is almost impossible to define and calculate wealth. Because it is
system for everyone, a painting in my family for generation may worth
millions or nothing. Who is the one to define the value of my cars, dogs etc
. My horse may worth 10 millions. My piece of land suddenly may valued by
government at millions just because the speculation that there may be oil
in it.
Second, your system won't work for rich one. I am a French, or I may want to
move to Africa. I decide to move all of my properties there and I am not a
us citizen. My house in the USA is only a rental. How much can you tax me?
Remember, the world is not unify and there is always place for me to move my
wealth if I am rich. I can invest in USA through my company and send my
money home. Since there is no income tax, I will pay my self 100million a
year, and therefore, I have no profit in my company. I just won't
accumulate personal wealth in USA by send all of them home. So a naive way
to propose a tax on wealth. You don't think you can tax me on my Africa
wealth, don't you? I am not a us citizen, I may not even have green card. My
company already paid tax. I am just visiting USA for fun.
Third, there is no way to tax unrealized gain or delay profit. A WSN just
finished his postdoc and filed a patent. An investor invest 2 millions to
join 50-50 venture share with him for a biotech. Now, this guy is worth 2
millions, but he has no income at all. Should we tax him now? 2 years later,
their compound goes to phase I and receive 20 millions investment from big
bank for 50-50 share. So now our WSN is now worth 10 millions but still has
no income. Those 20 millions are for clinic trial. How can he pay 10% of
those 10 millions? He will fail for sure.
is not a unify tax in this world.

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

: we can have very light income tax, say, 5% flat, or 0 if you really
: think double tax is a problem
: then we tax the wealth, in a stepped system
: we get two benefits:
: 1. high income is no longer penalized,
: diligent smart people should be encouraged to make more
: 2. holding property and sleep on capital gain is no longer encouraged
: if you are smart, your investment make more money than being taxed
: if you are not that smart, your money should belong to other people
: who is more efficient than you.

c****n
发帖数: 21367

you are still thinking from a naive, individual perspective
taxation is a domestic instrument, property/wealth tax is a taxation on
the property/wealth WITHIN the country. Regardless of your citizenship,
if you own property/wealth in the U.S., you pay tax for it.
Of course we do not want to tax on your African horse, why it even
bothers? You have absolute right to enjoy an extremly luxury life
by your 100 million a year income. U.S. welcome smart and capable
people like you. Your income here is very lightly taxed, or no tax at all.
As long as you spent money in U.S., the money will eventually
increase the TOTAL PROPERTY/WEALTH of this country. Your spending
helps build up America. You can rent a luxury house without
paying property tax, but you still help because the house owner's
property tax comes from your rental.
More importantly, you cannot hug your 100 million dollars wealth
and do nothing. That's a waste to these money as well as to your
capability. You have to make them worth more, or you will see your
account shrinking. It is fair to tax you because a shrinking account
shows that you own more money than you can handle. Other people
will use the excessive part of money more efficiently than you.
You can choose to keep a minimum amount of property/wealth
in the U.S. Having luxury horses in Africa but only keeping 100k dollars
in local account is quite unusual. Still, it's your freedom.
It does not hurt America to expel some super rich whom have lost
their courage and diligence to expand their wealth. It is greatly
beneficial for those brave and smart people to quickly grow rich
with minimum income tax. They do pay some property tax/wealth tax
when they become established. They know they can earn more.

is
etc
to
a
?

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: I cannot believe you are still on tax wealth system.
: First, it is almost impossible to define and calculate wealth. Because it is
: system for everyone, a painting in my family for generation may worth
: millions or nothing. Who is the one to define the value of my cars, dogs etc
: . My horse may worth 10 millions. My piece of land suddenly may valued by
: government at millions just because the speculation that there may be oil
: in it.
: Second, your system won't work for rich one. I am a French, or I may want to
: move to Africa. I decide to move all of my properties there and I am not a
: us citizen. My house in the USA is only a rental. How much can you tax me?

c****n
发帖数: 21367

it's even more naive to raise the example of capital market
is the WSN rich when his nominal worth comes to 2 million dollars?
he IS NOT rich yet.
he IS RICH when he buy properties, when his bank account
show sky high numbers. there's no difficulty to tax on these items.
he can avoid tax by capital investment, by making more wealth from his
wealth. That is exactly what we want this smart WSN to do!
we are not taxing people to punish them. a good taxation encourages
people to make positive efforts for the society. my proposed tax
system encourage people to earn more, spend more, and invest more.
it is much better than the current one, which takes a big chunk of
income away from capable, hard-working people while offers loopholes
for those lazy rich to sleep on their fortune.
being rich is good, being lazy rich is unacceptable.

is
etc
to
a
?

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

When you transfer your money out of country, you will most likely sell your
asset. Selling your asset is a taxable event.
For cash you have, it is freely moving internationally right now. Hot money
is seeking the most profitable place to invest. It is true in the past and
it is true now.
If USA is attractive for investment because of return rate and more
importantly because of the safety, the money will come to USA.
Otherwise, money moves to other countries. USA is not blocking money
movement.
My point and other people also agree is that you will pay tax in the USA
when you make money in the USA, regardless you are USA citizens or aliens.
If you can make money in Africa, good for you. It is irrelevant.
But it is ridiculous to think that vast majority of wealth (70 trillions)
can safely invest in Africa. USA is still the largest economy.

is
etc
to
a
?

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

lots of USA companies make money in Africa or Middle East is because those
companies are USA companies. Those foreign countries are not stupid to give
USA companies huge oil fiend, copper iron mine to make profits. It is the
support of entire USA power securing those rich contracts. If USA super rich
abandoning USA power, their making money "genius" will be significantly
diminished.
For example, a super rich abandon USA and become african citizen, can his
company compete oil contract in IRAQ with CHINA OIL COMPANY backing by China
.

