digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at abcnews.go.com —

How People Making $200,000 Or More Avoid Paying Taxes

abcnews.go.com — Death is inevitable, but federal income taxes aren't for an increased number of high-income earners. New IRS statistics show 7,389 federal tax returns with $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income reported no federal income taxes in 2005. That's a 161% jump from the 2,833 comparable returns filed in 2004.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rdr97, on 06/15/2008, -25/+180I bet around 80% of these are the same politicians that accuse everyone of not supporting the troops, meanwhile they refuse to help pay their salaries.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/16/2008, -2/+13Actually, politicians are forced to pay income tax. What they have is a lot of tax deductible travel expenses.

      Most of these people are people who make their money in the stock market.
      • nick111, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6If you're talking about US politicians, this is further complicated by the fact that they're all multi-millionaires, so their income comes from capital gains.
    • Retsep, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10If you read the article (I know that's just crazy talk) you would see that the way to do this is to donate to lots of charitable donations.
      • nick111, on 06/16/2008, -7/+2What? Like Conservative Think Tanks?
    • jzuska, on 06/16/2008, -1/+7fairtax.org
      Put it this way. If Obama supported it. I would even vote for him.
    • DukeLeto2, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5Federal Income Tax does not pay anyone's salaries. It just pays the interest on our debt. Thank You.
    • digg911, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5Actually, if you read the article, it basically comes down to (1) people contributing to charity what otherwise would be paid as taxes, and (2) deducting taxes already paid overseas from taxes to be paid domestically.

      Between me and my husband, we make over $200,000 a year (by the way, not that much in New York City) and we sure pay taxes. LOTS. If some people are not paying this year because they've given tens of thousand of dollars to charity, or earned the money abroad and already paid taxes there, I don't see anything wrong with it.
      • WileEPeyote, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11. It would depend for me on what the charity is...

        2. The tax exemption for overseas isn't about not taxing the money they earned overseas; you already wouldn't pay taxes on money made in a foreign country. They get tax credits (against taxes on money made in the U.S.) based on taxes they have paid overseas.

  • Griny, on 06/15/2008, -17/+79that's how they become so damn rich :)
    • BlackJackJester, on 06/16/2008, -31/+22$200k/year is not rich, unless you're in ***** nowhere. Between health insurance, car payments, mortgage (yea, a decent house to live in instead of government owned holes (to all you inner city liberals out there, buy your own damn house and stop relying on the government)), and children, there isn't a lot of money left to be "rich". Yea, you can enjoy a nice trip every 3 or 4 years, but the $200k bracket is middle class.
      • shredluc, on 06/16/2008, -7/+20Exactly what i said on digg before. They dugg me down into oblivion. Somehow i seem to be an oxymoron, cause i made close to 200k last year, but paid nearly 90 thousand in taxes. I guess i must be smart enough to make that much, but dumb enough to somehow magically not avoid taxes.
        • unmarked, on 06/16/2008, -3/+28you probably were dugg down because making $200K puts you in the top 5% of income earners. Most people aren't even breaking $100K with dual incomes.
        • seraph582, on 06/16/2008, -10/+8@Unmarked: why would someone digg another person down based on how much they earn? Isn't that ***** jealousy? ***** anyone that'd judge another person by how much they *earn.*
        • Ravatar, on 06/16/2008, -3/+12If you paid 90,000 in taxes, you failed spectacularly. Fire your accountant.
        • laughandsing, on 06/16/2008, -1/+14200,000 is not middle class.
        • joe122370, on 06/16/2008, -3/+8when Obama gets in you'll pay $150k per year in taxes

          but you'll get free healthcare!
        • Muyoso, on 06/16/2008, -2/+5Dont forget, if Obama gets in, you will also pay almost 8 thousand more a year in social security taxes as well.
        • shredluc, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1@ravatar:

          I not only count income tax. Eveything they take away is a tax: federal income, social security, medicare and state income tax. Sure my federal was a lot less then that. But when you add in everything it makes it closer to 50% that they steal away.
      • unmarked, on 06/16/2008, -3/+23Don't kid yourself - the median income of households in 2006 (couldn't find any new statistics) was around $50K, so $200K is 4x that.

        4x the median income definitely sounds like your above middle class. It may not be "rich" in your terms, but many of today's families don't get to enjoy a nice trip every 3-4 years or ever. They work hard, but live paycheck to paycheck. They can't afford health insurance, probably can't afford a mortgage and are still paying on the gas guzzling used car they bought a few years back.

        • seraph582, on 06/16/2008, -7/+4Yes, you're right. They do. My parents certainly did, however, they did not remain there. They made more money and moved up in life as they aged. Why must they endure the incessant hatred and consequences the left applies to people that have worked very hard to gain more than a modest income?
        • bpoteat, on 06/16/2008, -4/+5I know the brackets are very vague, but people living paycheck to paycheck who can't afford a mortgage or health insurance would most likely be at the lower end of middle class, if at all. $200k a year for a family of 4 is middle class (probably on the upper side - but still middle) regardless of what percentage that is to the median income.
        • andy3109, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4depends where you live. NYC 200K = *****.
        • NotStrong, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Agreed with above...a lot depends on where you live. I also live in NY, and am at just north of $150K. At that level, I'm still renting. I don't make enough to pay my rent AND save up for the exorbitant down payment it takes for even a modest one bedroom condo...I don't own a car and am still only able to put a little into savings each month. But I know if I was at $150K where I grew up, I'd be set up pretty good.
      • ken830, on 06/16/2008, -3/+14I don't know where some of these people live, but I agree... $200K is upper-middle class at best... I make about $100K in Silicon Valley, but after taxes, the money I have left is barely enough to pay for day-to-day stuff... I can save it (and pay more taxes on the interest) or I can spend it (and pay sales tax)... Either way, I'm screwed...

        So, I can't even afford a home, since the housing prices rise at unbelievable rates while our salaries have actually diminished. Small 2-bedroom condos start in the $600K range...

        Plus, we're already paying near $5/gal gas here...
        • cdahlkvist, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8I think the point BlackjackJester was making is that not all of us with salaries in the $200k range are skipping out on taxes. We're paying between $70k-$100k in taxes.

          Many in the $200k range also have additional tax liabilities and additional costs.

          I'm close to that range but I am Middle Class at best. I live in a house that I paid less than $200,000 for (In Minneapolis). I drive a 12 year old car (the woman drives the 2 year old car).

          I don't expect people to have a pity party for those of us in the top 10% income bracket but not all of us are weaseling out of our tax liability and we're suffering from inflation also.

          I'd add that there are a lot of people in this range that live out of their capacity and tend to live check to check also. Sure, that is financial irresponsibility but I think it's pretty common.
        • Cytranic, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4You guys need a tax lawyer for real. Buy property, buy tax deductable stuff with your income instead of new computers and xboxs. Its all game, and you're losing.
        • andy3109, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3I doubt the word "suffering" cdahlkvist is the proper word. "Trade offs" might be a better one.
        • jattea, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2It may be hard to believe, but not all high-income earners are trying to con their way out of paying their fair share of taxes. They should be happy to pay their share back to the government which fostered the opportunity for them to earn so much money in the first place.
      • brundlefly76, on 06/16/2008, -1/+13I make over $200k, but I have never boarded a private jet with a model.
        I need to get my priorities in order.
      • vision777, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3It's a lot of money if it's all tax free and that is the take home pay.
      • TimDigg, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9200k is not middle class.
        • ventralnet, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5I'd say upper middle... However if it is 200k tax free, that is like making 300 or so which would be a very comfortable income
      • zomglolcats, on 06/16/2008, -4/+3It's idiots like you who are so out of touch with society that they consider 200K a year "not rich". Have you looked at what the average person makes?

        It's rich idiots like you that make stupid laws.
    • browntiger, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Most of the time US goverment can not verify tax paid to the foreign nation.

      So one can claim billion dollar tax credit.
    • bdbr, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Well, its how 7,386 of the three million Americans who made over $200K a year became so damned rich. Its a tiny fraction of the people in that income bracket.
    • XanderDee, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1They know the truth... Taxes is slavery.
  • themaestro18, on 06/15/2008, -47/+186It's obvious that the tax system is rigged to favor the rich. It's a regressive tax system...the middle class pay more than their fair share while the rich have lawyers to find loopholes.
    • CamperBob, on 06/16/2008, -42/+14Life isn't fair.

      As a typical middle-class American sitting in their chair in front of a computer munching Doritos, you should be damned glad that's the case.
      • ericmerrill, on 06/16/2008, -2/+20CamperBob,

        Thank you for reminding everyone of how we, as Americans, handle being 'compared' to others. Rugged individualism does not include discussing pay or taxes with one another. Clearly themaestro18 is either a communist or a gay.
        • CamperBob, on 06/16/2008, -4/+3"Clearly themaestro18 is either a communist or a gay."

          No, just economically-illiterate, if he believes that the US tax system is a regressive one. Dig down what I said 32 more times and it won't be any less true.
        • ericmerrill, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1"Life isn't fair" is a phrase forever doomed into being opinion rather than fact, which I learned once when I was born and again in college Philosophy 102 or so.

          And yeah, life isn't fair, but we're gonna be sassy when we see things wrong. Otherwise life wouldn't just be unfair, it would seem rather hopeless.
      • digitalhair, on 06/16/2008, -2/+6If CamperBob's candid opinion is representative of the individuals that sit in this tax-dodging bracket, I'm all for class warfare.

