Top Tier Tax Solution

Not interested in steering the whole discussion towards the 'Zone, but the persistent misconception is that, if the government takes money away from the successful, it will somehow benefit the poor - and that just does not work. It benefits the bureaucrat class in government (some) and the high-powered non-productive elected leaders. The rest? Not at all.

'Tis a disaster, unfolding in slow motion.
 
Yeah, where are all these loopholes I keep hearing about?



I pay a tax attorney/CPA $500/hr. to find them, and he can't find them.



Not for me anyhow ... :dunno:


That's my point. I've been a CPA for over 30 years, and back in the tax shelter hayday, I would grant that there were some major unintended consequences to the tax code that "might" be construed as a loophole, though I despise that term. Those were virtually shut down by Ronald Reagan in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 - passed with a democrat-controlled House, by the way, if anyone wants an example of how a president can work with an opposition party. But I digress.

Now, the term "loophole" is used by both parties, but primarily democrats, to feed into the "us vs them" tax warfare machine. I have personally cautioned Paul Ryan against throwing that term around, but to no avail.

In reality, except for the taxation of carried interests (I.e. earning a profits interest in a pass-through entity), "loopholes" are merely intended tax results (deductions or income inclusion) that have fallen out of popular flavor. There is absolutely nothing "unintended" about these things.
 
Not interested in steering the whole discussion towards the 'Zone, but the persistent misconception is that, if the government takes money away from the successful, it will somehow benefit the poor - and that just does not work. It benefits the bureaucrat class in government (some) and the high-powered non-productive elected leaders. The rest? Not at all.

'Tis a disaster, unfolding in slow motion.

I don't want the government to take it, I want them to spend it. The more they spend, the more they keep tax exempt, build infrastructure that everyone uses, you get a 300% exemption.

I also would give the same 300% as a pass through for lower income (meaning less than the threshold for the 90% tax) investing in H2 infrastructure, renewable, and developing energy funds.
 
Last edited:
Actually the most prosperous time in American history was 1870-1910, when there was NO income tax. Taxing incomes is tantamount to enslaving people for some percentage of their working lives. How much slavery should we accept?

The problem is not taxes, it's spending. The US government has grown so far beyond its envisioned scope that there is literally no amount of money that can save it in its current form.
 
Actually the most prosperous time in American history was 1870-1910, when there was NO income tax. Taxing incomes is tantamount to enslaving people for some percentage of their working lives. How much slavery should we accept?

The problem is not taxes, it's spending. The US government has grown so far beyond its envisioned scope that there is literally no amount of money that can save it in its current form.

Correct, we have to look beyond money and see what really needs to be fixed, and the first things are energy and potable water. We need a new industry.
 
Correct, we have to look beyond money and see what really needs to be fixed, and the first things are energy and potable water. We need a new industry.

In this you are absolutely correct.

But in the meantime, people need work, and we need roads, bridges and an electrical grid repaired and upgraded. Investment in infrastructure always precedes growth.
 
In this you are absolutely correct.

But in the meantime, people need work, and we need roads, bridges and an electrical grid repaired and upgraded. Investment in infrastructure always precedes growth.

Yes, building the new industry will put people to work. We built the hydro electric industry in the 30s, it prepared us for what we needed in WWII. That spending set us up with the industrial ability to not only provide the weapons of war, but to build the nuclear energy industry as well. The Manhattan Project spanned 2 years to build the entire infrastructure to deliver nuclear energy and weapons. It employed lots and lots of people. Where did all that money come from?:dunno: It all happened though, and our nation moved into a time of great advance, hope, and prosperity even with cold war spending constantly sucking up money, but hell, we went to the moon and developed ****loads of technologies that have advanced us to the point of greatness, but we hold on to our energy sources from when the population of the planet was still around the one billion of natural sustainability.

We are being held back, dependent on oil for what reason? Don't tell me energy production, we throw away far too much produced energy charging a grid that has a low load. All that electricity could be stored as hydrogen for demand use.

