We should all write to our members of Congress and demand tax reforms

[ochotona]

Here are my pet peeve tax topics. I'm sure you have yours.

*** It's time to make permanent individual tax cuts. I honestly think corporations have had enough. They're highly profitable. This time, save individuals from the 12/31/2025 tax cuts expiration for crying out loud ***

No tax on Social Security - Trump talked about this on the campaign trail - Reagan threw Social Security recipients under the bus when he signed legislation taxing Social Security in 1983, as it wasn't taxed from 1935 (inception) until 1984.

The $3000 capital loss deduction limit was set in 1976, and it was never indexed to inflation. It should be at least $16,400 now, and it needs to be indexed to inflation from henceforth.

The House voted to repeal GPO / WEP... the Senate needs to do the same.

No tax on gold or silver bullion

(Washington, D.C – May 8, 2024) – U.S. Representative Alex Mooney (R-WV) has re-introduced sound money legislation to remove all federal income taxation from gold and silver coins and bullion. The Monetary Metals Tax Neutrality Act (H.R. 8279) backed by the Sound Money Defense League, Money Metals Exchange, and free-market activists – would clarify that the sale or exchange of precious metals bullion and coins are not to be included in capital gains, losses, or any other type of federal income calculation. Gold and silver would be treated as a non-entity for tax purposes, putting it on par with the U.S. dollar. Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA) and Randy Weber (R-TX) joined as original cosponsors.

[Xan]

Agreed on not taxing gold (and maybe silver).

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Definitely index cap gains loss deduction limit to inflation, along with just about everything else. Also take inflation into account when computing cap gains, so that real gains are taxed rather than nominal gains.

I really don't like the "no taxes on tips" thing. I don't like tipping in general and this takes us the wrong direction on it. I don't even understand the rationale. Of course most cash tips aren't taxed now anyway, probably.

[yankees60]

Agreed on not taxing gold (and maybe silver).

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Definitely index cap gains loss deduction limit to inflation, along with just about everything else. Also take inflation into account when computing cap gains, so that real gains are taxed rather than nominal gains.

I really don't like the "no taxes on tips" thing. I don't like tipping in general and this takes us the wrong direction on it. I don't even understand the rationale. Of course most cash tips aren't taxed now anyway, probably.

I am 100% with you on your last paragraph.

[boglerdude]

Nothing changes without term limits for congress

Land value tax https://old.reddit.com/r/georgism/

[Jack Jones]

Also take inflation into account when computing cap gains, so that real gains are taxed rather than nominal gains.

[ochotona]

Also take inflation into account when computing cap gains, so that real gains are taxed rather than nominal gains.

TRUE! But OMG the tax filing headache. Imagine you bought something, and it paid dividends for years, then you sold it. Each lot of shares bought by each dividend payment event is then subjected to a different inflation adjustment factor.

But it could be huge for land or real estate in a family for generations.

[Xan]

Oh, you're right... yuck.

[barrett]

*** It's time to make permanent individual tax cuts. I honestly think corporations have had enough. They're highly profitable. This time, save individuals from the 12/31/2025 tax cuts expiration for crying out loud ***

No tax on Social Security - Trump talked about this on the campaign trail - Reagan threw Social Security recipients under the bus when he signed legislation taxing Social Security in 1983, as it wasn't taxed from 1935 (inception) until 1984.

I believe Trump is on record (not sure how much that means, of course) as saying that he will extend or even make permanent the 2017 TJTA cuts. NOT doing so would be perceived as an additional tax on the middle class starting 1/1/26 which neither he nor congress would want to risk. Both the existence and size of the 12% bracket has helped both me and my wife.

I agree that taxing SS is ridiculous. Just making the payouts less would make a lot more sense than paying the money out and then clawing some of it back. Just wanted to add though that I think a lot of good was done by Reagan's SS reforms in 1983. Gradually extending the SS FRA helped to make the program solvent for a lot longer. But I haven't looked at all the 1983 details in ages. At least Reagan and Congress did something.

I think the corporate rate should probably be between 15% and 21% but don't know enough about how the numbers would shake out with a lower rate. It just lame for the Dems to constantly criticize corporate greed when those companies create so many well-paying jobs AND that the workers themselves end up paying a lot in taxes anyway. It's not like there's a ton of revenue being generated without the government getting a decent chunk of it. ALSO something like 62% of American's own at least some stocks and we want those 62% to make money on their investments.

Feel free to call me an idiot and point out the errors in my thinking.

[glennds]

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Is your rationale for this the double taxation argument?
If yes, it then conflicts with SCOTUS and Citizen's United where they deemed corporations to be "people" with all the rights thereto.

FWIW, I disagree with SCOTUS and agree with you.

[Xan]

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Is your rationale for this the double taxation argument?
If yes, it then conflicts with SCOTUS and Citizen's United where they deemed corporations to be "people" with all the rights thereto.

FWIW, I disagree with SCOTUS and agree with you.

I agree with the Citizen's United decision in that people who want to get a message out shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because they formed a corporation for that purpose. That corporation was a nonprofit anyway. I don't think that's relevant here at all.

A corporate income tax is actually a hidden tax on all of us. It feels good to say "tax the corporations" since that feels like making somebody else pay the tax, but it actually makes all of us pay the tax in a way that is difficult to track. For example, if your taxation philosophy is that the poor shouldn't pay much if any income tax, taxing corporations actually makes them pay significant tax.

[Mountaineer]

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Is your rationale for this the double taxation argument?
If yes, it then conflicts with SCOTUS and Citizen's United where they deemed corporations to be "people" with all the rights thereto.

FWIW, I disagree with SCOTUS and agree with you.

I agree with the Citizen's United decision in that people who want to get a message out shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because they formed a corporation for that purpose. That corporation was a nonprofit anyway. I don't think that's relevant here at all.

A corporate income tax is actually a hidden tax on all of us. It feels good to say "tax the corporations" since that feels like making somebody else pay the tax, but it actually makes all of us pay the tax in a way that is difficult to track. For example, if your taxation philosophy is that the poor shouldn't pay much if any income tax, taxing corporations actually makes them pay significant tax.

Agree.

[barrett]

So we all want lower taxes but what spending can easily be cut? Here is a good Steve Ballmer video about the federal budget and taxes... where money comes from and where it goes. Not surprisingly, there are no easy fixes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM&t=415s

Or are folks here banking on Trump's proposals to make the economy so amazing that we will just generate a lot more tax revenue even if the brackets are more favorable to us as individuals?

Just to be clear, the above is not meant as a political stab at Trump. Neither party can claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and, quite honestly, there seems to be very little interest from any corner about bringing deficits down or cutting anything in any meaningful way.

[Xan]

The question of corporate income tax is mostly orthogonal to your point, barrett. It could be revenue neutral, you'd just need to adjust the personal rates. It would be more honest.

As far as the appetite for cutting, you're right, it's basically nonexistent. We'll see what inflation ends up looking like.

[yankees60]

I disagree about the corporate tax rate: that should be 0%.

Is your rationale for this the double taxation argument?
If yes, it then conflicts with SCOTUS and Citizen's United where they deemed corporations to be "people" with all the rights thereto.

FWIW, I disagree with SCOTUS and agree with you.

I agree with the Citizen's United decision in that people who want to get a message out shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because they formed a corporation for that purpose. That corporation was a nonprofit anyway. I don't think that's relevant here at all.

A corporate income tax is actually a hidden tax on all of us. It feels good to say "tax the corporations" since that feels like making somebody else pay the tax, but it actually makes all of us pay the tax in a way that is difficult to track. For example, if your taxation philosophy is that the poor shouldn't pay much if any income tax, taxing corporations actually makes them pay significant tax.

I don't accept the hidden tax as I believe it's based upon a flawed premise.

People believe that athletes making more money leads to higher ticket prices. It does not.

We live in a competitive economy. You cannot just pass on your added expenses to the consumer.

Each corporation is already charging the most they can, which is irrespective of their expenses.

Of course, the other part of the profit equation is well managing expenses. But just because a business (which includes those taxed as C corporations) get an additional expense .... they cannot increase their prices to cover that expense. Any increase in prices is going to result in some reduced sales. They'd already be charging that increased price if they could have gotten away with it.

[yankees60]

So we all want lower taxes but what spending can easily be cut? Here is a good Steve Ballmer video about the federal budget and taxes... where money comes from and where it goes. Not surprisingly, there are no easy fixes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM&t=415s

Or are folks here banking on Trump's proposals to make the economy so amazing that we will just generate a lot more tax revenue even if the brackets are more favorable to us as individuals?

Just to be clear, the above is not meant as a political stab at Trump. Neither party can claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and, quite honestly, there seems to be very little interest from any corner about bringing deficits down or cutting anything in any meaningful way.

1) I believe that part of our ever-increasing deficit was the reduced tax revenues brought on by the prior Trump tax cuts.

2) I expect the following to occur. I continue to endlessly watch C-Span's Washington Journal wherein I see all kinds of people, including numerous politicians of all kinds, being part of the discussion with callers calling in to ask questions.

Invariably when the Democrats are in control the Republicans will endlessly criticize them for the deficit. Then they'll pretend to be big by admitting that the Republicans are also responsible. I think their favorite phrasing is: "Yes. We Republicans have also lost our way regarding the deficit."

I predict that now that the Republicans are in full power I will never hear a peep from any of these same Republicans regarding the deficit.

What did Trump promise in 2016? He was going to wipe away the deficit in one term? I don't remember him much addressed the deficit at all during his past campaign.

[yankees60]

The question of corporate income tax is mostly orthogonal to your point, barrett. It could be revenue neutral, you'd just need to adjust the personal rates. It would be more honest.

As far as the appetite for cutting, you're right, it's basically nonexistent. We'll see what inflation ends up looking like.

It would not be more honest. They are completely separate entities with all the benefits, e.g., owners generally avoiding personal liability for corporate actions, their assets not at risk due to corporate actions, so why should they not be taxed on their income?

Seems that many of them are doing fine with paying their taxes.

Your contention revolves around the belief that if they had to pay no taxes we'd all be charged lower prices.

Maybe there would be some dynamic there but my rarely used intuition says that if that happened half of it would go to reduced prices for the consumer while the other half would go toward increased profits to be distributed to the corporate owners.

[yankees60]

The question of corporate income tax is mostly orthogonal to your point, barrett. It could be revenue neutral, you'd just need to adjust the personal rates. It would be more honest.

As far as the appetite for cutting, you're right, it's basically nonexistent. We'll see what inflation ends up looking like.

Coming back to this.

You are strictly speaking about C corporations.

There are also Sub S corporations which are taxed like a partnership. No taxation at the entity level. All tax income is passed on to the corporate owners to be taxed as part of their taxable income.

I just checked the requirements to be an S corporation:

"Before you elect your C-corporation to an S-corporation, they company must meet certain eligibility criteria. First, you corporation must have fewer than 100 shareholders. Next, your C-corporation cannot have more than one class of stock. Finally, all shareholders must be U.S. citizens or residents and not other legal entities. If you company meets all these criteria, you can submit form 2553 with the IRS."

A corporation with 100 shareholders can be a fairly large corporation.

I'm sure we have situations wherein there are C corporations and S corporations engaging in the same activities.

Your arguments would be saying that the S corporation would be charging lower prices to their customers than their fellow C corporations because they don't have to pay any taxes on the entity level.

I would bet that they are charging their customers the exact same prices that the C corporations are, with the consequent better profits.

Banks don't like that credit unions don't pay taxes, contending that it gives them a completive advantage. Again, by your assertion credit unions should have lower fees than banks for the same services. Is this the case? I don't know because though I have many accounts with each I pay no fees to any of them. But when I look at my credit unions' pages of fees ... they don't look that inexpensive to me.

[Xan]

I don't accept the hidden tax as I believe it's based upon a flawed premise.

People believe that athletes making more money leads to higher ticket prices. It does not.

We live in a competitive economy. You cannot just pass on your added expenses to the consumer.

Each corporation is already charging the most they can, which is irrespective of their expenses.

Of course, the other part of the profit equation is well managing expenses. But just because a business (which includes those taxed as C corporations) get an additional expense .... they cannot increase their prices to cover that expense. Any increase in prices is going to result in some reduced sales. They'd already be charging that increased price if they could have gotten away with it.

If I'm manufacturing peanut butter there's only so much I can charge for peanut butter. But if the government comes along and taxes all peanut butter manufacturers such that they either raise prices or go out of business, then people either pay more for peanut butter or they don't get peanut butter. In a competitive market, one manufacturer can't just decide to raise prices, but prices can and do go up if the costs for the entire market go up.

Also you're glossing over a nasty part of taxation: let's say you're right and the final sales price doesn't increase, but some percentage of manufacturers go out of business instead. Is that a win for society? I would argue it isn't.

In the real world you'll get some of both: higher prices and fewer businesses. Both are costs borne by the general public.

It would not be more honest. They are completely separate entities with all the benefits, e.g., owners generally avoiding personal liability for corporate actions, their assets not at risk due to corporate actions, so why should they not be taxed on their income?

Seems that many of them are doing fine with paying their taxes.

Your contention revolves around the belief that if they had to pay no taxes we'd all be charged lower prices.

Maybe there would be some dynamic there but my rarely used intuition says that if that happened half of it would go to reduced prices for the consumer while the other half would go toward increased profits to be distributed to the corporate owners.

Half of the amount that's currently taken by corporate taxation would go to reduced prices for the consumer? Wouldn't that be absolutely huge?

We can then have a healthy, honest debate about what the personal tax rate should be of "corporate owners". If you want to go after that income, then go for it, where it belongs on their personal taxes. Think of the reduction in wasted manhours that are currently spent preparing, auditing, and otherwise dealing with corporate tax returns!

Coming back to this.

You are strictly speaking about C corporations.

There are also Sub S corporations which are taxed like a partnership. No taxation at the entity level. All tax income is passed on to the corporate owners to be taxed as part of their taxable income.

I just checked the requirements to be an S corporation:

"Before you elect your C-corporation to an S-corporation, they company must meet certain eligibility criteria. First, you corporation must have fewer than 100 shareholders. Next, your C-corporation cannot have more than one class of stock. Finally, all shareholders must be U.S. citizens or residents and not other legal entities. If you company meets all these criteria, you can submit form 2553 with the IRS."

A corporation with 100 shareholders can be a fairly large corporation.

I'm sure we have situations wherein there are C corporations and S corporations engaging in the same activities.

Your arguments would be saying that the S corporation would be charging lower prices to their customers than their fellow C corporations because they don't have to pay any taxes on the entity level.

I would bet that they are charging their customers the exact same prices that the C corporations are, with the consequent better profits.

Banks don't like that credit unions don't pay taxes, contending that it gives them a completive advantage. Again, by your assertion credit unions should have lower fees than banks for the same services. Is this the case? I don't know because though I have many accounts with each I pay no fees to any of them. But when I look at my credit unions' pages of fees ... they don't look that inexpensive to me.

You're pointing out that there are two different types of corporation, one that's double-taxed and one that isn't, because... of reasons. And this unfair situation is your argument to keep the double taxation?

[yankees60]

I don't accept the hidden tax as I believe it's based upon a flawed premise.

People believe that athletes making more money leads to higher ticket prices. It does not.

We live in a competitive economy. You cannot just pass on your added expenses to the consumer.

Each corporation is already charging the most they can, which is irrespective of their expenses.

Of course, the other part of the profit equation is well managing expenses. But just because a business (which includes those taxed as C corporations) get an additional expense .... they cannot increase their prices to cover that expense. Any increase in prices is going to result in some reduced sales. They'd already be charging that increased price if they could have gotten away with it.

If I'm manufacturing peanut butter there's only so much I can charge for peanut butter. But if the government comes along and taxes all peanut butter manufacturers such that they either raise prices or go out of business, then people either pay more for peanut butter or they don't get peanut butter. In a competitive market, one manufacturer can't just decide to raise prices, but prices can and do go up if the costs for the entire market go up.

Also you're glossing over a nasty part of taxation: let's say you're right and the final sales price doesn't increase, but some percentage of manufacturers go out of business instead. Is that a win for society? I would argue it isn't.

In the real world you'll get some of both: higher prices and fewer businesses. Both are costs borne by the general public.

It would not be more honest. They are completely separate entities with all the benefits, e.g., owners generally avoiding personal liability for corporate actions, their assets not at risk due to corporate actions, so why should they not be taxed on their income?

Seems that many of them are doing fine with paying their taxes.

Your contention revolves around the belief that if they had to pay no taxes we'd all be charged lower prices.

Maybe there would be some dynamic there but my rarely used intuition says that if that happened half of it would go to reduced prices for the consumer while the other half would go toward increased profits to be distributed to the corporate owners.

Half of the amount that's currently taken by corporate taxation would go to reduced prices for the consumer? Wouldn't that be absolutely huge?

We can then have a healthy, honest debate about what the personal tax rate should be of "corporate owners". If you want to go after that income, then go for it, where it belongs on their personal taxes. Think of the reduction in wasted manhours that are currently spent preparing, auditing, and otherwise dealing with corporate tax returns!

Coming back to this.

You are strictly speaking about C corporations.

There are also Sub S corporations which are taxed like a partnership. No taxation at the entity level. All tax income is passed on to the corporate owners to be taxed as part of their taxable income.

I just checked the requirements to be an S corporation:

"Before you elect your C-corporation to an S-corporation, they company must meet certain eligibility criteria. First, you corporation must have fewer than 100 shareholders. Next, your C-corporation cannot have more than one class of stock. Finally, all shareholders must be U.S. citizens or residents and not other legal entities. If you company meets all these criteria, you can submit form 2553 with the IRS."

A corporation with 100 shareholders can be a fairly large corporation.

I'm sure we have situations wherein there are C corporations and S corporations engaging in the same activities.

Your arguments would be saying that the S corporation would be charging lower prices to their customers than their fellow C corporations because they don't have to pay any taxes on the entity level.

I would bet that they are charging their customers the exact same prices that the C corporations are, with the consequent better profits.

Banks don't like that credit unions don't pay taxes, contending that it gives them a completive advantage. Again, by your assertion credit unions should have lower fees than banks for the same services. Is this the case? I don't know because though I have many accounts with each I pay no fees to any of them. But when I look at my credit unions' pages of fees ... they don't look that inexpensive to me.

You're pointing out that there are two different types of corporation, one that's double-taxed and one that isn't, because... of reasons. And this unfair situation is your argument to keep the double taxation?

1) Your peanut butter example again fails. The government does have the same tax rates for all C corporation peanut butter manufacturers. But each one pays different levels of taxes depending upon their amount of taxable income. You may pay way more taxes than I do because you have a higher taxable income than me. But you may also be charging less for your peanut butter than me because you better manage all your other expenses.

If you are not paying taxes as a C corporation then you are not a profitable business. Businesses that don't make profits and, instead, are having losses are the ones most likely to go out of business. Businesses that do pay taxes are the ones most likely to stay in business.

The conclusion you drew from this example is still incorrect.

Taxes reduce the profits of the business. The business is already charging as much as customers will pay for its products given how much total revenue that will produce.

2) This: "Think of the reduction in wasted manhours that are currently spent preparing, auditing, and otherwise dealing with corporate tax returns!" is also all wrong.

It would all have to still happen. How do you think the income gets determined that is only taxed at the owner level? I've prepared both C corporations returns and S corporations returns. They are similar except the S corporation returns are more time consuming because you have to allocate various items on the tax return, e.g., taxable income, Section 179, to each Sub S owner. An S corporation return is essentially a C corporation return with a lot more work involved.

I said Half. It could be none. Just trying to make my point that the amount of taxes paid by the corporation are all at the expense of the consumer.

3) The reason for the Sub S corporations is that these are generally far, far, far smaller companies than the Fortune 500 companies. I don't think that they'd be even large enough to be considered micro companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market fund.

It's an attempt to put these businesses on the same level as other similarly sized businesses that are organized as partnerships and LLCs, flow through entities wherein there is no tax at the entity level with all the taxable income going to the owners of the entities.


Finally, Apple has the highest capitalization value of any company? Or, are they now #2?

But they achieved that through huge profits. Huge profit margins.

How do they have such huge profit margins? By charging high, high prices.

I assume that along with these huge profits that they are paying a huge amount of taxes.

Now if you got your way and they were paying ZERO taxes do you think that they'd reduce the prices on any of their products by one single penny?!!!

If you say, Yes, then you will be able to hear me laugh all the way from Massachusetts to Texas!

Apple could have already reduced their prices considerably and still had hefty profits. But, instead, they charge the maximum price they can for them to bring in the maximum total income.

[Xan]

Vinny, I certainly appreciate your insights, especially into the situation with S-corp vs C-corp tax preparation.

Let me ask you this: since there seems to be no downside to corporate income taxes, why not have the rate be 50%? 90%? 100%?

[boglerdude]

Some of this will be case by case. If grocery store profit margins are 2% and liquor store margins are 15%, ur not going want a blanket 3% tax

Also many folks dont want the tax code simplified because they've figured out the loopholes

[Xan]

Well, as Vinny pointed out, the tax is not on revenue but on profit. A 2% tax on revenue in your example would be the entirety of the profit. A 2% tax on the profit would be far less.

[yankees60]

Vinny, I certainly appreciate your insights, especially into the situation with S-corp vs C-corp tax preparation.

