Brew

Pay the pool maintenance company to come by once a week. I have found that’s the only way I get any enjoyment out of having a pool at this point and the maintenance is the main reason I had no plans to build another one. However, I’m married so that didn’t go as originally agreed upon. The biggest issue we have is even with all the automated shit on pools now, keeping the free chlorine in line has been a pain in the ass. We have more rain and probably a wider band of temps than you guys do, but it’s constantly something.

There are plenty, it may look different today than it did 50 years ago but it is still there. There is no point in arguing that side as it’s a loser from the start.

I’m circling back to this just to provide clarification. I don’t disagree with your overall premise, I disagree with your constant use of the term loophole. It is not a loophole that causes people not to pay tax on wealth and unearned income, it is the system as it stands currently. A loophole by definition is finding something in the system that allows you a way to not pay tax on income of which those specific items aren't part of defined income in the current system. No one pays tax on wealth outside of the wealth that exists in real property at this point.

I haven’t seen anyone under $2M have any issues or it take any significant time. The only ones I have seen drawn out are the $2M+ ones that had to deal with the questionnaire when it started in late a November. I know of several in the same boat we were in timing although they had not submitted as early as we did.

Damn, some of you don’t read and just look for apparent wholesale agreement without being able to have a functioning discussion. Scrolling up through the page, I think I’ve typed plenty of words (especially in relation to you not giving any specific reason why it should be) and have explained my position on it. However, I’ll summarize in one place. I think the disclosure of bands and disclosure of upper level management comp ranges are reasonable. I don’t think it is a benefit to disclose specific employee comp. Most employees think they are worth more than they are in relation to the person next to them. I don’t know that I’ve ever sat down with anyone that thinks they are overpaid. Most employees have differing viewpoints on value, workers think the generation of work is the most valuable and rainmakers think the picking up of new work is the most valuable. If you are paid less than you are worth and the market agrees, you’ll be able to get it somewhere especially right now. If you are worried about competing with the guy beside you, you are looking the wrong direction as you should be competing with the guy above you. I can keep going, I’m sure it will not matter though. I’ll ask again, how many that run a business disclose exact compensation?

That’s a stupid, unrealistic comparison, because one of us would clearly be way outside market. A few thousand difference I would give you. You also have to take into account market rates and the fact that the free market dictates if I’m worth more I can probably get it elsewhere especially right now.

I’m 42, worked my way up from intern to the #1 spot. It didn’t make any difference to me what the guy beside me was making. I didn’t measure myself against him, I measured myself on a promotion standpoint and how quickly I moved up the ladder and against the guys at the top. We publish averages and other numbers on partner comp to show what is available, seeing the exact number Jane makes beside them doesn’t seem like it promotes that much drive.

It’s compensation, someone always thinks they are getting fucked over. Every graduate I hire now wants a title and big money along with wanting to know when they can make partner, doesn’t mean it’s going to work out for them. I don’t think I have an issue with bands, we pretty well publicize that information inside the company now including averages on partner compensation. I do have a problem with someone specifically knowing what someone else makes. Our partner group doesn’t even know what the guy beside them makes because it became a problem and everyone views different things as highest priority. All the old guys believed seniority was #1, others though rainmaking, etc. They all know quartiles, averages, etc. and where they are in relation, but they don’t know where the guy beside them is. How many of you that actually run anything put out everyone’s payroll information?

Clearly. It happens to be one as an owner in multiple business ventures I don’t have a problem with. I think it would create more negatives than positives and for the most part at least in our business people know what the market rates are. They don’t know that Jane beside them makes a few extra thousand because she’s worth it, but they know the market for them is in the $X-$Y dollar range. I don’t see much benefit in the governmental sector where it’s a race down to their pay scale rather than a race up to the next one. That may be more that it is based on years rather than merit though.

You can find it at any governmental entity also, it comes with the job. I’m not sure what that has to do with the rest of the workforce.

Income is typically a taboo subject to discuss openly. Not sure what you find stupid about that, but feel free to post your paystubs ala Rocko any time.

Explain these loopholes to me that favor the wealthy and keep them from ever paying taxes again outside of what I’ve already agreed with that is limited to .00001 of taxpayers and the reduced CG rates. Those can easily be closed up by increasing CG rates which I’ve said and including all comp as income whether realized or unrealized annually. As someone that runs a firm that prepares about 25,000 tax returns a year, I think my partners would be interested in this tax planning mystery that we aren’t familiar with. I have rich people ask me every year how to pay less tax and their avenues are sometimes less than the guy at $150k.

Screw that, income is a private matter. Do you know what everyone in your company makes?

I don’t think the tax system is the place for refundable credits, I think a flat zero should be the minimum unless we want to use it to promote the living wage concept where everyone is brought up to a minimum level. I also don’t think those below a set amount should be paying much of anything. They are already paying 7.65% to social security and Medicare. I don’t have a magic line in the sand where that should kick in, but I’m sure I could come up with one. Right now it is $27,000 or so if married with no kids which feels low. With kids it jumps. The inconsistencies in states throws that off too.

8 pages on rich people and taxes, so it was at least even money that it had turned political.

It is the longest one I know of between our clients and the banks we deal with. Money hit yesterday, so we’ll see if we hear anything out of the SBA. We submitted our questionnaire in early December and it had been crickets since.

Not happening, we just know the rich need to pay more (which I agree with in principle for the most part) with no plan on how to do it. However, taxes are a money grab, it’s how the government pays it’s bills. Everything done in the middle is just a reallocation. I assume you are a spend less person, but again probably not happening at this point. As far as ways to even some things out, remove the 20% QBI deduction should be number one on the list. Remove the 100% bonus depreciation (at least on used items again) and lower 179 as long as you’re good with the requisite slow down in purchasing. All comp is taxable whether realized or not. Eliminate itemized deductions other than for charitable and taxes paid to other districts. Increase capital gains rates to 28% max rate, leave them in a sliding scale based on income brackets. Close the trust loophole and drop estate tax exemptions back down to $5M and allow for a financed payback on assets with unrealized appreciation to keep from forcing sales. Stop talking about a flat tax, items a waste of breath and confuses the discussion. Taxes should be progressive in some way, but everyone should pay something.

I have zero comprehension of your second sentence. The federal tax code is an income based system. Whether you have a “lay” understanding or an in depth knowledge, it still is what it is. A progressive income tax system that taxes increasing income progressively. If you generate $5M in income, you pay a higher marginal rate than the guy at $1M than the guy at $500k than the guy at $100k and so on. Even with different rates on different income now, for the most part that holds true. When you talk about rich paying less and use the examples used, they are still paying a higher percentage of income than most people and those specific examples are few and far between. The guy making $5M a year is generally paying north of 30% on his income, the guy at $100k is generally paying 12ish% and much less with kids. As far as your contention that the code benefits the rich, most income tax benefits go to the lower income ranges. There is a ton of stuff that phases out at income levels in the $150k-$250k range and things that phase in at the $400k-$500k range. As far as your second paragraph, unrealized appreciation is what you’re chasing. If you do a standard calculation like sales tax currently, you’re leaving a lot of holes. Business and property growth is where a lot of unrealized gains sit.

This is fucking painful. In regards to the tax system which is the discussion, income and property are two separately defined components. We can go in this stupid fucking circle all day or you can just debate a wealth tax and be done with the semantics. I have no issue with a wealth tax per se. It will ultimately allow me to increase what I get to pay in under either system which I can live with. How are you valuing operating closely held businesses? Are you including personal property and how is it valued? Are we setting a floor for taxation?

I can read it 10 different times and my response doesn't change. I don't agree with your premise that income is property. What remains of it is turned into property, but the generation of income isn't property. It ultimately creates the attainment of property.

That shipped sailed a few thousand pages ago. Like most things, if we would approach it with a clean slate we would have a much better system. However, in all things government related they can't go with the clean slate approach and instead amend and abridge. The problem we have now is that they have done that more in the last 3-4 years than any time I remember and they are doing it in more sweeping fashion without considering the side effects. The tax code is a clusterfuck at this point which wasn't really the case 10-15 years ago.

That's stretching it quite a bit I would say especially when accounting for the average marginal tax rates that people in a lower income bracket pay.

A strict flat tax would not be a regressive TAX without the use of deductions. You can call it regressive in the general sense of your feelings on taxation as a whole, but it is not a regressive tax. Credits/deductions have led to a more progressive income tax system. Again, you may argue it's regressive in general terms, but it is progressive in specific tax terms which are related to percentage of tax paid in relation to income. It's why marginal rates increase as income goes up outside of some very specific examples being used in this thread. I don't agree with your premise in regards to the income tax system. They are paying high marginal tax rates on income especially in relation to those in the lower range of your numbers outside of again a few very specific examples. They are not paying tax on deferrals of income like retirement plans, unrealized gains, etc. but that's a separate debate from the income tax system. I've made my arguments on the pitfalls of a wealth tax before.

Estate tax needs to be rolled back and all formed trusts should remain part of the taxable estates for the individual. We have allowed people to form trusts to get around end of life care issues to protect their “estates” as well as allowed the formation of certain trusts to avoid inheritance tax.

Sweet, another Surly tax policy debate. A strict flat tax by definition would not be regressive as it is a flat tax. At the point credits/deductions are added, then it will become regressive (less likely) or progressive (more likely). You all are using the top .000001% for your arguments, when the average “rich” person is paying pretty close to the max marginal rate that is out there until they reach the point of retiring and living off investments. They don’t have the luxury of capital like the ones being discussed to fully take advantage of the tax system outside of the 20% pass through deduction gift they have gotten the last few years. Those guys can do it because they are operating inside the largest public companies out there with access to pretty well unlimited capital, your local guy running a $100m company and making $5M a year can’t operate that far into the gray and is well into the 30’s on their marginal tax rate. We keep going in this circle, but you’re arguing over a handful of people ultimately. There are ways to pull them back into the system if they are generating any income, but that still will not cover all of them. As far as the argument about building infrastructure, you individually may have paid for it but you didn’t build it. The guy that took the risk, started the company, bought the assets, hired the employees, etc. built it and was paid for each of those risks. Plenty of guys have gone under in those industries.