What Countries to avoid paying USA taxes?

[AlmostThere]

I saw a chart recently that showed since the year 2000 thru 2007 something like $880 billion in new income was generated. Of that the top 10% of income earners got all but $44 billion. The most successful pay the most taxes because they make the most money. Many of us who work very hard for these successful folk are pushed to accept less and less so that they can do well. I'm all for people being rewarded for taking risks starting businesses but a major reason our economy has nosedived is there aren't enough decently paid people to buy all those cars, houses, etc that are going begging for buyers. If business owners, particularly the largest corporations, would be more generous with pay then more of us could buy what they're selling. Forcing them to "spread the wealth" won't work either. Simply put if business owners aren't more generous voluntarily it will lead, as it has, to a gov't hellbent on ramming it down their throats. They have only themselves to blame by being greedy and stingy.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlmostThere If business owners, particularly the largest corporations, would be more generous with pay then more of us could buy what they're selling. Forcing them to "spread the wealth" won't work either. Simply put if business owners aren't more generous voluntarily it will lead, as it has, to a gov't hellbent on ramming it down their throats. They have only themselves to blame by being greedy and stingy.

It isn't business's fault.
If there was a way to identify businesses that were "more generous" vs others people would not shop there because of the higher prices.
I've heard the above rational before. It sounds good on a macro level but, consumer economics is about micro economics and individual choices.

Households do not employ more services than they need. They do not pay more than the market price for their services or products so that those "more generous" payments can ultimately keep the household employed.

[toofrugalformycat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slimm I understand what you are saying, however the fact is they will still pay PLENTY of taxes. The hypocrisy is the looming restructure that will penalize many many families esp. the estate(death)tax.

"Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans."

Estate Tax

If the IRS is correct, only the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans will be affected by the estate tax.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by restonham What a great idea. Let's have everyone who has a decent income or a business establish residency elsewhere and try to avoid taxes in the country that made their success possible. While we're at it, let's dump the entire tax burden on those who can't take advantage of such schemes. Oh, and when it comes time to collect social security ore other benefits, let's make sure we are first in line. Sorry, either you are an American who is part of our country or you are not. If you want to live in another country, that's your right - just don't expect to come back or continue to suck off the place that made your move possible. We pay taxes for the benefit of all, just not what you can get out of it. Moving to another country to avoid US taxes is absolute hypocrisy.

Wouldn't be a government worker, would you, Restonham?

Ha

[slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toofrugalformycat "Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans." Estate Tax If the IRS is correct, only the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans will be affected by the estate tax.

Only exceed $1,000,000? Good grief!
Only $1,000,000 exemption limit??!! Just hand it over....yeah right.....I don't think so!

[slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slimm Only exceed $1,000,000? Good grief! Only $1,000,000 exemption limit??!! Just hand it over....yeah right.....I don't think so!

OOOOps, I got excited and posted too early. The point is: I believe that more than 2% of the population is affected by this unjust travesty....
Granted, there should be a "ceiling", perhaps 10 million or maybe 5, but certainly not 1 mil.....

Gotta go feed horses, and find my Scotch............sigh.

[AlmostThere]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex It isn't business's fault. If there was a way to identify businesses that were "more generous" vs others people would not shop there because of the higher prices. I've heard the above rational before. It sounds good on a macro level but, consumer economics is about micro economics and individual choices. Households do not employ more services than they need. They do not pay more than the market price for their services or products so that those "more generous" payments can ultimately keep the household employed.

I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlmostThere I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it.

Concentration of wealth is within historical norms. People that who want to raise that issue start measuring from the 1970s when wealth concentration declined due to the economic issues at the time. In other words the wealthy lost more money than the average person.

CEO pay is not the cause of the disparity in wealth. It is an issue politicians raise as a class warfare issue and distract people from the true causes. If CEO pay was reduced to the average employee wage, it would not help the average employee.

Yes the bailouts and other issues will eventually break the country.