We have the technology on the shelf to make it all happen right now, and industry at a comparable age of the Apple LISA in the computer industry. When popularly accepted, can you imagine where we'll be in 10 years, 20? Energy production becomes scalable down to mom and pop producers who want to run a wind farm. They can create a direct market product without having to sell back to the grid at stupid low prices. You don't need a grid connection at all, just tanks.

That is The Market's real fear of hydrogen, they will lose control of production and distribution to energy coops. What they don't figure in is the opportunities algae will provide for their refineries.

The problem is there are no visionaries left in control of companies. Tried and true, get the most return out of every dime you can. Make the quarterly financial statement look good and the stock ticker on the big board to go up, because man, when that number changes, the world is moved and becomes a better place.

Bill Gate's heart is in the right spot, but if he eliminates Malaria before securing clean water and food in developing countries, he is doing them and the world a great disservice.
 
Nice thought, but we gotta look at tax policy as a whole.

When the top rate was 90%, the tax code was so full of loopholes and exemptions, nobody actually paid 90%.

Eliminating exemptions and simplifying the tax code was part of the reduction in top rate. The goal was zero difference in taxes collected. Just less work for the accountants.

With the massive tax overhaul in 1986, top rates plummeted, and taxes collected zoomed up.

Your saying that there are no tax loopholes for corporations today?! Very fewU.S. corporations today pay more than 10-15 percent due to loopholes, many pay nothing. Many more hold their profits overseas. This did not occur back then when tax rates were much higher. Important to remember also that back then things were booming. Easily proven that Ronnie's trickle down was a complete failure. Reagan was a BIG spender. Never even attempted to balance the budget. ( but he was a master B.S. Expert.)
 
Interesting, I would have though post WW2 until the end of the sixties.....cite?

Oh, I believe it, especially per capita. This was the Antebellum Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of anti-natural modern medicine and the population explosion. This was The Guided Age of Robber Barons, the guys who collapsed it all into the Great Depression. But it was also before any unions, and environmental regulations were just being invented out of necessity. I think the first was the ban on hydraulic mining.
 
Oh, I believe it, especially per capita. This was the Antebellum Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of anti-natural modern medicine and the population explosion. This was The Guided Age of Robber Barons, the guys who collapsed it all into the Great Depression. But it was also before any unions, and environmental regulations were just being invented out of necessity. I think the first was the ban on hydraulic mining.

Exactly! And when one wants to bad mouth the "govmint" and praise private interprise, just read up on the gilded age and how the government , for instance, financed and made possible the railroads as a classic example. Given millions of subsidies the railroad thieves then hired Chinese ( for slave wages) to build their network. ( very similar to today's guilded age which will end the same way. ) as Harry Truman mused, " the only thing new is what you haven't read yet."
 
Interesting article with tangential relation to this topic

http://online.wsj.com/articles/politics-in-the-modest-age-1405639110

Talks about Harry Truman and how he was broke when he left office. Here is the paragraph that stood out to me.
When the book came out it sold fine and earned respectful reviews. But friends thought Harry's pungent, blunt manner of expression had been squashed down and evened out by collaborators, or perhaps by self-consciousness. A bigger disappointment was money. With the cost of staff, researchers and office rent, his net profit, he figured, was only $37,000 over five years. He was shocked he had to pay 67% federal and state income taxes. Truman had supported high tax rates for broad government services pretty much all his political life. There was a sense in his letters this was the first time he personally felt the cost of the policies he'd professed. He called the taxes "crushing." He pushed for a bill in Washington for office money for former presidents, and—rightly, fairly—got it.
 
So, I was thinking, when America was strongest and most prosperous, there was a >90% tax on the top tier incomes, private and corporate. This works because it spurs reinvestment. The world has moved on from that time and reinvestment needs to be at home, not overseas.

