For all you tax and spend guys

In 2007, 390,000 tax filers reported adjusted gross income of $1 million or more and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such filers, a decline of 39 percent. Almost four of 10 millionaires vanished in two years, and the total taxes they paid in 2009 declined to $178 billion, a drop of 42 percent, says the Wall Street Journal.

Those with $10 million or more in reported income fell to 8,274 from 18,394 in 2007, a 55 percent drop. As a result, their tax payments tanked by 51 percent.
These disappearing millionaires go a long way toward explaining why federal tax revenues have sunk to 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in recent years.
The loss of millionaires accounts for at least $130 billion of the higher federal budget deficit in 2009.
But the millionaires who are left still pay a mountain of tax.

Those who make $1 million accounted for about 0.2 percent of all tax returns but paid 20.4 percent of income taxes in 2009.
Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3 percent of tax filers but paid 50.1 percent of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes.
Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5 percent of the income tax.
This means the top 3 percent paid more than the bottom 97 percent, yet the 3 percent are the people that President Obama claims don't pay their fair share.
Source: "Millionaires Go Missing," Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2011.

For text:

Review & Outlook: Millionaires Go Missing - WSJ.com
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
And your point would be?

IMHO, those with incomes in the atmospheric levels we're discussing here should feel honored to make that kind of money and (again, IMHO) should not feel like they are being "punished" for their hard work with whatever taxes they pay (and we all know about how the rich use their lawyers to "develop" tax-dodging exemptions, so in the end their taxable income is reduced to such a low figure that the income taxes in the 20% range represents a lesser percentage of total income than that paid by those who barely make enough to pay income taxes at all).

And....to make things worse, yesterday the newspaper had an article about Republicans wanting to RAISE taxes...yep, hard to believe. In the end, what they wanted to do was keep the Democrats from extending the one-year cut for the poor in reference to their contributions to S/S...at this time the lower income individuals contribute only 4.2% rather than 6.2% (the employer continues to contribute 6.2%), but the exemption is going to run out unless congress authorizes an extension for these people who live in poverty and desperately need every penny they can get just to survive.

Seriously.....give me a break. Millionaires given huge tax-dodges by the Republicans, while the poorest of Americans will likely loose one of the least costly "breaks" they have. I wonder who needs the tax breaks more?

The Republicans just continue to demonstrate how little empathy, or any other form of connection, they have for the average American. Fat-cats giving fellow fat-cats the tax breaks they need to increase their already incredible net worth while depriving the poorest of Americans of a minor break.....

I don't expect you to agree with this, Domtoni.....we obviously see things differently. I just have a BIG problem feeling sorry for anyone who earns the kind of money you mentioned in your original post and then cries about how much taxes they have to pay.

My $.02 worth.....that's about all I have left after the Republicans have their way with my meager retirement!

Cheers to the common folk, from Doug!!
 
I consider myself to be 'common folk' and yet I cannot understand why it is reasonable to suggest that higher-earners should feel 'honoured' that they earn so much??

And in my experience, everyone 'cries' about how much tax they pay and if they could afford the advice, everyone would happily pay experts to help reduce their tax exposure.

I just wish this age-old argument didn't always sound so jealousy-driven.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I just wish this age-old argument didn't always sound so jealousy-driven.

I'm not jealous of those who earn high incomes, Mark. I worked in public education for many years (32) and in many differen locations with widely different demographics, income included. It was my experience that the most unhappy were those who lived in the most expensive/exclusive neighborhoods. I particularly remember driving into a rather wealthy neighborhood for the first time and thinking "Gee, there might not be enough for me to do here, with all this wealth how could they need my services much?"

That was the most difficult site on which I ever worked...those people were NEVER happy, no matter how much they got from the public schools, they always wanted more.

Gluttony.....greed.....neither is admirable, neither is desirable, but both are SO much a part of being wealthy, in my experience. Not only am I not jealous, I would not wish that level of unhappiness on my worst enemies.

I am constantly amazed......how can those with so much money be so unhappy in SO many ways?

Cheers from Doug!!
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Sure they are. They just make less. Think about why...what happened in 2008?

Well, the financial markets collapsed and unemployment doubled.

If they idea is that "high taxes" caused this it's bunk.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Domtoni

You titled this "For all you tax and spend guys"

Are you a tax and don't spend guy?

Do you think the Government should tax and keep the money?

I really think tax spending is good for the economy, what about you?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Sure they are. They just make less.

Agreed....in part.

"Sure they are".....I agree they are still there.

"They just make less"....not quite sure I can agree with that.

I think their lawyers and accountants have just become more adept at making them look like they make less, aided and abeted by their fat-cat cronies in congress who push through financially advantageous tax codes for the wealthy.

We here in America desperately need a "FAIR" method of taxation, one that is not based on a consumer based tax.

I've suggested that a flat 10% of GROSS income would be appropriate....no exemptions, no deductions, just gross income.

Of course, that'll never happen as long as the legislators in our country are primarily lawyers and accountants :furious: .

Legislation and oversight related to taxation seems a bit like asking the fox to watch the henhouse, no? Self-serving politicians will never do what is best for the country, they are quite simply incapable of depriving themselves of the incredible benefits they have granted themselves, and that includes the preferential treatment the wealthy get in regards to tax laws. It is exactly what it is....probably not going to change.

What I do hope will change is that all this handwringing and caterwauling by those with wealth will cease. When will they learn to be happy with what they have?

Oh, yeah.....I forgot, we're talking about the wealthy here. Money is like a drug for them, they can never get enough. I guess I better not hold my breath, eh :idea: ?

Cheers, Doug!
 
And your point would be?

IMHO, those with incomes in the atmospheric levels we're discussing here should feel honored to make that kind of money and (again, IMHO) should not feel like they are being "punished" for their hard work with whatever taxes they pay (and we all know about how the rich use their lawyers to "develop" tax-dodging exemptions, so in the end their taxable income is reduced to such a low figure that the income taxes in the 20% range represents a lesser percentage of total income than that paid by those who barely make enough to pay income taxes at all).

I think what is not understood is that that you cant stop this. Lets face it, the rich and powerful are always going to find a way to get around the system...
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
John,

You have a point, but then I remember Leona Helmesly going to prison...............................
 
Doug, 10% on Gross across the board? WOW. If only we had 250M+ residents in the UK. I buy that all day long.

I agree on that point though. I would welcome a single, flat rate on gross earnings. One rate for all. Simples.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I agree on that point though. I would welcome a single, flat rate on gross earnings. One rate for all. Simples.

I think that is the crux of the matter, Mark....most of us who seem to be left-wing politically are probably most incensed by the preferential tax code treatment the rich recieve at the hands of our legislators, and yet we hear them crying all the time about the amount of taxes that they pay.

If we had a plan such as you (and I) mentioned, all that angst would disappear and perhaps the content of our discussions here could focus more on exactly what the government should do with what money they do get from us. Part of my idea re: a single, flat rate would be the abolition of sales taxes, which to me represent a regressively unfair tax upon the poor, who must spend every penny they earn just to survive, as compared to the wealthy who need not do so.

Cheers, Doug!
 
who must spend every penny they earn just to survive, as compared to the wealthy who need not do so.

Cheers, Doug!

Doug,

No surprise to me but you are not alone in your thinking, and alledgedly having to pay all this tax does not seem to be doing them to much harm.


The Rich Are Now Richer Than Before the 2008 Credit Meltdown
Steven Bertoni
Money Talks
July 14|

Unemployment is at 9.2%, and the ruins of the U.S. housing market are still smoldering after the 2008 bonfire. But the planet's rich are getting richer, especially in the growing BRIC economies.

In fact, there are more rich people today than there were before the credit crisis destroyed Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and nearly crippled the world's financial industry.

