When were taxes raised on the middle class to make up for revenue lost through fat cats loopholes?
The fat cats, via their bought off legislators have been having their way for umpteen years with all of the breaks and loopholes they've bought for themselves via big campaign donations and other corruptive devices at their disposal, of which the middle class and working poor have been made to make up for.
*Fern correct me if I'm wrong, as this is an opinion of mine given the 50+ years I've been paying taxes and comparing the deductions I am eligible for and what the very rich/Corp's have been blessed with in the way of devices to reduce their tax burden, many of them being jaw dropping in nature.
When were taxes raised on the middle class to make up for revenue lost through fat cats loopholes?
[Link]
I don't get how $1Tn in income tax revenue alone isn't enough for this year.
Obama, every member of the Supreme Court, and every member of Congress are nothing other than centralist, pro-public spending, revenue-loving tyrants... they can inflate, they can borrow and they can pillage/plunder and steal. Borrowing gold and decentralizing that debt is tolerable but having the power to tax and print money at the same time is ridiculous.
I guess Congress wants a brain drain and then all the poor people will be trapped right inside the tyrannical State like the Soviet Union.
Mainly the payroll taxes and the fact that some middle class people (especially childless ones) are forced to pay (income tax) for things they'd rather not have from the govt.When were taxes raised on the middle class to make up for revenue lost through fat cats loopholes?
Just barely but I don't like how the Republicans want to broaden the tax base either.Top tier taxes were cut in the same time frame.
The Kochs might be net tax consumers (I haven't researched it). They shouldn't have to pay taxes but they shouldn't get subsidies (called "contracts" by some) either.Hopefully the Kochs will leave too.
Yes. Hong Kong, NZ, Canada, and Australia do (for some people, the bases are broader there).Are there any first world countries that have lower income taxes than the US? Where are these people are going to life and how much taxes will they have to pay to live there?
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Are there any first world countries that have lower income taxes than the US? Where are these people are going to life and how much taxes will they have to pay to live there?
Hopefully the Kochs will leave too.
But they're not comprehending it. They're still posting ignorant comments. Which is of course nearly unbelievable because our dear leftist friends repeatedly tell the rest of us how utterly stupid everyone but themselves are.Take a look at Fern's post, it explains it in terms even some of the more dim members could comprehend.
Love this thread. The usual simpletons butt hurt because people are renouncing their citizenship. Can't have people slipping through the iron grip of the state.
Just barely but I don't like how the Republicans want to broaden the tax base either.
We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.
The real estate developer? If so, then I knew what she said, but that doesn't mean she should've gone to jail.They have their principles, as Leona Helmsley offered-
To get some context here we are talking about just over a thousand people out of the three hundred and something million that are US passport holders.
People come up with spectacularly complex schemes to avoid taxes and then get pissed because explaining their schemes takes expert time and effort? I can't say I feel much pain on their behalf.
LOL what a bunch of whiners. I feel for the "regular" or "innocent" people that have to fill out extra tax forms (first world problems), but perhaps those unnecessarily affected should complain to tax dodgers for dodging taxes instead of the group that is trying to correct things and prevent tax dodging...
So, uhh, those people are now stateless, citizens of no country?
Hardly. They're now citizens of a different country, which is fine by me.
OTOH, I doubt that many became citizens of the tax-less state of Somalia. More likely that they chose other first world citizenship, where taxes are actually higher, at least for middle class people.
The only relevant butt hurt around here is exhibited by the usual smaller gubmint anti-tax whiners.
Good job. You answered your own question and came to the right conclusion. I don't have to explain that one to you.So, uhh, those people are now stateless, citizens of no country? Hardly. They're now citizens of a different country, which is fine by me.
Yes, very astute conclusion. But if you had understood the article and the explanations that Fern gave across several posts, you'd know that although they will continue to pay the higher rates in the country they live, they will have reduced their overall tax burden tremendously. What led to them renounce their citizenship boiled down to essentially three issues.OTOH, I doubt that many became citizens of the tax-less state of Somalia. More likely that they chose other first world citizenship, where taxes are actually higher, at least for middle class people.