I'll make the assumption you are speaking to the time frame of "strongest and most prosperous" being the late 1940's to mid-1970's? If so, I'm having difficulty in linking the 90% top tax rate to the prosperous times. I'd propose that our success during that time was due far more to the fact the rest of the world was a shambles after WWII and so many countries lost a whole generation of their best and brightest. The fact of the matter is that if you wanted a widget in 1952, America was really the only place to get one. Of course, all that devastation did result in the remainder of the world rebuilding using more efficient methods and processes.

So, I propose a modern variant that favors degenerate hedonism. Standard graduated tax to $500k, above $500k you go to 90% bracket. Here's the bone, any money you spend within the US and/or on US goods, is tax deductible at 1.25:1. Make all you want, just spend it here, and we'll give you a bonus credit for spending.

Well… degenerate hedonism does have a certain attractiveness..:D

So how many people does this affect and what would be the trade off of a progressive tax verses the spending from reduced taxes? While the top 1% hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and income, there are relatively few of them. Just don't see how that increased spending to reduce taxes will make all that much difference. OR - are you proposing to tax wealth (land, stock, bonds, art…) at the same rate as income?

Gary
 
Your saying that there are no tax loopholes for corporations today?! Very fewU.S. corporations today pay more than 10-15 percent due to loopholes, many pay nothing. Many more hold their profits overseas. This did not occur back then when tax rates were much higher. Important to remember also that back then things were booming. Easily proven that Ronnie's trickle down was a complete failure. Reagan was a BIG spender. Never even attempted to balance the budget. ( but he was a master B.S. Expert.)


Can you name these loopholes that you speak of, or are you just once again regurgitating talking points?
 
Interesting article with tangential relation to this topic

http://online.wsj.com/articles/politics-in-the-modest-age-1405639110

Talks about Harry Truman and how he was broke when he left office. Here is the paragraph that stood out to me.

Harry Truman was broke when he left office. At that time there was no retirement pension for a former U.S. President. He only received 150 bucks a month pension from his service as an artillery captain ( in combat) during WW1 He never owner a home and retired to his mother in Laws home. He went broke as half owner of a men's clothing store when the economy went south after WW 1 but over the years paid off his debt 100 percent. He never took any renumeration for speech making and was known as a stalwart honest politician in his home state. Harry stated " the chair I sit in belongs to the American
people. When a president forgets this he is in deep trouble. " Unquote. Not too long after this after this watergate occurred. Excellent book about him called " plain speaking" . Truman was for high taxes as WW2 cost big money as did the Marshall plan, etc. just the opposite of the insane tax cutting by bush jr. Who started two wars and cut taxes. A prescription for the disaster that followed.
 
Last edited:
Can you name these loopholes that you speak of, or are you just once again regurgitating talking points?

Its so easy to look this up that you must be kidding! Instead of a smart ass comment, look it up. I don't understand what you mean by talking points. I call them easily researched facts.
 
Its so easy to look this up that you must be kidding! Instead of a smart ass comment, look it up. I don't understand what you mean by talking points. I call them easily researched facts.


I've been a tax CPA for 30 years, and deal with this **** every single day. "Loophole" doesn't appear in the Internal Revenue Code, a copy of which, along with all Treasury regulations, I have on my desk.

Put up or shut up.
 
I've been a tax CPA for 30 years, and deal with this **** every single day. "Loophole" doesn't appear in the Internal Revenue Code, a copy of which, along with all Treasury regulations, I have on my desk.

Put up or shut up.

This.

What is a deduction to me (Childcare expenses, mortgage interest, etc.) is a loophole from the perspective of most anyone who doesn't have those expenses. That said, those write-offs were intentionally included in the tax code, so they are NOT loopholes. Same thing for accelerated depreciation on Corporate Jets and a hundred other things people consider boondoggles or loopholes. They aren't there by accident, so they aren't loopholes.

