The Super Rich and Taxes

[Gumby]

Wooosh... Look up. There goes the point you missed. But, hey, what good is a post if you can't use it as a springboard to launch your own pet peeve?

 

[Rianne]

In Ohio we have the Ohio Checkbook. It’s a pretty good way to see where the money goes.

https://checkbook.ohio.gov

The Ohio Checkbook is a result of a joint initiative from two first-of-their-kind sites, Ohiocheckbook.com and Ohio's Interactive Budget. The collective effort enhances government transparency by providing real-time state financial and transactional data. Users can view online government spending, as well as how revenue is allocated.
​

Hmm, I wonder if Gov. Pritzker reads his e-mails. I'd like to send that to him. Especially, a joint initiative, interactive, and real-time data. That makes sense. And it's user-friendly. You don't have to be an accountant to understand it.

 

[Letj]

You can also call it a failure of the education system that people who graduate after 12 years of schooling were not taught that if person A has more than person B it doesn't necessarily come at the expense of person B. In fact, what people seem to be taught is that if someone does better than them they should be jealous instead of using it as an example.

That’s true in America but in many other places around the world, it’s a zero sum game.

 

[scrabbler1]

My solutions:

(1) Return the tax rates (except for a precious few, see below) to what they were for most of the 1990s (1993 and later). [This includes taxing all dividends as ordinary income, and taxing cap gains no lower than 20%.] Remember those "awful" 1990s when taxes were higher and growth was normal and the annual deficits eventually disappeared at the end of the decade?

(2) We can keep the 10% carve-out of the 15% bracket (a 2001 tax cut) because it is directed mainly at those in the lowest income level, without giving away the store to the rich.

(3) We can keep the current standard deduction (2x that in the 1990s) because it greatly simplified the tax returns of many filers without giving away the store to the rich.

(4) Reinstitute the spending caps we had in the 1990s.

(5) Reinstitute the strong PAYGO we had in the 1990s. That PAYGO, unlike subsequent PAYGO proposals, treated increases in spending and tax cuts alike because they both increased the deficit.

 

[Midpack]

What to do is the easy part, there are hundreds of reasonable alternatives. "They" win if we waste our time arguing about how to change the tax code, that's a distraction. There isn't a single suggestion in this thread that Congress isn't already well aware of...

Why are the halls of Congress now crawling with special interest lobbyists looking for opportunities to carve out some new benefit, or to protect existing special interests in the tax code?

But what are those legitimate functions of government? What happened to that discussion? Why when the plate goes around in church do all feel privileged to contribute and participate in a noble cause? And why when government collects our taxes do we want to run and hide?

The answer, of course, is simple. What goes on in Washington is no longer a reflection, in Lincoln's famous words, of government "of the people, by the people, for the people." The tax code has become an instrument of government power brokers to extract money from private citizens to finance pet schemes of Washington's political class.

According to American Enterprise Institute economist and blogger Mark Perry, some 70 percent of the federal budget, about $2.6 trillion, is transfer payments -- funds recycled from one set of private citizens to others. Most of federal government spending is not about paying for functions of government, but for social engineering, meddling in our lives.

According to the Tax Foundation, compliance with the U.S. tax code consumed, in 2016, 8.9 billion hours at a cost of $409 billion.

Per Giving USA, total private charitable contributions in the U.S. in the same year, 2016, came to $390 billion. We spend more complying with the tax code than what we give in private charity.

https://townhall.com/columnists/sta...-the-tax-code-from-special-interests-n2403048

 

[travelover]

I think the larger issue is maintaining confidence in the system. In the US, taxes are primarily on the honor system because the IRS doesn't have the manpower to audit everyone, yet we create our own tax returns and, for the most part, they are accepted at face value.

When billionaires sneer that they don't pay taxes because they are "smart" and large corporations pay zero taxes, it seriously undermines faith in the system. And I know that it is common and popular to deride the "system", but that is really the glue that holds the country together and the magic that creates an environment where we prosper. When I have traveled to countries where the government is overtly corrupt and oppressive, it has reinforced to me how important it is to maintain confidence that fairness in taxation and the judicial system truly exists.

 

[mpeirce]

I think the larger issue is maintaining confidence in the system.

I agree, but congress isn’t helping in this regard. Congressional earmarks even made a comeback this year.

 

[Montecfo]

A rich man was walking home from work. He was accosted by a mugger and surrendered his wallet and watch.

The "soak the rich" crowd believes he will take the same route home the next day and the next.

 

[travelover]

I agree, but congress isn’t helping in this regard. Congressional earmarks even made a comeback this year.

I think that campaign financing reform is essential to restoring confidence in government. When a few mega donors "own" a politician, it is pretty hard to believe that politician is acting in the best interest of all of their constituents.

 

[travelover]

A rich man was walking home from work. He was accosted by a mugger and surrendered his wallet and watch.

The "soak the rich" crowd believes he will take the same route home the next day and the next.

I keep hearing that the ultra rich are all going to move away if they have to pay their fair share of taxes, but where are they going to move to? Coincidentally, all the best places to live also tax the rich and maintain a stable social order where one can live in safety with a dependable infrastructure, a functioning judicial system and a reasonable cost of living. I guess if you want to live in a walled compound with guards there are lots of places one can move to.

 

[mpeirce]

I think that campaign financing reform is essential to restoring confidence in government.

I agree that campaign financing reform could be very good, but a lot depends on who gets to do the reforming. And it’s the politicians who do the reforming, so...

 

[Alan]

I keep hearing that the ultra rich are all going to move away if they have to pay their fair share of taxes, but where are they going to move to? Coincidentally, all the best places to live also tax the rich and maintain a stable social order where one can live in safety with a dependable infrastructure, a functioning judicial system and a reasonable cost of living. I guess if you want to live in a walled compound with guards there are lots of places one can move to.

Plus the US taxes its citizens wherever they reside. You cannot renounce your citizenship unless you are already the citizen of another country and even then the exit tax for renunciation on anyone with a net worth over $2m is pretty punitive.

 

[oiseux]

Not to derail things, but back to the ProPublica article, did anyone else notice the odd exclusions in this chart: Link
They excluded broad ranges of income. I think they did it because it somewhat counters their argument.

I quickly searched and found another view, by the Tax Foundation
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

Lower down in the charts they break down the effective rate by income band. The data supports my expectation, the effective tax rate effectively peaks somewhere between 500K and 2M (not included in the Propublica chart) where high W2 income gets hit 37% but then peaks as income shifts to passive income and/or is sheltered through pass through entities or similar advantageous structures.

This corresponds with prior assertion that a high single or dual W2 earners from salaried jobs will be paying the max as a percentage of income. That is because, of course, non W-2 income is non-progressive and below a certain income, you really can't benefit from the available tax shelters unless you are in real estate or s pass through business structures.

My simplistic, less popular answer would be to: simplify things not with a flat tax but a progressive range of taxes, and just wipe out all the other special incentives and carveouts by only only charging net income after other taxes on income, and do it automatically, at the source. And then, cut spending.

 

[bmcgonig]

Plus the US taxes its citizens wherever they reside. You cannot renounce your citizenship unless you are already the citizen of another country and even then the exit tax for renunciation on anyone with a net worth over $2m is pretty punitive.

If someone just decides not to pay US taxes if they’ve moved abroad, can they come after them?

 

[Alan]

If someone just decides not to pay US taxes if they’ve moved abroad, can they come after them?

Oh yes, that is why FATCA exists along with IGAs that compel overseas foreign governments and financial institutions to report the income and assets of their US clients. If a USC living abroad refuses to file and pay taxes the foreign financial institutions are compelled to freeze their assets or the US will not do business with that particular country. This is why, even with FATCA compliant countries like the UK and Switzerland, many financial institutions will refuse to have USCs on their books. For example Vanguard.co.uk has a very similar range of products and etfs as Vanguard.com except denominated in GBP and I would love to have an account with them but they have a specific rule that they won’t have clients who hold US citizenship. I’m sure Fidelity.co.uk will have a similar exemption.

There are many threads on the 2 US expat forums I am a member of that deal with issues around opening and holding bank accounts, filing US taxes etc.

ETA
From Fidelity.co.uk

https://help.fidelity.co.uk/site/account-information/open_account_overseas

“ Can I open an account if I live overseas?
No. To open an account you must be 18 years or over, resident in the UK and are not a US Person.”

List of FATCA participating countries (it includes the Cayman Islands which was suggested in an earlier thread)

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act

 

[Letj]

If you hold dual US and UK citizenship, how do they know your are a US citizen if you don’t declare it?

 

[Montecfo]

I keep hearing that the ultra rich are all going to move away if they have to pay their fair share of taxes, but where are they going to move to? Coincidentally, all the best places to live also tax the rich and maintain a stable social order where one can live in safety with a dependable infrastructure, a functioning judicial system and a reasonable cost of living. I guess if you want to live in a walled compound with guards there are lots of places one can move to.

My point was not to suggest they will leave. But they have the resources and smarts to manage their affairs in such a way as to minimize taxes.

Another interesting truth is that reform measures come and go but year in and year out the tax code pulls in about the same percentage of GDP. So to grow tax receipts you need to grow the economy. Thus the best tax policy is one that creates incentives for investment and risk taking, not one that seeks to even scores or pit economic.classes against one another.

 

[travelover]

My point was not to suggest they will leave. But they have the resources and smarts to manage their affairs in such a way as to minimize taxes............

Unfortunately "arranging their affairs" tends to include buying congress critters who make laws that make it easy to avoid paying taxes for the very wealthy by what become "legal" means. Some of the tax breaks for commercial real estate owners, for example, are obscene. And don't get me started on the defunding of the IRS, such that there simply isn't the manpower to try to unravel all the shell corporations, money shuffling and off shoring of assets. The poor schmuck that has W2 wages just has to suck it up and pay.

 

[Music Lover]

Unfortunately "arranging their affairs" tends to include buying congress critters who make laws that make it easy to avoid paying taxes for the very wealthy by what become "legal" means. Some of the tax breaks for commercial real estate owners, for example, are obscene. And don't get me started on the defunding of the IRS, such that there simply isn't the manpower to try to unravel all the shell corporations, money shuffling and off shoring of assets. The poor schmuck that has W2 wages just has to suck it up and pay.

The average wage earners have little recourse. But it's not just the ultra-rich that take advantage. I suspect that almost everyone here knows trade people that work off the books outside of their regular job. Or a server that declares $3000 in tips but really made $20,000.

 

[bmcgonig]

Oh yes, that is why FATCA exists along with IGAs that compel overseas foreign governments and financial institutions to report the income and assets of their US clients. If a USC living abroad refuses to file and pay taxes the foreign financial institutions are compelled to freeze their assets or the US will not do business with that particular country. This is why, even with FATCA compliant countries like the UK and Switzerland, many financial institutions will refuse to have USCs on their books. For example Vanguard.co.uk has a very similar range of products and etfs as Vanguard.com except denominated in GBP and I would love to have an account with them but they have a specific rule that they won’t have clients who hold US citizenship. I’m sure Fidelity.co.uk will have a similar exemption.

There are many threads on the 2 US expat forums I am a member of that deal with issues around opening and holding bank accounts, filing US taxes etc.

ETA
From Fidelity.co.uk

https://help.fidelity.co.uk/site/account-information/open_account_overseas

“ Can I open an account if I live overseas?
No. To open an account you must be 18 years or over, resident in the UK and are not a US Person.”

