[MikeCF]

This is a good article discussing a lot of tax issues that guys don't seem to understand:

http://uncrunched.com/2012/09/19/mikes-tax-notes/

If you take nothing else away from the article, read about the carried interest exemption.

The carried interest exemption shows who is running the country.

Why should a hedge fund manager pay a lower tax rate than a doctor?

Anyhow, it's a pretty decent article and is a good "behind the curtain" article for all the Republicans who earn $60,000 yet want taxes for the oppressed rich to be lowered.

[MikeCF]

Here's a more detailed article on the carried interest loophole:

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-ta...est-2012-8

If you're a Republican earning $60,000 (or even a high ordinary income), you really should learn about this loophole.

There's no logical reason why people on Wall Street should pay 15% on the income they earn where as doctors and other professionals pay 35%.

[Pacesetter20]

Thoughts:

1. People need to quit crying about the evil rich Republicans (funny how no one ever mentions the evil rich Democrats, even though they are cut from the exact same cloth and take advantage of the exact same exemptions), instead of going out and making themselves rich it is easier to point fingers and say they are to blame for their lot in life.

2. A hedge fund manager should or should not inherently pay a lower tax rate than a doctor. If the hedge fund manager is smart enough to take advantage of the tax laws (which everone can, not just rich, white, republicans) then good for him, he deserves to pay less taxes. He's done nothing illegal or illicit, the simplest example of taking lemons and making lemonade.

3. If you are tired of all of the exemptions, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I collorate it to Roosh's post about the dying MRA activits that sit around and whine all day and don't go out and actively campaign for changes.

4. Though I really can't stand social meddlers who come out and say "I don't pay enough taxes." Why? Because there is already a voluntary program for those who want to gift money to the U.S. Gov. Surprisingly when told about this, do they donate more "taxes?" No, they don't. Because its not about paying taxes, they are interested in other people paying more taxes, because they are smart enough to work the system (See point #2).

5. I do make around 60K and I want to see taxes lowered FOR EVERYONE (including businesses), not just the rich or the poor or the middle-class.

[theoak]

Ds are for raising INCOME taxes and, for the most part, leaving CAPITAL GAINS alone. Rs are for lowering INCOME taxes and addressing issues like carried interest. You are targeting the wrong party. Rs are the working rich, trying to build up wealth. Ds are the inherited rich trying to stay rich and prevent other people from becoming rich (high INCOME tax means no one ever gets to become rich).

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(09-20-2012 10:25 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

3. If you are tired of all of the exemptions, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I collorate it to Roosh's post about the dying MRA activits that sit around and whine all day and don't go out and actively campaign for changes.

Something was done about it. One time, the Republicans filibustered the proposed changes into oblivion and another time, they threatened to bankrupt the country if their demands not to touch the said exemptions were not met. The third time, they (along with Goldman Sachs's lobby) killed Frank-Dodd Act, which would have addressed a lot of stuff with its financial reforms.

To say that nothing is not being done does not reflect reality. Things are being done, only as long as the Party of the Rich has enough representatives to block any proposal it doesn't like with its abusive tactics those things never get implemented. You could say that the real protest is against that, but that would be chicken-or-the-egg territory.

p.s.

theoak Wrote:

Ds are for raising INCOME taxes and, for the most part, leaving CAPITAL GAINS alone. Rs are for lowering INCOME taxes and addressing issues like carried interest. You are targeting the wrong party. Rs are the working rich, trying to build up wealth. Ds are the inherited rich trying to stay rich and prevent other people from becoming rich (high INCOME tax means no one ever gets to become rich).

The solution is called inheritance/estate tax. Hint: it's not the Ds that are pushing for its abolition and huge exemptions up to first 15 $US million and more.

[ElJefe]

Summum ius, summa iniuria

Tax credits, deductions, personal exemption, special-interest groups, and so and so forth.