Now, do all of those exemptions make sense to the layman (or even the guy with the MBA)? No. Were some of them written so narrowly as to benefit (literally) a handful of people or corporations? Yep. Which is why I'd push for a very simplified tax code with standard deductions and flat or modestly graduated tax rates above that.
 
Can you name these loopholes that you speak of, or are you just once again regurgitating talking points?

The word "loophole" is just describing a way to get around paying tax's. I'm not sure where every1 is from but I am from Miami and currently live in Cost Rica. Trust me when I tell you there are plenty of "loopholes" so an individual or corporation does not have to pay the maximum tax they are supposed to.

How many of you own a product from Apple? Watch this and when your done pick your jaw up off the floor and shake your head for a minute.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/tax-free-tour/

Nddons you might learn something in that video ;)
 
Last edited:
Your saying that there are no tax loopholes for corporations today?! Very few U.S. corporations today pay more than 10-15 percent due to loopholes, many pay nothing.

Corporations do not pay taxes. Their customers pay them. If taxes are a part of the cost of doing business, they are built into the price of everything a company sells.
 
Corporations do not pay taxes. Their customers pay them. If taxes are a part of the cost of doing business, they are built into the price of everything a company sells.

That's state tax( sales tax) after you give that to the state the fed's tax your profit.
 
I've been a tax CPA for 30 years, and deal with this **** every single day. "Loophole" doesn't appear in the Internal Revenue Code, a copy of which, along with all Treasury regulations, I have on my desk.

Put up or shut up.

I'm sure glad you haven't been doing my taxes. It's so easy to look up corporate tax loopholes I'm amazed at your idiotic statement. Google it and report. Unitil then , you shut up.
 
Yes, and you price your product/service accordingly to include the cost of the taxes you are going to have to pay.

I work my business based on profit margins based on %'s. I really don't think it's possible to predict what you will be left with as far as taxable profits. What you are saying is you would predict that you will make let's say 100k profit this year. In that profit range you would pay in the 30-40% bracket so you would jack your prices up by that % ? I don't get what your saying???
 
The word "loophole" is just describing a way to get around paying tax's. I'm not sure where every1 is from but I am from Miami and currently live in Cost Rica. Trust me when I tell you there are plenty of "loopholes" so an individual or corporation does not have to pay the maximum tax they are supposed to.

How many of you own a product from Apple? Watch this and when your done pick your jaw up off the floor and shake your head for a minute.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/tax-free-tour/

Nddons you might learn something in that video ;)

Fortunately, no person is required to pay the "maximum tax they are supposed to." However, I presume you are paying the minimum tax that you are supposed to. If you are not, then you are committing tax fraud.

Once again, we need a refresher from Judge Learned Hand:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.
 
I'm sure glad you haven't been doing my taxes. It's so easy to look up corporate tax loopholes I'm amazed at your idiotic statement. Google it and report. Unitil then , you shut up.

Got it. You've got nothing. Just another far left blowhard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
 
That's my point. I've been a CPA for over 30 years, and back in the tax shelter hayday, I would grant that there were some major unintended consequences to the tax code that "might" be construed as a loophole, though I despise that term. Those were virtually shut down by Ronald Reagan in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 - passed with a democrat-controlled House, by the way, if anyone wants an example of how a president can work with an opposition party. But I digress.

Now, the term "loophole" is used by both parties, but primarily democrats, to feed into the "us vs them" tax warfare machine. I have personally cautioned Paul Ryan against throwing that term around, but to no avail.

In reality, except for the taxation of carried interests (I.e. earning a profits interest in a pass-through entity), "loopholes" are merely intended tax results (deductions or income inclusion) that have fallen out of popular flavor. There is absolutely nothing "unintended" about these things.



If people want to call it a loophole, the only thing that may save us are LLP discounts. When a partner dies, the IRS recognizes that it hurts a business and allows a discount on partnership shares.

We had to file an estate 706 form and now I'm being told the IRS has up to three years to issue a closing letter. Not that they will take that long, but they can.