A study from Capgemini and Bank of America Merrill Lynch showed that the world's population of high-networth individuals (HNWI), with $1 million or more in investable assets, jumped 8.3% over the last year to a total of 10.9 million people. That number is up from the 2007 tally of 10.1 million tycoons.

Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer. Their financial wealth jumped 9.7% over the last year to $42.7 trillion


What recession?: How Britain's billionaires just keep getting richer despite economic downturn
May 9 2011 By Lesley Campbell

Billionaires in Britain are getting even richer.

Their wealth has shot up 18 per cent in a year.

While the rest of us worry about our jobs and battle to pay bills, the UK's 1000 richest people are now worth £395.8billion, according to the 2011 Sunday Times Rich List.

They have continued to recover from the economic crisis, which wiped £155billion from their wealth in 2009. Last year's total was £333.5billion, a record 30 per cent increase.

There are now 73 billionaires in Britain. The richest is steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal with £17.5billion. Also in the top 10 is Russian oil tycoon Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea FC, who's worth £10.3billion.

Here, Daily Record financial expert Lesley Campbell explains how they rake it in.

THE rich get richer while the poor get poorer ... it almost seems to be a law of nature. This is how it comes about.

On a simple level, if you have money, you're earning interest.

If you have loans, you're paying interest.

The result is that the rich are always moving forwards while the poor are always going backwards - and bear in mind that there are different speeds involved.

If the rich are earning five per cent interest on their money, the poor are probably paying around 25 per cent on their loans.

If you are poor, you have lost control. If you're rich, you have it and you use it to spread your money around.

This is the first rule of wealth creation - diversify. Sell shares if you think the stock market looks ropey and buy something else - gold or shares in an Indian computer company.

People with little money tend to have most of it invested in UK shares and their wealth rises or falls with the market.

Not the rich. They spread their money between a wide range of investments to make sure that if one is falling, another is rising.

Our economy may have been feeble for a few years, but there have been plenty of countries that have been powering ahead.

If you switched your money from here to Brazil in 2008, you'd be patting yourself on the back. If we in the UK are suffering because of high oil prices, why not buy oil futures that give you a profit as the price goes up? The simple fact is that while one market is weak, another is strong.

If you have wealth, you can keep your fingers in as many financial pies as possible.

The rich do this with their personal money and businesses.

Very few top people have stayed in one small area of the business world. They recognise they have to make money in recessions as well as boom times and diversify accordingly. It's all about swings and roundabouts.

The second way the rich make money in a recession is by switching from buying to selling.

Professional investors can make money on falling markets just as they can on rising markets. Buying shares is simply a bet they will go up in price. Professionals can make similar bets that pay out if the market falls.

And they can also insure themselves. If they have a couple of million invested in the stock market, they can pay a premium and if the market does fall, the policy pays out. Heads they win, tails you lose.

It's galling to see there are quite a few bankers in the Rich List, but they've set themselves up so that they can make money no matter what. As long as markets move, there's money to be made.

Commodity traders are also there in abundance. The Chinese economy has handed them huge profits as it consumed the world's commodity reserves.

Let's hope the banks lending them money do not get carried away and allow them to create a commodity bubble.

If they do, we, the taxpayers, may end up bailing them out again while today's mega-successful traders retire to Monte Carlo with their fortunes intact.

And that's the next lesson in finding your way on to the Rich List - take the money when the market's going your way and make sure you give none of it back when the prices go into reverse gear.

So who is doing particularly well these days? While most of us would grudgingly acknowledge that the hard-worker-fromhumble-beginnings entrepreneur is just about tolerable on the Rich List, it is galling to see how many have "inheritance" as an explanation for their wealth.

Few people will shed a tear over the richest Briton, the Duke of Westminster, being demoted from the top three for the first time. After all, he's still got £7billion.

Perhaps the Rich List would be more tolerable if it were felt the country as a whole would benefit.