        CamperBob's pink lip-soft hands might not be so quick to type up his greedy little brain's insufferable impulses if he knew there were a legion of angry, honest, and hardworking grunts coming to take back the money he stole from them...

        Call it righteous indignation.
        • CamperBob, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2"...legion of angry, honest, and hardworking grunts coming to take back the money he stole from them..."

          A peasant revolt. In the USA.

          Ah ha, ha ha. Ha! Heh... hee. Ha, ha! Har! Ahem.

          I'm not saying it'd be difficult to drag me to the gallows, but they'll have to put down their Wiimotes first.
        • digitalhair, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2listen guy, have you ever been punched in the face by a man before?

          I can't think of more-satisfying imagery after you profoundly made the case for current advocates of slamming the elitist minority in our country with an unapologetic and disproportionate tax hike.

          thanks for proving that the case for the rich is a ruse, beelzebub.
        • jaymzdean, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2"...but they'll have to put down their Wiimotes first."
          That, I have to agree with. The circumstantially disadvantaged have yet to stand up for themselves because they are still too comfortable and busy entertaining and amusing themselves to death.
          I predict complacency all the way forward until the economic rug is suddenly and intentionally pulled out from under the middle class.
          It's true that life isn't fair, but you won't ever get your dues if you'd rather watch Ellen DeGeneres and Dancing with the Stars than put down the damned distractions long enough to fight back against, what is most obviously, class warfare going on from the top directed downwards.

        • CamperBob, on 06/17/2008, -1/+11. Threaten violence as a way to get what you want
          2. ???
          3. Die alone in van down by river

          How's #2 coming along?
    • diggitydad, on 06/16/2008, -10/+32I hear the phrase 'fair share' from a lot of politicians on the left. But none of them ever define the phrase. How much is the 'fair' amount to take away from people with money?
      • haydesigner, on 06/16/2008, -2/+36I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the *same* percentage as everyone else.
        • loki49152, on 06/16/2008, -9/+22Which would not be what lefties mean, since they're always in favor of "progressive" taxation that sets higher rates on larger incomes.
        • CokeBear, on 06/16/2008, -16/+7This article makes it quite obvious why you need to set a higher tax rate on larger incomes. Those with larger incomes can afford better accountants to find the loopholes, so actually end up paying a smaller amount than those with lower incomes, so progressive tax rates are actually very fair.
        • fafaforza, on 06/16/2008, -7/+6Or maybe consider a flat tax. How much money will we spend to investigate all of these returns, then fight the tax payers' lawyers and often lose, or not get back the money owed (after legal fees)? The US is already spending astronomical amounts of money on supporting our ever more complex tax system.
        • TimDigg, on 06/16/2008, -3/+16Fafaforza, the problem is that a flat tax is basically regressive tax. In the sense that the poor would decide the tax rate.

          If you make 200k a year and I take half...you have still have 100k....enough to live...

          on the other hand taking half from someone making 30k a year would leave them below the poverty line at 15k.

          So it leads to a system where rich people are taxed at a rate that only poor people can afford.
        • RockSlice, on 06/16/2008, -3/+3I'm in favor of a flat percentage over a constant untaxable amount.

          In your example, TimDigg, if the "min income" amount were $24k, the 30k person would pay 3k, leaving 27k, but the 200k person would pay (200-24)/2 = 88k, leaving 112k
        • Flipdawg27, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4Tim - Your argument is flawed in the sense that the tax rate would not be one "that only poor people can afford." Even under the current system, individuals considered "poor" are not required to pay, or receive money back. The marginal increase in tax revenues isn't justified by the social hardships it would impose upon them. Similarly, a flat tax system would not necessarily come without caveats. The difference being, it may come with 1 caveat (everyone pays X unless you make under Y) instead of thousands of complex requirements enabling those with the correct knowledge and resources to cut corners.
        • digitalhair, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8has anybody else seen this?

          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...

          It's a documentary about the history of Federal Income Tax in America made by the guy who produced and directed the movie Trading Spaces with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo

          Watch it ... watch the first 5 minutes ... with absolute skepticism, then ask yourself if you remember the last time you got a receipt for the 35% of your yearly income you pay toward Federal Tax.

          I'd say that watching it should be a prerequisite for entering any fruitful discussion of fixing the tax code, especially if you fall into the paying classes.
        • BurnTees, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2"has anybody else seen this?

          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...

          It's a documentary about the history of Federal Income Tax in America made by the guy who produced and directed the movie Trading Spaces with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd."

          just watched it...whole thing lol. fascinating. between watching this and Maxed Out on Showtime (http://burntees.blogspot.com/2008/06/maxed-out-on- ... i'm just at a loss. our government and big business are reallin f'n us right up the ass huh?
        • digitalhair, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1@BurnTees:

          I think they always have been throughout History... we've just never had the ability to share so much information so freely.

          that doesn't mean we should tolerate it for one minute.
      • ventralnet, on 06/16/2008, -7/+4a flat tax rate
      • bdbr, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4For the people in the $100K and up range, the "fair share" tends to be a bit more than half. Its not just hefty federal income tax; you also get to pay hefty state taxes, plus the normal social security taxes and all that. Most current taxpayers in that income range expect to see little to none of that social security returned.

        I've turned down promotions because of taxes. I get so little of my pay after all is said and done, its just not worth the extra stress.
        • quandrum, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3A "Fair Share" in an ideal world would be approximately how much of the nation's resources you used to earn your money and live, plus a equal share of the things like defense.

          Good luck calculating that, but if you can't see this would be a progressive tax too, then you're fooling yourself.
    • mrsteve007, on 06/16/2008, -2/+17Or maybe it's because the rich can afford good personal accountants. FTA, it sounds like it doesn't matter how much you do or don't earn, the tax benefits behind charitable giving after hurricane Katrina would apply to anyone. If you were to donate the same percentages of your income to non-profits, then you too could live 'tax free.'

      Of course, its easier for people without debt to donate their 'extra' earnings.
    • kashk5, on 06/16/2008, -26/+11Yea, that makes sense...though I'm sure the little fact that the rich pay 95% of all taxes doesn't get in the way of your sensationalism
      • rationalbeats, on 06/16/2008, -13/+28Thats the top 50% of the US wage earners pay 95% of all taxes, you stupid manipulating *****.

        Nice try since you were trying to imply that the top 5% pay 95% of all taxes. Guess where the figure you gave us came from?

        Rush Limbaugh.

        Why did you vote for Bush?
        • bphicke, on 06/16/2008, -15/+5I voted for him the first time because the Democrats gave us Gore. The second time, I could not "support" either party and abstained from voting.
        • matttay, on 06/16/2008, -3/+11According to 2002 IRS data (most recent available), the top 1% paid 33% of all individual tax liabilities, the top 5% paid 54.5%, and the top 10% paid 67%. The top 20% paid 82.8% of all individual income taxes.

          The bottom 20% paid -2.6% (they earned money from income taxes), the bottom 40% paid -2.8%. Think about this: the bottom 40% actually MADE money from income taxes.

          The middle 20% paid just 5.3% in income tax.

          By the way, the top 20% in 2002 carried 82.8% of the individual tax burden in 2002. In 1979 (the furthest back the data I have goes), the top 20% paid 64.9%. So, the top 20% of earners are paying a larger % of the tax burden than ever before.
        • ender7074, on 06/16/2008, -4/+1Too bad your information is flat wrong. Where did you get YOUR information? Air America? CNN? My guess is the Huffington Post. They never get anything right there.
        • kashk5, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2That's fantastic, some blowhard comes in and smears me for telling the truth, and he gets dugg up while I get dug down? Good job morons.

          And btw, I didn't vote for Bush and I'm not a Republican. But that doesn't mean I stick my head in the sand like you do when it comes to the truth.
      • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -6/+10they have even more of the wealth.

        In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealt ...
        • senseinobaka, on 06/16/2008, -3/+3Thats stupid. Wealth isn't distributed, it's earned. If you didn't sit around sulking over the fact someone has more money than you and eductated yourself and worked 90+ hours a week then you can be rich too. (oh, and if you dont believe the average CEO doesnt work 90+ hours a week, than you are hoplessly stupid)
        • mcquitty, on 06/16/2008, -4/+3Whose fault is it that the poor don't improve themselves?


        • zomglolcats, on 06/16/2008, -1/+0Because it's always the poor's fault for being poor, right?
        • digitalhair, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2this discussion isn't about the poor, it's about the brazen materialism of the rich.

          Jeff Skilling didn't "earn" his wealth like he thinks he did. He merely found himself amongst a group of nihilist aristocrats that reject the philosophical confines of morality, viewing anyone that fails to transcend the rules (due to their "illusory" compassion for the less-fortunate) as fair game for exploitation.

          These are the same people that look at their $10,000 shower curtains for confirmation of their superior intelligence when the guy who made the curtain is laughing all the way to the bank. But who cares if he's laughing, right? The money was carried in on the backs of our monetary system's non-beneficiaries, so why not reach into the pockets of the less fortunate for more confirmation and more frivolous wealth???

