How The 1% Does Not Pay Thier Fair Share

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
9-12-2013

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-marts-waltons-maintain-billionaire-040100941.html

How Wal-Mart's Waltons Maintain Their Billionaire Fortune: Taxes



America's richest family, worth more than $100 billion, has exploited a variety of legal loopholes to avoid the estate tax, according to court records and Internal Revenue Service filings obtained through public-records requests.


The Waltons' example highlights how billionaires deftly bypass a tax intended to make sure that the nation's wealthiest contribute their share to government rather than perpetuate dynastic wealth, a notion of fairness voiced by supporters of the estate tax like Warren Buffett and William Gates Sr. Estate and gift taxes raised only about $14 billion last year.



That's about 1 percent of the $1.2 trillion passed down in America each year, mostly by the very rich, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers estimated in a December blog post on Reuters.com. The contrast suggests "our estate tax system is broken," he wrote.

Amassing Billions

Spurred by historically low interest rates that magnify the tax savings, the richest Americans have amassed at least $20 billion in trusts like those used by the Waltons. They include Elaine Marshall, the Koch Industries Inc. director, and Fidelity mutual funds' Johnson family.

Closing just two estate tax loopholes -- ones that the Waltons appear to have used -- would raise more than $2 billion annually over the next decade, according to Treasury Department estimates. That doesn't count taxes lost to the type of charitable trusts the Waltons used to fund projects like the museum; the department hasn't estimated that cost.

"The whole tax structure since I came to Congress actually has gotten more and more unfair," said James McDermott, a Washington Democrat who's been in the House since 1989 and has sponsored unsuccessful bills to close estate-tax loopholes.


Guarding the Waltons' wealth as it passes from one generation to the next is the task of a handful of staffers laboring in an unmarked suite in Bentonville, above a bike shop called Phat Tire. Walton Enterprises LLC manages the world's biggest fortune in a nondescript office that even employees of the coffee shop next door have never heard of.

The family's estate-planning efforts are well shielded from public view. The wills of Alice's parents, Sam and Helen, on file in an Arkansas probate court, reveal little about their financial arrangements. That of her brother John, who died in 2005, was sealed by a Wyoming judge.

Dead Proposals

President Obama has repeatedly called for closing the Walton loophole in his annual budget proposal, estimating it would save $3.9 billion over 10 years. So far, the proposals have gotten no traction.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
First define Fair share;

Or is that anyone that pays less than you or makes more than you?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
The estate tax is about when someone dies and wills their fortune to someone. That tax in itself is bullshit. You got taxed out the wazoo when you make it, you shouldn't get taxed on the same earnings again if you decide to give it to someone.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,237
5,634
136
you should see my foreign tax credits, dave

the us government literally gives me hundreds of dollars off my taxes because i buy foreign investments - and the amount they give me goes up every year!

and it is all legal! :colbert:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Make it a flat tax, remove every tax deduction and consideration. All pay, all the same.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,075
6,885
136
The estate tax is about when someone dies and wills their fortune to someone. That tax in itself is bullshit. You got taxed out the wazoo when you make it, you shouldn't get taxed on the same earnings again if you decide to give it to someone.

If they made it on preferred dividends and long-term capital gains, they did not get 'taxed out the wazoo'.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
President Obama has repeatedly called for closing the Walton loophole in his annual budget proposal, estimating it would save $3.9 billion over 10 years. So far, the proposals have gotten no traction.
$3.9 Billion over 10 years is about .1% of this FY's budget. Obama is economically retarded and the people who agree with him on economics are even more retarded.

I also saw you complaining about milk prices possibly going up. What do you think would happen to the price of everything if more money was spent into circulation?

Make it a flat tax, remove every tax deduction and consideration. All pay, all the same.
Terrible idea. If it were a 10% flat rate on $60k of earnings, that's a lot of money that can't be invested and the income tax puts people on unemployment, tempts people to borrow, etc., etc.

Flat Tax proposals wouldn't reduce revenue and it would simply legitimize the income tax in the minds of even more people. It would also be just as expensive to enforce. More people would have to file, etc., etc.

If we are to keep the income tax, then we need way more deductions, elimination of the AMT, elimination of CG taxes, exempt tips from taxes, a higher personal/married/head of household exemption, the elimination of at least the 35%, and 39.6% brackets, elimination of the estate/gift taxes, and significantly reduced rates at the bottom.

I also don't get how deductions aren't fair when they let people keep their money. If I don't steal someone else's earnings, then that's fair isn't it? Why is it fair when the State does it?
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,075
6,885
136
$3.9 Billion over 10 years is about .1% of this FY's budget. Obama is economically retarded and the people who agree with him on economics are even more retarded.

I would sooner take economic advice from a paper bag than listen to your economic advice.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I would sooner take economic advice from a paper bag than listen to your economic advice.
Be that as it may, anyone who is paying any bit of attention whatsoever wonders how stupid Obama thinks we are when he's saying that $3.9Bn over the next ten years means anything. That's like $300mn this year out of a $3.85Bn+ budget. The "1%" can't be soaked anymore to pay for anymore of the "99%" than they already are, it's that simple and rightfully so.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
America's richest family, worth more than $100 billion, has exploited a variety of legal loopholes to avoid the estate tax

That's pretty much all you need to read of this drivel to know it's a complete BS worthless article. "exploited a variety of legal loopholes" is when someone else does things according to the law to maximize their benefit and reduce their liabilities. When you do it, it's just "playing by the rules".