相关主题
● 202 trillions in red (转载)	● 60% American support a tax raise on top 2%
● 5 Reasons Why Obama’s Plan to Increase Taxes on the Rich, Is the Reason for High Unemployment and Po	● The sanity of taxing the rich
● 一群小左傻逼.	● 大总统：富人就是要多交税！
进入USANews版参与讨论

g******s
发帖数: 68

Naive?
In your system, no income tax but wealth tax, Every rich guys will have a
company in the USA, but get a citizenship from other country. Now, his
income from USA is not taxable. His company owns a lot of properties, but
the company belongs to other company headquarter in cayman island. According
to you, you can not tax his wealth because he is not us citizen and he does
not own the properties directly. Those properties is owned by the company.
He still get to do whatever he wants in the USA. The money send back to
cayman is not taxable as that is his company transaction. Why on earth do
you think you can calculate how much he own in the USA? Now you need to fix
corporate tax as well. As I said, I can make 1 billion in the USA from my
company, which will then pay me 1 billion salary. No income tax. I can put
those money back to caymen and invest back to usa again. I am still super
rich and better yet, never tax by the USA. So in the end, you have to tax
company by it's wealth, otherwise, it won't work at all. Now, do you still
think people will invest in USA if you tax company by it's wealth? A reason
to tax by capital gain not by wealth is that it is possible to collect. No
matter how much I gain through company in USA, I need to pay tax no matter I
keep it in or out of the USA. If you want to tax the wealth of my company
not by capital gain, you may get nothing as I will make sure my company
always has negative wealth in the USA. All I need is to show my company owns
the cayman mother company 100% in debt. I pay myself way too high to take
advantage of no income tax. My company never shows any wealth, just a lot of
debt. An opposite of our current system in which rich guy never really make
a lot of income, most gain is through company. As I said,unless the whole
world is in unified system, it always has loopholes.
One example :One of my good friend from Hong Kong has 100+ million dollars
in his wealth, mostly in main land. He has trading company in USA. You have
no way to tax his wealth. He can come to the USA buying everything through
his company. Unless you will stop every visitor in the airport and say:
sorry, sir, you need to pay 1 million dollar tax as you own a company x in
hong kong that owns 10 million dollar properties here in the USA. And we
believe that you have 100 millions in china. Even if you are not a us
citizen or green card holder, we need to tax you. Well, that company in hong
kong may under his son's name. Can you still tax him?
The only reason USA is attractive is it's free market and capital system now
. Without corporate tax reform, it won't work in your system. But if you
make the corporate tax change so that it is not more attractive, who is
going to invest here?

g******s
发帖数: 68

your
money
They pay tax in USA is because the capital gain tax system, not your wealth
tax system. In capital gain, if you make money, you either gain through your
income or company in the USA. Most people went through company and pay
themselves low income as corporate tax is less than income tax. But if you
get rid of income tax, they will pay out every penny of the gain. He will
then loan his company more. His company is always worth nothing as it is all
debt. So it is not just a few super rich will be out, everyone want to do
so. He can still invest freely in the USA, make money, ship out, and ship
back to invest. Just like all of those big corporates. Just look at how
forest lab works you will know how hard to put your system to work. They
make billions in the USA, but almost no tax.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: When you transfer your money out of country, you will most likely sell your
: asset. Selling your asset is a taxable event.
: For cash you have, it is freely moving internationally right now. Hot money
: is seeking the most profitable place to invest. It is true in the past and
: it is true now.
: If USA is attractive for investment because of return rate and more
: importantly because of the safety, the money will come to USA.
: Otherwise, money moves to other countries. USA is not blocking money
: movement.
: My point and other people also agree is that you will pay tax in the USA

a***e
发帖数: 27968

富人从一个稳定的社会得到的收益大3000倍
付300倍的税算少的

【在 p*******9 的大作中提到】

c****n
发帖数: 21367

you earn 1 billion, whether you put it back/forth caymen or not,
as long as you invest these money into captial market,
we do not tax you. we only tax you when you own
things and hold money without using it.
your investment will eventually increase the property/wealth
of the U.S., the tax comes from your indirect contribution.
it's like your rental money. Yes, you pay the rental
not the tax, but eventually your wealth support the taxation.
and you missed the very point of taxation.
tax is suppose to make the country prosperous, make people live better,
not suppose to make more money for the government. My tax system
encourages you to invest, to create a company, to hire people.
you do it BETTER than the government. why we want to collect tax
from you and let government spend your money to do the same thing you do.
we only tax you when you turn money into properties, when you do NOT
spend or invest your money. we want the money to flow and fuel the
economy, not sleep in your pocket. that's all what taxation does.

According
does
.
fix

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: Naive?
: In your system, no income tax but wealth tax, Every rich guys will have a
: company in the USA, but get a citizenship from other country. Now, his
: income from USA is not taxable. His company owns a lot of properties, but
: the company belongs to other company headquarter in cayman island. According
: to you, you can not tax his wealth because he is not us citizen and he does
: not own the properties directly. Those properties is owned by the company.
: He still get to do whatever he wants in the USA. The money send back to
: cayman is not taxable as that is his company transaction. Why on earth do
: you think you can calculate how much he own in the USA? Now you need to fix

c****n
发帖数: 21367

I want to emphasize, there is absolutely no need to worry
about the government budget.
the taxable income either becomes property/wealth, which is
still taxable, or become capital investment, which is a more efficient
way to use money than collecting tax for government spending.

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

: you earn 1 billion, whether you put it back/forth caymen or not,
: as long as you invest these money into captial market,
: we do not tax you. we only tax you when you own
: things and hold money without using it.
: your investment will eventually increase the property/wealth
: of the U.S., the tax comes from your indirect contribution.
: it's like your rental money. Yes, you pay the rental
: not the tax, but eventually your wealth support the taxation.
: and you missed the very point of taxation.
: tax is suppose to make the country prosperous, make people live better,

l******a
发帖数: 3803

Of course, in the muddle of all these tax hoax,
no one comes out and asks where all the money
comes from?
Business, yes. And some have to create it.
Not only that, they have to run it efficiently,
and profitably. That's in sharp contrast to
the big government that can also create jobs,
but along the way they waste tons of green bills.
If there is competition from private sectors,
the government will go bankrupt. Government just
can't manage too much things altogether. Look at
those public employees working your driver license,
working court, mail. No wonder the enlargement of
this causes the ultimate breakdown of the country.

g******s
发帖数: 68

It seems that we have two systems by mdrosophila and cocoon
Goal:
Md: To lower the wealth gap in society.
Co: To encourage investment. "tax is suppose to make the country prosperous,
make people live better,not suppose to make more money for the government.
My tax systemencourages you to invest, to create a company, to hire people"
Methods:
Md: tax on wealth every year (say 2%). No or low income tax. No delay
taxation. Whether you realize the gain or no.
Co:- Tax on wealth/property or money no invested. But no tax on investd
money. "as long as you invest these money into captial market, we do not
tax you. we only tax you when you own things and hold money without using it
."
-Allow delay taxation. "he can avoid tax by capital investment, by making
more wealth from his wealth. That is exactly what we want this smart WSN to
do!"
my Comments:
1. Please give a clear picture which is the right system. Your tax should
mention
coportate Tax as it is too naive to discuss tax without coporate tax for
rich people.
2. as for method,
-for MD, 1. I want to ask how a WSN become rich if he want to start up a
biotech that takes 10 years to get any profit. He will be bankrupt at the
time his company worth 10-20 million without a profit. 2.How do you define
wealth? Both for rich and regular guys. Will my dog count? will my luxury
car or hangbag count? How to and who will calculate the value of them? What
about internation domain or company? Would you be able to count the 10kg
gold I have in my back yard in reality? 3. Will any one be able to get rich?
Or everyone will be regular middle class worker? If there is no super rich,
you may achieve your goal. But consider this: Roche will close a site in NJ
and several thousand high income workers will lost their job. Without
capital, those people would not be able to start a company to hire all of
themselves back. Don't forget, your system also encourages people to spend
every penny, not to save money at all. You can argue most of people will be
well being, but I think maybe most of them will be poor in the long run.
-For Co: "tax on thing you own and holding money, but not tax on investment"
. Ask yourself, what is the percentage of the wealth of any super rich guy
that is in this category? Most Romney's money is investment money, so no tax
on those. How will this different from the current one? I bet it only
lowers his tax and most likely increases middle class's tax as their house
or car will be worth more than half of their total wealth. There is already
a way to discourage the holding of property called property tax. A way to
discourage people in holding cash is low interest or negative interest. So
in the end, it seems that you are arguing for lowering the tax, which will
encourage investment for sure. That I completely agree. To discourage
people from buying and holding personal belongings,especially non-essential(
vacation home) or luxury items, we can raise sale tax and property tax on
those (remind me the 9-9-9 tax by Cain). Here is an idea: if you want to buy
an yacht, you not only need to pay high tax, but also pay high property tax
annually. Your primary home will be tax free, but 2nd home will be taxed at
5-10% for example. Well, just rent the racht, air plane please. Hopefully
those manufactures on these luxury items will survive.

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

c****n
发帖数: 21367

you are close to the point now. not there yet but close.
corporate tax is irrelevant. we only consider the tax directly imposed to
individuals. that is enough to solve the fundamental problem of the U.S.
what is the fundamental problem of the U.S. ?
Let's do a math. America become richer when the total production summed up
from every resident here is greater than the total consumption (exports and
imports included). What makes America weaker is those who produce less than
they consume.
Let's put the politic correctness aside. We can see a fact. Young, diligent
immigrants are the most positive factors. After generations, some of the
citizens become the negative assets of America and should be cleared out. I
am not saying a low educated, labor worker is negative asset. If he can live
humbly and up to his income, he's good.
what my proposed tax system does is to encourage those positive factors to
come to the U.S. to produce. their income will all be their own and what
they produced (value increment to the existing materials) will enrich the U.
S. and attract more people like them. Those who do not have enough income to
support their lives, they should go to some less competitive countries to
look for a living.
No need to worry that riches avoid tax. If they do positive things, we do
not tax them. In reality, even the most aggressive capitalist will not put
all of his/her money into capital market. They have to diversify risks.
Paying tax for risk diversification is perfectly justifiable.

prosperous,
.

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: It seems that we have two systems by mdrosophila and cocoon
: Goal:
: Md: To lower the wealth gap in society.
: Co: To encourage investment. "tax is suppose to make the country prosperous,
: make people live better,not suppose to make more money for the government.
: My tax systemencourages you to invest, to create a company, to hire people"
: Methods:
: Md: tax on wealth every year (say 2%). No or low income tax. No delay
: taxation. Whether you realize the gain or no.
: Co:- Tax on wealth/property or money no invested. But no tax on investd

g******s
发帖数: 68

So we are lowing the tax for rich and raise up for middle class. Or just
lower tax for everyone. Not much differnt from current GOP concept and I am
100% support this.
But what is new here? Just different way to lower tax.

and
than
diligent

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

: you are close to the point now. not there yet but close.
: corporate tax is irrelevant. we only consider the tax directly imposed to
: individuals. that is enough to solve the fundamental problem of the U.S.
: what is the fundamental problem of the U.S. ?
: Let's do a math. America become richer when the total production summed up
: from every resident here is greater than the total consumption (exports and
: imports included). What makes America weaker is those who produce less than
: they consume.
: Let's put the politic correctness aside. We can see a fact. Young, diligent
: immigrants are the most positive factors. After generations, some of the

c****n
发帖数: 21367

it's lowering tax for income dependents while raising tax for lazy rich.
it's not merely lowering tax but a redesign of tax system
i am not sure how the total amount of tax money will change, but it is
guaranteed to have more efficient usages -- any usage is better than
sleeping in the pocket.
think about 70 trillion in total, for super riches, at least 50 trillion are
taxable in the stepped system. think about income tax, barely 1 trillion
each year...
if the super riches agree to put their wealth into investments. we will be
more than happy to see no tax for them. so it's about their decision, not
necessarily a lowering tax system.

am

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: So we are lowing the tax for rich and raise up for middle class. Or just
: lower tax for everyone. Not much differnt from current GOP concept and I am
: 100% support this.
: But what is new here? Just different way to lower tax.
:
: and
: than
: diligent

相关主题
● 收入25万以上,典型都是什么人啊?	● 骆家辉奥巴马愣是把习近平推到世界领导人的高度
● 如果税是保护费	● 希腊衰退压力加剧
● Google捐了4百万支持难民	● Biden: 'Yes, We Do' Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars
进入USANews版参与讨论

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

First, my dear friend, I have bad news for your 401k. It does not SAVE you
tax. At least not likely.
Remember, tax defered is not tax avoided, not even tax saved.
Whatever tax you did not pay today on the principle contribution, you pay it
later on the principle AND gain. If you just stare at the lower tax bill
this year, not considering you future tax liability inherit in your 401k
account, then you are just being plainly stupid.
The whole tax saving argument on 401k is based on the assumption that when
you retired and are drawing benefit from your account, you would be paying a
lower tax rate. This is a HUGE assumption on things decades later. The way
the fiscal condition is, I d say don't count on it. I don't do 401k. I do
Roth 401k, too bad my company's matching can only go into a traditional 401k
account. And too bad I completely shut out of Roth IRA.
But there is at least some good news. By deffering tax, you compound your
gain on a pre-tax basis. If you have a good investment, that boosts your
wealth accumulation.
So in the end, deffered tax on investments gives you a bigger pie. However,
the government will get a equal if not bigger portion of that pie.

has
have

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: When you are saying other people stupid, look at mirrors.
: If defered income is not different from paying tax every year, how do you
: put money in 401K, which you will pay tax anyway.
: If you know the high school math, defering paying tax will save money.
: This is why smart people put money into 401K to save tax on capital gains.
: For warren buffet case, you are showing your quality, without thinking. Of
: course, he will pay much much higher tax if he pays his income from his
: company as regular income. Income tax has a cap of 35% and capital gains has
: a cap of 15%. He can write off his loss of course. But the loss he can
: write off is limited to $3000 every year like any other middle classes have

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

I think under your system, Buffet and Romney will pay very close to 0 tax.
Both their wealth are pretty much fully invested. And good luck determining
what their none financial holdings worths.
I spend a lot of money to hire lawyers to grieve my property tax. Wait till
my cars and furnatures and TVs are taxed.