Each one of these tax-credits represents staggering injustice. The thousands of pages of tax-code is a tax in and of itself - it robs ordinary people of the ability to understand the laws that govern them, rendering them helpless in the face of political meddling, panders to special-interest groups, and only the most resourceful come out on top. Democrats and Republicans both have done their best to make things even more dubious, even if I sympathize with the Republican efforts to make children more affordable. And it requires us to maintain an army of tax lawyers that cost us an estimated 50bn USD annually. How many tens of thousands of real jobs could be created if that money was in the real economy?

A real tax-reform to abolish all these deductions except a simple, personal deduction, and all income whether derived from employment, capital gains, interest, dividends or profiting from selling your house would be taxed according to whatever bracket that income put you in. And you wouldn't have six seperate brackets. You'd have three. One for the lower classes, one for the middle, and one for the upper - ideally at increments of 5, 10 and 10 percent (ie. marginal rates of 5, 15 and 25 percent).

This would lower the marginal tax-rate for the highest earners from 35 to 25, while raising the effective tax rate on the nation's wealthiest from 20 to 25.

Simplyfying the tax-code from thousands to just a few pages should be a goal of any freedom-loving government.

The thing is, no single group is willing to give up it's individual stake in the tax-code. Charitable donations, child tax-credits, interest deductions, every other reduction. People will fight tooth and nail to keep their meagre handouts like a virus slowly killing off its host.

The federal government ought to derive the rest of its funding from a small consumption tax (< 4%) and a corporate tax (15%), and a tariff on Chinese imports @ 25% (until the Chinese fully float their currency). This combined with reducing defense spending to 3% of GDP (a relatively high rate, still), and ending immigration of low-skilled labor (and repatriating low-skilled labor immigrants already here), and entitlement reform (turning SS into Chilean style private accounts, ie. a "forced" savings set a fixed rate with contributions shared by the citizen and the public, and making other entitlements income adjusted) can balance the budget in just a few years.

In fact, I'd bet with a simple, straight-forward policy like that the US government could be debt-free by 2030.

[kdolo]

How about we abolish direct taxation altogether.

You work, you earn, you keep. -

[theoak]

(09-20-2012 01:07 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 10:25 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

3. If you are tired of all of the exemptions, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I collorate it to Roosh's post about the dying MRA activits that sit around and whine all day and don't go out and actively campaign for changes.

Something was done about it. One time, the Republicans filibustered the proposed changes into oblivion and another time, they threatened to bankrupt the country if their demands not to touch the said exemptions were not met. The third time, they (along with Goldman Sachs's lobby) killed Frank-Dodd Act, which would have addressed a lot of stuff with its financial reforms.

To say that nothing is not being done does not reflect reality. Things are being done, only as long as the Party of the Rich has enough representatives to block any proposal it doesn't like with its abusive tactics those things never get implemented. You could say that the real protest is against that, but that would be chicken-or-the-egg territory.

p.s.

theoak Wrote:

Ds are for raising INCOME taxes and, for the most part, leaving CAPITAL GAINS alone. Rs are for lowering INCOME taxes and addressing issues like carried interest. You are targeting the wrong party. Rs are the working rich, trying to build up wealth. Ds are the inherited rich trying to stay rich and prevent other people from becoming rich (high INCOME tax means no one ever gets to become rich).

The solution is called inheritance/estate tax. Hint: it's not the Ds that are pushing for its abolition and huge exemptions up to first 15 $US million and more.

Right, Rs are for abolishing the inheritance tax because it only impacts small business owners. Someone that has worked hard and built a business worth $1-2MM that they would like to pass on to their kids. You don't think the kid that worked on his dad's farm his whole life deserves to keep working it? He won't be able to if there is a 50% inheritance.

But the Ds that own really companies and have real wealth have all of their money offshore so an inheritance tax won't affect them.

[MikeCF]

(09-20-2012 10:25 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

2. A hedge fund manager should or should not inherently pay a lower tax rate than a doctor. If the hedge fund manager is smart enough to take advantage of the tax laws (which everone can, not just rich, white, republicans) then good for him, he deserves to pay less taxes. He's done nothing illegal or illicit, the simplest example of taking lemons and making lemonade.

Wow. I stopped reading after that paragraph. You can't even follow along with what is being said.

Who said it was illegal?

The quote source (and I) said the loophole shouldn't exist.

If you want to discuss these issues, first learn how to read (and comprehend) what was actually written.

[MikeCF]

(09-20-2012 10:51 AM)theoak Wrote:  

Ds are for raising INCOME taxes and, for the most part, leaving CAPITAL GAINS alone. Rs are for lowering INCOME taxes and addressing issues like carried interest. You are targeting the wrong party. Rs are the working rich, trying to build up wealth. Ds are the inherited rich trying to stay rich and prevent other people from becoming rich (high INCOME tax means no one ever gets to become rich).

This is false. Come on, guys. It's one thing to disagree with my conclusions.

But shouldn't you actually know the legal and political landscape first?

http://privateequitymanager.com/Article....2C1996CEB4


Meanwhile Republicans, who have thus far been able to block a carried interest tax hike in the Senate, "feel pressure to take this off the table as an election issue,” said Deloitte partner Edward Daley at Private Equity International’s annual CFOs & COOs Forum in New York. “It’s likely this will come up as a way to pay for [keeping the payroll tax cut in place].”

According to Daley, Republicans may want to make private equity – and the 15 percent tax on carry – a non-issue in time for the general election, assuming that Mitt Romney secures the Republican nomination. Extending the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012, which is set to expire in February, will require the federal government to make up revenue by increasing different taxes or instituting cuts.

[Menace]

It's funny that people always say work hard and you will be rich, but the richest people do not really work hard per se in comparison or in proportion to their compensation. Do you think a guy who makes $100M managing a hedge fund produced something of value and worked harder than a coal miner or a doctor? The finance guys are at the nexus of money, and the closer you are to the money, the more of it you can make. They are also often market makers. The carried interest loop hole is absurd because it is not their capital that's at risk, it's all OPM. None of it is illegal, that is the whole point of the post!

The conventional wisdom is that capital gains taxes should be lower than income taxes to encourage investment, but if our economy is ~70% based on consumption, which is done with after tax income, is this really what we should be doing? Maybe they should be equal. How about 35% capital gains taxes and 15% income taxes. How does that sound?

[scorpion]

Our fucked up tax system is best explained by the American version of the golden rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

[Kitsune]

(09-20-2012 02:06 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

How about we abolish direct taxation altogether.

You work, you earn, you keep. -

Real red pill thinking right here.

I'd do that post of the day emoticon if I knew the shortcut.

[BIGINJAPAN]

I just wanted to point out that no matter Canada or the US, the tax system is fucked. I realize income tax is probably the biggest tax one pays every year, but what about the taxes on everything else ?
-property tax
-Clothing
-Booze
-Tobacco
-gas
-tires
-tourism
-state and provincial income tax
- GST and PST (canada only)
-capital gains
-estate tax
-land transfer tax in most provinces when you buy a house.
I could go on and on. Point is when are we going to realize how much we are getting fucked by all levels of government and not receiving anywhere near the service we should be getting based on the amount they take from us. At the end of the year you probably get to keep 20% of actual income after all taxes are paid.

I also have a question for our american friends on the forum. I know it usually varies from state to state but do you guys have taxes on food ? Or is Canada the only place on the planet you actually have to pay taxes on food ?

[MMM]

(09-20-2012 02:05 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Summum ius, summa iniuria

Tax credits, deductions, personal exemption, special-interest groups, and so and so forth.

Each one of these tax-credits represents staggering injustice. The thousands of pages of tax-code is a tax in and of itself - it robs ordinary people of the ability to understand the laws that govern them, rendering them helpless in the face of political meddling, panders to special-interest groups, and only the most resourceful come out on top. Democrats and Republicans both have done their best to make things even more dubious, even if I sympathize with the Republican efforts to make children more affordable. And it requires us to maintain an army of tax lawyers that cost us an estimated 50bn USD annually. How many tens of thousands of real jobs could be created if that money was in the real economy?

A real tax-reform to abolish all these deductions except a simple, personal deduction, and all income whether derived from employment, capital gains, interest, dividends or profiting from selling your house would be taxed according to whatever bracket that income put you in. And you wouldn't have six seperate brackets. You'd have three. One for the lower classes, one for the middle, and one for the upper - ideally at increments of 5, 10 and 10 percent (ie. marginal rates of 5, 15 and 25 percent).

This would lower the marginal tax-rate for the highest earners from 35 to 25, while raising the effective tax rate on the nation's wealthiest from 20 to 25.

Simplyfying the tax-code from thousands to just a few pages should be a goal of any freedom-loving government.

The thing is, no single group is willing to give up it's individual stake in the tax-code. Charitable donations, child tax-credits, interest deductions, every other reduction. People will fight tooth and nail to keep their meagre handouts like a virus slowly killing off its host.

The federal government ought to derive the rest of its funding from a small consumption tax (< 4%) and a corporate tax (15%), and a tariff on Chinese imports @ 25% (until the Chinese fully float their currency). This combined with reducing defense spending to 3% of GDP (a relatively high rate, still), and ending immigration of low-skilled labor (and repatriating low-skilled labor immigrants already here), and entitlement reform (turning SS into Chilean style private accounts, ie. a "forced" savings set a fixed rate with contributions shared by the citizen and the public, and making other entitlements income adjusted) can balance the budget in just a few years.

In fact, I'd bet with a simple, straight-forward policy like that the US government could be debt-free by 2030.

Yep. A flat tax is the way to go.

[ElJefe]

(09-21-2012 03:28 AM)MMM Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 02:05 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

A real tax-reform to abolish all these deductions except a simple, personal deduction, and all income whether derived from employment, capital gains, interest, dividends or profiting from selling your house would be taxed according to whatever bracket that income put you in. And you wouldn't have six seperate brackets. You'd have three. One for the lower classes, one for the middle, and one for the upper - ideally at increments of 5, 10 and 10 percent (ie. marginal rates of 5, 15 and 25 percent).

This would lower the marginal tax-rate for the highest earners from 35 to 25, while raising the effective tax rate on the nation's wealthiest from 20 to 25.

Yep. A flat tax is the way to go.

Obviously, I'm too wordy, because you didn't see that I didn't advocate a flat-tax.

A progressive tax-system makes the most sense to me as an economist. The marginal value of a dollar for you if you're relatively poor is much, much higher than the MV for you if you already make 50,000, or even 100,000 USD.

Great Britain was the first country to introduce a progessive tax-system. It enabled them to defeat France during the Napoleonic Wars and bank-roll the entire European effort against Napoleon as well.

The marginal tax rate in the US on income is very high. I'm advocating reducing that and instead making all forms of income subject to the same rate of taxation.

[Duke Castile]

A flat tax, or fair tax is progressive because people who only make a certain income get that money back every month. Everyone else after a certain level of income keeps paying taxes for what they purchase.

No one should have to pay 35% of their money. Not hedge fund managers and not middle class republicans or democrats.

Property tax? Let's call it what it really is. RENT. You can't own property in this country. If you don't pay your property tax the gov't takes it from you. It's bullshit.

[Deluge]

(09-21-2012 03:53 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The marginal tax rate in the US on income is very high.

That didn't make sense to me, so I googled it. The highest tax bracket for American's is only 35% for every dollar $388k. Compare that to where I live the 2nd highest bracket is 37% for every dollar over only $80k. U.K, Canada, Australia etc all have higher rates on even lower brackets compared to you. In total your tax revenue is only 26% of your GDP, the lowest of any developed state tied with South Korea. Of course, nobody wants to hear that (relatively) they're not paying a lot in tax.

Other then that though I really like some of your ideas.

[Duke Castile]

(09-21-2012 04:47 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 03:53 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The marginal tax rate in the US on income is very high.

That didn't make sense to me, so I googled it. The highest tax bracket for American's is only 35% for every dollar $388k. Compare that to where I live the 2nd highest bracket is 37% for every dollar over only $80k. U.K, Canada, Australia etc all have higher rates on even lower brackets compared to you. In total your tax revenue is only 26% of your GDP, the lowest of any developed state tied with South Korea. Of course, nobody wants to hear that (relatively) they're not paying a lot in tax.