[Hank]

Quote:

Originally Posted by restonham Sorry, either you are an American who is part of our country or you are not. If you want to live in another country, that's your right - just don't expect to come back or continue to suck off the place that made your move possible. We pay taxes for the benefit of all, just not what you can get out of it. Moving to another country to avoid US taxes is absolute hypocrisy.

The 6 million American Citizens that are no longer resident in the US all are subject to US taxes on their worldwide income. And since they are subject to being taxed by the US even though they don't live in the US they certainly have a right to return anytime they like. That's how the US government prefers it. They can tax their citizens for life. If you really would like to see US citizens who leave the US not be allowed to return then you should be advocating to abolish the taxes on non-residences.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlmostThere I'm no economist, but when U.S. CEO's are making 472 times their average employees' pay, and the CEO's of the next country on that list, Great Britain, make 52 times more, something is seriously amiss. As wealth gets concentrated into fewer hands we're either eventually looking at riots or an impoverished majority like the Philippines. I'm betting our highly armed nation isn't just going to take it. Might be 30 years, might be 50, but continued bailouts by taxpayers of the greedy will eventually break this country.

It's really nobody's business what a CEO gets paid except the shareholders - and the taxpayers shouldn't be bailing any corporations out.

[Texarkandy]

Soapbox?

[AlmostThere]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it..

USAToday had an article a couple of months ago listing how many times more CEO's make than their average employee's pay in the major industrial countries. Ranged from 472 times more in the U.S. to if I remember right about 18 times more in some countries, the Netherlands I think. If you Google average CEO pay you might find it. And if you work for a major corporation, as I do, and have had your benefits stripped away and pay restricted while the top guys do extraordinarily well, you notice such things. For example, at the same time that it was announced last year that our pension plan would be terminated June 1, 2008, our CEO was telling Wall Street that he will increase our profit margin from 7% to 10%. I'm more than happy to give up a decent retirement so he can get a better stock price for his millions of shares!

[Hobo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newporttony Does this also apply to the close to one-half of Americans that wither pay nothing in federal income taxes or (even better) receive the earned income credit? The more the government places the tax burden on only the successful, the less we should be surprised when they decide they've had enough.

Let me say I am a strong fiscal conservative and strong defender of capitalism. American has always been a very good place for me to make a bundle of money in my lifetime.

However, I think what you say is a myth - propagated by someone who thinks they understand capitalism but have never experienced it first hand.

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).

During my 40 years of working in the US, I never felt like taxes were so high that I should simply stop trying to make money. The human psyche doesn't work that way. I have lived through times when the top tax rate was 70%, and successful people were still trying to make more money. I believe the reason is simple... when you are making lots of money, you no longer work simply to make more money - you do it for the game, the competition, the pride of being rich that goes with it. The desire to climb the corporate ladder or be a more successful entrepreneur who makes a lot of money is very strong - not for the money, but for the pride in doing so. As Donald Trump said, "In business, money is only for keeping score".

Anybody who is making over $200,000 per year surely has everything he/she could possibly need to lead a comfortable life. When you start buying $100 bottles of wine, then you know money is no longer necessary for survival.

On the other hand, when you are making $40,000 per year (the median income of the US)... you must watch every penny. Maybe money is not necessary to put food in your children's mouth, but it does make the difference between driving an unreliable, old car and a car that is reliable.

The average person in the US is working for that successful man who is swimming in money. If it weren't for the people who are making lower than the 75th percentile wages, then the upper 25% would never be so successful. The worker bees make the queen bee rich!

The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun.