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

I m not sure where you get you 70T tax base from rich's wealth.
I m pretty sure very little of it is NOT invested.
Do you count money market as investment? what about US government bond?

are

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

: it's lowering tax for income dependents while raising tax for lazy rich.
: it's not merely lowering tax but a redesign of tax system
: i am not sure how the total amount of tax money will change, but it is
: guaranteed to have more efficient usages -- any usage is better than
: sleeping in the pocket.
: think about 70 trillion in total, for super riches, at least 50 trillion are
: taxable in the stepped system. think about income tax, barely 1 trillion
: each year...
: if the super riches agree to put their wealth into investments. we will be
: more than happy to see no tax for them. so it's about their decision, not

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

对于投入的本金来收，省不省税取决于你现在的税率和退休时从401K取钱是的税率。如
果退休时的税率高，你交的税从绝对数量上就多，反之就高。
同时你每年的投资收益不用每年缴税的，这样就大大增加了投资的回报率。每年交30%
的税大大多于30年后一次交30%。这就是（1-30%）的30次立方和(1-30%)的区别。
但是大多数中产，退休比工作时要穷，税率也要低一些。即使你比较富，税率高一点也
是划算的。这是因为有通货膨胀。现在交$1和30年后交$1是不能比的。
30年前的油只要$0.2-0.4,现在要$2-4.
如果让要我现在一分钱不缴税，30年后加倍缴税，我梦中多要笑醒。

it
a
way

【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】

: First, my dear friend, I have bad news for your 401k. It does not SAVE you
: tax. At least not likely.
: Remember, tax defered is not tax avoided, not even tax saved.
: Whatever tax you did not pay today on the principle contribution, you pay it
: later on the principle AND gain. If you just stare at the lower tax bill
: this year, not considering you future tax liability inherit in your 401k
: account, then you are just being plainly stupid.
: The whole tax saving argument on 401k is based on the assumption that when
: you retired and are drawing benefit from your account, you would be paying a
: lower tax rate. This is a HUGE assumption on things decades later. The way

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

你说的很对，这个问题现在还没有影响到大多数人。但是不是所有的东西要影响到大多
数人才可以有动力去做的。在美国如果你不表达你的利益受到伤害，那没人会关心的。
民主制度就是所有人为自己的阶层，种族，团体争取利益的制度

【在 y*****r 的大作中提到】

: 我完全同意你这个贴子里的理论分析。还是我那句话，就是个度的问题。
: 把每个家庭看作一个公司，当然可以刨去一切成本，只对净收入收税。当前美国税法不
: 是一点没有考虑到这一点。首先，本钱是税前还是税后收入和当前税法无关。我们只看
: 将来。现在美国法律对于医疗保险（包括flex account），上班通勤费，为上班的搬家
: 费，职业协会会员费，子女教育费用（529等），退休金（401（k）等），都是减免税
: 的。
: 此外，一个中产可以享受的是mortgage利息部分不交税。这是个巨大的好处。利息开销
: 可是没有什么税务上或财会上的理由减免税的，公司是没有这个好处的，对于个人，完
: 全是出于社会因素考虑，鼓励中产买房子给出的政策。
: 现在大部分在美国站稳脚跟的中国留学生，都是刚刚摆脱温饱，但又算不上富裕的家庭

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

对于财产的征税不比对收入的征税难。
公司帐务总是包括总财产，收入的。公司的财产年与年相比比较稳定，而收入每年变化
很大。
第二，这个世界上最大的财产是土地，房子，可交易的证卷包括股票，债卷等等，容易
征税的。
个人的税是比较难的。包括收入和财产。多是要靠自己自觉上报，和税务局的抽样审查
。但是现在很多人有现金的收入都是不缴税的。比如餐馆打工收入$40000可以按现在的
制度一分钱不缴税，因为是现金收入无法调查。比方说贩毒收入$1000000也是没有办法
缴税的。
但是财产的比较稳定的，一旦确定年与年之间变化不大，容易缴税。
你说的有人刚开了一个公司，值10millions。我说的财产是指市场价值，Mark to
market value。如果你的公司值这些钱，那你就可以在市场上卖出这个钱。那相应比例
的税也是理所当然的。如果你的公司不能卖出这个钱，那就不值这个钱。
当然对于新和企业可以有优惠措施的，这在任何时候多是一样的。

prosperous,
.

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

所以我给富人家税没有用，那是完全胡说。如果富人缴税和剥削我们中产交的税那么恨
的话，（我们交2%property tax加上收入税），像 warren buffet 一样的富人将多交
120倍的税。富人的缴税将增加几个trillions。每年我们就有多于1个trillions的富余
。所有的美国债务能在10年轻零。根本就没有spending的问题。
关键是富人不想缴税，还要想这法子的少缴税。要我们没有钱和资产的中产去还债务，
那就悲剧了。

t*b
发帖数: 850

我支持税率单一化
flat tax rate
富人的钱不是抢来的，有本事自己去挣。每人阻止你成为千万富翁。
问题是你自己不行，反过来嫉妒别人有钱。
再说社会福利不都被穷人和你口中所谓中产享受了。富人基本不享受。
Buffett, Romeney, 就算Obama基本就不需要社会福利
应该是：work for welfare. not stay home for welfare, or be lazy for welfare.

l****z
发帖数: 29846

说得好, 我也支持flat tax rate,大家都跑不掉.
不要你tmd的生10小孩要社会照顾,你自己生当然自己养,凭什么要别人出钱养你?

welfare.

【在 t*b 的大作中提到】

: 我支持税率单一化
: flat tax rate
: 富人的钱不是抢来的，有本事自己去挣。每人阻止你成为千万富翁。
: 问题是你自己不行，反过来嫉妒别人有钱。
: 再说社会福利不都被穷人和你口中所谓中产享受了。富人基本不享受。
: Buffett, Romeney, 就算Obama基本就不需要社会福利
: 应该是：work for welfare. not stay home for welfare, or be lazy for welfare.

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

其实我也是同意单一税的，对财产的单一税收，1-2%。不管你是穷人和富人都一样。
我也不妒忌他们赚的钱多，但是反对他们交的税少。
现在的情况是像warren buffet 一样的富人的缴税比例是这样不合理的：
有4 百万的投资资产，每年平均回报至少10%（只对于超级富人）
warren buffet是15%。
所以年收入40万。随便哪个中产也的交8万的税加2万其他的税。
但是富人只要交相当于$600元的税。
同时他们还欺负美国人数学太差，假装是税收的受害者，
宣传他们交的税太重了，要进一步降他们的税。
满地打滚威胁，只有进一步减税，你们中产才有工作。
事实上中产缴税的比例是富人缴税的比例要高至少100倍。
单一税将大大减轻中产的税，但是富人的税可能要增加50倍。

welfare.