Other then that though I really like some of your ideas.

You aren't factoring in state taxes.

And what I'm hearing is "well other developed countries steal more of their peoples' money so you shouldn't complain about your money being stolen"

[Deluge]

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 04:47 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 03:53 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

The marginal tax rate in the US on income is very high.

That didn't make sense to me, so I googled it. The highest tax bracket for American's is only 35% for every dollar $388k. Compare that to where I live the 2nd highest bracket is 37% for every dollar over only $80k. U.K, Canada, Australia etc all have higher rates on even lower brackets compared to you. In total your tax revenue is only 26% of your GDP, the lowest of any developed state tied with South Korea. Of course, nobody wants to hear that (relatively) they're not paying a lot in tax.

Other then that though I really like some of your ideas.

You aren't factoring in state taxes.

I know, hence why I included the tax revenue as percent of GDP figures. Even with your state taxes, property taxes and what not you're paying a lot less.

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

And what I'm hearing is "well other developed countries steal more of their peoples' money so you shouldn't complain about your money being stolen"

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm saying it's absurd to call them "very high". Very high compared to who? Somalia?

Really though, it comes down the quality of the public services you are paying for. Hence why lowering taxes isn't nearly as big a political issue here as it is for you guys, we may pay more but we get a lot more back because of it, hence why we don't (or rarely) get the "my tax dollars are being stolen" mindset over here.

[Hades]

I don't really tend to be partisan on this (republicans and democrats are both disagreeable to me), but there's a good reason for politicians to make a lot of money. If political offices paid no money, then it would be impossible for Average Joe to get elected.

Despite this I'm going to go out on a limb and say that though Average Joe getting elected is kind of a myth these days (if you have great social power you tend to have gotten money first), I'm hesitant to tax politicians more. My state politician flies back home to his family on the regular and basically breaks even with his paycheck.

[ElJefe]

(09-21-2012 05:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 04:47 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

That didn't make sense to me, so I googled it. The highest tax bracket for American's is only 35% for every dollar $388k. Compare that to where I live the 2nd highest bracket is 37% for every dollar over only $80k. U.K, Canada, Australia etc all have higher rates on even lower brackets compared to you. In total your tax revenue is only 26% of your GDP, the lowest of any developed state tied with South Korea. Of course, nobody wants to hear that (relatively) they're not paying a lot in tax.

Other then that though I really like some of your ideas.

You aren't factoring in state taxes.

I know, hence why I included the tax revenue as percent of GDP figures. Even with your state taxes, property taxes and what not you're paying a lot less.

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

And what I'm hearing is "well other developed countries steal more of their peoples' money so you shouldn't complain about your money being stolen"

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm saying it's absurd to call them "very high". Very high compared to who? Somalia?

Really though, it comes down the quality of the public services you are paying for. Hence why lowering taxes isn't nearly as big a political issue here as it is for you guys, we may pay more but we get a lot more back because of it, hence why we don't (or rarely) get the "my tax dollars are being stolen" mindset over here.

Marginal tax rates on income from employment are high. End of story.

Effective tax-rates are not that high. You can look up the Wikipedia article. Effective taxation tops at about 25 percent for the upper middle-class then drops to about 20 percent for the nation's wealthiest.

That's, in essence, a regressive tax-system. In addition, it's estimated the US spends 500bn USD a year on regulatory work.

That's like choosing to take a 10 minute longer drive to the grocery store every time you go because you think that road needs more traffic. It's tremendously inefficient.

Eliminating deductions and information over-load and simplifying the tax-code will reduce regulatory burden, increase certainty and transperancy (which benefits everyone in particular the poorest). It will mean higher effective tax rates for some groups, but overall the simplification will create enough certainty in the future that people will begin to realize economic decisions they've been putting off for a while.

In particular eliminating interest-rate deductions will be good for the US because it will improve the over-all balance sheets as people save more, reducing the our gearing and improve long-term budget sustainability.

