<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by roneski
I fully understand your point. The point that I was trying to make was that income as it applies to the rich can be easily hidden or "sheltered" from income tax. Say that you owned a large corporation, your net worth as it relates to that corporation may be 1 billion dollars, but in all likelyhood that corporation payed little to no income tax last year despite showing a profit. The only income tax that you paid may have been on your salary as CEO or something to that affect. Now somone will argue that if you ever sold the corporation that you would have to pay capital gains on that profit. Well, there are ways around that too. I would get further into it, but I'm sleepy. My point is that your net worth can easily increase without you paying proportional taxes on it.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You're referring to tax shelters - tax shelters don't protect you from AMT tax (look it up). They are also designed to direct investment (although Comgress has lost sight of how that tool works) to help market segments.
Increases in a persons "net worth" doesn't translate into a better standard of living. You can't buy cars with net worth, you can't heat your house with net worth, you can't even feed your kids with net worth.
Most people who really understand how taxes work in higher incomes think they are unfair.
Randy
|