【在 t*b 的大作中提到】

相关主题
● Biden: 'Yes, We Do' Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars	● 哈,原来obama也是个茶袋子.First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes
● Taxing the rich is never going to be the solution	● 这儿有几个老中达到美国平均水平了？
● The issue is not taxing but spending	● 老美搞经济的水平也就这样
进入USANews版参与讨论

g******s
发帖数: 68

Many of the company can worth nothing because they are subsidiary of a
foreign company. A French company ( Sanofi for instance) may have a research
site here that they spend 1 billion here for r& d, the whole company global
wealth is 40 billion, how to tax then? Honestly, that R& D site is a rental
, so no tax I guess. If they manufacture in the USA, the factory may also
worth nothing as the site can still be rental. Now, how much their wealth
worth in the USA? sale is from headquarter and money went to france. How to
tax?
Suppose I have 10 billion dollar in Mexico or India, and I would like to
come to invest in the USA. Will you get taxing for those 10 billion wealth
oversea? Then how many people want to invest here? It seems those poor guy
has more advantage to come and invest here. Now you may say we will only
tax your wealth in the USA, not income. Then I will provide a million dollar
loan to my company in the USA to buy a hotel and I charge my company 20%
interest. Now, how much my usa company worth? Obviously, it is not 1 million
. It is 1 million minus debt, which is zero. In fact, if you know how to
calculate the value of a commercial property, you know it's mostly by cap
rate. If my expense is so high( I pay too much for interest and myself
salary), then the hotel value is counted to be zero. How many companies were
bought by private fund and then loaded with debt to bankrupt? Easy to
calculate the value of a company? What about Real estate? How many
commercial property have you bought so far? We recently start a llc to buy
couple million dollar of properties. We then refinance out and get all of
our invested money back. We still get good cash flow and pay us good
dividend every year. Now my wealth in this one is zero as the bank hold the
3 million loan, which is how much we can sell for this property if we are
lucky. We really not plan for equity gain in the property, but more for the
cash flow, which is not taxable as you suggested. What will we do for our
cash? Keep this wheel turning and get more properties. If you want some
practice, go buy a RV park and good luck to come out your own value. If the
owner want to make that park worth million, it maybe hard, but if he want to
make it worthless, it is way too easy. A piece of dirt at 20 acres in
rural area may only worth 20,000, but a dirt with net income of 200,000 a
year will be 2 millions. A net income will be decided by how much I pay
myself for manage fee. If I pay me 200,000, it will be zero. I am sure IRS
will not able to sit in my park all year long to count how many RV come to
my park. Similarly, a hotel or car washer may get into the same issue. What
about a pizza restaurant, a bar? How many that building I rent will be
counted as my wealth? I can make 100,000 a year in my Chinese takeout, but
will you be able to do the same. Will you buy it for 1 million, or 20,000?
in the end, you will find you have difficulty to count the wealth in big
company like Sanofi, Roche, you also have problem to value all sort of small
business and real estate as well. Not everything is stock and cash. Even
for stock, you account value change daily. Will a company provides all bad
news in Dec just to lower it's tax? Good news is hard to come by, but bad
maybe different story.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 对于财产的征税不比对收入的征税难。
: 公司帐务总是包括总财产，收入的。公司的财产年与年相比比较稳定，而收入每年变化
: 很大。
: 第二，这个世界上最大的财产是土地，房子，可交易的证卷包括股票，债卷等等，容易
: 征税的。
: 个人的税是比较难的。包括收入和财产。多是要靠自己自觉上报，和税务局的抽样审查
: 。但是现在很多人有现金的收入都是不缴税的。比如餐馆打工收入$40000可以按现在的
: 制度一分钱不缴税，因为是现金收入无法调查。比方说贩毒收入$1000000也是没有办法
: 缴税的。
: 但是财产的比较稳定的，一旦确定年与年之间变化不大，容易缴税。

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

我估计这些所谓的问题是你想出来的。因为即使是现在的税收系统也是要考虑你说的所
有问题的。什么叫收入。收入就是成本减去开支。所以如果计算公司的收入时，这个收
入可以根据公司的需要可以变动的。
你的例子中，一个公司进口的成本和它运行的开支都是可以变化的。
如果你进口￥10，卖出￥20.你把赚的￥10转给你的爸妈，然后抱税说你的资产是0.那
你就是fraud。最傻的人也不会这撞装枪眼的。

research
global
rental
to

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: Many of the company can worth nothing because they are subsidiary of a
: foreign company. A French company ( Sanofi for instance) may have a research
: site here that they spend 1 billion here for r& d, the whole company global
: wealth is 40 billion, how to tax then? Honestly, that R& D site is a rental
: , so no tax I guess. If they manufacture in the USA, the factory may also
: worth nothing as the site can still be rental. Now, how much their wealth
: worth in the USA? sale is from headquarter and money went to france. How to
: tax?
: Suppose I have 10 billion dollar in Mexico or India, and I would like to
: come to invest in the USA. Will you get taxing for those 10 billion wealth

g******s
发帖数: 68

First of all, income is easier to calculate, so that is why they can tax it
that way. You have income from us, you pay for that. But asset is different
story. Since you propose tax on asset, not income, so just currently we have
way to calculate income does not necessary to accurately count asset. The
guy mowing your lawn have income, but his asset will be just pickup truck
and lawn mower. Your lawyer and cap, doctor all have good income, but his
law firm has no asset. He can sell his firm to you at 100,000 and start a
new one the same day.
Secondly, the LLC story I mentioned is a real story, not an imagination. If
you want, I may provide our transaction history personally, but truth or not
, everyday, so many people still get 100% financing to get rental property
for cash flow. I guess that you don't have much business experience, but
educate yourself before accuse other this is imaginary. There is reason why
no country in the whole world adopt your method because in reality it won't
work.
Finally, go check how many companies pay no tax.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 我估计这些所谓的问题是你想出来的。因为即使是现在的税收系统也是要考虑你说的所
: 有问题的。什么叫收入。收入就是成本减去开支。所以如果计算公司的收入时，这个收
: 入可以根据公司的需要可以变动的。
: 你的例子中，一个公司进口的成本和它运行的开支都是可以变化的。
: 如果你进口￥10，卖出￥20.你把赚的￥10转给你的爸妈，然后抱税说你的资产是0.那
: 你就是fraud。最傻的人也不会这撞装枪眼的。
:
: research
: global
: rental

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

我有出租房报过schedule E,有一些bussiness知识
就说你的1百万房子吧你100%拥有，你有1百万的财产，相应的缴税。
你把房子100%finance,这样你从银行拿到1百万现金。在同时你有1百万价值的房子和1
百万银行贷款。你的总资产还是一百万。的确你不用交房子的税了。但的交相应一百万
现金的税。
至于律师和有给人打工的人，赚的钱是不需要很多资产的，当然他们打工资产是没有或
很少的。他们的税少也不奇怪。至于高收入的，他们积累的现金，游艇，飞机和房产也
多，税交的也多了。反正最后按财产交，高收入的人也要比收入少得人多。

it
different
have
If
not

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: First of all, income is easier to calculate, so that is why they can tax it
: that way. You have income from us, you pay for that. But asset is different
: story. Since you propose tax on asset, not income, so just currently we have
: way to calculate income does not necessary to accurately count asset. The
: guy mowing your lawn have income, but his asset will be just pickup truck
: and lawn mower. Your lawyer and cap, doctor all have good income, but his
: law firm has no asset. He can sell his firm to you at 100,000 and start a
: new one the same day.
: Secondly, the LLC story I mentioned is a real story, not an imagination. If
: you want, I may provide our transaction history personally, but truth or not

g******s
发帖数: 68

Well, by now you still won't admit how hard to count the value of an asset.
I guess I don't need to waste more time on this. Go back to the 1 million
cash, get 1 million dollar property with 100% financing. So you tell me in
the end I have 1 million? You assume I put all those cash in a saving
account for you to check? How about I tell you I tip a boy for 10,000? I
bought expensive shit for my dog to eat that cost me 500,000. I lost 250,000
in gambling. Etc. So I guess the government will ask everyone to proof how
much he spend on every tiny thing. As I said, I can say I hate tax, so I
burn my cash for fun. Or I give 1 million to my parents in china. How much
do I have in asset? 0?
I can still use those 1 million to buy more cash flow business. In a world
that tax on property, asset, why accumulate those? They are liability.
People will hold cash, gold and maybe forget about bank. I am not sure the
house value will hold up. After all, just rent. There is reason people want
asset in this current tax system. Are you sure they want to do the same when
you change the way to tax?

1

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 我有出租房报过schedule E,有一些bussiness知识
: 就说你的1百万房子吧你100%拥有，你有1百万的财产，相应的缴税。
: 你把房子100%finance,这样你从银行拿到1百万现金。在同时你有1百万价值的房子和1
: 百万银行贷款。你的总资产还是一百万。的确你不用交房子的税了。但的交相应一百万
: 现金的税。
: 至于律师和有给人打工的人，赚的钱是不需要很多资产的，当然他们打工资产是没有或
: 很少的。他们的税少也不奇怪。至于高收入的，他们积累的现金，游艇，飞机和房产也
: 多，税交的也多了。反正最后按财产交，高收入的人也要比收入少得人多。
:
: it

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

我知道你的意思，你没有1百万，但是买了一百万的房子，一百万银行贷款，那你告诉
我这一百万去了哪儿。应该是卖房子的人。不管这一百万到了你哪儿还是到了卖房子的
人，都是多了一百万的现金财产。银行的现金减少一百万，多了一百万产权。你不管怎
么买卖，在一百万的房子反正是在的。谁在乎是你交税还是卖房的缴税。反正税对政府
是一样的。现金也是财产。
你这种自己没有钱，空手套白狼，要赚钱是你的，亏钱是银行的。那你一无所有借银行
一亿试试。说到底是不可能普遍实现的。银行有不是傻子。
你当然可以用现金，就像现在现金贩毒一样。贩毒是美国最大的产业。也没见美国为现
金交易发愁。一种税收或任何其他制度不是要100%的效率征税才能实施。现在的收入税
的漏洞大了去了。
政府不需要检查每个人财产，就像现在一样，查1%。如果你说你买了$50000的垃圾给你
的狗吃，当你给政府查到时希望你能拿出收据。

.
000
how

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

: Well, by now you still won't admit how hard to count the value of an asset.
: I guess I don't need to waste more time on this. Go back to the 1 million
: cash, get 1 million dollar property with 100% financing. So you tell me in
: the end I have 1 million? You assume I put all those cash in a saving
: account for you to check? How about I tell you I tip a boy for 10,000? I
: bought expensive shit for my dog to eat that cost me 500,000. I lost 250,000
: in gambling. Etc. So I guess the government will ask everyone to proof how
: much he spend on every tiny thing. As I said, I can say I hate tax, so I
: burn my cash for fun. Or I give 1 million to my parents in china. How much
: do I have in asset? 0?

c****n
发帖数: 21367

my proposed tax system is not as simple as several sentences
you don't expect a BBS thread to cover regulatory details, do you?
I just introduce the design principles.
Don't worry, my friend. Property/Wealth tax is a tax on the
property/wealth within this country. Property and wealth
cannot vanish. :)
Buffet and Romney can pay 0 tax, but other people who
holds these money will pay. Capital market money fuels
real world productions, companies buy properties,
companies pay employees to buy their properties.
This is why we do not tax Buffet and Romney for their
investment. These gentlemen are smart and capable,
they run their money in an efficient way. Why not let
them quickly accumulate more money to run? If their
money goes out of control, market will naturally transfer
their wealth to other people.
Remember the principle, our tax system just keeps
the money flowing. If money sleeps, we tax it.
We can predict that central bank would be much more efficient
with this tax system since the money will not "sink"
and the market reacts much more agilely to monetary policies.
Inflation will be much easier to control. I didn't mention
unemployment problem because the correct way to solve it
is politically incorrect. :)
In a previous post, someone asked a very good question.
Whether money market holdings should be taxed. My answer is
yes and no. Investment should be defined narrowly.
Asset backed bonds are not tax-free investment, as any other
risk limited instrument. I had stated before. From the
capital management point of veiw, it is perfectly justifiable
to pay tax for risk diversification. I agree that the regulatory
details would be crucial. That's exactly why the accounting
principles are so critical that any significant change
needs to go through the congress. :)

determining
till

【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】

: I think under your system, Buffet and Romney will pay very close to 0 tax.
: Both their wealth are pretty much fully invested. And good luck determining
: what their none financial holdings worths.
: I spend a lot of money to hire lawyers to grieve my property tax. Wait till
: my cars and furnatures and TVs are taxed.

g******s
发帖数: 68

I told you I burned that 1 million for heating. I was too drunk and high.
Should I provide video tape? well, maybe you will see one video that I am
burning money in my fire palce. But you better be able to prove I really
have 1 million in asset left because all I have is a property worth 1
million and I own bank 1 million.
what if I told you I sent 1 million dollar home as a birthday gift to my dad
in China. You can check the bank transaction. He will confirm my account.
Well, he bought a nice house there. Even better, he bought a nice house in
the USA for vacation home, which he allows me to use. Of course, everyone
pays property tax, even in current income tax system. But you cannot tax my
1 million.
You always think 1 billon, but 99% or more, people don't have that kind of
wealth. You already admitted that it is hard to tax high incomers lke
lawyers, banker, small business man. At least you have to wait until that
sucker buy luxury car or yacht. Maybe that dentist want to just hold his
cash in Switzeland, In the long run, maybe not getting taxed by 10 years
will be beter than invest.
What about regular WSN who earns 300? Can anyone easily spend 300k? Who
knows, you may party too much and you have witness to tell IRS that you
threw cash in the bar when you are drunk. Document all of theexpense ? How
can I document anything if I got rob for 20K cash( I like to stack cash at
home. will that become a crime?) So how many regular joe can you tax? Your
system encourage everyone, especially regular guy to use cash, or spend
every penny.
So in the end, you may only want to tax those 0.1% people, who may already
move oversea. How many years government can afford to lost big chunk of tax?
Will there any laid off in IRS? Hnestly, why bother, just catch all of
those super rich, kill them and get those money/asset. Wait, that is china
in 1950s.
Income tax has its advantage in documentation because most people get salary
or w2, if your employee paid you, they want to document it for accouning/
tax purpose. If your law firm makes 1 miilion, you get taxed. However, a
banker received a million dollar bonus does not mean he has an increase in
asset of 1 million. He has to spend. Now, the document will be everything he
spent, not just some catagories that can be deductible. You only need to
document you mortgage interest, charity donation,capital lost etc in income
tax system. But ask everyone to come out his lunch receipt all year long is
way too much, right? The banker may tell you he spent average 200 a day on
lunch as he like to tip $$$ in cash in strip club. I bet the hooker will be
able to provide a wrtten letter indicating she received 50K cash even if she
only receive 100. Why? no one will tax her based on her inflated 50K income
. so how to count one's expense? The government has no business to tell
me that if I receive 1 million income, I can only spend 200K, right? See,
that is the different from current income tax system as currently they can
limit your deduction ,you are only allowed 50K for tax deduction even you
spend 500K.
I spend so many time to tell you technically, it is much harder to calculate
the asset if not impossible. You may not agree with me, but try to discuss
with as many friends as possible and see how many creative ways they can
think of to make it hard to calculate his asset. A fair tax is not just to
tax billionaire, but for all regular people.
Maybe you should ask an economist to figure out a model to see whether the
housing market will be go all the way down or up if you tax that way. People
accumulate properties for investment purpose in income tax system, but if
they thin that it is not a good investment, will they still buy them? Cash/
gold is king. As for me, I am not wasting time no more on this.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 我知道你的意思，你没有1百万，但是买了一百万的房子，一百万银行贷款，那你告诉
: 我这一百万去了哪儿。应该是卖房子的人。不管这一百万到了你哪儿还是到了卖房子的
: 人，都是多了一百万的现金财产。银行的现金减少一百万，多了一百万产权。你不管怎
: 么买卖，在一百万的房子反正是在的。谁在乎是你交税还是卖房的缴税。反正税对政府
: 是一样的。现金也是财产。
: 你这种自己没有钱，空手套白狼，要赚钱是你的，亏钱是银行的。那你一无所有借银行
: 一亿试试。说到底是不可能普遍实现的。银行有不是傻子。
: 你当然可以用现金，就像现在现金贩毒一样。贩毒是美国最大的产业。也没见美国为现
: 金交易发愁。一种税收或任何其他制度不是要100%的效率征税才能实施。现在的收入税
: 的漏洞大了去了。

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

so we both agree 401k does not necessarily save you tax, right?
I don't know what you are talking about here.
simple illustration, say you have an investment vehicle that returns 10%
each year. you tax rate is 30% which is very likely an overestimate of you
effective tax rate.
In terms of retirement accounts:
traditional 401k, you make $1, no immediate tax, after 10 years, it rolls to
$2.59 and you draw it out, govt takes 30% which is $0.77, leaving you $1.82
take home.
Roth 401k. you pay 30% tax, having $0.7 left, put it into the same
investemnt, earning 10% a year, after 10 years, no tax, you take home $1.82.
all in all your gain is the same in both situation, govt takes only $0.30
with ROTH but $0.77 with traditional. See why uncle sam is so generous to
let you defer tax on 401k?
Note that this is based on the assumption that your tax rate will be lower
when you draw your benefit. Is this going to be true? Not sure. Your income
is not necessarily lower after you retire, you may work as an consultant,
you may have access to some great investment opportunity, who knows. Even if
your income was lower than before, it does not necessarily mean your tax
rate would be lower. Today's tax rates are very low by historical standard,
for everybody.
In terms of normal investment, for arguments sake, again assume the tax is
30%.
you invest $1 into the 10% return vehicle. You realize the 10% each year and
reinvest the 7cent left. Each year earn a real return of 7% compounded
forward. After 10 years, you would have paid $0.41 in tax and have $1.97
after tax money for your own.
Now if you do not realize each year, and let it roll at 10% a year. after 10
years, you have $2.59 before tax, pay 0.78 in tax and have $1.82 for your
self.
Note that realize each year and buy into the same investment is a so called
"wash trade" and is forbidden by tax law. Clearly, IRS people are smarter
than you.
If you can not wrap your head around these numbers, let me just ask you, if
you have a investment that just beats inflaction so your real return is 0.
if you invest one gallon gas' worht in today, 10 years later, you get the
amount that can buy you one gallon of gas then, would you still be willing
to pay double the tax?
don't just listen to propagada, use your brain, and some primary school math.

【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】

: 对于投入的本金来收，省不省税取决于你现在的税率和退休时从401K取钱是的税率。如
: 果退休时的税率高，你交的税从绝对数量上就多，反之就高。
: 同时你每年的投资收益不用每年缴税的，这样就大大增加了投资的回报率。每年交30%
: 的税大大多于30年后一次交30%。这就是（1-30%）的30次立方和(1-30%)的区别。
: 但是大多数中产，退休比工作时要穷，税率也要低一些。即使你比较富，税率高一点也
: 是划算的。这是因为有通货膨胀。现在交$1和30年后交$1是不能比的。
: 30年前的油只要$0.2-0.4,现在要$2-4.
: 如果让要我现在一分钱不缴税，30年后加倍缴税，我梦中多要笑醒。
:
: it

a*********a
发帖数: 3656

wealth can leave the country where it is taxed, and NO, you do not
necessarily have to convert to cash to transfer cross boarders.

