Sam Groth: "I make no money on tour"

[BreakPoint]

I'm not interested in talking to a juvenile, to be sure, but if you think cbs is leftist then you're delusional as well as intellectually inadequate.

How can you compare a budget deficit accrued during a boom with a budget deficit caused by massive revenue failure caused by near depression?

Moreover, from what I've read the trend in the rate of increase has gone down under Obama and that's all you can ask.

The right wing financial media think Ryan's programme is a fraud, not just the real left.

Lower taxes plus higher military spending minus medicare still makes for a burgeoning public deficit.

Your great mathematical blunders held you up to general ridicule enough.

First of all, Medicare sucks up most of the national budget. You can get rid of the entire defense department and we'd still have a deficit from Medicare and other entitlements alone.

Yes, the mainstream media is liberal left. Everyone knows this.

Also, you're not even an American so why do you care so much about the American budget deficit and tax rates????

 

[BreakPoint]

That's the point I was making and that I refused to either repeat or spell out because I wanted you make this point for me.

You kept doggedly talking solely about income tax so don't congratulate yourself for something you didn't do.

Um.....FrisbeeFool is talking about income tax, too! Capital gains tax IS an income tax!!! It's paid on your income taxes!! Capital gains is your income!!! So are interest and dividends income!!

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Please stop making a fool of yourself before it's too late.

 

[Bartelby]

1. Fallacious right wing propaganda

2. Erroneous right wing paranoia

3. China finances American deficits so that conflct concerns everyone.

First of all, Medicare sucks up most of the national budget. You can get rid of the entire defense department and we'd still have a deficit from Medicare and other entitlements alone.

Yes, the mainstream media is liberal left. Everyone knows this.

Also, you're not even an American so why do you care so much about the American budget deficit and tax rates????

 

[Bartelby]

You're the fool who can't tell the difference between income and capital gain.

Um.....FrisbeeFool is talking about income tax, too! Capital gains tax IS an income tax!!! It's paid on your income taxes!! Capital gains is your income!!! So are interest and dividends income!!

Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Please stop making a fool of yourself before it's too late.

 

[Rhino]

^^^ You two should just get a room.

 

[Sky_Boy]

Why no compassion people? if there isn't players like groth around, there won't be much of a draw.. i think it's fine to start by showing some compassion in your post before stating why this is so etc

 

[BreakPoint]

You're the fool who can't tell the difference between income and capital gain.

More cluelessness.

Everyone else here has been discussing actual income taxes and income tax rates paid. The net effective income tax rate is for ALL of your income, regardless of what form that income comes in - e.g., wages, capital gains, interest, dividends, winnings, tips, gifts, rentals, etc. It's all paid on your 1040 income tax form and the amount of tax you end up paying is your net effective income tax rate.

Please stop commenting on a subject you obviously have no idea about.

 

[Bartelby]

There's no 'everyone else', you idiot, there's only you.

You haven't apologized for your previous stupidity yet.

More cluelessness.

Everyone else here has been discussing actual income taxes and income tax rates paid. The net effective income tax rate is for ALL of your income, regardless of what form that income comes in - e.g., wages, capital gains, interest, dividends, winnings, tips, gifts, rentals, etc. It's all paid on your 1040 income tax form and the amount of tax you end up paying is your net effective income tax rate.

Please stop commenting on a subject you obviously have no idea about.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

To get back on topic, I think the lower ranked guys on tour should be paid more. Think about the field you are in, and your profession. If you're the 200th best at your professional in the entire world, in most fields, you would be considered an expert and paid enough to make a comfortable living.

I think Groth has a point. There was recently another thread about this topic, talking about how next year the top-ranked guys might boycott some events in an effort to have more of a share of the money allocated to the lower ranked guys so they can make a living as well. I think it would be an admirable thing to do.

