Stay Classy Cayman Islands.

[evil_gop_liars]

Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

[yo mama]

Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

Everyone who works for a paycheck pays higher rates of tax on their ordinary income so wealthy guys like Romney can pay lower rates of tax on their investment income.

 

As far as the Caymen Islands go, the main reason to have businesses there is that Caymen doesn't have an income tax. That means income earned there doesn't get taxed in the US until you CHOOSE to bring the cash back into the US.

 

It's really a shame that the OWS movement are a bunch of inarticulate lunatics, because its stuff like this they should be harping on.

Edited January 19, 2012 by yo mama

[Boilerduff]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

[detlef]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

Are you honestly asking that question? Are you honestly implying that the wealthy should actually pay a lower percentage of their taxes than the poor? Not the same, mind you. You're example suggests they should pay a lower percentage just because the total ends up being more. Hell, tax the guy making $30K 75%, the poor a-hole making $1million still ends up paying "more".

 

That is so effing stupid and illogical that it must be a fishing trip.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

 

I'd rather write the $150,000 one.

[Hugh 0ne]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

 

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

I'm not even sure if your post is intended to be serious but........

 

I'd rather write the one for $150,000 because that leaves me $850,000. If I write the other one, I'm left with $19,500 and, quite frankly, I think I will be able to live a tad better on the higher number.

 

The argument you are trying to make leads to the inescapable conclusion that everyone should strive to be paid less because then we'd pay less tax in absolute dollars.

[Ursa Majoris]

Everyone who works for a paycheck pays higher rates of tax on their ordinary income so wealthy guys like Romney can pay lower rates of tax on their investment income.

 

It's really a shame that the OWS movement are a bunch of inarticulate lunatics, because its stuff like this they should be harping on.

And those paycheck guys pay full income rates on their 401k profits as well, even though those profits are completely indistinguishable from capital gains because that's exactly what they are. Talk about a rigged system.

 

You're dead on about OWS - this is the kind of thing they SHOULD have been focused on instead of the fatuous "tax the rich" over-simplification. It's the fact that the system is increasingly rigged in favor of fewer people that is the issue.

[WaterMan]

Well Romney is a business man. He will probably have his Presidential paycheck direct deposited to the Caymans as well.

[bushwacked]

I hear he has 20 krugerrands hidden in Santorum's rectum. Is Mitt hiding the money from the US Treasury or the Mormon Church treasury?

[Boilerduff]

Are you honestly asking that question? Are you honestly implying that the wealthy should actually pay a lower percentage of their taxes than the poor? Not the same, mind you. You're example suggests they should pay a lower percentage just because the total ends up being more. Hell, tax the guy making $30K 75%, the poor a-hole making $1million still ends up paying "more".

 

That is so effing stupid and illogical that it must be a fishing trip.

Apologies for not getting back sooner on this, I am at work.

 

Yes, I was honestly asking the question. To me illogical is trying to say the 150k is less than 10.5K.

 

No, I wasn't implying anything at all about who is paying what. The question wasn't in regards to the tax code as it is written, or fairness for that matter, which is what in my mind clouds judgement, and gets reactions like yours Det. I also wasn't implying they should pay a lower percentage, or a higher one. I was merely asking what is a higher number $150,000 or $10,500, and who is in fact paying more in taxes. I want an honest answer as to who is paying more in taxes. I'm not trying to start and argument on what it should be.

 

Now, I guess where this takes us is the definition of "more". Like you said, the guy making 30 K at 75% would still be paying less than the Million dollar guy, and that is exactly my point. You would be correct. How can people say the rich are paying less in taxes, when in fact they are paying more in taxes. The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes ( forgive me if the exact number isn't correct), yet they aren't paying more than poor people? I think the whole rich pay less in taxes argument is fundamentally flawed, and that is my issue with it, and why I posed this question. To me percentages aren't as important as real dollars that do real things. If percentages are the real issue, it would seem to me an easy fix would be to lock everyone in the same percentage. That still doesn't mean they will be paying the same in taxes. The rich would still be paying more. So which is it? Real dollars or percenatges? Again, not arguing what it should be just arguing what it is.

 

Now before you all jump down my throat about fairness, and me defending the rich, that is not the intention. No need for hostility here. It's an honest question as to how people can think rich people pay less taxes than poor people. I want to see a fairer tax code writen. But again what is "fair" It kinda falls under the same thing as the definition of "more". Is fair Percentages? is fair Dollar for dollar? What is "fair" and what is "more". And does the fact that it relates to the tax code, and political slants, change the definition of "fair" and "more". That is why I posed the question, and I would still like to see someone explain to me how 150k is less than 10.5K. Take emotion and politics out of the equation, and answer the question who pays more, I don't see how you come up with anything but currently the rich are paying more. Again, not arguing what it should be just arguing what it is.

 

Say it ain't so: Why? If you are trying to make the issue bigger than just which is more money, then that is exactly my point.

 

Ursa - Again, bringing other influences into the decision making process. If the goal was to pay less in absolute tax dollars, you would be right, but it isn't. If it was then poor people would be happy. That is my point. Poor people pay less in taxes than rich people do, and I am looking for an argument that shows me how 150,000 is less than 10.5k. That is the argument being made regularly on how much more poor people pay in taxes than rich people do.

 

Show me how I am wrong and I will admit it, I just don't see how people can say rich are paying less in taxes than are the poor. Aagin, what it should be is irrelevant for my question.

[Ursa Majoris]

The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes

 

I am looking for an argument that shows me how 150,000 is less than 10.5k.

The first statement isn't accurate on numbers but from a principle point of view it doesn't matter. The sole reason the small percentage at the top pay a high proportion of the taxes is because they have an equally (or thereabouts) high proportion of the income. As the proportion of the entire national income received by the top xx % increases, then so will the proportion of the overall taxation income to the state that they pay. To reduce it to logical absurdity, the last man left will pay 100% of the taxes.

 

This issue is at the root of what many of us have been saying about the capitalist system as it is currently configured - it is working at it's maximum efficiency for a decreasing number. An example is the hedge fund managers that can call their entire income (that the rest of us call salary or wages) investment income, taxable at a lesser rate than for Joe Blow. That is the system being rigged for the few.

 

Your $150,000 is clearly less than your $10,500 as a proportion of the greater income sum. And that is really the only measure that matters.

[yo mama]

Show me how I am wrong and I will admit it, I just don't see how people can say rich are paying less in taxes than are the poor.

Your support for a flat tax is an admission that you are wrong. Because if everyone "should" be paying the same rate of tax then, ipso factor, it is wrong for the elite to be paying 15% rate while working stiffs pay at a 20-30% rate.

[detlef]

Apologies for not getting back sooner on this, I am at work.

 

Yes, I was honestly asking the question. To me illogical is trying to say the 150k is less than 10.5K.

 

No, I wasn't implying anything at all about who is paying what. The question wasn't in regards to the tax code as it is written, or fairness for that matter, which is what in my mind clouds judgement, and gets reactions like yours Det. I also wasn't implying they should pay a lower percentage, or a higher one. I was merely asking what is a higher number $150,000 or $10,500, and who is in fact paying more in taxes. I want an honest answer as to who is paying more in taxes. I'm not trying to start and argument on what it should be.

 

Now, I guess where this takes us is the definition of "more". Like you said, the guy making 30 K at 75% would still be paying less than the Million dollar guy, and that is exactly my point. You would be correct. How can people say the rich are paying less in taxes, when in fact they are paying more in taxes. The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes ( forgive me if the exact number isn't correct), yet they aren't paying more than poor people? I think the whole rich pay less in taxes argument is fundamentally flawed, and that is my issue with it, and why I posed this question. To me percentages aren't as important as real dollars that do real things. If percentages are the real issue, it would seem to me an easy fix would be to lock everyone in the same percentage. That still doesn't mean they will be paying the same in taxes. The rich would still be paying more. So which is it? Real dollars or percenatges? Again, not arguing what it should be just arguing what it is.

 

Now before you all jump down my throat about fairness, and me defending the rich, that is not the intention. No need for hostility here. It's an honest question as to how people can think rich people pay less taxes than poor people. I want to see a fairer tax code writen. But again what is "fair" It kinda falls under the same thing as the definition of "more". Is fair Percentages? is fair Dollar for dollar? What is "fair" and what is "more". And does the fact that it relates to the tax code, and political slants, change the definition of "fair" and "more". That is why I posed the question, and I would still like to see someone explain to me how 150k is less than 10.5K. Take emotion and politics out of the equation, and answer the question who pays more, I don't see how you come up with anything but currently the rich are paying more. Again, not arguing what it should be just arguing what it is.

 

Say it ain't so: Why? If you are trying to make the issue bigger than just which is more money, then that is exactly my point.

 

Ursa - Again, bringing other influences into the decision making process. If the goal was to pay less in absolute tax dollars, you would be right, but it isn't. If it was then poor people would be happy. That is my point. Poor people pay less in taxes than rich people do, and I am looking for an argument that shows me how 150,000 is less than 10.5k. That is the argument being made regularly on how much more poor people pay in taxes than rich people do.

 

Show me how I am wrong and I will admit it, I just don't see how people can say rich are paying less in taxes than are the poor. Aagin, what it should be is irrelevant for my question.

150,000 is a larger number than 10,500. I'll give you that and move on because the corollary argument you're trying to make by establishing that is nothing short of absurd.

[Clubfoothead]

Who said $150,000.00 is less than $15,000.00?

[Boilerduff]

Ursa - #1 - I said the Number wasn't totally accurate, but it' s close. #2 - Why is proportionality the only measure that matters? Should then distributions be proportional, or is only on the income side that matters? And if so, why? Maybe my answer is there, please go deeper if you would as to why that should be the measure. Again, Asking, trying to understand the argument. It still doesn't sit right with me.

 

Det- Thank you, and as absurd as you think this is, my corrolary argument is that rich people pay more in taxes than poor people do, yet there is no mention of this fact when discussing taxes. Is it absurd because I am correct in that rich people are in fact paying more taxes? I would like to know why you think this so absurd? My argument is simply that rich people and the upper echelon of income earners contribute more, and a lot more, to taxes than poor people do, yet there is no mention of that when talking about all of this inequality and how horrible they all are. I mean they didn't write the tax code, they aren't doing anything wrong. No question we need to change the tax code, but how and what is "fair". Wrren didn't pay less in taxes than his secretary.

 

Yo- Wasn't saying it should or shouldn't be a flat tax. My preference would be a flat tax. I think the tax code should and could be "fairer". but what is that? Wasn't defending low tax rates for the rich. Not taking a position on right or wrong on the tax code. Just trying to get someone to admit that Warren's secretary didn't pay more in taxes than Warren did.

 

clubfoot head - The example was relating to how much money is paid in taxes to the fedral government, and wether or not rich people are paying more or less money in taxes. If (again numbers are not totoally accurate) 5% are paying 50% of the taxes, how are they not paying more in taxes than poor people. My argument is that the lower rate paid by rich people actually equates to more money given to the government, than the higher rate at a lower income, and that is why the argument bugs me.They are in fact paying more to the government. Yet no one can seem to agree with that statement. Asked if they would rather write a 150k check or a 10.5 k check the response was I'll do the 150k! See above.

 

All this being said, I am not taking a position on what is right or wrong on the issue in terms of what people think should be the case. I am simply stating that by my calculations, rich people and high earners are contributing more to the tax base than poor people are. Not saying it's right, wrong or indifferent. I personally hate this tax code and it definitely needs to be changed. I just am so tired the argument that Warren's maid paid more in taxes than than Warren did, when it simply isn't true. That's where the 150k is less than 10.5 k argument came in. In my opinion it's a BS argument that should be called out, but perhaps Ursa's insight on the proportionality of it all will make me see why real dollar contributions are irrelevant, and proportionality is the only measure.

 

Thanks guys.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Romney is only one of many who park there money in the safe haven of the Caymans ... I get dividends from tanker companies that are headquartered in Bermuda b/c of the tax advantages. Why do you think the rich keep money in Swiss bank accounts? really, this is not something to complain about. And no, I will not be voting for Romney in the Repub. primary ... but not b/c of something that both Democrats and Republican businessmen do.

[yo mama]

Romney is only one of many who park there money in the safe haven of the Caymans ... I get dividends from tanker companies that are headquartered in Bermuda b/c of the tax advantages. Why do you think the rich keep money in Swiss bank accounts? really, this is not something to complain about. And no, I will not be voting for Romney in the Repub. primary ... but not b/c of something that both Democrats and Republican businessmen do.

To cheat the IRS. You don't think that's something to complain about?

 

Every honest person and business pays more in tax because of this behavior. The only people who don't complain about it are those who are benefiting, or hope to.

[Ursa Majoris]

Ursa - #1 - I said the Number wasn't totally accurate, but it' s close. #2 - Why is proportionality the only measure that matters? Should then distributions be proportional, or is only on the income side that matters? And if so, why? Maybe my answer is there, please go deeper if you would as to why that should be the measure. Again, Asking, trying to understand the argument. It still doesn't sit right with me.