A big part of the crisis is uncertainty about the future, and a great deal of uncertainty comes from the inability of government to offer a comprehensive solution that addresses long-term challenges. Right now people don't know what to expect, and therefore economic decisions and activity are being postponed. In addition, people hardly understand the laws that govern them right now, that adds to uncertainty.

It's like asking a high-school kid to do complicated calculus (without teaching him how) then telling him "by the way, your entire future depends on whether you get the right answer or not". You think he's going to make a decision or postpone?

The solution is to get rid of the damn calculus question so he can get back to doing what he does best, ie. opening a small business, hiring an extra worker, investing his cash savings, and so on.

Both sides are guilty of worsening this problem, and I doubt Romney will change this even though he as a private equity man is more familiar than anyone with how this kind of stuff can sabotage business decisions. There's simply too many special-interest groups in Washington and Congress has too much legislative power.

What I do know is that Obama has made these problems significantly worse, and that's why I'm voting for the other guy. Monstrous bureaucracy and inefficiency, runaway spending and abasive foreign policy is the best he has to offer.

In a world of two evils, Romney is the lesser in the eyes of this RooshV member.

[Deluge]

(09-21-2012 06:20 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 05:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 04:47 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

That didn't make sense to me, so I googled it. The highest tax bracket for American's is only 35% for every dollar $388k. Compare that to where I live the 2nd highest bracket is 37% for every dollar over only $80k. U.K, Canada, Australia etc all have higher rates on even lower brackets compared to you. In total your tax revenue is only 26% of your GDP, the lowest of any developed state tied with South Korea. Of course, nobody wants to hear that (relatively) they're not paying a lot in tax.

Other then that though I really like some of your ideas.

You aren't factoring in state taxes.

I know, hence why I included the tax revenue as percent of GDP figures. Even with your state taxes, property taxes and what not you're paying a lot less.

(09-21-2012 04:49 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

And what I'm hearing is "well other developed countries steal more of their peoples' money so you shouldn't complain about your money being stolen"

I'm not saying don't complain, I'm saying it's absurd to call them "very high". Very high compared to who? Somalia?

Really though, it comes down the quality of the public services you are paying for. Hence why lowering taxes isn't nearly as big a political issue here as it is for you guys, we may pay more but we get a lot more back because of it, hence why we don't (or rarely) get the "my tax dollars are being stolen" mindset over here.

Marginal tax rates on income from employment are high. End of story.

Effective tax-rates are not that high. You can look up the Wikipedia article. Effective taxation tops at about 25 percent for the upper middle-class then drops to about 20 percent for the nation's wealthiest.

Once again, high compared to what? If you were talking about states in Scandinavia (where the tax revenue to GDP ratio is almost half) I'd agree with you, if you were talking about France's proposed 75% millionaire's tax under Hollande's Socialist Party I'd agree with you. But it's impossible to look at the facts and honestly say Americans pay "very high" tax if you compare them to other developed states.

[ElJefe]

I think we're in agreement. The marginal tax rate is the tax rate on the last earned dollar. For income, it's 35% at the Federal level, but that's not counting numerous other taxes of various sorts. The true marginal tax-rate is somewhat higher, probably close to 50% in states like New York. Now that's high.

Effective tax rates are how high a share of total income do you pay in tax, and here Americans pay one of the lower levels in the OECD. Yet, the effective tax-rate for the wealthiest is LOWER than for a large part of the middle class. I see that as inefficient.

When you include the regulatory burden, the amount of money that goes to tax-lawyers, and other opportunity costs from high taxation (such as labor supply), I'm going to go out on a limb, but I'm willing to bet anything it's quite high. But I haven't done any calculations. To me, from eye-balling and the numbers I have seen, the bureaucracy and politicians and the scope of their power is a huge impedement to economic progress. The solution is a much simpler, fairer tax-code (although still a progressive tax).

[Hooligan Harry]

I read threads like this, and I wonder if the US will ever come right. This "us vs the rich" sickness that has taken over is not going to end anytime soon it seems, and sadly there is zero accountability on either side. This thinking is a sickness, and once it takes hold its a slippery downward slope. I visit Mikes blog and like most of his posts, but this is one issue we will probably never see eye to eye on.

