"Capt. JG" wrote:


You figure Gates worth $65 billion, that's still a pretty good number, one
percent, I'd certainly take it, however, our tax rates have never been nor
had to be that high (well, not until Bush created a deficit from a surplus
maybe).

I think you'll find that the marginal tax on the very rich in the early
60s was about 85%, resulting in an effective rate of nearly 50%. Now
the marginal is something like 35% and the effective rate is less than
15%, zero for some. See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
(in 1944 it was as 94%!!!!)

Cheers
Marty

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:22:21 -0800, Joe wrote:



Also the dems
should tax the super rich like Bill Gates around 99%, and that should
pay the bills. He spending his money in the wrong places, govt should
make that decision.

Hell, isn't it much better to give MS $12 billion in welfare?

http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:


You figure Gates worth $65 billion, that's still a pretty good number, one
percent, I'd certainly take it, however, our tax rates have never been nor
had to be that high (well, not until Bush created a deficit from a surplus
maybe).

I think you'll find that the marginal tax on the very rich in the early
60s was about 85%, resulting in an effective rate of nearly 50%. Now
the marginal is something like 35% and the effective rate is less than
15%, zero for some. See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
(in 1944 it was as 94%!!!!)

Yup... of course, people didn't have even close to the equivalent of
$65 billion.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

You figure Gates worth $65 billion, that's still a pretty good number, one
percent, I'd certainly take it, however, our tax rates have never been nor
had to be that high (well, not until Bush created a deficit from a surplus
maybe).
I think you'll find that the marginal tax on the very rich in the early
60s was about 85%, resulting in an effective rate of nearly 50%. Now
the marginal is something like 35% and the effective rate is less than
15%, zero for some. See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
(in 1944 it was as 94%!!!!)

Yup... of course, people didn't have even close to the equivalent of
$65 billion.


According to the History of the Income Tax in our almanac, the federal
income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War
effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the
16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent
fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Federal taxes were enacted to finance federal issues like war. How did
we get here? And more interestingly, how did we ever survive before
1862 or between 1872 and 1913?

Who is John Gault?

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

You figure Gates worth $65 billion, that's still a pretty good number, one
percent, I'd certainly take it, however, our tax rates have never been nor
had to be that high (well, not until Bush created a deficit from a surplus
maybe).
I think you'll find that the marginal tax on the very rich in the early
60s was about 85%, resulting in an effective rate of nearly 50%. Now
the marginal is something like 35% and the effective rate is less than
15%, zero for some. See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
(in 1944 it was as 94%!!!!)

Yup... of course, people didn't have even close to the equivalent of
$65 billion.


And consider how much tax will actually get paid on that fortune.
First of all, its impossible to spend it, so the bulk of it will go to
the trust tax free. In return for that honor, Bill gets to decide how
it is doled out.

Then, anything Bill sells to cover his personal expense will be taxed
as long term capital gains at 15%. But actually, many of his personal
expenses are probably paid by the company or the trust - certainly his
private jet and first class accommodations are covered.

The bottom line is that the actual tax received by this accumulation
of wealth is relatively small. Of course, you can argue that Bill's
work has facilitated much of the world's economic growth over the last
20 years, but that' another thread.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article , Martin Baxter
wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote:

You figure Gates worth $65 billion, that's still a pretty good number,
one
percent, I'd certainly take it, however, our tax rates have never been
nor
had to be that high (well, not until Bush created a deficit from a
surplus
maybe).
I think you'll find that the marginal tax on the very rich in the early
60s was about 85%, resulting in an effective rate of nearly 50%. Now
the marginal is something like 35% and the effective rate is less than
15%, zero for some. See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
(in 1944 it was as 94%!!!!)

Yup... of course, people didn't have even close to the equivalent of
$65 billion.

And consider how much tax will actually get paid on that fortune. First of
all, its impossible to spend it, so the bulk of it will go to the trust
tax free. In return for that honor, Bill gets to decide how it is doled
out.

Trusts are taxed higher than individuals.



Then, anything Bill sells to cover his personal expense will be taxed as
long term capital gains at 15%. But actually, many of his personal
expenses are probably paid by the company or the trust - certainly his
private jet and first class accommodations are covered.

The bottom line is that the actual tax received by this accumulation of
wealth is relatively small. Of course, you can argue that Bill's work has
facilitated much of the world's economic growth over the last 20 years,
but that' another thread.

Gilligan wrote:
Yup... of course, people didn't have even close to the equivalent of
$65 billion.
And consider how much tax will actually get paid on that fortune. First of
all, its impossible to spend it, so the bulk of it will go to the trust
tax free. In return for that honor, Bill gets to decide how it is doled
out.

Trusts are taxed higher than individuals.

Charitable trusts??? What's their tax rate?

Tax rates for trusts:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...112782,00.html

Much higher than individual taxes.

Gilligan wrote:
Tax rates for trusts:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...112782,00.html

Much higher than individual taxes.


I don't think that's talking about charitable trusts, such as the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Gilligan wrote:
Tax rates for trusts:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article...112782,00.html

Much higher than individual taxes.
I don't think that's talking about charitable trusts, such as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.

A trust is a taxable entity. Bill's "charitable trust" is actually a
foundation that is tax exempt. It is the tax exempt status of the foundation
or corporation that makes it tax exempt, not the holding of the funds
irrevocably out of the control of Bill Gates in the form of a "trust" (it's
actually a gift that is realized and deducted over a period of up to 5
years, unlike a trust). I know of no trust that is tax exempt and could find
no such trust in the IRS regulations. Bill Gates can receive income from
this "charitable trust" which is not tax free, but is taxed at Bill's tax
rate. He must receive a minimum of 5% of the holdings per year, of which
income is taxed. The income of the charitable foundation is not taxed. The
income of a trust is taxed at rates much more than the rates for
individuals.