POLITICS Fun Tax Data!

"Well then, let me interest you in illicit drug sales, sir!"

 

May not be what Beecher was referring to regarding the use of the word "hold"; I don't think most "hold" the money. The money is placed in financial institutions where folks take out loans to start their businesses, get money to send their kids to college, purchase homes, purchase cars, etc. it is the foundation of our economic engine.

 

Amen

 

This, a million times over.

 

Still taxable.

 

"Freedom ain't free" so to speak.

 

Uh oh

 

Drug sales = taxable

Costs of selling drugs = nondeductible

It's a big thing in states that have legalized weed. And IRS isn't backing down.

 

That hits on it. Im not sure how he meant it or if he even gave it any thought in choosing that, but Ive seen others lend to that idea that "hold" = your holding back others because the government doesn't tax you at a fair rate. Almost (and in extreme cases) you shouldn't hold that or that much. As I said, Im not sure thats what he meant but I have had conversations on the topic before that lent to that idea.

 

To me, "Hold" is like possess, control, etc. Not trying to imply anything aside from what I originally posted, which is that on its face a group possessing/owning/controlling such an outsized portion of the wealth in a country also paying a large percentage of income taxes didn't seem egregious. Perhaps it is. Idk.

 

But the taxation system doesn't necessarily target those people, as it's all based on income, not how much you have. If those guys are idle, they aren't feeding into those taxation percentages posted earlier. Meanwhile, the guy trying to amass some wealth is getting crushed.

So I don't really like that kind of number being used to justify taxes, as a lot of that wealth was probably accumulated when taxes were lower and it was easier to do so. Raising the taxes isn't necessarily doing much to address who hold the wealth, and it might actually be reinforcing it.

 

If your top 1%ers income is coming from W-2 then they are getting crushed by taxes.

 

If a high wealth person is paying more than 28%, they're doing something wrong, and I'd argue if they are paying close to that they're doing something wrong.

 

That was the reason why I worded the last response the way I did. Not everyone defines it that way.

 

dunno, i got multiple execs at that bracket. hell combined with california they are over 40%. if you aren't an owner what do you do?

 

even the cost of production?

 

Cost of production is deductible, nothing administrative

 

interesting. if that holds all these pot stocks trading at 5000X multiples are going to tank.

 

Plus most banks won't do business with you if you own a store either.

 

well i figure the tobacco companies can run anyone out of business if it really becomes popular and legal