[beowulf]

"Wouldn't be a government worker, would you, Restonham?
Ha"

As a matter of fact, I was a career soldier and then a civil servant with DoD. And now that I am retired from both, I am a consultant back to the government. And then, one day, in the not too distant future, I will stop being a consultant and collect social security. By any standard, I guess that makes me a triple dipper. And I pay federal, state and local taxes on every penny of it. Earning less to cut my taxes doesn't make a lot of sense. And, even if I moved overseas for retirement, I would consider it my obligation to continue to pay US taxes. Whatever I am today is because of having grown up in the US and being privileged to have the advantages and opportunities that US citizens have. And no, I'm not from a wealthy family - strictly blue collar parents and grandparents - part of the first generation to graduate from college.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that most people in the US (or who used to be in the US) on this forum have done pretty well for themselves. I'm not that different than anyone else - worked hard, scrimped and saved and, until the last year or so, thought I did pretty well on my investments :-(. Maybe I'm naive, but I do believe in the Horatio Alger model that those who try harder tend to do better - at whatever they do.

As Hobo says - "The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun."

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobo It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife). .

It is darn hard for anyone in the USA not to pay taxes. Taxes are in everything we buy they just are not seen - except for sales taxes.
These are some of the taxes in everything you buy and they are regressive.

Sales
Social Security
Payroll
Real Estate
Corporate
Gasoline

Get the idea?
A company is just a pass through entity.
It has gross sales, expenses and profit or a loss.

I wonder what a loaf of bread would cost if all the taxes were taken out of the process of making and selling it.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by restonham As Hobo says - "The concept that higher taxes are a disincentive for successful people to make even more money is a myth. All successful people are driven to make more money regardless of the tax laws. Why? Because making big money is fun."

Why is the hobo a hobo?

If you look back in history to England before Thatcher and other highly taxed counties (Italy) you will see the affects of high income taxes - it isn't good.
Economic decline
Flight of capital out of the country
Brain drain to countries with lower taxes and better economic opportunities.
Worker apathy - USSR saying - "You pretend to pay me, I pretend to work."
Hopelessness

The hobo came about in the 30s as a result of US economic policies that made the depression worse e.g. raised import taxes. The hobo didn't understand the world economy and hasn't learned from history. There is a tipping point in taxation - especially in today's world.

The hobo might want to also read about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs - fun is not among them - maybe love.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Texas Proud]

[quote=Hobo;752212]

It is darn tough not to pay taxes if you have a job... but it certainly doesn't surprise me to hear half the people do not pay taxes. I know what it takes not to pay income taxes in the US and you must be either only a child, or retired, or not working (like a housewife).

quote]

No support for this... but it was easy to do a search and find that it is darn easy NOT to pay taxes if you have a job... edit to add.... we are talking income taxes here... not all the others....

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow


"In addition to these non-payers, roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes.
Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system. "

Of this number (57 mill), it appears that about 26% of them have full time jobs...

[friar1610]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy It's really nobody's business what a CEO gets paid except the shareholders....

True. But in reality, if the shareholders object to the level of CEO compensation there's very little they can do about it except sell the stock and move their money elsewhere. Even though they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, Boards of Directors (and their compensation committees) haven't shown, in recent history, a helluva lot of restraint on CEO compensation.

[toofrugalformycat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex Do you have a source for the CEO's pay? I would be interested to read it. Concentration of wealth is within historical norms. People that who want to raise that issue start measuring from the 1970s when wealth concentration declined due to the economic issues at the time. In other words the wealthy lost more money than the average person. CEO pay is not the cause of the disparity in wealth. It is an issue politicians raise as a class warfare issue and distract people from the true causes. If CEO pay was reduced to the average employee wage, it would not help the average employee. Yes the bailouts and other issues will eventually break the country.

Dex, do you have a source for stating that the concentration of wealth is within historic norms? I've heard otherwise, but the only online source I've turned up so far is
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
There is a table that goes up to 1998, and the last two years in the table (1995 and 1998) wealth in the top 1% is the highest since 1929.
I'm no economist. Maybe you or someone can point me to where to find this out.

[Meadbh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toofrugalformycat Dex, do you have a source for stating that the concentration of wealth is within historic norms?

That would be the Gini Coefficient (see graph of Income Disparity since WWII)

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia