https://www.axios.com/local/denver/...colorado-gov-jared-polis-avoided-paying-taxes
Another hypocrite.....
Another hypocrite.....
Paying his fair share?
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Well, besides the donation to his foundation which then sent out mailers to promote himself that cost $2million, it seems as if all he did was use the tax laws to his advantage. As other people have pointed out, thats not illegal. Nor does it make him a hypocrite.
However, this is a great example of why the tax laws need to be rewritten. What this does is completely back up my point that the tax laws are exploited by the uber wealthy to pay a ridiculously low percentage of their income while the middle class and those high paying W-2 employees actually get burden with have a higher percentage of our pay being taxed.
SPK is actually fine with this guy only paying 8.2% of his income which was $1.5 million a year. So he only paid $123,000 in federal taxes. Yeah that's a lot of money in taxes. Far more than probably 99% of the tax payers in this country. I am obviously jealous of him for sure. So lets say a guy makes $200,000. He will pay an effective tax rate of say 19% which is $38,000. So this guy will pay around a 1/3 of the taxes that the Gov paid. But the Gov of Colorado earned 7.5 x's more income. This is not paying your fair share.
However, this is a great example of why the tax laws need to be rewritten. What this does is completely back up my point that the tax laws are exploited by the uber wealthy to pay a ridiculously low percentage of their income while the middle class and those high paying W-2 employees actually get burden with have a higher percentage of our pay being taxed.
SPK is actually fine with this guy only paying 8.2% of his income which was $1.5 million a year. So he only paid $123,000 in federal taxes. Yeah that's a lot of money in taxes. Far more than probably 99% of the tax payers in this country. I am obviously jealous of him for sure. So lets say a guy makes $200,000. He will pay an effective tax rate of say 19% which is $38,000. So this guy will pay around a 1/3 of the taxes that the Gov paid. But the Gov of Colorado earned 7.5 x's more income. This is not paying your fair share.
It's hypocritical as he is voting for the BBB legislation paid for by the uber rich, which he is one of, and will not be paying for.
Did Steve not agree that loopholes should be closed?
And the $2 million donation to himself is not something to dismiss....that's downright criminal, or it should be!
Well, he is a governor so he will not be voting for the BBB legislation.
Second, I did say that donation to his foundation which in of itself is not shady. It is $2million that the foundation spent on mailers to promote his work on the State's education board that sounds shady. But I would need to see more facts to see if there was something bordering on criminal.
The only point to close loopholes is for the uber wealthy to pay a higher percentage of their income. Otherwise, what would be the point? I don't care how it is accomplished but the wealthy should not be escaping paying less than a percentage of what middle class people pay. As a matter of fact, I believe that they should pay more.
My correction...supporting, not voting on the legislation.
And yeah, if you close the loopholes some of the wealthy will pay more. The idea is to close the loopholes that can be legally manipulated. Simplify the tax code and EVERYONE should pay something.
Well, he's abusing the law (or loophole by the hypocritical whiners) by donating to himself. I'm not OK with that. If it had been to the Red Cross or something, that would be a good thing.
In your example of a married guy making $200,000 (adjusted gross income) in 2018, he'd pay approx. $31,000 in federal tax, 15.5% effective tax rate, one fourth in dollars of what this guy paid. And anyone making $200,000 is Top 5.6% in income in the country in 2018. The wealthy.
And a flat tax does away with all of this crap.
First, someone making 200k is not wealthy even if single and especially living in the northeast.
Second, let's take your figures. 200k guy pays 25% of the taxes that $1.5 million guy pays but makes 7.5 x's less. Still this is wrong.
Third, every time I see a flat tax, it seems as if the revenue for the country would go down significantly. Also, there are so many variations of it. Any standard deductions? will there be a value added tax? What itemized deductions - like mortgage interest? What about capital gains? Didn't the Forbes plan have no tax on Capital Gains? How bad would that be? Warren Buffet would pay like $10,000 a year in taxes.
In the end, every time I have looked at it, it produces way less revenue for the country and it is a give away to the very wealthy.
Someone making $200,000 is absolutely considered high income, Top 6% in the country. Living in a high cost state like NJ is something you should be screaming about at the leaders of NJ.
If that guy was legitimately giving $2 million to charity, it wouldn't be wrong.
I haven't seen that at all. Forbes plan brought in the same revenue as current.
I'd have a standard deduction based on family size with a cap (why do you pay less in taxes with a bigger family which would use more resources?), no itemized deductions, tax capital gains when liquidated the same as other income, no tax on dividends (dividends are paid from already taxed funds).
lol do you think you can make $200k in a low cost state?? doing the same thing??
$200k in northeast is not wealthy.
It’s top 6% and you answered your own question. For the same job in another part of the country that is lower cost you would make less but it would be relative. It’s a choice to live where you want. Urban areas have more to offer with regards to the arts and other entertainment. No one’s putting a gun to your head.
With the modeling techniques we have you can come up with the current revenue the federal government receives.The key is agreeing what ,if any , deductions remain ,for example, only charity and mortgage interest on primary residence.You then keep or change capital gains tax rate to produce the desired result.Goldwater was the first I believe to suggest that we agree that a percentage of the prior year GDP ,for example 20%, sets the maximum budget for the next year.Obviously this would force a maximum spend and so the politicians don’t want it since it impacts their earmarks ,pandering etc.
Here is a quote from the Heritage foundation from a bill based upon the Forbes flat tax which would not tax capital gains.
"Furthermore, individuals buy company stock and make time deposits in savings accounts with after-tax income. Thus, all of the cash transactions associated with, say, a dividend are based on income that already has been taxed. To collect additional tax on dividends, interest, and capital gains constitutes double taxation, thus violating the principle of taxing all income only once and at its source. This double taxation would be ended under the Armey-Shelby flat tax." https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/how-the-armey-shelby-flat-tax-would-affect-the-middle-class There is just no way that the Forbes plan could bring in the same revenue.
Rand Paul's flat tax of 14.5% would be a $1.8 trillion loss over a decade. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senator-rand-paul-releases-flat-tax-plan-0
Ted Cruz flat tax of 10% would also result in a big loss of revenue. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senator-ted-cruzs-tax-reform-plan-0.
Because some proposed plans didn’t bring in enough revenue doesn’t mean you can’t design a flat tax that does.You can’t have a flat tax if you will not eliminate or limit deductions.Everyone knows that ,but politicians don’t want it fort reasons indicated.
And we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
While that May be true, losing 200 billion a year on the low end of the spectrum with these plans doesn’t work. We need to make some cuts in spending in conjunction with raising revenue. The flat tax does not get this done.
Only if you use the shortsighted static scoring. Dynamic scoring is much, much less than $200 billion a year. Adjust the rate slightly and that goes away. And for a guy like you who routinely, and correctly, touts the surplus years of Clinton when spending was just under 18% of GDP, you should be much more concerned with spending.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Lmao someone making 200K a year is absolutely wealthy. You might have money management problems, or be out of touch with reality, if you cant live extremely comfortably with that money.
Exactly....see calculator attached. $200,000 puts you in 94th percentile in NJ. Should be in the highest tax bracket, right?
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/
And taxes were also higher. So more revenue and less spending. Perhaps we should return to the economics of Bill Clinton then.
So you base it on a statistic? I base it on what you can buy and what’s your lifestyle can be. You said it yourself, you can live comfortably. But that’s not wealth. Wealth is having enough money to easily support living in a mansion driving a. Luxury car, saving and investing serious amounts of money and not just living comfortably but living large. That’s wealth.
You think you can buy a house in Short Hills and drive a Tesla? You think 200k gets you a decent house in Montclair, Essex Fells, Summit or any other wealthy neighborhood? You think you can raise a family while living in that house and driving that car? The answer is no.
Last edited:
Which plan are you speaking about? Both Paul's and Cruz's plans are based on a fairy tale of that the economy will grow an additional 12.9% and 13.4 % due to the tax breaks. Wow. No way are we growing GDP at that high level for over a decade. And even with the dynamic scoring, it still adds to the debt.
As far as not taxing Capital gains, well that is just a nonstarter with the Forbes plan.
So if you find a plan that is going to bring in the same revenue and not put it on the backs of the middle class, I am open to it. It seems to me, in order to get a flat tax for just the numbers to work, you have to have a value added tax. Of course, that does impact the lower and middle class more because they will pay more for goods. Does that VAT get applied to food? What does it apply to or not apply to? Everything will cost more. Will it not?
Really?? No, seriously, really?? That's not 12.9% and 13.4% per year, that's over 10 years, which averages out to additional growth of 1.29% and 1.34% per year, that's highly doable.
True. But who's for both? I'd want less revenue and much, much less spending as that is/has risen far greater than revenue.
No I realize that. However, that is on top of what we average and that is not sustainable. That is very generous indeed. We have not had sustained GDP growth since the Clinton years. Despite what Trump said that he oversaw the greatest economy that the country has ever seen, during his presidency the highest GDP growth was in 2018 at 3%. Moreover, in the past 30 years we have not had sustained GDP Growth for over 5 years. This assumes growth for over a decade. That is unrealistic.Take a look at the the effect of the Trump's tax cut 2017- 2.33%, 2018- 3.0%, 2019- 2.19%, 2020 we won't count. No growth except for 1 year of .6%.
Last edited:
Do you know anyone who makes that salary? If you do, when you look at them, are they wearing $1500 suits, driving a Tesla and have a mansion? They may be comfortable but that is not wealthy. Check this article out https://theweek.com/articles/851634/are-people-who-make-200k-middleclass.
Is that how you define wealth? Seems pretty materialistic and wasteful. A single person making $200,000 needs a mansion?
You absolutely can live large if you spend your money wisely, you are not buying a new Tesla and wearing a new $1500 dollar suit. You would probably have to be driving a used 3 year old BMW that has lost most of its value, and maybe suits that were knock offs. It's not about how much you make but rather how you spend the money you make. If you are smart you can live large with $100,000 a year. Finding deals and creating deals is an art form. State of mind...and how thankful you are for what you have.
I think you need to look at or somebody is in their life as well. 25 year old single making 200 grand? Very different if single parent, 50, with three kids in college.
I don't know the salaries of people I associate with. I would assume none of them make that much.
Put it this way - if I made $200k a year, I'd consider myself to be very wealthy.
Yeah, again, so far out of touch. A single person making that much money is living the life. They can put a ton of money away and still have a great lifestyle. A married couple making $200k combined? Still in good shape, but that's a different story. I would not consider them to be wealthy.
It’s more accurate to say anyone making $200K is a very high income person. Wealth is a function of how much you keep/invest, etc.
Similar threads
