MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, March 6, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 3.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Meade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:15 am

HawkHead wrote:The $10,000,000 was taxed as earned. It is not taxed again. You only pay tax on the earnings of the investment.

I know, but rabble wants to tax it again and again because it's wealth, don't you know, and wealth and income are "inextricably tied" and "can't be separated" and you can claim it only happens sometimes, but "the bottom line is", income generated by wealth is "so easily hidden that it can't be traced".
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby rabble » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:19 am

Comrade wrote:I just gave you a specific example that shows how your assumption is not always the case and you didn't resond to that at all.

So, under your premise, exactly HOW is the income a farmer receives from selling his crop easily hidden?

No you didn't. You gave an unprovable hypothetical. You can't prove a damn thing.

A crop is not wealth. It's commodity. It might generate wealth, but as this summer proves, that's not at all certain.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Meade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:20 am

rabble wrote:Who on earth would want to generate large sums of hidden cash?

You mean, besides the teachers' unions? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 65770.html
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby rabble » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:21 am

Meade wrote:
HawkHead wrote:The $10,000,000 was taxed as earned. It is not taxed again. You only pay tax on the earnings of the investment.

I know, but rabble wants to tax it again and again because it's wealth, don't you know, and wealth and income are "inextricably tied" and "can't be separated" and you can claim it only happens sometimes, but "the bottom line is", income generated by wealth is "so easily hidden that it can't be traced".

And your proof is to say "no it isn't."

You can't prove a damn thing. The best you can do is claim that the income generated by wealth is the wealth itself.

And that in a nutshell is how the rich hide their wealth. And keep it hidden.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby rabble » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:23 am

Meade wrote: teachers' unions?

Yeah. Great comeback.

Can't prove a damn thing, so you scream "LOOK! WITCHES!"
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:25 am

If the income produced by wealth is so easily hidden why do the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax?


Because they take 45% of the income.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Comrade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:30 am

rabble wrote:
Comrade wrote:I just gave you a specific example that shows how your assumption is not always the case and you didn't resond to that at all.

So, under your premise, exactly HOW is the income a farmer receives from selling his crop easily hidden?

No you didn't. You gave an unprovable hypothetical. You can't prove a damn thing.

A crop is not wealth. It's commodity. It might generate wealth, but as this summer proves, that's not at all certain.


I didn't say the crop was wealth. I said the farmer' had wealth because of the VALUE of his land. You still haven't understood how your premise was not accurate.
Comrade
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Comrade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:31 am

fisticuffs wrote:
If the income produced by wealth is so easily hidden why do the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax?


Because they take 45% of the income.

They pay 70% of the taxes but make only 45% of the income?
Comrade
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:39 am

They pay 70% of the taxes but make only 45% of the income?


Sorry. That's just the top 1%. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth, as of 2007. I'm sure the Reagan economic policies we still live under have helped that grow.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Comrade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:01 am

fisticuffs wrote:
They pay 70% of the taxes but make only 45% of the income?


Sorry. That's just the top 1%. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth, as of 2007. I'm sure the Reagan economic policies we still live under have helped that grow.


Now you are getting me confused. The top 10% control 85% of the wealth as of 2007? How much income was generated off that 85% as an aggregate of total income earned in the country for 2007 and how much in taxes was paid as a result (expressed as a % of the totalitly paid that year)?
Comrade
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:08 am

I just gave you a specific example that shows how your assumption is not always the case and you didn't resond to that at all.

So, under your premise, exactly HOW is the income a farmer receives from selling his crop easily hidden?


On this one, I agree with Comrade to some extent.

1) All personal wealth does not generate income all the time.
Corollary: some personal wealth not only fails to generate income, but its valuation can decline. A farm can lose value, for example.

That's risk, and it's part of our system even when the results are sad and out of control, as with farmers in Wisconsin this year.

The more diversified someone's wealth is, the less chance he'll be wiped out due to losses in one sector. A farmer who had other assets and investments would be on firmer ground than one who only owned a piece of land and a tractor. That's part of how richer people keep getting richer: they're less vulnerable to being wiped out by one catastrophe and for that reason are able to take greater risks.

But,

2) Even the income (in a good year) from farming could be hidden. An example would be growing marijuana. Other examples might be bookkeeping tricks that hide part of the income from a cash crop such as vegetables sold at a roadside stand or farmers' market.

The deal with the tax code is it has to be written to cover a wide variety of real-world situations, foreseeable and not, favorable and unfavorable. And given human nature, people will try to find ways to bend the regulations or get creative with their application.

All of which doesn't change the reality that those with great wealth are in a position to help support the country that made it all possible for them, as some of them are well aware.
Last edited by snoqueen on Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12087
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby rabble » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:14 am

snoqueen wrote:
I just gave you a specific example that shows how your assumption is not always the case and you didn't resond to that at all.

So, under your premise, exactly HOW is the income a farmer receives from selling his crop easily hidden?


On this one, I agree with Comrade to some extent.

1) All personal wealth does not generate income all the time.
Corollary: some personal wealth not only fails to generate income, but its valuation can decline. A farm can lose value, for example.

That's risk, and it's part of our system even when the results are sad and out of control, as with farmers in Wisconsin this year.

But,

I agree with part of that but since we're talking about the Fortunate 400, I have to take issue with the use of the family farm as an example. I can't accept the fact that any of them live on their farms.

I believe they OWN quite a few factory farms and have foreclosed upon many family farms, but the use of "the farm" and "this year's corn crop" as examples of how difficult it is to hide income from accumulated wealth is not valid.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:16 am

Totally agreed. See the part I wrote about diversification being a form of security.

There are more ways to delay and water down one's tax liability on accumulated wealth than you can shake a stick at. Take a look at the depreciation regulations for starters.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12087
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby rabble » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:48 am

Comrade wrote:Now you are getting me confused.


Insert caption here.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: How the fortunate 400 got so rich

Postby Comrade » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:55 am

rabble wrote:
Comrade wrote:Now you are getting me confused.


Insert caption here.


At least you finally admitted (albeit to Snowqueen) that your premise was not 100% accurate, and that was my initial point.

What are you trying to say here? Do you actually have an answer to the question or do you just want to be insulting for the sake of it?
Comrade
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bobashabiniu and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar