[QUOTE=Dubslow;312334]Tax laws are confusing. I'd bet there are many breaks available to the common person, and I'd bet that many of them are claimed by the accountant, meaning the common person has no idea how much they save on tax breaks. (I say this having helped fill out more than a few tax forms.)

Edit: For those who can't afford an accountant, their taxes are probably low enough that legal tax breaks wouldn't be worth that much anyways.[/QUOTE]

OK.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that unless someone can afford a consultant to understand the law, they deserve what they pay?

Two quick articles of relevance... [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/07/pf/taxes/rich-who-owe-no-income-tax/index.htm"]Rich who owe no income tax: the Lucky 6[/URL] and [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/the-rich-are-different-fr_b_1428812.html"]Bill Moyers: The Rich Are Different From You and Me[/URL].

[QUOTE=chalsall;312337]OK.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that unless someone can afford a consultant to understand the law, they deserve what they pay?[/QUOTE]
...What? In what way does that conclusion stem from what I said? I said that those who can't afford an accountant probably wouldn't get much from breaks anyways. That means nothing about whether or not the amount paid is deserved or not. (And the first article you link points out that almost everyone who couldn't afford an accountant wouldn't owe taxes anyways.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;312337]
Two quick articles of relevance... [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/07/pf/taxes/rich-who-owe-no-income-tax/index.ht"]Rich who owe no income tax: the Lucky 6[/URL] and [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/the-rich-are-different-fr_b_1428812.html"]Bill Moyers: The Rich Are Different From You and Me[/URL].[/QUOTE]
As for the first article (aside: the link needs fixing), my first thought was "charitable donations", which is mentioned as one of the two leading ideas in the article. (Fortunately for me, in my tax work I never had to deal with foreign investments, so I wouldn't have known that.) I think a lot of rich people give away more money than most people realize -- giving away your income would be enough (I think) to end up owing nothing at all. Given that only 6/400 paid no tax, I'd say the system is working fairly well.
A quote from the article:
[quote]Now, it's not news that close to half of the more than 140 million U.S. tax filers end up with no federal income tax liability. Nor is it news that a sliver of those non-payers make seriously big bucks.[/quote]
And a quote from an article linked to by this one (emphasis mine):
[quote]While the Zero Tax Club includes some very high-income households, it is made up [U]disproportionately[/U] of low- and lower-middle-income households.[/quote]
And as I and the first article point out, the fraction of super-rich who pay no taxes I think is rather smaller than the fraction of super-rich who donate a significant amount of their income or total wealth to charity.



As for the second article: While I certainly agree that many people on Wall Street are too greedy for everyone else's good, here's one not-a-fact given in the article:
[quote]while ordinary Americans are taxed at a top rate of 35 percent on their income, Congress allows hedge fund and private equity tycoons to pay only pay 15 percent of their compensation.[/quote]
Both statements are false -- especially the former.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates[/url]
In particular:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#2012_income_brackets_and_tax_rates[/url] -- Note that the "ordinary American" the article talks about (median salary ~$45K) pays a nominal 25% rate, and an effective 9% rate, lower than the 35% cited in the article.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Effective_income_tax_rates[/url]
[quote]Much of the earnings of those in the top income bracket come from capital gains, interest and dividends, which are taxed at a maximum of 15 percent.[/quote] Capital gains, interest, and dividends are [i]not[/i] salary -- so the $14 million in the article would be subject to the full 35% tax rate (though obviously not the payroll taxes). Again, for reference, the top 20% pay an effective 20% rate, and the top 400 an effective 16% rate, while the "average Joe" (median $45K) pays an effective 9% rate. So I think that saying something to the effect of "the rich pay less taxes" is a generally false and misleading statement.

Just to be clear, IMO those CEO salaries are far higher than they should be, and in particular I believe the capital gains (etc.) tax should be at least as high as the income tax -- the former produces no economic benefit, while (ostensibly) the latter is recompense for some labor or other wealth-creation that is economically beneficial.