Let me ask you this: since there seems to be no downside to corporate income taxes, why not have the rate be 50%? 90%? 100%?

Did you know that up until the time of President Kennedy (and, maybe later) the top personal tax rate was 90%?

I did not say there was no downside to corporate income taxes ... just saying that whatever taxes a corporation pays ... they are not automatically passed on to the consumers.

As to what the rate should be for corporations ... I've never thought what the rate should be. But it would be obviously be detrimental to a corporation to have rates such as you suggest. That'd represent a drastic change from current rates of taxation.

But as far as what is going on now ... if we were looking at a graph ... I'd say there would be a high, high, high correlation between the amount of taxes a business pays and its number of employees.

The most successful ones have high, high profits, high, high taxes, and many, many employees.

The ones who pay no taxes are losing money and have many less employees and are probably not long for this world.

There are obviously notable exceptions, like Amazon who went on for many, many years without making money. But Bezos stuck to his plan and we now have Amazon as it is. People forget all those dark financial years for Amazon when they go hyper-critical on Bezos / Amazon. I think he should be revered as a great American success story along with his creation of Amazon. Many other people in this country could have created Amazon but it was only him who did it. For the same reasons I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk in his business accomplishments. Obviously, not aligned with him on his political choices.

All of here would desire to pay almost unlimited taxes because that would mean that we have almost unlimited income. I assume you'd rather be in that category than the category of paying no taxes and the much lower income that goes along with that?

In our country taxes are mainly paid by the financial victors.

Finally, I'm not one who believes that the rich must pay their fair share. They already are. It's generally those who say that that are not paying their fair shares. Proportionately they benefit far more from governments services compared to what they pay in taxes than the same for the rich.

[yankees60]

Some of this will be case by case. If grocery store profit margins are 2% and liquor store margins are 15%, ur not going want a blanket 3% tax

Also many folks dont want the tax code simplified because they've figured out the loopholes

There are not that many people who have figured it out.

Decades ago I'd prepare the tax returns for the business (Sub S corporation) and its president. I would then turn it over to a Big 4 Accounting firm for their review. They certainly knew all the loopholes. They never provided us with any. Instead, they'd just sign the Turbo Tax copy of the return that I'd sent to them, never making any changes to either return. They did not even bother inputting it into their own system and producing their own in-house copy. Instead, it'd just be what I'd sent to them.

[yankees60]

Vinny, I certainly appreciate your insights, especially into the situation with S-corp vs C-corp tax preparation.

Let me ask you this: since there seems to be no downside to corporate income taxes, why not have the rate be 50%? 90%? 100%?

Did you know that up until the time of President Kennedy (and, maybe later) the top personal tax rate was 90%?

I did not say there was no downside to corporate income taxes ... just saying that whatever taxes a corporation pays ... they are not automatically passed on to the consumers.

As to what the rate should be for corporations ... I've never thought what the rate should be. But it would be obviously be detrimental to a corporation to have rates such as you suggest. That'd represent a drastic change from current rates of taxation.

But as far as what is going on now ... if we were looking at a graph ... I'd say there would be a high, high, high correlation between the amount of taxes a business pays and its number of employees.

The most successful ones have high, high profits, high, high taxes, and many, many employees.

The ones who pay no taxes are losing money and have many less employees and are probably not long for this world.

There are obviously notable exceptions, like Amazon who went on for many, many years without making money. But Bezos stuck to his plan and we now have Amazon as it is. People forget all those dark financial years for Amazon when they go hyper-critical on Bezos / Amazon. I think he should be revered as a great American success story along with his creation of Amazon. Many other people in this country could have created Amazon but it was only him who did it. For the same reasons I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk in his business accomplishments. Obviously, not aligned with him on his political choices.

All of here would desire to pay almost unlimited taxes because that would mean that we have almost unlimited income. I assume you'd rather be in that category than the category of paying no taxes and the much lower income that goes along with that?

In our country taxes are mainly paid by the financial victors.

Finally, I'm not one who believes that the rich must pay their fair share. They already are. It's generally those who say that that are not paying their fair shares. Proportionately they benefit far more from governments services compared to what they pay in taxes than the same for the rich.

A caller into C-Span's Washington Journal just gave me more information. He is a CPA. He asserted these facts, which sound true to me.

The top 1% pay 90% of the taxes. Half of the bottom 50% pay no taxes.

The rich are already paying their fair share with many on the other end NOT!