So far, we've paid them over two million, and if we don't get the discounts, we're sunk cash wise ... I laugh in people's face when they ignorantly say "rich people don't pay taxes" or "corporations don't pay taxes" .... My retort always is "you've never had much money have you?" :nonod:
 
This explains our tax system so everyone should be able to understand it. Pass it on.

Love It.

The Tax System - Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it
would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
Saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation
is possible..
 
I don't want the government to take it, I want them to spend it. The more they spend, the more they keep tax exempt, build infrastructure that everyone uses, you get a 300% exemption.



I also would give the same 300% as a pass through for lower income (meaning less than the threshold for the 90% tax) investing in H2 infrastructure, renewable, and developing energy funds.


The government has already spent. $17Tthat they don't have and still need to collect, and you really think if they spend more, that you'll actually hold them to spending it on "infrastructure"?
 
The government has already spent. $17Tthat they don't have and still need to collect, and you really think if they spend more, that you'll actually hold them to spending it on "infrastructure"?

They can spend on whatever, they get a bonus which more than doubles their exemption so I would bet that's where most of it goes, for infrastructure.The government will still take in more than they do now.
 
If people want to call it a loophole, the only thing that may save us are LLP discounts. When a partner dies, the IRS recognizes that it hurts a business and allows a discount on partnership shares.

We had to file an estate 706 form and now I'm being told the IRS has up to three years to issue a closing letter. Not that they will take that long, but they can.

So far, we've paid them over two million, and if we don't get the discounts, we're sunk cash wise ... I laugh in people's face when they ignorantly say "rich people don't pay taxes" or "corporations don't pay taxes" .... My retort always is "you've never had much money have you?" :nonod:

Firstly, sorry for your loss.

For high net worth individuals, life insurance allows you to purchase your tax liability With pre-tax dollars at a discount as part of tax planning. Something to think about for the remaining partners, if you haven't already.
 
Last edited:
This explains our tax system so everyone should be able to understand it. Pass it on.

Love It.

The Tax System - Explained With Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it
would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
Saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation
is possible..

That is one of the best posts I have seen in these forums, thank you, I am stealing it.:wink2:
 
They can spend on whatever, they get a bonus which more than doubles their exemption so I would bet that's where most of it goes, for infrastructure.The government will still take in more than they do now.


That's naive. Infrastructure spending doesn't buy votes from anyone except construction company owners.
 
That's naive. Infrastructure spending doesn't buy votes from anyone except construction company owners.

Oh no, the hydrogen infrastructure will pay everyone's taxes as we export it. The hydrogen Coop operates on the free market as a public trust paying profit to treasury. We produce and sell domestically and overseas, not just chemical electricity but gaseous water as well, but just 11% of it. Selling electricity and water world wide as well as the fuel cells to use it. We can be the Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of the new economy.
 
Oh no, the hydrogen infrastructure will pay everyone's taxes as we export it. The hydrogen Coop operates on the free market as a public trust paying profit to treasury. We produce and sell domestically and overseas, not just chemical electricity but gaseous water as well, but just 11% of it. Selling electricity and water world wide as well as the fuel cells to use it. We can be the Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of the new economy.

It's a perpetual motion machine.........
 
Oh no, the hydrogen infrastructure will pay everyone's taxes as we export it. The hydrogen Coop operates on the free market as a public trust paying profit to treasury. We produce and sell domestically and overseas, not just chemical electricity but gaseous water as well, but just 11% of it. Selling electricity and water world wide as well as the fuel cells to use it. We can be the Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of the new economy.

Remind me where we're gonna get all of the energy to bust loose that many H2 molecules.
 
Remind me where we're gonna get all of the energy to bust loose that many H2 molecules.

Mr. Fusion

Freeing hydrogen is the main purpose of the Mr. Fusion. Powering flux capacitors is a distant second.
 
Back
Top