 

[Crisstti]

the bottom line is that the the big organizations are talking a hugely unfair cut of the profits. what is ridiculous to me is that people keep making this argument about cutting top players salaries, vs whether the lower guys even deserve it.

that is moronic. the greedy *** ITF (slams) should have to pay at least 25-30% out to the players. the top guys can keep their high paying salaries, maybe even more. the leftover can be distributed to lower ranked players.

In all other sports, minor league players still make enough to support themselves. some even get big deals and signing bonuses. in tennis, the challenger players at least should make a decent salary. this could really help the depth of our sport. If it wasn't so damn hard to simply get by as a pro, more talented athletes might actually play tennis.

I agree. Why take prize money out of the top players?, they already make a lot less than top players of other sports. Also, if a lower ranked player makes a good run in a slam that'd mean a lot of money for him, and that's the way it should be...

The slams can and should pay more, to all the players.

 

[dParis]

If Sam were paid more, would he become a better tennis player?

Odd thread sentiment: Golf's success in the marketplace upsetting to some.

I never replied directly to him at all.

I criticized the limited basis of his analysis and redefined the problem.

Only an idiot claims victory for himself.

There's no 'everyone else', you idiot, there's only you.

Personal attacks are in violation of forum rules. Repeated personal attacks are a blatant violation of forum rules. Mods, please ban this user.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I agree. Why take prize money out of the top players?, they already make a lot less than top players of other sports. Also, if a lower ranked player makes a good run in a slam that'd mean a lot of money for him, and that's the way it should be...

The slams can and should pay more, to all the players.

No they shouldn't. The pros make what they make because of the market and their ability negotiate with the slams. I guarantee that tomorrow, if the slams said they are not going to pay money, there will be pros that will compete to win a major.

The tournaments that would get hurt are the ones that have to pay the top players just to show up.

 

[Bartelby]

There is no market in tennis.

The ATP is a monopoly supplier of player labour.

The ATP organizes all tournaments in association with owners.

Tournaments like Slams have been brought into the ATP system and they are price setters and not takers as they have a monopoly on the most prestigous events.

People fling words like market around and use it as an explanation. It explains nothing.

 

[Bartelby]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

You and Breakpoint rave on to your heart's content violating both the rule against politics and personal abuse.

I'm not going around turning thread after thread into a celebration of the market.

Why do you two, and several others, do it?

If Sam were paid more, would he become a better tennis player?

Odd thread sentiment: Golf's success in the marketplace upsetting to some.





Personal attacks are in violation of forum rules. Repeated personal attacks are a blatant violation of forum rules. Mods, please ban this user.

 

[Bartelby]

This is both your blatant political statement and personal abuse all cunningly wrapped up in a seemingly cloyingly obedient statement:


You've got to admire FrisbeeFool's blatant ignorance of forum rules. Such is the mindset of the fanatic liberal.


If politics is against the rules why do you make a political statement about the mindset of liberals while appearing as one who obeys rules?

You should ban yourself from the forum.

I think everyone needs to focus on the topic in an apolitical manner.

Personal attacks are in violation of forum rules. Repeated personal attacks are a blatant violation of forum rules. Mods, please ban this user.

 

[dParis]

You are lashing out quite a bit more than usual, Bartelby. I don't know how much longer the forum can tolerate your personal attacks and your manipulation of others posts for the sake of pointless arguing.

 

[r2473]

Taxation has almost always been progressive, but the headline rates and the paid rates are always different.

Moreover, income is always diverted into capital, trusts and if particularly wealthy it can be offshored.

So the progressive effect is neutralized.

The rich by and large simply escape the national taxation systems; its the reasonably well off that pay a disproportionate share.

I read it correctly.

My remark was to do with the numerous ways governmental policy allows the big end of town to escape the income tax system, due to the control it exercises over government through money, so it's you who can't read as it was clear.

1. You simply refuse to understand my points made in posts 301,305 and 320. r2473 was talking exclusively about income tax, I wasn't.

2. You simply interpret any difference as progressive. I don't.

I don't get the point you are trying to make.

1. "The rich" may (do) in fact "hide" income to avoid taxation. You get no argument from me there.

2. As such, you can argue that their stated "real tax rate" is actually lower than reported. I think we can all see why. Let's assume they pay taxes on the $100 that they report in the amount of 25% (so $25). But they have effectively hidden $50. So their actual earnings for the year is $150. So they are really only paying a 16.7% rate in my example. This I understand.

3. Even so, when we look at the actual tax dollars collected, we do see how much "the rich" (top 1%; top 5%) actually pay in taxes as a percentage of the entire amount collected.

4. And if they didn't "hide" their income, it isn't true that they'd pay more in taxes. Why? Because the rates and rules would change. The government doesn't set rules and then wait and see how much money comes in and hope its enough. They know how much they want to collect and set the rules accordingly. Think about what happens when we run a "tax surplus". The president wants to immediately cut taxes. The government isn't trying to collect as much as it possibly can. It doesn't want to collect too much (that stifles the economy). It doesn't want to collect too little. It wants to collect "just the right amount".

5. As such, the "tax tricks" are factored into the system. On a macro level. Its true that individual tax payers can "game the system" sometimes, but overall, on a macro level, you will see that the rules are set such that most of the tax burden is shouldered by the top 5%.

6. I'm not sure what other taxes you want to look at. But the tax system is set up to encourage and discourage certain behavior. It influences behavior. So specify the tax you have in mind, and I'll try to talk about the behavior the government is trying to coercise.

It's best not to get caught up in individuals or headlines. Look at the aggregate numbers.

Again, I'm not addressing the "wage gap" or the growing income disparity. That's a whole seperate issue. But I'm really not following your discussion on taxes.

 

[r2473]

So after all the games are played, the total pot collected and the percentage breakdown from where it comes from (again, on the macro or aggregate level), is what the IRS is looking for. If it wasn't, they'd change things.

If you follow my story (and believe it), if the rich DON'T game the system, they probably pay too much in taxes. The system is set up assuming that this will happen. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

 

[Bartelby]

Yet another personal attack from you is always welcome, even if it violates forum rules, as I do realize that you've been shouting yourself hoarse at the convention.

You are lashing out quite a bit more than usual, Bartelby. I don't know how much longer the forum can tolerate your personal attacks and your manipulation of others posts for the sake of pointless arguing.

 

[Bartelby]

To be generous, some of these issues come down to differences in terminology and differences in the way different tax systems talk about the various taxes that are imposed.

Apart from that, the reality is people like to make little speeches which simply reflect their way of looking at the issue.

Although post 367 quotes some of my comments in the introduction, nothing I've said is responded to and hence there is nothing I can add.

All I can say is FrisbeeFool made the only pertinent comment I can agree with and I certainly cannot agree with the absurd statement that the government decides what to collect and sets the rules accordingly.

Government receipts have fallen dramatically due to the GFC and this would not have happened if the above was the case.

The government does not treat the idea of revenue like Goldilocks; it has rules and realities dictate revenue raised.

They can change rules, but this is both a technical and political process requiring usually long time periods.

 

[r2473]

I certainly cannot agree with the absurd statement that the government decides what to collect and sets the rules accordingly.

Government receipts have fallen dramatically due to the GFC and this would not have happened if the above was the case.

The government does not treat the idea of revenue like Goldilocks; it has rules and realities dictate revenue raised.

They can change rules, but this is both a technical and political process requiring usually long time periods.

I'm simplifying, but what I said is essentially true. Some years they fall short. Some years they run a surplus. And there are reasons for shortfalls. You don't want to strangle the economy with a higher tax burden to cover shortfalls in a recession for example.

And yes, idea vary on what that "right amount" is. How much redistribution do we want? What do we want to spend money on? Etc. I get it. You shouldn't take my "goldillocks tax theory" quite as literally as I stated it.

But my point is, even with all the "tax games", somehow (as if by miracle) the top 5% end up paying about the same percentage of the overall tax burden year after year. I'm just trying not to get bogged down in individual stories and look at things from a bit more macro perspective. As such, I over-simplify things to be sure. But I don't want to get sidetracked on "micro issues". I'm thinking more macro.

If the goal isn't to collect "enough" or the "right amount" of revenue, then what do you suppose it is?

To collect as much as possible?

To impose some moral, self-rightous, something or another on the rich.

I really don't get what you are saying. Would you mind spelling it out for me in the step-by-step manner I articulated my points above?

I honestly don't understand what your point(s) are.

 

[Bartelby]

I couldn't follow your points at all and theyre predicated on an absurdity that is too silly for words.

The government makes rules and tax rules go on for tens of thousands of pages.

How much revenue is collected fluctuates widely due to the ups and downs of the economy.

The government does not have any fixed goal in mind other than to raise revenue in a fiscally responsible way through instruments deemed efficient, whatever that may mean politically.


Hence, your following statement is absurd as this is precisely what they do:

The government doesn't set rules and then wait and see how much money comes in and hope its enough.


Yes, it sets rules that it feels is adequate for the job and then the economy booms and they get too much and now it tanks and it gets too little.

The really irresponsible thing to do is to overspend enormously in a boom. Anyone come to mind?

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Romney's money is in overseas tax havens.

Okay? And what does that have anything to do with what I said? Why should he be taxed on the dividends of his estate when he was already taxed initially in making his fortune?

Make a legit argument for why capital gains should be raised.

The rich by and large simply escape the national taxation systems; its the reasonably well off that pay a disproportionate share.

The rich make their money by owning property and having that property make them money. It's a simple principle, the people who have the entrepreneurial spirit and make smart investments that turn out in their favor should make a lot of money. Why should investments be taxed doubly? Do you also believe in double jeopardy?

As for trying to escape the national taxation system, do you think H&R block gains customers by advertising higher tax rates?

 

[r2473]

I couldn't follow your points at all and theyre predicated on an absurdity that is too silly for words.

You are a very hard man to talk to.

Let me try it this way. My points are all 100% absurd complete inane ramblings. Let's agree on that.

So, don't respond to my points at all. Just freely state yours in a clear, concise manner.

I (and apparantly nobody else) understands what your points are specifically and it appears as if you are unwilling to state them clearly.

I realize you have stated them all previously and that I can go back and piece them all together. Let's just agree that I'm far too stupid to do this.

So I'm BEGGING YOU to just take one post to state your position as clearly as you possibly can.

 

[Bartelby]

Sorry, this has already been dealt with above.

I made no argument about raising capital gains, so why do you make things up?

Double jeopardy is a legal concept in criminal cases that has nothing to do with taxation policy. I don't know where you dreamt this up either.

Okay? And what does that have anything to do with what I said? Why should he be taxed on the dividends of his estate when he was already taxed initially in making his fortune?

Make a legit argument for why capital gains should be raised.


The rich make their money by owning property and having that property make them money. It's a simple principle, the people who have the entrepreneurial spirit and make smart investments that turn out in their favor should make a lot of money. Why should investments be taxed doubly? Do you also believe in double jeopardy?

As for trying to escape the national taxation system, do you think H&R block gains customers by advertising higher tax rates?

 

[Bartelby]

I already have so there's not much point in going on, n'est-ce pas?

You are a very hard man to talk to.

Let me try it this way. My points are all 100% absurd complete inane ramblings. Let's agree on that.

So, don't respond to my points at all. Just freely state yours in a clear, concise manner.

 

[r2473]

I already have so there's not much point in going on, n'est-ce pas?

That's 100% fine.

I'm not really trying to win. I just wanted to know what your points were.

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, well, stop repeating yourself if you're that 'nice'.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Sorry, this has already been dealt with above.

I made no argument about raising capital gains, so why do you make things up?

Double jeopardy is a legal concept in criminal cases that has nothing to do with taxation policy. I don't know where you dreamt this up either.

You're being dense, aren't you? Capital gains is already the fiscal equivalent to double jeopardy, because you're being taxed again on money you've already earned (and paid taxes for).

If I get paid $130, I pay $30 in taxes. If I take the remaining $100 and invest it, and my investment grows to $120 and I sell that investment, why should I have to pay a tax on it again?

Please explain.

If you don't believe in raising capital gains, why are you complaining about Romney's tax rate when he's getting taxed based on capital gains? He's not making income from his work.

 

[Bartelby]

I didn't make an argument for capital gains, but the reason why they exist is in part to prevent people shifting money into unproductive areas merely to accrue a tax benefit that is economic and fiscally disastrous.

You may not like this but I can assure you most governments of all stripes think this way throughout the Western world.

Its not the equivalent of double jeopardy, which in any event is being destroyed as a principle of criminal justice in many parts of the Western world as we write.

You're being dense, aren't you? Capital gains is already the fiscal equivalent to double jeopardy, because you're being taxed again on money you've already earned (and paid taxes for).

If I get paid $130, I pay $30 in taxes. If I take the remaining $100 and invest it, and my investment grows to $120 and I sell that investment, why should I have to pay a tax on it again?

Please explain.

If you don't believe in raising capital gains, why are you complaining about Romney's tax rate when he's getting taxed based on capital gains? He's not making income from his work.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I didn't make an argument for capital gains, but the reason why they exist is in part to prevent people shifting money into unproductive areas merely to accrue a tax benefit that is economic and fiscally disastrous.

You may not like this but I can assure you most governments of all stripes think this way throughout the Western world.

No, you didn't make an argument for raising capital gains. You just think Romney in particular should pay more taxes when he's being fairly taxed at the capital gains rate.

Do you not see the contradiction? Why should Romney be taxed more than the standard capital gains rate if that's how he's making his money? You're not arguing for increasing the capital gains rate, so why should Romney be the exception?

 

[Bartelby]

No one knows what goes on with Romney's taxes.

The last report I read is that he's anxious to hide his statements because he lost a veritable fortune during the GFC.

It doesn't make much sense to lambast Obama for destroying the economy if the GFC destroyed some of your own fortune, does it?

 

[ChanceEncounter]

No one knows what goes on with Romney's taxes.

The last report I read is that he's anxious to hide his statements because he lost a veritable fortune during the GFC.

It doesn't make much sense to lambast Obama for destroying the economy if the GFC destroyed some of your own fortune, does it?

We can safely assume that Romney's income in the last few years has been primarily from capital gains because he has not taken a job that pays a regular income. Campaigning and running for president is not a job that typically pays a salary.

You're moving the goalposts. There's no relationship between his tax rate and how much or how little money he's lost. He's getting taxed at the capital gains rate because his money comes from capital gains. What's wrong with this?

 

[Bartelby]

You can't safely say this at all and I won't refer to Romney.

People who own company structures that engage in economic activity can perfectly well pay themselves a huge income while accruing capital gains.

They mostly choose to pay themselves a smaller income as its taxed higher than capital gains in most places.

Is that clear enough to jeopardize your safe assumptions.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

You can't safely say this at all and I won't refer to Romney.

People who own company structures that engage in economic activity can perfectly well pay themselves a huge income while accruing capital gains.

They mostly choose to pay themselves a smaller income as its taxed higher than capital gains in most places.

Is that clear enough to jeopardize your safe assumptions.

Right, so what other sources of income has Romney had the past two years? Did he go take a job?

What's so hard to believe about the fact that a man that has spent the last two years preparing his candidacy for presidency (also a man that has enough of a fortune to never need to work) hasn't actually worked a salary paying job?

You just want to assume that he's earned a salary and that he's hiding it all even when he's paying the fair capital gains rate? Oh, by the way, I think my neighbor may be a witch. She turned me into a newt and all.

 

[Bartelby]

Poor guy hasn't got a job.

You forgot that I said I wasn't talking about Romney.

My understanding is that Romney in his pursuit of political office has offloaded the management of his fortune to a blind trust run by Goldman Sachs and we all know their responsibility for the GFC.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Poor guy hasn't got a job.

You forgot that I said I wasn't talking about Romney.

My understanding is that Romney in his pursuit of political office has offloaded the management of his fortune to a blind trust run by Goldman Sachs and we all know their responsibility for the GFC.

Of course he's offloaded his fortune to a blind trust. He needs to in order to run for office. Would you rather he run for office while not putting his money in a blind trust? Or would you rather that anyone with any fortune not be allowed to run for office? lol.

 

[Bartelby]

He's entitled to run his own fortune while not in public office.

He's been running for this office for the past six years at least.

i don't see why the last two are special and he's only been the official candidate as of now.

So any blind trust need only have started now.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Yeah, and he's allowed to run for public office while putting his money in a blind trust.

Unless you're going to suggest that anyone that has an investment porfolio shouldn't be allowed to run for public office...

 

[Bartelby]

When did I suggest that?

You simply make things up.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

When did I suggest that?

You simply make things up.

So then what exactly are you rambling about?

People should be allowed to pay taxes at capital gains rate if he's not making income via salary. Apparently this is okay.

Romney is paying the capital gains rate since he's not making income. Apparently this is not okay.

Candidates for public office should be allowed to run for office if their investments are managed by a blind trust. Apparently this is okay.

Romney has his money in a blind trust and is running for office. Apparently this is not okay.

 

[Matt H.]

i think the futures and challenger level tournaments need a prize money increase.


Benchmark the prize money from 1998 to cost of goods and inflation, and re-adjust the prize pool to match to today's dollars.

USTA certainly has the money to do it. I thought they were supposed to be about tennis, not fat cats pocketing bonuses.

 

[Bartelby]

You're talking to yourself as I have no interest in you or Romney.

So then what exactly are you rambling about?

People should be allowed to pay taxes at capital gains rate if he's not making income via salary. Apparently this is okay.

Romney is paying the capital gains rate since he's not making income. Apparently this is not okay.

Candidates for public office should be allowed to run for office if their investments are managed by a blind trust. Apparently this is okay.

Romney has his money in a blind trust and is running for office. Apparently this is not okay.

 

[Bartelby]

At last, a solid and pertinent comment.

I'll let you suffer the cries of socialism and the market rules, ok.

i think the futures and challenger level tournaments need a prize money increase.


Benchmark the prize money from 1998 to cost of goods and inflation, and re-adjust the prize pool to match to today's dollars.

USTA certainly has the money to do it. I thought they were supposed to be about tennis, not fat cats pocketing bonuses.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

You're talking to yourself as I have no interest in you or Romney.

Oh, okay, so you just talk about stuff you have no interest in...

President Rom-money, in effect.

So why should anyone take you any more seriously than any drunk uncle or nostalgic grandpa?

 

[DRII]

And something else I often forget to mention is this (because I assume people already realize this, but I guess most don't):

The US government is basically always trying to collect a certain amount of tax revenue to finance their expenses (we'll ignore the deficit and debt for now).

So the tax haven thing is sort of funny because it is "built into" the tax system in a way. We aren't really "losing" 22 billion or whatever in tax revenue, because if there were no tax havens (or loopholes or whatever), the tax code and rates would simply change. I mean, look at what happens when we have a "surplus". They "cut taxes".

Now you might say that without the tax havens, the rich would pay more and the poor less. Hard to say. Look at the breakdown as it stands now. The rich pay quite a large portion of the overall tax burden.

The IRS isn't really as stupid as you think they are. They've been playing this game for a long time.

There are a million ways to slice and dice this data, but percentage of the overall tax burden paid is a nice way to look at it.

What the tax havens do is effect individuals, but not aggregate numbers. Those are what are actually "engineered" by the IRS. Even though enforcing tax law on individuals is what makes all the headlines. And this is why Romney won't release his tax returns. Of course he tax plans, so some years it will look like he's screwing the system over. The (liberal?) press will run with any story they can along these lines to make Romney look bad (as they should, that's their job). So its much easier for him to not release the returns and deal with the flack for that.

But that shouldn't cloud the overall tax picture. That is all just "bluster" and headline material. It really doesn't make a bit of difference in the big picture.

As for the growing income disparity......that's a whole different topic.

You act as if the IRS is some lone, cognitive, self aware, - entitiy; going around making its own rules and enforcing as it sees fit.

Of course this is not the case. Elected officials are the ones that write the legislation and effect the fiscal and tax policy of the United States that is then supposed to be enforced by the IRS.

Which in my mind makes it very important for all presidential candidates (and high ranking economic representatives in the administration) to release their tax returns, and not just 1 or 2 years!

Particularly someone like Mitt Romney, with his hundreds of millions of dollars and assets, some of which are overseas!

Can anyone say 'potential conflicts of interest' :twisted:

 

[ChanceEncounter]

At last, a solid and pertinent comment.

I'll let you suffer the cries of socialism and the market rules, ok.

Why should the TO's have to give up money in order to pay for challengers? The challengers are willingly joining these tournaments even with the current prize structure. If they didn't want to do it, they could quit.

If the players aren't happy with their current incomes, they're welcome to band together and create their own tour. Let's see how far they get.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Particularly someone like Mitt Romney, with his hundreds of millions of dollars and assets, some of which are overseas!

Can anyone say 'potential conflicts of interest' :twisted:

Pretty much every president would have a 'potential conflict of interest' then. If you own a mutual fund, you probably have some money in the Cayman's. Most major funds have money circulating overseas. It's part of the reason why they can maximize their ROI.

Why should his blind trust not be allowed to store money overseas? Or do you believe that NO funds should be allowed to store money overseas? Or that anyone that owns any fund that has any money overseas shouldn't be allowed to run for public office? LOL.

 

[r2473]

You act as if the IRS is some lone, cognitive, self aware, - entitiy; going around making its own rules and enforcing as it sees fit.

I didn't make myself clear obviously. I didn't really expect people to take my words as literally as they did. I was only trying to simplify and abstract away from political realities and individual tax payers.

My apologies for my absurd comments and the confusion they caused.

If I had not been quoted, I would delete all my inane comments so no one is troubled by them anymore.

Basically, I was thinking about it in the way a city funds the school district for example. Some group estimates how much money is needed. They look at sources for the funds. They might decide to raise property taxes (as opposed to sales tax) for example to fund a projected shortfall. But they don't arbitrarily raise property taxes. They have a plan as to exactly who sees the increase and how much that will be.

Taxes on the federal level work in a simiar fashion. Obviously its not this clear cut or simple. But sometimes to highlight a point, you simply abstract away or "bracket" some of the complexity.

But yes, I understand that my simple story doesn't reflect reality. I get it. I shoud have argued about Romney.

 

[BreakPoint]

All I can say is FrisbeeFool made the only pertinent comment I can agree with and I certainly cannot agree with the absurd statement that the government decides what to collect and sets the rules accordingly.

Yet, you didn't even understand that FrisbeeFool was talking about income taxes and how a lower income tax rate for capital gains results in a lower overall rate of income tax. That went tight over your head.

You need to pay income tax from income from all sources - be it wages, salary, capital gains, interest, dividends, tips, rentals, winnings, etc. Capital gains is a source of income!

Many people do not collect a salary nor wages, but make all of their income from capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. - such as Romney. These people would pay a lower overall income tax rate than someone who's only source of income comes from a salary or wages and it would need to be a pretty good amount of wages to exceed the tax rate of people who earn their income from other sources because the bottom 50% of wage earners don't pay any income tax at all so their net effective tax rate is ZERO.

Steve Jobs of Apple, Sergy Brin, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt of Google famously all only earned $1 a year in salary. Do you seriously think all of these billionaires only paid taxes on $1 of income every year? Their taxable income every year was likely in the millions and they probably each paid millions of dollars of taxes every year.