 

Det- Thank you, and as absurd as you think this is, my corrolary argument is that rich people pay more in taxes than poor people do, yet there is no mention of this fact when discussing taxes. Is it absurd because I am correct in that rich people are in fact paying more taxes? I would like to know why you think this so absurd? My argument is simply that rich people and the upper echelon of income earners contribute more, and a lot more, to taxes than poor people do, yet there is no mention of that when talking about all of this inequality and how horrible they all are. I mean they didn't write the tax code, they aren't doing anything wrong. No question we need to change the tax code, but how and what is "fair". Wrren didn't pay less in taxes than his secretary.

 

Yo- Wasn't saying it should or shouldn't be a flat tax. My preference would be a flat tax. I think the tax code should and could be "fairer". but what is that? Wasn't defending low tax rates for the rich. Not taking a position on right or wrong on the tax code. Just trying to get someone to admit that Warren's secretary didn't pay more in taxes than Warren did.

 

clubfoot head - The example was relating to how much money is paid in taxes to the fedral government, and wether or not rich people are paying more or less money in taxes. If (again numbers are not totoally accurate) 5% are paying 50% of the taxes, how are they not paying more in taxes than poor people. My argument is that the lower rate paid by rich people actually equates to more money given to the government, than the higher rate at a lower income, and that is why the argument bugs me.They are in fact paying more to the government. Yet no one can seem to agree with that statement. Asked if they would rather write a 150k check or a 10.5 k check the response was I'll do the 150k! See above.

 

All this being said, I am not taking a position on what is right or wrong on the issue in terms of what people think should be the case. I am simply stating that by my calculations, rich people and high earners are contributing more to the tax base than poor people are. Not saying it's right, wrong or indifferent. I personally hate this tax code and it definitely needs to be changed. I just am so tired the argument that Warren's maid paid more in taxes than than Warren did, when it simply isn't true. That's where the 150k is less than 10.5 k argument came in. In my opinion it's a BS argument that should be called out, but perhaps Ursa's insight on the proportionality of it all will make me see why real dollar contributions are irrelevant, and proportionality is the only measure.

 

Thanks guys.

I've never before seen an argument that "paying more taxes" means literally paying more in absolute dollars. Most people would argue that paying more is only relevant when related to the amount they have available to pay from, in other words it is only meaningful when considered as a percentage of their overall income. If Mr Buffett pays $100,000 in taxes, he has paid far more than most of the country, yet the amount he has paid is an irrelevance to him bearing in mind his income in the hundreds of millions. That same $100,000 would beggar a person earning $120,000 annually, thus even though they both pay the same amount, one has hardly noticed while the other has been ruined.

 

It is for this reason that taxes are calculated (before deductions) by percentage, which levies proportionally the same amount from everyone. This holds true even when brackets are taken into account, as two persons earning the same amount pay the same amount. After the point where one of those two people caps out their earnings, the other continues to pay a proportion of their earnings. Thus a person earning $75,000 a year pays the exact same amount as a person earning $1,000,000 up to the point where the $75,000 stops.

 

The whole premise of income tax (and capital gains and most other taxes) is proportionality. Thus your example from earlier in the thread had every respondent opting to write the much bigger check because that allowed them to keep a much higher proportion of their earnings. All this is so patently obvious to me I had trouble typing it out.

[Boilerduff]

I've never before seen an argument that "paying more taxes" means literally paying more in absolute dollars. Most people would argue that paying more is only relevant when related to the amount they have available to pay from, in other words it is only meaningful when considered as a percentage of their overall income. If Mr Buffett pays $100,000 in taxes, he has paid far more than most of the country, yet the amount he has paid is an irrelevance to him bearing in mind his income in the hundreds of millions. That same $100,000 would beggar a person earning $120,000 annually, thus even though they both pay the same amount, one has hardly noticed while the other has been ruined.

 

It is for this reason that taxes are calculated (before deductions) by percentage, which levies proportionally the same amount from everyone. This holds true even when brackets are taken into account, as two persons earning the same amount pay the same amount. After the point where one of those two people caps out their earnings, the other continues to pay a proportion of their earnings. Thus a person earning $75,000 a year pays the exact same amount as a person earning $1,000,000 up to the point where the $75,000 stops.

 

The whole premise of income tax (and capital gains and most other taxes) is proportionality. Thus your example from earlier in the thread had every respondent opting to write the much bigger check because that allowed them to keep a much higher proportion of their earnings. All this is so patently obvious to me I had trouble typing it out.

 

Well, thanks for taking the time anyway...