Everyone is playing the frikken victim card here.

Carried interest is income that was already taxed. Why must you pay double taxation and why are you punishing

1) Savers?
2) Investors who add liquidity to banks?

You should not even be paying tax on interest, let alone CARRIED INTEREST. New income in a bank account would have been taxed already. You paid tax on it if its net income. Taxing its returns when saved in bank accounts is exactly why so many people are holding money offshore now. You kill incentive to save money.

Jesus, its like you guys are quite cool to remove as many incentives as you can for people to invest. This is why business is dying and shit is not going to get better for you. You are trying to tax you way out of a hole, not grow your way out of it. It never works and cannot work, but hey, you want your free shit now!

My partner was looking to move to the USA. We were going to establish a plant in Florida, where he wants to live. We have been wanting to make a push into the US with all the activity in the natural gas market there and with the new oil deposits. I mentioned on here before that I needed to come out in June, but we canned it.

We have since cut the idea completely:

1 - Privacy laws being invaded to ridiculous levels. US demands access to our company records even when they are abroad because a US resident will have foreign holdings in their view, and we are private company. He has to agree to company audits of our entire operation at the whim of the IRS. This also includes access to company data held in foreign countries, Im talking shit like email and even IP. So not just the US business, everything everywhere. Please, go fuck yourself America. You are not the prom queen anymore.

2 - Corporate taxes in the USA are so high at the moment that it simply makes no sense for us to fabricate there. Labor is available and highly skilled, but with taxation where its sitting and the way we see little help with financed capital equipment like we would elsewhere, costs to establish are not only high, our ongoing costs make no sense at all. Operational costs are not bad on the surface, but this is tantamount to corporate theft and the way they tax structured finance. Lol, no wonder unemployment is rising. Investment risk cant be reduced through effective operational finance or scaled finance, you have to take the entire hit almost upfront.

3 - He has realised he gets killed with taxes in his own personal capacity. We all take dividends, we dont take salaries. We pay our staff salaries, we take dividends. The company pays corporate tax, and then we pay tax on the dividend in our personal capacity. I have explained on this forum before that dividend tax at income tax levels would see us taxed over 70% of our income, but that also fell on deaf ears because half the time people have no fucking clue how money or taxation even seems to work. The company tax is a tax on us, its our income. No company income, we starve. In the USA, with capital gains, dividends and all the other taxes, he is looking at almost 60% of his income being taxed if he lives in Florida. You have basically made a highly taxed social democracy like Australia look like Singapore. Also, his investments abroad are taxed, so he is double taxed and triple taxed in some cases, all for the privilege of living in Florida.

4. Floridas regulations, laws, levies, taxes, etc. My god. Some of the requirements were so absurd they made no sense. The federal stuff was one thing, but the state stuff was the final nail for the whole thing. I thought Australians suffered with red tape, but Florida? Wahahaha, what an eye opener that was.

We are not massive. Plant would have employed about 9 people total only, maybe 10/11, and would have taken a while to expand while we established a pipeline out there. But still, it was local investment, local jobs, and a guy worth a small fortune living locally. Buying houses, spending locally, trying to grow the business locally. This division manufactures.

We pulled the plug though. Why fuckin bother? Im not going to see our personal shit go to the IRS every year, the plant makes no sense for us as a business, only for him personally, and in his personal capacity he loses too much money by living there removing what personal incentive he has.

My partner has since decided to stay in Sydney, and he will fly his Costa Rican wife out to visit the folks more often instead. He is better off just running the holiday visas and maybe buying property. Thats it.

We are going to treat the northern fields like we would Russia, and we are going to work with local partners instead. No operations in the USA, we view the business climate as completely inhospitable.

Take what you want from it, but I expect that we will be thrown into the greedy pile like so many here love to do. Does not matter, if this is the way we felt, I imagine its only a very small example of whats happening on a broad scale.

I was always confident that the USA would come right and have stated that a few times on here before. Lately, my mind has changed a bit I must say. Given what we experienced and what I have seen now first hand?

Not so confident anymore.