Also, please define "fair share" so we can all know what exactly that means. :colbert:
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Be that as it may, anyone who is paying any bit of attention whatsoever wonders how stupid Obama thinks we are when he's saying that $3.9Bn over the next ten years means anything. That's like $300mn this year out of a $3.85Bn+ budget. The "1%" can't be soaked anymore to pay for anymore of the "99%" than they already are, it's that simple and rightfully so.

They pay less percentage wise than the middle class and taxes are the lowest in 50 years. They are not "soaked."
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
They pay less percentage wise than the middle class and taxes are the lowest in 50 years. They are not "soaked."

The taxes are only "lowest in 50 years" if you choose to measure only certain taxes. If you include all forms of government fees and taxation, I assure you the levels are not the "lowest in 50 years". Not a chance.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,372
3,451
126
Some additional information about how this works:

It seems they are using something called a 'Jackie O.' Charitable Lead trust - named after Jackie Kennedy Onasas who set one up

The donor creates a lengthy trust duration (minimum 20 years I believe) with a set amount to be distributed to the charity every year. The IRS then looks at the amount destined for charities vs the amount destined for heirs and calculates the taxes based on the rate of Section 7520 Interest Rates when the trust is setup.

If the investments outperform the IRS determined rate the heirs get that extra money free of charge. If the investments underperform both the charity and the heirs lose money

Now - as we all know the Fed has been keeping interest rates at an all time low which has kept interest rates at historically low rates. The stock market has also performed quite well in the last couple of years. This appears to be an unintended consequence of monetary policy and advantageous stock market returns. In 2006 the 7520 rate was 5.8% Much tougher to guarantee massive returns in excess of the interest rate. In 2012 it was 1.4% Much easier to beat that. Much like locking in a mortgage they locked in advantageous interest rates. Of further note - the final amount they gain can only be determined at the end of the trust duration. Sure they may be up $XXX million now but if the investment tanks before the end of the duration they wouldn't get nearly that much out of it

Also - this is certainly not a new type of trust - its been around for at least 20 years. I didn't see anyone complaining about them when these trusts were in danger of losing massive amounts of money when the stock market tanked and the heir\charities were being faced with less than expected outlays.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Some additional information about how this works:

It seems they are using something called a Jackie O. trust - named after Jackie Kennedy Onasas who set one up

The donor creates a lengthy trust duration (minimum 20 years I believe) with a set amount to be distributed to the charity every year. The IRS then looks at the amount destined for charities vs the amount destined for heirs and calculates the taxes based on the rate of US treasury bonds when the trust is setup.

If the investments outperform the IRS determined rate the heirs get that extra money free of charge. If the investments underperform both the charity and the heirs lose money

Now - as we all know the Fed has been keeping interest rates at an all time low which has kept Treasury Bond interest rates at very low rates. The stock market has also performed quite well in the last couple of years. This appears to be an unintended consequence of monetary policy and advantageous stock market returns

Also - this is certainly not a new type of trust - its been around for at least 20 years. I didn't see anyone complaining about them when these trusts were in danger of losing massive amounts of money when the stock market tanked and the heir\charities were being faced with less than expected outlays.

Shush with your logic, you're messing with our ability to rage at the evil rich! ;)
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,372
3,451
126
Shush with your logic, you're messing with our ability to rage at the evil rich! ;)

Just a quick note - I was wrong about the rate being set by the T-bonds. The IRS uses a special interest rate called 'Section 7520 Interest Rates' and edited my post to reflect that
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I'm ok with the Walton Family having billions.

They employ millions (2.2m) over 9000 locations.

Now let's talk about Wall Street. Goldman Sachs for example: 31,700 employed, and nearly a trillion in assets.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Make it a flat tax, remove every tax deduction and consideration. All pay, all the same.

I'm starting to like the psychological aspect of a flat tax. While a flat tax would raise taxes on most people, it might change the mentality some people have about government spending. Example: stupid bullshit wars. When nearly half the country pays no federal income tax, it's very easy to say the government should invade countries X, Y, and Z. When everyone has skin in the game, that might change. People would still vote for socialism (which I'm fine with because I'm left wing), but the mentality would be a little different. Instead of voting for free health care using money from other people, it would be free healthcare from everyone, including yourself.

One thing mentioned on wiki's page about the Laffer Curve is that the money collected under Reagan didn't really change that much. Taxes were around 19% of GDP when he took office and about %18 when he left even though he cut the top tax rate in half. His gigantic deficits were almost entirely caused by spending too much, not by taxing too low.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Not always and the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of income taxes. If the govt took 100% of all personal income above 250k, then it still wouldn't eliminate the deficit.

2 ridiculous claims repeated. Do you even THINK before repeating something that is retarded?

1. They pay more taxes total because they make more.. duh... They still pay less PERCENTAGE WISE than others...

2. If money taxed doesn't take care of ALL of our problems, then we shouldn't do it? I guess we shouldn't tax ANYONE, because taxes by themselves don't solve all our problems!

Please grow a brain and THINK FOR YOURSELF BEFORE PARROTING OTHERS!
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
The taxes are only "lowest in 50 years" if you choose to measure only certain taxes. If you include all forms of government fees and taxation, I assure you the levels are not the "lowest in 50 years". Not a chance.

Your assurances do nothing for me since you are a hack.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Be that as it may, anyone who is paying any bit of attention whatsoever wonders how stupid Obama thinks we are when he's saying that $3.9Bn over the next ten years means anything. That's like $300mn this year out of a $3.85Bn+ budget. The "1%" can't be soaked anymore to pay for anymore of the "99%" than they already are, it's that simple and rightfully so.

LOL the 1% can't be soaked anymore? During the time they are the richest they've ever been since the time right before the great depression?