          Honest Americans need to realize that these people don't care about our compassion for one another because it just perpetuates our own exploitation.
    • weirddave, on 06/16/2008, -24/+35We have a progressive tax system. The top 10% of earners pay more than 50% of the federal taxes collected.... but please don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

      http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevoluti ...
      • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -13/+3410% of the population owned 71% of the wealth.... but please don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealt ...
      • Tenoq, on 06/16/2008, -7/+15A progressive tax system wouldn't let the rich evade tax so easily - like the US system does (and the Australian one, to a lesser extent). The distribution of wealth in the US IIRC is the worst of all OECD countries. With the way laws and governments are controlled with money, it's not far from an aristocracy. Quite scary, really.
        • rpetty, on 06/16/2008, -4/+10so what is the goal? wealth redistribution? If so, then I am proud the US is the "worst" on the list.
        • laserdog, on 06/16/2008, -1/+4The goal is to keep the poor from getting so desperate that they torch and loot the gated communities.
    • augustwest30, on 06/16/2008, -15/+65I'm sick of this favoring the rich *****. My wife is a doctor and she has more money withheld from her paycheck each month than my monthly salary (before taxes) as a civil engineer. Believe me we pay our goddamn fair share. So does everyone else collecting a legitimate salary. What pisses me off is all of these assholes that call themselves "Minister of XYZ Church", or those that have shady cash only businesses (i.e. drug dealers) who don't pay ***** in taxes.
      • mythandros, on 06/16/2008, -28/+9Do you really want to get up on your soap box and start preaching about how hard it is to have a combined income of between $165,000 and $285,000 a year for you, the civil engineer, and your wife, the doctor? Oh, and please don't forget what happened to your kind during the French revolution. "Boo hoo, I pay so much in taxes" will not save your ass from the guillotine.
        • nitemonkey, on 06/16/2008, -12/+33Mythandros...from your post I would like to make a number of educated predictions about your personality and lifestyle circumstances:

          1. You don't earn alot. Probably because you don't work that hard. I would be surprised if you did anything more than a simple 9-5.
          2. You don't own a business or employ people. You've never risked your capital, or taken a loan to do so. You believe that bosses don't work, but rather exploit their employees. If you had to write a business plan or seek investors, you wouldn't have a clue where to start. Your excuse for this would be 'I don't want to be an employer because they rip people off'.
          3. You believe that because someone has a relatively high income, they should be heavily taxed 'because they can afford it'. You believe that by bringing down the middle-upper earners (guillotine reference), it will help the poor.
          4. You've never studied or taken an interest in economics. In fact, you've never seen a supply and demand graph.

          Mythandros, I know that I'm only making educated assumptions, but I would be very surprised if I'm not correct on most points. My point is this...you have no idea about how the world works. You have no idea about economics, about causes of unemployment, about causes of interest rates and inflation. You are a grabber of the moral high-ground, while your not-so-good intentions pave the road to hell.

          That is all.
        • manamizer, on 06/16/2008, -7/+8Look what happened to douchebags like you during the Reign of Terror. When they ran out of bourgeoisie they started killing one another and ended up with a ***** emperor. augustwest30 and his wife are the kind of people that pay for all the social services people with less money use. Get a ***** clue.
        • yardie, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2You do know it was the untitled bourgeois and poor that were being stuck with the taxes while the nobility got away with ***** all. It was the same bourgeois that were the leaders of the revolution (the poor were too hungry, uneducated, and too unorganized to really get it right away). Unfortunately there was a fine line and Robespierre, one of the ringleaders, found himself on the wrong side of the guillotine in the end.
        • jer2eydevil88, on 06/16/2008, -4/+4@nitemonkey

          Bravo Sir, Bravo.
        • zombies187, on 06/16/2008, -3/+5Well, I hope for your sake that one day you won't have to contribute anything to society ever again. Then your wife the 'doctor' can go back to tattooing nipples on to fat rich fake *****.
      • Trichomonas, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2He's right...especially if his wife owns/partially owns a clinic. She has to take the risk of borrowing money and she adds to the economy by creating jobs yet has to pay more taxes. Also, she's added to her workload by taking on administrative work on top of her 10+ hours of work per day. This is all on top of the $200K+ in student loans she probably had after graduating.

        If anything doctors don't make enough money for the amount of work they have to do...
      • whorunbartertwn, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1"please don't forget what happened to your kind"

        His kind? His wife probably went to school for about 12 years and paid over 100k in school loans to enter a noble profession that is facing shortages. He chose a difficult major and now has the responsibility to design the bridges, dams, and canals you take for granted.

        What exactly are his kind? People who work their ass off in school to enter well paying but critical careers? Is that who we want to cut the necks of, those who dare to be successful?
      • Quaterni0n, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I don't consider people who work for a living, including doctors and civil engineers, to be in the same league as those who exploit the tax system. What we're all annoyed with is that people like Warren Buffet pay less taxes than Buffet's secretary, who makes 30K/year. He probably doesn't even have to exploit any loopholes for that either. The tax code is heavily stacked in favor of the super wealthy, because it's written by the super wealthy. Stop being pissed at people who complain about the rich exploiting the system, because they're right.
        • whorunbartertwn, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3You're confused.

          Buffet paid less taxes as a percentage of his income than his secretary, who earned 60k.

          He paid 17.7%, mainly because most of his income is from dividends that are taxed at 15% instead of the max bracket. I'm not sure what his income was but I'm pretty sure 17.7% of it is a little more than his secretary paid.

      • kaplanfx, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2You aren't the people we are talking about.
    • utahnkid, on 06/16/2008, -19/+51Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you ever had a job in your life? The poor. even into the middle class, get most of their taxes back. The upper middle class to the rich pay more in sales taxes during a 6 month period then the lower middle class and poor make in a year. They buy more things, hire more people, and provide the money that pays most lower tax bracket earners' wage. Those of you on welfare take more from the system then ANYONE and give back absolutely nothing in return besides providing a need for volunteer or extremely low paying jobs to take care of you. Even these people that appear to elude paying certain taxes are just putting their money in other places, further stimulating growth in some areas. Take a look at the actual tax bracket percentages before you open your mouth again. I'm sick of people that never put the time and effort in to making anything out of their life turning around and complaining that the people who did have it better. Anyone can be successful in this country, heck we're the only society that goes SO far out of it's way to make sure minorities have an even BETTER chance at success. As a white male I stand to receive absolutely no extra benefits or better odds at receiving a job and even have worse odds over any minority or woman based purely on my sex and skin color, because we're THAT concerned about being fair to everyone.

      Stop looking for reasons to be a victim, that's the reasoning that got you where you are today.
      • ericmerrill, on 06/16/2008, -3/+9I agree, aside two points:

        Our tax system is screwy on both ends. While the hard-working 'rich' certainly pay their taxes, the uber-players have a rep for being tax dodgers, by way of owning a peanut farm or loopholes in our patchwork tax system. You can't really deny that. The above-poster's doctor wife pays plenty in taxes, but Ronald Reagan didn't.

        Secondly, are you saying you have less of a chance at netting a job than a person of minority or woman? Seriously? Because from my humble beginnings at Subway to magazine internships and office jobs, I've certainly realized that laws or not, who gets hired is up to the person doing the hiring. And...as a hard-working white male whatever I apply for is usually in the bag. A black woman has never landed a job I missed out on. The laws may seem skewed, but imagine how awful things would be without those laws, with all of the racism/sexism still prevalent across America. Not sayin' the white manager who doesn't hire the qualified (skin color here) woman doesn't because he goes home to dress up like Hitler and wank off in the mirror...maybe he doesn't because he's a NASCAR-loving good ol' boy who's subconsciously opposed to hiring a (color) person or doesn't think a woman will gel well in the workplace.
      • OpaqueMurdock, on 06/16/2008, -9/+11I wonder if you consider yourself to be "upper middle class"... meanwhile some of the people the poster describes as "rich" would consider you differently.

        The "American Dream" has "shifted" in my opinion and I begin to think that the widening gap between the poor/lower middle class and the upper middle class and the rich is not the real breaking point. Most of us are in the same boat weather we know it or not... The ultra rich are the ones laughing their asses off and pulling the strings. The thing is... they still have the "upper middle class" thinking they have their interests in mind. They only include the merely "well off" because they need their voting power and investment money. At the point that they are powerful enough to do what they want without it... they will sacrifice them if need be and not pause to think about it.

        And since you are concerned with peoples job history, here is mine... I started supporting myself at the age of 16. I was about as poor as a person can be who is willing to work. I have had a very long and hard struggle to educate myself with absolutely no assistance and now I have a professional career involving high end creative work. I am firmly in the middle class, and may even be considered at the lower end of upper middle class...

        I am self employed and I think you would be quite shocked to see what I pay in taxes if you think the "middle class" "get most of their taxes back". As a self employed person this hasn't been true for a long time. Also, the point at which people stop getting refunds is hardly "into the middle class" by todays standards. If you think it is, then I suggest you may be out of touch with living on a budget.

        I have never taken anything from the system... I pay taxes proudly, I see it as my duty and privilege. I have lived amongst the poorest people in the worst parts of town. I have not seen people trying to cheat the system... I have seen people trying to get by and trying to work. These welfare slackers you mention... here is the thing, they don't really exist. At least not in great numbers.

        I would say there are maybe as many of them as there are rich (not upper middle class) people that cheat on their taxes... and who do you think ends up costing us more?