My point is that there are some facts and truly bad things in those articles -- but they are typically mixed in with white lies and half-truths that help make all rich people look bad (i.e., the articles contain what people want to hear, not the truth), while only a small particularly bad bunch need ridicule (and perhaps to spend a few days, weeks, or months without any of their money).

[QUOTE=Dubslow;312341]My point is that there are some facts and truly bad things in those articles -- but they are typically mixed in with white lies and half-truths that help make all rich people look bad (i.e., the articles contain what people want to hear, not the truth), while only a small particularly bad bunch need ridicule (and perhaps to spend a few days, weeks, or months without any of their money).[/QUOTE]

OK. Let's talk about Bill Gates, shall we?

His "Gates Foundation" has been described as a [URL="http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique"]tax avoidance shell.[/URL]

I personally find it cool that he's pledged to give all his money away before he dies.

I personally find it abhorrent that I can't buy a computer from Dell without paying the "Micro$oft tax", even if I tell them I want the computer to be "clean" for a Linux install.

[QUOTE=chalsall;312347]OK. Let's talk about Bill Gates, shall we?

His "Gates Foundation" has been described as a [URL="http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique"]tax avoidance shell.[/URL]

I personally find it cool that he's pledged to give all his money away before he dies.

I personally find it abhorrent that I can't buy a computer from Dell without paying the "Micro$oft tax", even if I tell them I want the computer to be "clean" for a Linux install.[/QUOTE]

...so don't buy a Dell.

Now, the stuff about the Gates Foundation is pretty clearly biased against Microsoft (there's three sides to a story, as you said)... but I could believe that Gates maintains control of the money he "donates".

I still think that people shouldn't base their view of a group based on a few bad (terrible) eggs.

Edit: The tax shell is largely [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism"]not reported[/URL] in Wikipedia. Additionally, the [URL="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0823-26.htm"]site cited by techrights.org[/URL] reports that Warren Buffet is just as bad -- and he's generally recognized as one of the most philanthropotic (what's the word supposed to be?) super-duper-rich people ever. (He's one of the main proponents of an increase in the taxes on rich people.) So either Buffet is as bad as Gates, or the Gates Foundation isn't such a terrible thing. Which is more unlikely?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;312350]...so don't buy a Dell.[/QUOTE]

So what should I advise my clients to buy?

An HP? Windows pre-installed.

A Lenorvo? Windows pre-installed.

Interestingly, you actually have to pay more for a "clean" (read: no M$ OS pre-installed) machine.

[QUOTE=chalsall;312354]So what should I advise my clients to buy?

An HP? Windows pre-installed.

A Lenorvo? Windows pre-installed.

Interestingly, you actually have to pay more for a "clean" (read: no M$ OS pre-installed) machine.[/QUOTE]

Build it yourself. It's probably cheaper. You might also try calling the companies, though I wouldn't really expect anything anyways.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;312355]Build it yourself. It's probably cheaper. You might also try calling the companies, though I wouldn't really expect anything anyways.[/QUOTE]

I always build my own machines.

But companies have this thing about having someone to sue if something goes wrong.

[QUOTE=chalsall;312356]I always build my own machines.

But companies have this thing about having someone to sue if something goes wrong.[/QUOTE]

If you're purchasing for companies, then I'd expect you'd get a bit further if you called the "hardware" vendors. The larger the purchase, the more they'll care. (E.g. say "I represent a company looking to buy 100 computers without Windows, and thus I expect a small discount. And, just to be clear, this could be worth $50K or so...")

[QUOTE=Dubslow;312357]If you're purchasing for companies, then I'd expect you'd get a bit further if you called the "hardware" vendors. The larger the purchase, the more they'll care.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Thanks for that counsel.

I have never been able to avoid the M$ tax.

[QUOTE=chalsall;312358]Wow. Thanks for that counsel.

I have never been able to avoid the M$ tax.[/QUOTE]

Start your own hardware company :razz:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;312357](E.g. say "I represent a company looking to buy 100 computers without Windows, and thus I expect a small discount. And, just to be clear, this could be worth $50K or so...")[/QUOTE]

Let's run a test here.

I challenge you have Dell, HP or IBM agree to sell you a computer without Windows installed.