Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The games people play
Published on April 18, 2007 By Draginol In Business

Our resident "Colonel" is always advocating increases in the federal income tax rate.  What he doesn't realize is that federal income tax rates hurt the very people that he wants to help.

The government gets its money through a variety of sources. But mostly it comes from income taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate taxes.

But income taxes have multiple types within them: WAGES & CAPITAL GAINS.

Wages are taxed anywhere from 10% to 35% depending on how much you make.

But capital gains are a flat tax at 15% as long as you hold on to the stock for a year. Interest income works this way too.

And it is in the world of capital gains that the mega wealthy are able to make a lot of money but pay pay far less in taxes.  Congress has continued to tighten the laws to make it harder for individuals to get around paying at the wages rate (for instance, dividends aren't tax deductable for corporations and corporations have a higher tax rate than individuals now).

But the super-wealthy have tax attorneys who can play all kinds of games with the tax code.  Below are some common techniques that the super-wealthy use:

Low Interest Loans

As Warren Buffet pointed out recently, he could have lived quite comfortably without paying any taxes simply by having one of his companies give him loans each year. A loan isn't income.

Corporation Mania!

Open up enough LLCs to take care of your various needs, make sure they deduct effectively and you can end up with a bunch of companies with minimal "profit". The corporate tax rate on profits of less than $50,000 is 15%.  This kind of shell game can get pretty complicated and isn't worth playing unless you have immense amounts of money where saving even 10% in taxes can be helpful. 

One thing that many of these strategies try to avoid is medicare taxes. They're not capped (they should be IMO).  Medicare is 2.9% of a person's income. Hence, if you have $1 million in taxable wages, you would end up paying $29,000 in medicare which can get pretty obnoxious.  Hence, someone earning $10 million in income may find it makes more sense to distribute that income amongst corporations or find a way to pay it in dividends.

I'm not tax accountant or expert by any means.  But what I do know is that those who want "the rich" to pay more need to understand that the super rich aren't making most of their income through wages but through other sources such as capital gains and through corporations. 

Increasing the federal personal income tax rate definitely affects small business owners (a lot) as well as other economic drivers which in turn can have an adverse affect on the rest of society (small business owners create the majority of the jobs, take away their capital and they hire fewer people). 


Comments
on Apr 19, 2007
You sound like someone who's read David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal, which is all about the two separate tax systems we have: one for wage earners, and one for the rich. Unfortunately I haven't read it yet, so I can't back you up the way I'd like.
on Apr 19, 2007
People like the COl look at the tax RATE - not the taxes paid.  So they try to soak the rich on the RATES, not realizing that the rich will just shuffle the money and wind up paying less.  And the middle class willtake the brunt of the increase.  It always happens that way, but history and facts are not their strong point when it comes to pontification about taxes and soaking those they deem to be evil.
on Apr 19, 2007

I actually haven't read Perfectly Legal. I'll have to check it out.

In Gene's article about how Bush made out on the tax cuts, he's not even aware (apparently) that Bush doesn't even qualify for the highest track bracket on wages. His money comes from investments. Same for Cheney.

Gene could, if he understood economics, look up the salary of President and Vice President of the United States. And then look at the reported total income and see the difference (unless he wants to argue that Bush has a part time job we don't know about).  Bush gives a ton of money to charity which he can then write off on his personal wages income taxes lowering his bracket further.

It would be very interesting to find out exactly what tax bracket on wages Bush falls into but I'd bet dollars to donuts he's not even close to the top wage bracket -- the one Gene argues should be raised.

on Apr 19, 2007
Top bracket for 2005 is 35% for income above $326,450. The President's salary is $400,000. Both those numbers are higher than I thought. He also gets another $250,000 or so in taxable interest income. He donates about $75,000 a year to charity. His tax return and Cheney's are available at this Link.
on Apr 19, 2007
My brother know one guy who is worth over 5 million and he hasn't payed any taxes in a long time. His account shuffles the money around, mainly through real estate. He then borrow of the real estate he owns and lives of that.
on Apr 19, 2007
I have supported eliminating loop holes that were put into the law to help a few people that had the connections for these provisions to be included in the law. I understand Capital Gains and know that the rates have been lowered by the Bush tax cuts. I also know that in general only the wealthy benefit from both capital Gains and dividend tax cuts. The changes in the tax laws that Bush and the GOP pushed through the Congress have provided huge tax cuts to the top 10%. The analysis of the 2005 taxes show that 70% of the tax cuts went to the top 10% and that is before the Estate Tax Cuts take effect that will only benefit the TOP 1% and cut another $40 Billion per years from federal revenue. WE need to increase the federal tax revenue by limiting loop holes, better enforcement and returning to the tax rates and provisions for the top 10% that were in effect prior to 2001. That will not harm the middle income tax payers and will move us much closer to a balanced budget!
on Apr 19, 2007
analysis of the 2005 taxes show that 70% of the tax cuts went to the top 10%


Uh, Genius, did you check out what the top 10% pay of the total taxes (income)?

Let me clue in the clueless one - 70%

WOW! What a coincidence! Those who PAID taxes got a tax cut! Shazaam!
on Apr 19, 2007
Uh, Genius, did you check out what the top 10% pay of the total taxes (income)?

Let me clue in the clueless one - 70%


That's actually exactly right, if you check with the CBO tables Link. But Gene's not totally wrong. The top 10% only pay 50% of all federal taxes taken together (table 1B). Those who paid income taxes got a tax cut, those who paid Social Security, corporate income, and excise taxes didn't. So in that way the tax cut was geared to the top 10% even if it gave the same income tax cut to everyone.
on Apr 19, 2007

Those who paid income taxes got a tax cut, those who paid Social Security, corporate income, and excise taxes didn't.

That's because it was an INCOME tax cut.  The pols in washington hide the SS numbers (which are really a lot larger than most people think), calling it a "TRUST" fund.  The only trust in it is in their hopes we will buy their lies.

on Apr 20, 2007
(sigh) If only they'd left the taxes and used the money to pay off the debt. Then we could all imagine that we were going to share equally in the eventual tax cut, once we freed up that $400 billion we're spending on interest. How good would it feel to pay your taxes knowing we were finally digging out of our debt hole? It would have made me proud of us as a generation.
on Apr 20, 2007

Then we could all imagine that we were going to share equally in the eventual tax cut, once we freed up that $400 billion we're spending on interest.

No Offense, but !!!!!

Do you think Washington would give us our money back voluntarily?  If we paid off the debt, the only thing that would happen is that they would spend more on pork!

on Apr 20, 2007
Your theory explains too much. Why, if we eliminated Social Security, the only thing that would happen is that they would spend more on pork! If we borrowed more money instead of paying off the debt, the only thing that would happen is that they would spend more on pork! If we raise taxes or if we cut them, the only thing that happens is that they spend more on pork!

The United States paid its bills for many years, and it could happen again. It would just take some structures that give good incentives to politicians to avoid deficits, such as pay-go rules and centralized budgeting. Also, after the half generation of political commitment it would take to pay off the national debt, the government would have developed a culture of relative frugality around the people who managed to get elected by saving us money.
on Apr 20, 2007

The United States paid its bills for many years, and it could happen again.

I am not denying that we could to a paygo.  Yes we can.  I question them returning money to the taxpayer.  Without prying their cold dead fingers off of our money.

on Apr 20, 2007

Top bracket for 2005 is 35% for income above $326,450. The President's salary is $400,000. Both those numbers are higher than I thought. He also gets another $250,000 or so in taxable interest income. He donates about $75,000 a year to charity. His tax return and Cheney's are available at this Link.

But what is his taxable income. Not his gross but taxable. No one pays X percent on their gross income.

Just looked: He had over $120k in deductions. So he's not in the highest tax bracket on wages.

on Apr 20, 2007

(sigh) If only they'd left the taxes and used the money to pay off the debt. Then we could all imagine that we were going to share equally in the eventual tax cut, once we freed up that $400 billion we're spending on interest. How good would it feel to pay your taxes knowing we were finally digging out of our debt hole? It would have made me proud of us as a generation.

THAT I agree with.  To a point.  We would have had deficit spending again anyway as the economic recession hit (that's where most of the deficit spending came from).

I would have been okay without the tax cut (though there'd be no JoeUser since that is what paid for its development).  What I object to are people like Gene who want just me to pay more in taxes.