List of FATCA participating countries (it includes the Cayman Islands which was suggested in an earlier thread)

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act

Thanks Alan.

 

[travelover]

The average wage earners have little recourse. But it's not just the ultra-rich that take advantage. I suspect that almost everyone here knows trade people that work off the books outside of their regular job. Or a server that declares $3000 in tips but really made $20,000.

Yes, but that is a petty distraction. When multinational corporations, for example, can rent a desk in Ireland and funnel billions and billions through that desk to avoid US taxes is the kind of chicanery I am speaking of.

 

[Alan]

If you hold dual US and UK citizenship, how do they know your are a US citizen if you don’t declare it?

You have to show your passport when opening an account and declare that you are not a US citizen, so you could lie and evade taxes which is illegal, but if you have naturalized to another country then your new passport states where you are born. I don’t know if this is universal but all passports have place of birth on them and my US passport says “United Kingdom” as place of birth.

My UK passport does not indicate I am also the citizen of another country* but once FATCA was accepted by the UK our UK bank and my UK pension providers sent out letters asking their members to confirm their citizenship status and we could have lied at that point but most of our income including pensions comes from the USA plus IRAs and investments so it would be very difficult to cheat on the taxes of either country as there is an IGA between the countries to share such information.

*in 2006 Boris Johnson was famously stopped from boarding a plane in London on his way to a family vacation in Mexico because the flight changed in Houston and the agent noticed that his place of birth was New York City so he was American and Americans by law have to use a US passport to enter and leave the country. He had to take an alternate flight that did not change in the USA and meet his wife and children in Mexico. It then took him quite a few years to renounce because he had to pay back taxes and be cleared by the IRS before he could give up his citizenship.

 

[Montecfo]

Yes, but that is a petty distraction. When multinational corporations, for example, can rent a desk in Ireland and funnel billions and billions through that desk to avoid US taxes is the kind of chicanery I am speaking of.

Well then as I suspected the chicanery you refer to you have grossly exaggerated.

And of course the incentive to reincorporate overseas arose because Congress kept US tax rates among the highest in the developed world. The 2017 tax reform reduced this incentive and that was the major reason for the bill.

And if you notice, the ability to reincorporate or use other methods to take advantage of favorable international tax rates has been a feature of US tax law for a very long time. No buying of "congress critters" lol required. But this was simply arranging affairs to pay the lowest tax possible just as Judge Learned Hand said. It's the rich man taking a different route hime.

 

[Letj]

You have to show your passport when opening an account and declare that you are not a US citizen, so you could lie and evade taxes which is illegal, but if you have naturalized to another country then your new passport states where you are born. I don’t know if this is universal but all passports have place of birth on them and my US passport says “United Kingdom” as place of birth.

My UK passport does not indicate I am also the citizen of another country* but once FATCA was accepted by the UK our UK bank and my UK pension providers sent out letters asking their members to confirm their citizenship status and we could have lied at that point but most of our income including pensions comes from the USA plus IRAs and investments so it would be very difficult to cheat on the taxes of either country as there is an IGA between the countries to share such information.

*in 2006 Boris Johnson was famously stopped from boarding a plane in London on his way to a family vacation in Mexico because the flight changed in Houston and the agent noticed that his place of birth was New York City so he was American and Americans by law have to use a US passport to enter and leave the country. He had to take an alternate flight that did not change in the USA and meet his wife and children in Mexico. It then took him quite a few years to renounce because he had to pay back taxes and be cleared by the IRS before he could give up his citizenship.

Thanks! This here folks is why I live the forum, the things you learn!

 

[Midpack]

Yes, but that is a petty distraction. When multinational corporations, for example, can rent a desk in Ireland and funnel billions and billions through that desk to avoid US taxes is the kind of chicanery I am speaking of.

When our tax code makes “chicanery” legal (almost always true in cases we read about), I blame our government representatives - not the corporations. Globalization and special interests have only made it much worse.