        The race and sex statements you make are a bit amazing... I wish they were true but the fact that you are unaware of your advantage in being white and male is maybe a good sign. Maybe that just means I am old and things are changing more than I realize, but I can honestly say that for me, those two factors made a huge difference and opened many doors. Not that I purposely exploited that mind you... But I was always aware that I was sometimes getting in the door were a woman or a person of a darker skin tone may have not... so here in the thing, I tended to leave those jobs quickly, I don't like working around narrow minded people... but the jobs are still there. Those same people who are less likely to hire someone based one pigmentation or sex are still sitting in those offices...

        So, I wonder at 21, how is it that you have gained so much life experience as to be issuing such strong and forceful opinions? I can only assume that you have been gifted to some extent with your status, education, and... opinions.


        • thebaron2, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3"I have lived amongst the poorest people in the worst parts of town. I have not seen people trying to cheat the system..."

          Where do you live? Growing up in some of the "shadier" parts of Chicago and working in the city for the past 15 years I can tell you that I've seen plenty attempts to game the system. It's a way of life in many parts of town around here.
        • OpaqueMurdock, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1thebaron2,

          I can only speak from my personal experience and that comes mainly from living in the some pretty rough parts of Dallas area for over a decade (as an example, I got shot in one neighborhood trying to stop someone who was stealing my roommates car) and other less impressive cities for shorter periods of time.

          Chicago with its long history of corruption may be at the other end of the spectrum perhaps and thus a poor example of how most of the nation works? Or is that largely a myth... I don't really know the place. It just seems like in a place where corruption is somewhat of a tradition you may get more people thinking it was the "way to do things". Feel free to tell me if I have been watching to many gangster movies... heh.

          With all the crime and problems in those places I have lived... the VAST majority of people living there are hard working and trying to find a way to improve their situation. They simply lack the advantage that many of us have. The fact that I was able to claw my way out has everything to do with my skill and my intelligence, but it also has a bit to do with the fact that (in the past?) I fit the "profile" of someone who should be successful. That fact was never lost on me and I find it humbling. Like I said above, I really hope things have changed more than I suspect they have... but I doubt it.
      • Griminald, on 06/16/2008, -4/+2He's not talking about the "one step up from upper-middle" rich class, he's talking about the RICH class. You know, the 1% of people in this country that hoard close to 50% of the wealth.

        Rich people also spend a smaller percentage of their wages than the poor/middle classes do, so saying you 'spend more' is not entirely accurate.
        • joe122370, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5what do you mean by hoard? they made the money it's theirs to keep.

          This socialist redistribution of wealth ***** has got to stop. You have no "right" to anybodies money unless you worked for it
      • mille716, on 06/16/2008, -6/+6I hate this "victim" culture as much as you but you're placing yourself as the biggest victim, utahnkid. The rich really do pay less in taxes than the middle class. If you don't believe me, then listen to the richest man in the entire world, Warren Buffett say the same thing. He's offfering a million dollars to any Forbes 400 member who can prove they pay more taxes than their secretary. No one has been able to take it yet. That should tell you something.

        http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html

        You're also guilty of believing the conservative line that welfare is sucking up our taxes. Its just 1% of the federal budget and 2% of state budgets. Most welfare recipients are off welfare in 12 months. It's not that big of a deal. Also, people need to recognize what most welfare is. Many people on welfare work but get food stamps to feed their kids. I truly believe parents shouldn't have kids if they can't afford to feed them but I'm not going to favor punishing kids for their parents stupidity. Here's another case of welfare. My dad's dad passed away when he was 14. My Grandmother never had a job before and had to now feed four kids. She worked her ass off but had to use food stamps to get by. My dad then didn't have to work full time in high school, got a degree and ended up doing very well for himself. I'm sorry but I just don't believe this myth of the "welfare mothers".
        • joe122370, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3this was a very flawed example because Buffet doesn't get paid like his secretary. It's not apples to apples. His payment is from investments and dividends not from getting a paycheck, so yes his secretary pays a higher tax rate than what the tax rate is on investment income.

          Typical liberal bait and switch to try and make a point with flawed statistics
        • digg911, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2So your grandmother relied on her husband for income her entire life and then when your grandfather died she was unable to get a high-paying job? Which part of that was a surprise - that everyone dies eventually (men earlier than women) or that employers are not willing to pay the big bucks to people without skills or experience?

          I am a woman who immigrated into the US 12 years ago and I was able to get up to speed pretty quickly in terms of income, thank you very much. Your grandmother - a mother of 4 who never bothered to make sure her kids were provided for (if they could not afford life insurance, contraception is always an optionyou know) - only proves the "conservative line" you are criticising.
        • BWatkins, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0Only the rate is lower, not the amount.
        • mille716, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Goddamn it people read the ***** article I posted for you. Here, I'll make it even easier for you.

          "He says he will bet any Forbes 400 member $1 million (proceeds to charity) that the average federal tax rate (income and payroll) paid by The Forbes 400 is less than the average rate of their secretaries and receptionists"

          See that? INCOME AND PAYROLL (sorry for caps but joe has problems reading). BWatkins, what's your point? Its good that people the super rich get to pay a lower percentage of their tax than most? Seriously? Digg911 (great name...), this was in the 1950's for god's sake. Few women were in work force. Most men worked blue collar jobs cause they paid enough to provide for an entire family, unlike today which apparently is a better situation to you (?!). You also missed the most important point. My grandmother had to use food stamps for about 5 years while working herself. After that point, everything was provided for by her college educated children. See what happened? A hardworking family falls under tough times and worked out of it with the government's help and because of it never needed government assistance for nearly 50 years after.
    • zooplibob, on 06/16/2008, -1/+19Did you read the article? The "loopholes" were people making charitable contributions to Katrina victims, and people that already paid tax to foreign governments already, where they earned the income. Doesnt sounds like exploitation to me.

      And of the 3 million incomes over $200,000, you're talking about 7,000 people who didnt pay anything. This is anything but a widespread problem.
    • andy3109, on 06/16/2008, -3/+6That was possibly the dumbest dugg up statement I have ever read on digg. Attention....the top 10% of taxpayers pay more than 60% of the taxes (might be more now). Is that progressive enough for you?
      • edmcguirk, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I'll never understand this argument. If the top 10% of people make more than 60% of the money, they are SUPPOSED to be paying 60% of the taxes.

        If I make 100 dollars and pay 10 dollar tax and you make 10 dollars and pay 1 dollar tax then the top 50% of the two of us has just paid 90% of the taxes. I don't see a problem with that.

        If the top 10% paid 10% of the taxes, then we would all be payinf the same amount not the same percent. We would all probably have to pay over $100,000 tax each. That would probably work real well
    • Dou6, on 06/16/2008, -3/+6What a bunch of major ***** retards. The rich pay most of the taxes, it is the middle class and poor that get way more than they put in. The rich subsidize the middle class and the poor, get over it.

      Thats right, without the rich, there would be no jobs, there would not be enough tax money to sustain the system, no matter how much you want to bitch, moan, be lazy, and take no risk, and then blame the rich, it's still the truth.
    • WarpDigger1492, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Plutocracy, anyone?
    • CosmicJustice, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2You are completely wrong and misinformed in every way. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.
    • whiterice0, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Don't worry. It will eventually trickle down ;)
  • superior1, on 06/16/2008, -30/+10The obvious solution is to become rich yourself. Then you won't have anything to complain about.
  • superior1, on 06/16/2008, -35/+7The obvious solution is to become rich yourself. Then you won't have anything to complain about.
  • Pfkninenines, on 06/16/2008, -17/+77'Under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Washington also allowed taxpayers to eliminate up to 100% of their alternative minimum tax liability by using credits for any foreign taxes paid. Before tax year 2005, those credits could only eliminate 90% of federal income taxes.'

    1 - Become a United States Citizen if not already
    2 - Create an overseas company
    3 - ?????
    4 - Profit from the company
    5 - April rolls around, don't pay taxes
    6 - Keep ALL profit.
    • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -15/+32"CREDITS FOR FOREIGN TAXES PAID"

      IE: You pay the foreign tax instead of the US tax. Taxes STILL paid, just not to the US government.

      OMG LEARN TO READ.
      • specialK16, on 06/16/2008, -9/+11OMG! CREATE COMPANY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRY, PROFIT, PAY MUCH MUCH LESS TAXES THAN YOU WOULD IN THE US!!!
        • swiftheart, on 06/16/2008, -3/+20No, the credit on US taxes is equivalent to the taxes paid to the other country. If you owe 100k in US taxes, you'd have to pay 100k to another country before your US obligations are wiped out.

          There's no way of saving any money there.
        • thebaron2, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Right, because it's just THAT easy to create a company in a foreign country and keep it profitable.

          There's no such thing as magic business wand that makes your company profitable and viable.
        • specialK16, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1It is not that easy but it isn't impossible either.
      • browntiger, on 06/16/2008, -2/+7>
        IE: You pay the foreign tax instead of the US tax. Taxes STILL paid, just not to the US government.

        I replied to that before.

        You claim you paid foreign tax... How possibly can IRS verify????? Country I was born in, this information is not public period.
        • korvan504521, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1If you can't prove it, they don't accept it. I had three times the normal amount of tax paperwork this year because I worked in canada for the past year.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2"OMG LEARN TO READ."
        My response is Learn to Critically Think. So sound like someone who can be given the most rediculous of answers from authority and believe them.
        Obviously it does OUR country no good to have it;s taxes paid to another country. If the tax rate were exactly the same, then what;s the point? And I would be willing to bet that a foreign country woiuld see any incoming money as a plus, and so "work with" US companies to help facilitate their efforts.
        See when a Critical Thinker reads that, they recognize corruption.
        • thebaron2, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Have you ever tried export anything from the US to another country? There are mounds of paperwork that need to be submitted to, and approved by, each country.

          US companies that make sales abroad have to track and report everything they do, even to a greater extent than their domestic business.

          Sure they can probably get away with fudging the numbers to a degree, but it would be to a lesser degree than what they could get away with at home. When doing business in a foreign country every single container of product that hits the water has to be approved and documented by US customs, so you can't just pull ***** numbers out of the air. It's a pain in the ***** ass -much more so than just selling your goods domestically.

          It'd be a bit easier to fudge numbers for service-based industries, but anyone actually producing a physical product and selling it elsewhere is under a microscope.

          If the best that your "critical thinking" got you was pure speculation that some foreign governments might "work with" US companies to fudge the numbers, then you've got a ways to go.
    • jw5801, on 06/16/2008, -2/+10'Under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Washington also allowed taxpayers to eliminate up to 100% of their alternative minimum tax liability by using credits for any foreign taxes paid. Before tax year 2005, those credits could only eliminate 90% of federal income taxes.'

      1 - Become a United States Citizen if not already
      2 - Create an overseas company
      3 - Create a US company
      3 - ?????
      4 - Either company turns a profit
      5 - Before the end of the financial year in the foreign country, pay a consultancy fee equal to the majority of this fee to the US company.
      6 - Before the end of the US financial year pay a consultancy fee equal to the 'profit' of the US company to the foreign company.
      7 - Pay much less tax.
      8 - Be amused at posts on Digg that rant about legal loopholes, but have no idea how to exploit them.
      • karapuz, on 06/16/2008, -7/+1Nice try, the only problem with your plan is the financial year is defined the same in every country.
        The financial year is from January 1 to December 31.
        If there is some sort of backward country which has another financial year layout (there isn't) then you would have your consultancy fee tax deducted at the Source (i.e. atleast 30% off).

        The government's want their taxes. The government is stupid but not that stupid.
        • elmafudd, on 06/16/2008, -0/+8Financial years are rarely from Jan 1 to Dec 31.
          In Australia, it starts on July 1 and ends on June 30.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Year
        • jw5801, on 06/17/2008, -0/+0Consultancy fee tax? That's the point of consultancy, there is no tax. It's put in place so that when a company sends a person to work for another company, the second company gives the first company an amount of money equal to that employees wages before tax, the first company then takes out any tax and salary sacrifice amounts the employee owes and pays the employee their after-tax wage. That's the way it works in Australia and, as far as I'm aware NZ, anyway. The company simply pays a 'Company Tax' (usually 30%) on whatever profit it turns, either from regular income or from capital gains. Costs for outsourcing work do not count as profit, they're a cost.

          Dunno why I'm arguing anyway, not even the US fiscal year runs from Jan 1 to Dec 31, so you've already demonstrated your ignorance.
    • swiftheart, on 06/16/2008, -3/+4Actually if you had an overseas company and you were living 100% of your time in the US then you'd owe only US income tax.

      The way you owe money to another country is by being a part-time resident of that country.

      The US is unusual in that it requires US citizens to pay income taxes even if they live abroad. Almost all other countries only require that residents pay taxes, so if someone is a French citizen living in Japan, they don't pay French taxes.

      As I've understood it, the US allows the first 85,000 of non US-income to be untaxed if the person lives abroad full-time. After that, the amount is taxed.

      The credit referred to above is a 100% credit on alternative minimum taxes, a special kind of tax which affects some individuals and includes significantly fewer exemptions.
      • logotype702, on 06/16/2008, -0/+0I work in a big construction company, USA citizens that go expats to other country make big money that way...by avoiding those 85K.
      • StopTheLie, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Our founding fathers left England, and yet the rulers of England still demanded taxes from them. This led to war. Now, just a couple hundred years later, the government they founded does the exact same thing. (Taxes those that it has claimed ownership of, regardless of where they move.)
  • philodygmn, on 06/16/2008, -23/+10Do you realize income tax pays nothing but Fed-created interest on the national debt, and it's _corporate_ income taxes that pay for basic services like the fire department? Makes the class envy ***** articles like this foment seem as enslaving as it actually is, dudnit? Watch Aaron Russo's film at http://www.freedomtofascism.com
    • rickcarson, on 06/16/2008, -2/+22Actually, in the US basic services such as Fire, Police and schools are typically paid out of _property_ taxes.
    • senseinobaka, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Corporate Income taxes. hmmmm. Let's noodle this one out. Corporations earn their income from selling products or services to a consumer. The consumer exchanges currency for the product. The corporation then takes a portion of the consumer's currency and passes it to the government as corporate taxes. So it would seem that the consumer is actually the one being taxed. Amazing. So being poor kind of sucks considering they pay income taxes and then corporate taxes and then property taxes and then excise taxes on gas and then death taxes when they die.
  • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -22/+11Ahhh.....the two reasons they cited are minor, at best, and make perfect sense. If you paid taxes on foreign income, you shouldn't have to pay those taxes again here (that's like paying your state income taxes twice if you want to think of it that way).

    Dugg down for being just plain stupid. Not to mention that 7,000 people or so is a TINY contingent of the millions that make more than 200,000 a year....
    • rickcarson, on 06/16/2008, -5/+19The article should be dugg up, the idiots ranting about how evil rich people are should be dugg down.

      Charity == good.
      Paying tax twice on same income == bad.

      Come on people, this is not rocket surgery!
    • InfiniteNothing, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5Rocket surgery sounds unpleasant.
  • tbb9216, on 06/16/2008, -21/+12I believe this is the proper place to say it: Ron Paul 2008!
    • tehbored, on 06/16/2008, -4/+6There is never a proper place to say that.
      • mrzisme, on 06/16/2008, -1/+0@ tehbored
        Ron Paul was the only candidate seriously talking about the American dollar, where its going, restoring the gold standard, removing the federal reserve and its linkages with the federal income tax, etc. This is precisely the proper place to say "Ron Paul 2008", even though he doesnt have a chance to win anymore, it still made perfect sense. Im assuming you just never listened what Ron Paul was actually talking about?
  • philrenaud, on 06/16/2008, -17/+28You know, it seems that stories about rich people taking advantage of things at the expense of others are becoming more frequent.

    :( :( :(
    • rickcarson, on 06/16/2008, -18/+22Damn those rich people for taking advantage by being generous and giving to charity!

      Screw those rich people who earned income overseas! Don't stop at double taxing them, triple tax the mofos!

      Seriously dude, (a) read the fine article, (b) engage brain before keyboard
    • Barackalypse, on 06/16/2008, -15/+17I make under $100k a year and nearly half that is from overseas. I pay tax in Canada and get it back as a credit on my US taxes. And you know what? I don't cost the government a single cent, save for the Social Security and tax form mailings they insist on sending me every year. There are plenty of poor people who are nothing but a burden on this country and its misguided entitlements, but they always seem to get a pass at the expense of the rich who "aren't paying their fair share".
      • ThantiK, on 06/16/2008, -1/+7"I pay tax in Canada and get it back as a credit on my US taxes." - So you pay tax, but don't pay the tax you should of in the USA, equaling out to "I don't pay taxes"...period. And your claiming to pay your fair share?

        You should have to pay your Canadian Taxes on the half that comes from Canada, and you should have to pay your American Taxes, on the half that comes from America. Not, get all your money BACK from America because you paid Canada...
        • Barackalypse, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Except that isn't how it works, the Canadian income shows up on my US taxes and the US government actually tries to tax me one it, except they give me a foreign tax credit for what I already paid to Canada. For example, I earned $10,000 in Canadian stock dividends last year. As a US citizen, Canada withholds 20% of that, or $2,000. When I do my US taxes, I report $10,000 in foreign income, to which the US then applies my capital gains tax rate to. Except, I already paid Canada that tax, so I get a foreign tax credit in the amount of $2,000.
          Your comment would make the most sense, income earned in another country should only be taxed by that country, except that isn't how our tax system works.
      • laserdog, on 06/16/2008, -2/+5So you don't ever use roads?

        Have your own personal fire department on call?

        Hire a private security firm in case of burglary?

        Built a private prison to keep your share of the violent offenders locked up?

        Built bridges, levees and river lock systems to enable all the goods you rely on to reach you?
        • Barackalypse, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The roads are paid for with a gas tax. As to all the other services you mention, as I said originally, I don't increase the burden on those services any. They didn't have to add police, prison, or fire capacity because I moved into the city, nor did they remove any when I moved out of the city for several years.
    • fatejudger, on 06/16/2008, -2/+13That's because diggers bitch more than most women.
    • Mightbiteyou, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1Exactly, we should go back to the way it was in the past where there were land owners and there were workers. No middle class to abuse
      • laserdog, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3You won't have to wait that much longer.
  • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -20/+12Ahhh.....the two reasons they cited are minor, at best, and make perfect sense. If you paid taxes on foreign income, you shouldn't have to pay those taxes again here (that's like paying your state income taxes twice if you want to think of it that way).

    Dugg down for being just plain stupid. Not to mention that 7,000 people or so is a TINY contingent of the millions that make more than 200,000 a year....
  • tbb9216, on 06/16/2008, -20/+8I believe this is the proper place to say it: Ron Paul 2008!
    • bobdigi, on 06/16/2008, -3/+4I suppose this is the place to say that you are stupid. Ron Paul isn't doing *****.
  • Shaman760, on 06/16/2008, -6/+38I'm working on starting my own religion- Church of the poison mind. Hey, I'm playing by the rules...

    paying taxes sucks. Become your own church.
    • buddypriefert, on 06/16/2008, -0/+28Ron Hubbard already did it.
      • Shaman760, on 06/16/2008, -0/+9It can/will be done again. I'm not out to convert souls. The basic tenet of my religion is to leave you alone. And smoke lots of good weed. You do your own thing. It's OK.
        • Devilboy666, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10Your ideas interest me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
        • Recuso, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I've been trying to get this religion started up for the better part of the past 20 years. No dice so far. :p

          Apparently your faith is not legitimate unless it comes from a book published a few thousand years ago.
    • Jenadae, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5This is quite an interesting idea. Is there any ideology required in starting a religion or is it just that you have to have a certain amount of people willing to say they are apart and practice it?
    • bubba9999, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5do you steal all of your other ideas from Boy George?
    • FelixdaaHack, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2The Church of Felix
    • nelsonuwp, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Al Bundy did it. He's my hero.
    • jeffhansen, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2I belong to the Church of Digg and Latter Day Diggers
  • Stuart750, on 06/16/2008, -16/+3MrBabyMan strikes again...
  • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -25/+5Ahhh.....the two reasons they cited are minor, at best, and make perfect sense. If you paid taxes on foreign income, you shouldn't have to pay those taxes again here (that's like paying your state income taxes twice if you want to think of it that way).

    Dugg down for being just plain stupid. Not to mention that 7,000 people or so is a TINY contingent of the millions that make more than 200,000 a year....
    • greenlight2001, on 06/16/2008, -1/+13Is the digg comment system F-ed up or are you just being a douchebag?
  • UntoTheBreach, on 06/16/2008, -13/+18"Under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Washington also allowed taxpayers to eliminate up to 100% of their alternative minimum tax liability by using credits for any foreign taxes paid. Before tax year 2005, those credits could only eliminate 90% of federal income taxes."

    Sooo essentially, pour money into other countries and make the middle class American Tax Payer foot the bill. Might as well take a vacation for 6 months of the year and write the entire thing off. There's another word for this: Welfare.

    Nice.
    • ravan46, on 06/16/2008, -7/+14Damnit, I'm so frustrated at your stupid assumptions and lack of knowledge I can't write out a decent reply.
    • thefirelane, on 06/16/2008, -1/+7Agreed. That is so incredibly ignorant that words don't suffice. Americans are one of the *only* group of people who have to pay taxes (and file) on any foreign income. It is a huge problem actually, and should be abolished. It is a giant disincentive for foreign companies to hire Americans, and for their living overseas.

      Americans living overseas is one of the best things that can be done. It makes us all more worldly, and helps many countries understand the US better by knowing Americans personally. the US gets by far more intangible benefit out of these unofficial ambassadors than any "lost" income from taxes.
    • trispear, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3@UntotheBeach,

      They still have to pay it as taxes, just not to the US Government. It's not Welfare, unless you really pervert the definition.

      This is for people who live more than 6 months in other places. It's not just a "vacation."
  • DiscoLando, on 06/16/2008, -15/+23Money not taxed equals money spent or saved directly into the economy - assuming these people aren't stuffing it into their mattresses.

    That's a good thing. The bad thing isn't that these people aren't paying taxes, it's that anyone should have to pay for the government's mismanagement of just about everything.
    • xNIBx, on 06/16/2008, -3/+3I always loved this excuse used by liberals. Now imagine if you did pay taxes, do those money disappear? Does the government hide those money under their mattress? Or does the government reinjects those money back to the economy in a way that benefits the less fortunate?
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/16/2008, -1/+6I don't think anyone here would question that the government spends that money. But does the government spend that money in as productive a manner as the citizens would? Of course not. Its always much easier wasting someone else's money.
      • DiscoLando, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3I find it incredibly funny that you think I'm a liberal.

        The government will always do things an order of magnitude worse than any private citizen. Always.
        • RungeKutta, on 06/16/2008, -3/+2What do you think the government is made out of? The alien tentacles from a Hentai comic? No, it's composed of citizens from the country it manages.
      • units, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3How on earth do you equate that with liberalism? Even in the straw-maniest, most reactionary fiscal conservative arguments, liberals are blamed for high taxes, and especially on spending taxes on social programs. So now you're also indicting them for fostering quasi-tax evasion, stripping that money from...social programs? Buh?
      • xNIBx, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1In every other country, except in the US, liberals = right wing. They want a small government, no taxes and absolute freedom for companies to do as they want(***** the consumer).

        The government can use those money better than an individual simply because of scale economy. For example the cost of buying 1 bus is cheaper when you buy 100 buses than when you buy only 1 bus. Also many individuals(if not most) dont really give a ***** about anyone but themselves.
  • COlson87, on 06/16/2008, -13/+54Eliminate the income tax and you eliminate the problem.
    • Barackalypse, on 06/16/2008, -1/+18Its true, the income tax creates rewards people who have the time and resources to find loopholes and encourages otherwise unproductive investments because of tax advantages. A whole layer of IRS auditors, CPA's, and tax preparation business exist because of this stupid income tax and combined waste hundreds of millions of hours on completely unproductive endeavors.
  • poiuytrewq44, on 06/16/2008, -12/+3Shameless promotion. Was up for four days before this.
    http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/17667/Thous ...
  • NastiN8, on 06/16/2008, -18/+135 As a CPA in the works & an experienced tax preparer im assuming most of you have no idea what this article is talking about and how ridiculous it is. What you fail to realize is that they give a much larger amount to charity which is generally more beneficial to people than paying it to the federal government. They are PAYING in one form or another its just they do not pay it to a governmental agency & instead to a non profit. This is someone trying to make an argument out of nothing. So i make 50,000 a year and give away 20,000. I'll be taxed on 30,000 at an estimate overall of 15%. Overall i lose more money cause i gave away 20,000. Also foreign tax credit is not a way to "avoid" paying taxes. They freaking paid it to a foreign government agency already so it in no way helps them "escape taxes".
    • buddypriefert, on 06/16/2008, -12/+37So true. Unfortunately, this article is aimed at the idiots who make less than 200k and obviously do not understand what a "deduction" is.
      • obelisky, on 06/16/2008, -7/+1you do not make 200k quit trying so hard
      • zebco, on 06/16/2008, -7/+0Deduction: AKA lying on your taxes?
        • TubaTechno, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4I guess you don't have children, own property, contribute to charity, etc....
    • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -9/+48Wow, some common sense on Digg! Amazing!

      The stupidity of the vast majority of Digg users when it comes to finance matters is both shocking and terrifying. It's a good thing that smarter people generally make the policies that actually make a difference.

      (Finance MBA here)
      • blackolive, on 06/16/2008, -8/+3"Finance MBA here"

        George Bush got his MBA from Harvard. Bill Gates learned on his own. Who do you want running a company?

        "smarter people generally make the policies that actually make a difference."

        Are you blind? You can't actually believe smart people are making the policy!
        • slaizer, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Bill Gates got his fortune by being a tech-geek, not a finances guru. He probably outsources those tasks to people with better business skills. At least that's what I would do.
        • edmcguirk, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, the idiots who sign the policies into law actually hire smart people who write the policies that ***** us over.

          Then they hire other smart people who push out the nonsense that the idiots on Digg rant about.
      • fracaso089, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4You would be surprised by the amount of smart digg users. The high percentage of idiots only arises when it comes to posting. I have proof! Most comments are stupid, but (for the most part) only the smart ones get dugg up.
    • serpentor, on 06/16/2008, -11/+34There is an inordinate amount of idiots and/or socialists on this page right now digging down every sensible comment..
      • bustaballs, on 06/16/2008, -2/+7O.o

        Socialists like taxes.
        • franklymister, on 06/16/2008, -6/+4That may be true, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to find many socialists here. Unless your definition of "socialist" is "any liberal," in which case you've already started working with a flawed set of assumptions.
      • obelisky, on 06/16/2008, -5/+1human trash
    • RetlawST, on 06/16/2008, -8/+990% of the time when my father-in-law donates to charity it's because he pays less that way. ***** all of those other people keeping the government afloat, he just wants more of his money. You of all people should know that a good chunck of charities are umbrellas for people to hide their money.
      • AntiMe, on 06/16/2008, -0/+5Charitable donations make you pay more, not less. Just less in tax, more in donation (a lot more). Might want to tell him that.
    • arjie, on 06/16/2008, -1/+26I don't want to spoil the illusion that poor Americans are handling most of America's taxes but your treasury department says:
      "In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income. "

      http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

      As for charities, well that isn't always true that more money is being spent. I'm sure there's some business being run like IKEA is in Sweden.
      • blackolive, on 06/16/2008, -4/+2That's spin.

        Income taxes *aren't* the majority of taxes - sales, payroll, & gas taxes add up to far more.

        Rush Limbaugh makes your argument all the time - he *never* mentions total taxes like they do on NPR - he only mentions income tax rates.
        • TubaTechno, on 06/16/2008, -2/+1Do you realize that people who can afford nice things, will pay more sales, gas, etc. than a lower income earner? Are you even thinking these things out?!
      • flashingcurser, on 06/16/2008, -0/+7I DO AGREE WITH YOU. That said, here is the devils advocate. REAL rich people don't earn an income they live on capital gains. Income is the paycheck you receive for services rendered. For example in the late 90's when Bill Gates was the richest man on earth, he didn't wait for his paltry 200,000 month salary from microsoft to build a 40million dollar home. He cashed in some stocks. He, however, would pay income tax on the 200,000 a month. I don't think Warren Buffet even collects a salary from a company. I could be wrong on that. If he does, it is paltry compared to capital gains earnings.

        The problem many people have is the difference between wealth and income. They are not the same thing. Inheritance and capital gains taxes tax wealth. Income tax taxes, you guessed it, tax income.

    • jdoo, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3Note to self: Start non-profit organization
    • zebco, on 06/16/2008, -8/+3Giving to charity is better than paying taxes?
      You might be a CPA but you've got no ***** common sense, man.
      You think charity actually GIVES resources to those who need it?
      There is ONE charity out there (Red Cross) that actually passes the money over to people in need.
      Remember Katrina?
      $1 out of every $35 (Government's estimation, not mine)
      made it to the people in need.
      Charity is as corrupt or more corrupt than the tax system.
      Get a clue. You're basically defending peoples' right to ***** the tax system and get away scott free.
    • mj23thebest, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2This tax avoiding trend has indicated 2 scenarios:
      . Rich people do take advantage of our current tax system, especially when it comes to charity. Some of these so-called motivational speakers can simply write off huge portion of their taxes by making "free" speeches. Give me a break! I am sure there are other professions that can leverage a similar trick to avoid taxes.
      . On the other hand, people are losing faith on the government when it comes to money management. Philanthropists would rather set up their own charity funds to help the poor. Just look back for the last few decades; all of the ex-presidents have tapped in to our social security fund to pay the national debt. How can anyone trust the same debt beat to handle any charity funds!
    • gennipher, on 06/16/2008, -2/+3No I think you're missing the point the author was trying to make, that in 2005 they extended the benefit of donations to full 100% instead of 90%, but that they did not restrict it to just the organizations that were assisting people affected by Katrina, which was the whole point of the extension.

      However, I'm all for donating to charities, that way I can control where my "taxes" get spent for the most part. Brilliant.
    • rawg, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3Many of the non-profit charities that rich people donate to are foundations that they themselves or their families control. For example, most of the Clintons' charitable donations reported in their tax returnes were to their own foundation. Another example is Ikea, the entire company is owned by a charitable foundation controlled by the founder which would make him one of the richest people in the world if it wasn't hidden. Another example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      Really rich people generate wealth tax free through their tax shelters and foundations and generally only pay themselves the minimum needed to cover their daily expenses, i.e. pocket money. Of the money they pay themselves, most or all of it is tax free because it is generally offset by their charitable contributions to themselves. Not every charitable contribution is structured this way but you'd be surprised by how many that are.

      Also, just because rich people manage their wealth through non taxable foundations doesn't mean they aren't doing good things with the money (see bill and melinda gates foundation), however it does mean that they still control how the money is spent rather than being taxed and letting the government decide how to allocate the money.
    • aeoo, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1The truth is that we don't know. All we know is that they don't pay tax in the USA. Do they pay it elsewhere? We don't know. Charity is no excuse, because charity doesn't pave roads, does not support fire and police (unfortunately cops are becoming more assholish, so this may, at some point, be an argument against paying taxes), do not support water treatment and purifying facilities, NASA, military, and so on. Also, when the rich do charity, hardly ever do they support soup kitchens or homeless. Mostly they donate to medical research (research the results of which are not freely available to the public -- companies/orgs patent the results and charge all of us through the ass to benefit from it), museums, and all kinds of things that the needy do not benefit from. If the rich did something to help the needy, we'd have no poverty in USA.
  • davidrools, on 06/16/2008, -17/+10and the current political right wants to get rid of the AMT altogether, make permanent the tax breaks for the wealthy, and keep dumping billions into Iraq. WTF now let's even this ship out.
    • buddypriefert, on 06/16/2008, -10/+9Yeah, well communism/soclialism may sound sweet to you, but it doesn't work. If you are going to reward the lazy and punish the hard workers, then who is going to create the company that creates the job that you so desire? Wise up commie liberal.
      • filmbandit, on 06/16/2008, -5/+3/hanitized!!!/
      • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -3/+7donno, norway seems to do quite well. the free market system didn't seem to do so well in chile under pinochet though. btw, communism and socialism are two different things.
        • buddypriefert, on 06/16/2008, -7/+2Yes, communism and soclialism are indeed two different things - hence me mentioning both of them. I don't recall Norway making any headlines in world wide contributions to humanity in recent years...or well, ever (great sardines though). Agreed, the free market system doesn't do to well in underdeveloped countries and is really a higher level system for more evolved cultures, as evident in Muslim-typed societies of the equator.
        • pintomp3, on 06/16/2008, -4/+5even milton friedman himself latrer admitted that the free market only works on a small scale on the local level. hybrid systems such as keynesian economics and developmentalism have have shown the best real world results.
        • archiesteel, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1"Agreed, the free market system doesn't do to well in underdeveloped countries and is really a higher level system for more evolved cultures, as evident in Muslim-typed societies of the equator."

          I'll ignore your comment's racist subtext to remark on a simple fact: the US isn't a Free Market economy, and so it seems that it doesn't even suit our "more evolved" culture.

          The US is a mixed economy, and gained most of its economic clout following years of interventionism (through the Pentagon). Yes, you've read it right: the US wouldn't be the economic superpower it is today without taxpayer's money.

          Now stop being such a freakin' racist.
      • kingcam, on 06/16/2008, -1/+3Free Markets don't work well either hotshot, ever see Russia in the 1990s? Even theoretically they are corrupt, we have known for almost a generation that free markets don't behave exactly as Game Theory would have them.
      • archiesteel, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2buddypriefert, socialism doesn't reward the lazy and punish the hard workers any more than capitalism does. You're deluding yourself if you think we live in a meritocracy - the existence of inheritance is enough to clearly contradict this assertion.

        By its nature, Capitalism rewards those who already have money. You can be a very hard worker, but if you don't own the means of production, the fruits of your labour are being alienated from you. Sure, you can be successful if you have some good ideas and are ready to work hard as an entrepreneur, but chances are you'll fail. It's not just a matter of ingenuity and effort, but also of luck, connections, and most of all actual capital.

        The point is moot since the US isn't a Free Market economy anyway.
    • Prosequi, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Just what are you going to even out?
      32+% of the tax base does not pay into the federal income tax due to various deductions, and 60+% of the tax base are net users of tax dollars. The very people you are seeking to pile on to are the ones paying the lion's share of tax dollars.
  • xtinamo, on 06/16/2008, -4/+35Is it just me or are the comments and diggs really ***** up right now?
    • helikopter, on 06/16/2008, -0/+14i don't know, i was walking my walrus on the top of mount everest with a radio flyer full of ball park franks and i didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.
    • seraph582, on 06/16/2008, -2/+4No, the comments aren't *really* ***** up, they just appear different to you than they actually are - or at least they do if you have your head shoved as far up your ass as your typical "OMG OBAMA" digg user does.
      • seraph582, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2footnote: yeah yeah, I'm voting for him too - but not because he's all that and a bag of chips -- he's not -- he only appears as such when comparing him to the likes of Clinton or McCain. All the fanfare for him could cease tomorrow and he'd still be a better candidate than the other two despite his horrible voting record and retarded fiscal proposals.
    • Eddiecoaster, on 06/16/2008, -2/+2I guess Digg is filled with a lot of political "experts"
  • buddypriefert, on 06/16/2008, -30/+98I don't get it. So making over $200k per year makes me "rich" and evil? Sheesh, I live in a 1800 sqft home and we have one car. For that matter, darn near everyone in the USA is "rich" compared to other countries. It's disgusting to hear the whinning. I paid almost $60k in taxes this year. 15 years ago I was emptying bed pans at a local hospital, riding my bike to school and envying fellow students who had chance to buy a sandwich at the vending machine. Hard, honest and smart work can get one further, creates jobs and helps the economy. So what, there are a few loopholes, but if the "anti-rich" whiners would focus more on themselves than those who have more than they, then they too one day will have their needs met. Over 85% of our country have cell phones, cabel tv, 2 cars, and airconditioning. Get over it and stop being such communist.
    • krusader3z, on 06/16/2008, -21/+8I think you're lying about your income
    • serpentor, on 06/16/2008, -9/+19Why is this guy getting dugg down? Seriously...
    • Mist0r_Wiggles, on 06/16/2008, -6/+20200k living in SF is like being poor...
      • fatejudger, on 06/16/2008, -4/+10I'm sorry, but making 200k in SF is NOT like being poor. Do you even live there?
    • RetlawST, on 06/16/2008, -13/+7I think you're a troll but I'll make one comment:

      Everybody pays for food, transportation, and shelter. While the rich probably pay a bit more for these things, these prices are relatively equal amongst the classes. So a person making $32K will spend a very large percentage of their income on these things where-as a $200K person will spend a much smaller % of their income on these things. Thus the poor person will have little to no money to better themselves, and the rich person has a significant amount of change to invest. The point not being to penalize the rich person, but to take a burden off of the masses who likely keep the rich person rich.
    • bustaballs, on 06/16/2008, -11/+3I work my ass off for 40+ hours a week making 9k a year. You spend 3x that much in taxes. I walk to work. I have to save money to afford a bicycle, much less be able to afford a car. I'm lucky enough to have a person that'll let me stay at their house for $300 a month. I go to local churches for clothes and occasionally food. I still pay taxes. I generally don't complain.