 

I guess that is my whole point, to me more is more. if I write a check for 150k, it is more than 10.5K. To me it is that simple. The 50% of the taxes are paid by the top 5% of earners, is the same argument, in a different way. They are paying more.

 

I'm not sure 100,000 is irrelevant to anyone, and perhaps that's my problem. The simplicity of your tax calculation, again highlights my point that the rich actually do pay more in taxes. Not arguing it is right, proportional or enough, just more. To me a dollar is a dollar, and whether I have 100,000 behind it or 50 behind it. That is kinda where this whole thought pattern comes from. You seem to want apply a proportionality to the value of a dollar, I guess I haven't, and I guess that is my whole point. My dollar buys the same things that Warren's does.

 

Thanks again for the discussion, I do appreciate your time.

[Square]

I've never before seen an argument that "paying more taxes" means literally paying more in absolute dollars.

Talk radio pretty much brings it up every day.

 

Boiler, if you want a small presentation on the ideology of how "fair taxes" is viewed by some, here is a link to a 2 minute video that explains it fairly well.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Can anyone explain to me, why the rate of pay is more important than the dollars contributed? I mean a dollar is a dollar right?

 

Millionaire pays 15% of 1,000,000 = $150,000

Non millionaire pays 35% of 30,000 = $10,500

 

And the argument is that the non-millionaire pays more in taxes? I would like someone to convice me why I should think that $10,500 is more than $150,000?

 

For the record, I am definitly in favor of changing the tax code, preferably to a flat or fair tax, but this argument just bugs me. Why is 150,000 less than 10,500. Which check would you rather write?

I'd rather write the $150,000 one.

Say it ain't so: Why? If you are trying to make the issue bigger than just which is more money, then that is exactly my point.

 

I guess I just don't know what point you are trying to make here.

 

Is $150,000 more than $10,500? Yes.

 

Does the millionaire in your example pay more in total than the non-millionaire? Yes.

 

Which check would I prefer to be in the position to write based on your scenario? The $150K one.

 

If your asking me which check would I rather write without taking into consideration the income? The $10,500 one.

 

Though it seems kind of silly discussing a question on income tax where you aren't supposed to consider the income.

[bpwallace49]

I guess I just don't know what point you are trying to make here.

 

Is $150,000 more than $10,500? Yes.

 

Does the millionaire in your example pay more in total than the non-millionaire? Yes.

 

Which check would I prefer to be in the position to write based on your scenario? The $150K one.

 

If your asking me which check would I rather write without taking into consideration the income? The $10,500 one.

 

Though it seems kind of silly discussing a question on income tax where you aren't supposed to consider the income.

 

And that is the key to the counter argument . . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

Talk radio pretty much brings it up every day.

I used to listen to that. It was kind of like the 19th century tradition of visiting Bedlam to laugh at the lunatics but after a while the novelty wore off.

[gbpfan1231]

Well, thanks for taking the time anyway...

 

I guess that is my whole point, to me more is more. if I write a check for 150k, it is more than 10.5K. To me it is that simple. The 50% of the taxes are paid by the top 5% of earners, is the same argument, in a different way. They are paying more.

 

I'm not sure 100,000 is irrelevant to anyone, and perhaps that's my problem. The simplicity of your tax calculation, again highlights my point that the rich actually do pay more in taxes. Not arguing it is right, proportional or enough, just more. To me a dollar is a dollar, and whether I have 100,000 behind it or 50 behind it. That is kinda where this whole thought pattern comes from. You seem to want apply a proportionality to the value of a dollar, I guess I haven't, and I guess that is my whole point. My dollar buys the same things that Warren's does.

 

Thanks again for the discussion, I do appreciate your time.

I will try to simplify it for you so it makes logical sense...

 

Yes dude A paying in 150,000 pays more taxes than Dude B who pays 10,500. Reason for Dude A paying more than 14 times as much is because dude A is rich and that in turn makes him evil and dude B pays 10,500 because he does not have as much money as Dude A and that is because Dude A has helped rig the system to make it impossible for Dude B to get ahead.

 

Now the government takes in 160,500 but spends 200,000. So to make this all make sense the government then goes back to Dude A (because he/she is evil) and asks for an extra 39,500 to cover the shortfall - why should Dude A pay it? Well it is again all very simple - because Dude A can.

 

Not sure why you are so worried about the 150,000 v 10,500 when in the end they end up paying the fair share and to determine the fair share it is totally dependent on what the government wants to spend.