Yes, I asked whether money market and US treasury bonds are taxable under
your system. looks like your answer is NO cos they are risk limited.
I don't know what your definition on asset backed bonds. Are you going to
tax the mortgage backed bonds? if not, aren't they asset backed? if yes, how
do you propose IRS to value them? note many of them dropped from full value
to almost 0 within very short period of time. Those who heavily invested in
them could not put a accurate price on them, let alone IRS.
Any broad base wealth tax system will cause the legal and accountant cost to
multiply. A lot of money already spent to hire lawyers and accountants to
value one's wealth for estate tax purpose.

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

: my proposed tax system is not as simple as several sentences
: you don't expect a BBS thread to cover regulatory details, do you?
: I just introduce the design principles.
: Don't worry, my friend. Property/Wealth tax is a tax on the
: property/wealth within this country. Property and wealth
: cannot vanish. :)
: Buffet and Romney can pay 0 tax, but other people who
: holds these money will pay. Capital market money fuels
: real world productions, companies buy properties,
: companies pay employees to buy their properties.

相关主题
● 谁在支撑着这个国家 - Who is Paying Taxes？	● 5 Reasons Why Obama’s Plan to Increase Taxes on the Rich, Is the Reason for High Unemployment and Po
● the rich are taxed lower than middle class	● 一群小左傻逼.
● 202 trillions in red (转载)	● 60% American support a tax raise on top 2%
进入USANews版参与讨论

c****n
发帖数: 21367

this is what a sovereignty is created for.
try transfer 1M$ out, and you will know what I mean. :)
you don't have to challenge me by individual cases.
think about the inheritance (estate) tax. why those riches rather
die before the Act ends than transfer their wealth outside the U.S.?
of coz i know my proposed system is favorable to young people
and unfavorable to old men. in a globalized world, every
country is facing the prisoner's dilemma. whose strategy
converges the fastest will win over other prisoners and
take all their shares and obtain the privilege to re-define
the global rules. If the U.S. does not do it, China will do it.
how
value
in
to

【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】

: wealth can leave the country where it is taxed, and NO, you do not
: necessarily have to convert to cash to transfer cross boarders.
:
: Yes, I asked whether money market and US treasury bonds are taxable under
: your system. looks like your answer is NO cos they are risk limited.
: I don't know what your definition on asset backed bonds. Are you going to
: tax the mortgage backed bonds? if not, aren't they asset backed? if yes, how
: do you propose IRS to value them? note many of them dropped from full value
: to almost 0 within very short period of time. Those who heavily invested in
: them could not put a accurate price on them, let alone IRS.

g******s
发帖数: 68

See how to transfer billions out
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_21/b4179062992003.htm
Because they really don't need that kind of trouble to transfer wealth
outside the us. A good estate plan lawyer will do the job. For example, set
up a trust with his children as the benificiary. Transfer his asset to the
trust. When he die, the children get everything, but not inheritance tax.
"A trust for an estate is essentially a predetermined legal transfer that
takes place before you die. As a result, the assets transferred are not
affected by an inheritance tax because, in essence, there is no inheritance.
While alive, you transfer your property to the trust. It is then managed
per the terms and automatically given to the designated recipient when you
die. Since you gave up legal ownership to the trust before you died, there
is nothing for you pass on except what is not in the trust. Your recipient
does pay income tax on new funds received or property, but that hit is a lot
less than being combined with an inheritance tax."

【在 c****n 的大作中提到】

:
: this is what a sovereignty is created for.
: try transfer 1M$ out, and you will know what I mean. :)
: you don't have to challenge me by individual cases.
: think about the inheritance (estate) tax. why those riches rather
: die before the Act ends than transfer their wealth outside the U.S.?
: of coz i know my proposed system is favorable to young people
: and unfavorable to old men. in a globalized world, every
: country is facing the prisoner's dilemma. whose strategy
: converges the fastest will win over other prisoners and

c****n
发帖数: 21367

why it makes news? :) wait a second, when you read a piece of news,
do you assume it is true and objective.
or you would like to find its purpose?
that affects your political maturity level.
yeah, rich people hire estate tax lawyers, and...
die before an Act ends.
do they really NOT worry about tax? lol
think more about why sovereignty is here. why it has borders
and armies. one good start point is to find out why
switzerland could keep "neutral" during WWII.
capital can move, but there are RULES on capital movement.
the relationship between race and politics is not
a school knowledge. the relationship between
sovereignty and capitals is further distant from textbooks.
don't be naive on these topics. common sense does not work here.
set
inheritance.

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

:
: See how to transfer billions out
: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_21/b4179062992003.htm
: Because they really don't need that kind of trouble to transfer wealth
: outside the us. A good estate plan lawyer will do the job. For example, set
: up a trust with his children as the benificiary. Transfer his asset to the
: trust. When he die, the children get everything, but not inheritance tax.
: "A trust for an estate is essentially a predetermined legal transfer that
: takes place before you die. As a result, the assets transferred are not
: affected by an inheritance tax because, in essence, there is no inheritance.

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

set
inheritance.

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

m*********a
发帖数: 3299

我不在乎你说的财产转不转移。这些财产本来就不缴税。
我说的是对在美国投资和在美国消费财产的财产缴税。
现在这些对这些财产交的税很少。而且这些财产很难转移。
这些财产是土地，房地产，证卷，股票等。
这些才是主要财产。而不是现金。
只要美国投资的回报高于税收，并有安全保障，
美国就不缺投资。
至于其他不想在美国投资的热钱，who cares.

【在 g******s 的大作中提到】

(共1页)

进入USANews版参与讨论

相关主题
● 收入25万以上,典型都是什么人啊?	● 哈,原来obama也是个茶袋子.First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes
● 如果税是保护费	● 这儿有几个老中达到美国平均水平了？
● Google捐了4百万支持难民	● 老美搞经济的水平也就这样
● 骆家辉奥巴马愣是把习近平推到世界领导人的高度	● 谁在支撑着这个国家 - Who is Paying Taxes？
● 希腊衰退压力加剧	● the rich are taxed lower than middle class
● Biden: 'Yes, We Do' Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars	● 202 trillions in red (转载)
● Taxing the rich is never going to be the solution	● 5 Reasons Why Obama’s Plan to Increase Taxes on the Rich, Is the Reason for High Unemployment and Po
● The issue is not taxing but spending	● 一群小左傻逼.

相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: tax话题: wealth话题: usa话题: income话题: my

#	版面	帖数(主题数)
-	全站	4871 (796)
1	Military	3777 (569)
2	Stock	341 (51)
3	Joke	117 (17)
4	History	116 (3)
5	Automobile	100 (9)
6	USANews	55 (9)
7	Midlife	45 (1)
8	Headline	41 (41)
9	Dreamer	33 (13)
10	FleaMarket	32 (20)
11	Living	30 (7)

boards

未名新帖统计// 7月16日

历史上的今天