The rich employ staff, buy goods and, most importantly of all, they pay tax. But how many of us really believe everyone on the Rich List is paying their fair share? It has just been announced the UK tax authorities have agreed a deal with wealthy Britons who keep their money in Swiss banks.

Instead of being obliged to bring it back to the UK and pay all the tax that has been avoided to date, they are going to be allowed to pay a reduced amount and maintain their anonymity.

Tax experts often claim that if tax is too high in the UK, the wealthy will simply leave and set up home elsewhere.

But it would be reassuring to feel the HMRC were demanding the maximum rather than settling for the minimum.
 
John,

You have a point, but then I remember Leona Helmesly going to prison...............................


........ for 18 months.

Kinda reminds me of when the DEA makes a "huge" drug bust and intercepts a shipping container. A decisive victory for the war on drugs, no?
 
Doug,

No surprise to me but you are not alone in your thinking, and alledgedly having to pay all this tax does not seem to be doing them to much harm.


The Rich Are Now Richer Than Before the 2008 Credit Meltdown
Steven Bertoni
Money Talks
July 14|

Unemployment is at 9.2%, and the ruins of the U.S. housing market are still smoldering after the 2008 bonfire. But the planet's rich are getting richer, especially in the growing BRIC economies.

In fact, there are more rich people today than there were before the credit crisis destroyed Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and nearly crippled the world's financial industry.

A study from Capgemini and Bank of America Merrill Lynch showed that the world's population of high-networth individuals (HNWI), with $1 million or more in investable assets, jumped 8.3% over the last year to a total of 10.9 million people. That number is up from the 2007 tally of 10.1 million tycoons.

Not only are there more rich, but they're also richer. Their financial wealth jumped 9.7% over the last year to $42.7 trillion


What recession?: How Britain's billionaires just keep getting richer despite economic downturn
May 9 2011 By Lesley Campbell

Billionaires in Britain are getting even richer.

Their wealth has shot up 18 per cent in a year.

While the rest of us worry about our jobs and battle to pay bills, the UK's 1000 richest people are now worth £395.8billion, according to the 2011 Sunday Times Rich List.

They have continued to recover from the economic crisis, which wiped £155billion from their wealth in 2009. Last year's total was £333.5billion, a record 30 per cent increase.

There are now 73 billionaires in Britain. The richest is steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal with £17.5billion. Also in the top 10 is Russian oil tycoon Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea FC, who's worth £10.3billion.

Here, Daily Record financial expert Lesley Campbell explains how they rake it in.

THE rich get richer while the poor get poorer ... it almost seems to be a law of nature. This is how it comes about.

On a simple level, if you have money, you're earning interest.

If you have loans, you're paying interest.

The result is that the rich are always moving forwards while the poor are always going backwards - and bear in mind that there are different speeds involved.

If the rich are earning five per cent interest on their money, the poor are probably paying around 25 per cent on their loans.

If you are poor, you have lost control. If you're rich, you have it and you use it to spread your money around.

This is the first rule of wealth creation - diversify. Sell shares if you think the stock market looks ropey and buy something else - gold or shares in an Indian computer company.

People with little money tend to have most of it invested in UK shares and their wealth rises or falls with the market.

Not the rich. They spread their money between a wide range of investments to make sure that if one is falling, another is rising.

Our economy may have been feeble for a few years, but there have been plenty of countries that have been powering ahead.

If you switched your money from here to Brazil in 2008, you'd be patting yourself on the back. If we in the UK are suffering because of high oil prices, why not buy oil futures that give you a profit as the price goes up? The simple fact is that while one market is weak, another is strong.

If you have wealth, you can keep your fingers in as many financial pies as possible.

The rich do this with their personal money and businesses.

Very few top people have stayed in one small area of the business world. They recognise they have to make money in recessions as well as boom times and diversify accordingly. It's all about swings and roundabouts.

The second way the rich make money in a recession is by switching from buying to selling.

