Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:13:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.

You're expecting Harry Krause to have knowledge he most likely doesn't possess.

Got a chuckle ...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/22/2017 5:53 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you
want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income.Â* But
qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed.Â*Â* Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.


To me, it's not really about large corporations. It's about small
businesses in the USA, many under a Sub-S tax structure. Small
businesses employ the majority of all people in the country.
There's an individual tax rate and then the business tax rate (higher)
that passes through to the owner. Virtually every small business owner
I've heard interviewed about a tax reduction have said it would mean
they could add another employee or two or grow the business. That would
be good for the economy and get the growth rate back up to a decent
level. Like in a business, without growth the US economy becomes stagnant.

Got a chuckle ...
 

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.


Nope, the large corporations are keeping their profits offshore. EG.
Apple. Small business are being taxed on their profit at the 39% rate.
How are those with profits inside the USA no paying the corporate tax rate?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 17:53:33 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.

Got a chuckle ...
 

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 17:53:33 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.


Sort of like Toyota. Few years ago, they made no profit in the USA.
Seems as if the supplies from Japan cost the same as the income derived
here.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:16:08 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 17:53:33 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.


Sort of like Toyota. Few years ago, they made no profit in the USA.
Seems as if the supplies from Japan cost the same as the income derived
here.

That is one of the ramifications of the global economy. A
multinational corporation prices their goods coming and going from
each country that they pass through so they can take the profits in
the one with the most favorable tax code. There are very few things
that are sold here that do not have significant content coming from
other places. Mexico will give them significant tax incentives to do
the most profitable assembly there and then they get to import it here
tax free under NAFTA.

Got a chuckle ...
 

On 10/23/17 3:03 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 17:53:33 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.



Why, you must be reporting fake news, because Oracle Trump claims big
corporations doing business here are paying at that 39% rate, even
though it has been reported on the news over and again that big
corporations basically can run their books in ways that absolutely
minimize their taxes. Wait...is Trump bull****ting us all *again*?

Got a chuckle ...
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:14:41 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.



Why, you must be reporting fake news, because Oracle Trump claims big
corporations doing business here are paying at that 39% rate, even
though it has been reported on the news over and again that big
corporations basically can run their books in ways that absolutely
minimize their taxes. Wait...is Trump bull****ting us all *again*?

That reading comprehension thing got you again.
I said a simpler tax code (fewer loopholes) would raise more money at
a lower rate. Your brain fart totally ignored the statement.
We know that NOBODY pays the marginal rate on their gross income,
certainly not you or I.
An overly complex tax code allows everyone to shelter a lot of their
income and in the case of a multinational corporation they can simply
take their profit in a lower tax country. Why is that surprising to
you?