      I had a point.. but I forgot it. /endrant
      • JensUK, on 06/16/2008, -0/+10Does your employer not believe in minimum wage or do you "run" your own business?

        You could beat $9k/year at McDs.
      • shauncorleone, on 06/16/2008, -4/+2You cannot afford clothes, yet it seems you have money for a computer and monthly Internet bill.
        Or lemme guess, you're using a public computer? Yeah, that's a good defense to your transparent exaggeration.
        • obelisky, on 06/16/2008, -1/+5he did say he was staying at someone's house, maybe they have a pc and internet? you fail.
      • chadu, on 06/16/2008, -1/+1how are you on digg? is this your computer?
    • kingcam, on 06/16/2008, -1/+2Where the ***** do you live? Manhattan?
      • mlavergn, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1San Francisco would do the trick too. I'm guessing he's a doctor / dentist with a truck load of student loans / liability insurance / practice loans / equipment loans to get out from under before he can enjoy a $200K lifestyle. That said, $200K in Manhattan / SF is != $200K in Boise Idaho by a long shot.
      • bdbr, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1digg has these things called profiles, you know. His says "Friendswood, TX", outside of Houston.

        Which means his 1800-sqft house and one car are a matter of choice, not necessity.
    • zebco, on 06/16/2008, -9/+2You're a damn fool but exactly the kind of American they were trying to create when they introduced the unconstitutional tax system.
      I pay my taxes too, but I'm not bragging about it.
      But isn't it hilarious when people are raped for $60,000 per year (going to war, not to help your fellow citizens) and Americans are dumb enough to take pride in that?
      What exactly do you get?
      Because I'm assuming you pay state and local taxes as well. If you look into it, that's what's paying for your roads, schools, levys, etc.

      What an idiot but like I said: how perfect at the same time.
      If you could be in charge of a bunch of sheep that would syphon all of their money into the military war industrial machine, wouldn't you be dancing around and amazed at the stupidity as well?
      I surely am.
    • s2ao, on 06/16/2008, -6/+3You live in a stable country with a police force, federal police force, strong government and and military that protects its interest. This country probably provided you with assistance to go to collegue. This country provides you with fire fighting services, emergency services, keeps your roads open and tries to provide a stable economic environment in which you can have your own business.

      By all means, don't pay any tax. Move to Somalia and hire people to do all of this for you, but I am sure it will be cheaper than the services the US government provides to you.

      And you think redistribution of wealth is a bad word -- but why? Most rich people are rich because they are born into it -- not much hard work involved. Being rich also alows you to go to private schools and ivy league universities, and become even richer. I am not saying rich people should be deprived from their riches. But I think it's OK to deprive their wives from that 10th Gucci bag to finance someones education or get a poor kid a scholarship. It's also fair to tax them so that they buy a 100 foot yacht instead of a 120 foot one, and finance health insurance for a couple of dozen families.

  • krusader3z, on 06/16/2008, -21/+19The lower classes definately reap the rewards with their foodstamps. Most can "afford" to eat better than I do.

    /worked at grocery stores my entire journey through college
    • siszam, on 06/16/2008, -5/+17You're jealous because the poor have it so good? You're not right in the head.
    • obelisky, on 06/16/2008, -5/+6wow you really have no idea what you are talking about
      • DrunkenMick, on 06/16/2008, -2/+6Really? He does. I also worked at a grocery store while in school. I saw the poor folks come in and buy up Fillet Mignon's, $80 cuts of yellow fin, and on and on. They'd get to my register and bust out some food stamps for it all. Meanwhile I'm eating ***** Raman because I'm "too rich" for assistance.

        The kicker was watching these people leave after paying with their food stamps for $400 worth of meat and go get in a brand spanking new BMW/Benz/Escalade (With the bling blinging dubs bitches!!).
        • maddonkey, on 06/16/2008, -0/+4seen that here in the midwest firsthand

          people are scammers whether they are "rich" or "poor"
  • AWBoy666, on 06/16/2008, -19/+1OMFG, stupid Digg made me quadrouple post my comments because they never showed up! DAMMIT. Sorry!
  • rakkar, on 06/16/2008, -8/+34I already pay inflation (10%), sales tax (8%), medicare (8%), social security (15%), and higher price of goods and services via the corporation tax (40%). I also pay for tarrifs, farm subsidies, and payments to special interests. This is why Ron Paul says that even if we paid no income tax, the goverment would still have the same revenue it did in the 80's.
    • jeffhansen, on 06/16/2008, -0/+3Your also still paying for that $600 toilet seat the US Army bought in 1977.
  • darthzaphod, on 06/16/2008, -5/+26While I agree that you shouldn't have to pay taxes twice (foreign/domestic), this article does make it pretty clear that once that Act was put into effect, some fishy accounting was starting to happen:

    "High-income earners — guided by accountants and tax advisers — reacted swiftly to the change, which remains in effect. In 2004, IRS data show they reported $16.6 million in foreign tax credits. The following year, the total credits claimed soared to $447.3 million."

    Why the sudden and ridiculously high jump in foreign tax credits? Clearly the accountants hired by high-earners know how to works some very wide loopholes. That's a lot of unpaid U.S. Taxes--taxes that I--a lowly student who doesn't own a foreign company--am making up for.
    • DaDrake, on 06/16/2008, -4/+9Or people started investing based on taxes. This is why when Germany lowered their VAT tax system in the late 90s and France, once again, highen taxes.... that a lot of investors flooded to the German market. If you have two corporations, one sits in a place with 15% tax and the other in a place with 50% tax... where are you going to invest?

      That isn't fishy... just common sense.
    • darthzaphod, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Perhaps it's common sense, but considering the fact that over 4 million dollars left the U.S. after the Act was made law, some might consider it slightly unpatriotic. It can't have been good for the economy for all those tax dollars to go elsewhere. I understand that if one place charges less than another, common sense would say "go cheaper." But aren't we constantly told to Buy American Buy American Buy American? Chinese products might be cheaper due to cheaper labor, but it's considered a favor to your homeland to Buy American. Keeping your tax dollars in the States seems to fall along the same lines.
  • suinmind, on 06/16/2008, -8/+3I thought Being Rich alone can guarantee you perks in the US, like paying low/free taxes.
    And it is a politicians' duty to figure out how to do it, for you.
  • chicofaraby, on 06/16/2008, -11/+21The wealthiest Americans have little or no "income" to begin with and aren't affected by this. If you earn a salary of $250,000 you are only upper middle class. You may think you are rich, but you aren't. Look at the Forbes list. If you aren't worth over a billion, you aren't *****. And let's face it, you aren't worth that kind of money. Don't get mad at these folks who are doing well. Get mad at the truly rich who aren't included in the income tax to begin with. They are the ones with the most to lose if the USA goes down and they are getting away without paying ***** in "income tax."

    Oh yeah, they also got the benefit of the Paris Hilton Memorial Inheritance Tax Giveaway. Not family farmers.
    • eryximachus, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1So very true. I'll never understand how the masses have come to think that anyone who has a job is rich.

      There is one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If I was rich, I would not be working. I would be a nice mansion in Hawaii and go surfing every day. ***** the office!
  • onlyclave, on 06/16/2008, -19/+64Two words: Flat Tax.

    Everybody pays.

    Period.
    • badmigraine, on 06/16/2008, -3/+1Yeah, and because it is a US income tax, the tax is only on US income. Not income from foreign sources, which are taxing that income already.

      Get it? This is how most countries do it.
    • RetlawST, on 06/16/2008, -7/+18My only problem is that 10% to a $30K worker is a larger burden than 10% to a $200K worker.
      • fourty_two, on 06/16/2008, -18/+9then the 30K worker needs to earn more money or cut expenses
      • shredluc, on 06/16/2008, -11/+18Really? Cause from my point of view they both get a 10% burden...
        • arjie, on 06/16/2008, -7/+10Not the whole story. Since I don't know how things cost in America I'll give you an example in a fictional world.

          Alex earns 100 gold a year, it takes 80 gold to handle essential physiological needs. If Alex is taxed 20%, he has no money to spend on anything.
          James earns 500 gold a year, it takes 80 gold to handle essential needs. If James is taxed 20%, he has 320 gold to spend.

          If you levy a progressive tax, the taxers will have more money and the people being taxed will all also have both enough money to spend and also a decent lifestyle, provided it is done well. There may be other alternatives but a flat tax is simply not a good idea.
        • shauncorleone,