Professional investors can make money on falling markets just as they can on rising markets. Buying shares is simply a bet they will go up in price. Professionals can make similar bets that pay out if the market falls.

And they can also insure themselves. If they have a couple of million invested in the stock market, they can pay a premium and if the market does fall, the policy pays out. Heads they win, tails you lose.

It's galling to see there are quite a few bankers in the Rich List, but they've set themselves up so that they can make money no matter what. As long as markets move, there's money to be made.

Commodity traders are also there in abundance. The Chinese economy has handed them huge profits as it consumed the world's commodity reserves.

Let's hope the banks lending them money do not get carried away and allow them to create a commodity bubble.

If they do, we, the taxpayers, may end up bailing them out again while today's mega-successful traders retire to Monte Carlo with their fortunes intact.

And that's the next lesson in finding your way on to the Rich List - take the money when the market's going your way and make sure you give none of it back when the prices go into reverse gear.

So who is doing particularly well these days? While most of us would grudgingly acknowledge that the hard-worker-fromhumble-beginnings entrepreneur is just about tolerable on the Rich List, it is galling to see how many have "inheritance" as an explanation for their wealth.

Few people will shed a tear over the richest Briton, the Duke of Westminster, being demoted from the top three for the first time. After all, he's still got £7billion.

Perhaps the Rich List would be more tolerable if it were felt the country as a whole would benefit.

The rich employ staff, buy goods and, most importantly of all, they pay tax. But how many of us really believe everyone on the Rich List is paying their fair share? It has just been announced the UK tax authorities have agreed a deal with wealthy Britons who keep their money in Swiss banks.

Instead of being obliged to bring it back to the UK and pay all the tax that has been avoided to date, they are going to be allowed to pay a reduced amount and maintain their anonymity.

Tax experts often claim that if tax is too high in the UK, the wealthy will simply leave and set up home elsewhere.

But it would be reassuring to feel the HMRC were demanding the maximum rather than settling for the minimum.

I can't argue with any of that Nick. +1
 
I think the Tax system is all wrong !
The top richest 3% pay more than the 97% of the rest that's got to be wrong.
I think the rich should pay next to nothing provided they are allowed to spend it on luxury goods, this will get the economy moving and the retail market will prosper.
If you have millions or even billions you can't spend it all " It's hard... I Know ".
You can buy fast car collections, boats, planes and whatevers expensive items you desire even if you dont really need them, it will all help the economy.
I also think older people are a drain on the system, they use more facilities like hospitals, doctors and so should pay more, much more.
I'm sure when doug sits and reflects on this he will agree.
 
I think the Tax system is all wrong !
The top richest 3% pay more than the 97% of the rest that's got to be wrong.
I think the rich should pay next to nothing provided they are allowed to spend it on luxury goods, this will get the economy moving and the retail market will prosper.
If you have millions or even billions you can't spend it all " It's hard... I Know ".
You can buy fast car collections, boats, planes and whatevers expensive items you desire even if you dont really need them, it will all help the economy.
I also think older people are a drain on the system, they use more facilities like hospitals, doctors and so should pay more, much more.
I'm sure when doug sits and reflects on this he will agree.

Keith,

I'm looking for the ;) in there... :)
 
Domtoni

You titled this "For all you tax and spend guys"

Are you a tax and don't spend guy?

Do you think the Government should tax and keep the money?

I really think tax spending is good for the economy, what about you?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

The article talks about the number of millionaires going down. With that, shouldn't spending go down to reflect reduced tax revenue?

The two UK billionaires quoted, one controls a bunch of stuff in Russia and the other is a steel guy. Here is the bit on Abramovich:
Roman Abramovich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I beg the question. Back in the 70s when the UK top tax rate was 92%, why did the monied people leave the country?
 
Something that has always irked me here, is how we allow the Government to apply various taxes to a product, say petrol or electricity and then add another tax (VAT @20%) to the total! How is applying a tax to tax even legal?
 
Back
Top