The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 150

Thread: Tax

  1. #1
    Banned Reinier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    south west Holland Europe
    Posts
    8,842

    Tax

    I quote from another board:

    "And in comparison, leaving a middle class income tax rate still close to 30%, while lowering the richest to 3%. "

    Does the USA have a tax system that has richer people pay a lower % of their income to tax?

  2.    Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!


  3. #2
    Ash "Money" Hegde Y2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    4,789
    Nope, the more you make, the more you pay. Not sure what that quote means
    "We fight our battles, we wage our wars, we settle the score, with honor and blood" - Atreyu

    Dontate to my favorite charity!

  4. #3
    Banned Reinier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    south west Holland Europe
    Posts
    8,842
    its probably just a total sillyhead. I hear they have a lot of those over at X

  5. #4
    the stone cold stunner Ironman8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Palmdale, C.A
    Posts
    2,570
    The thing I hate is you gotta pay for alot of useless stuff. Like, recently they added a "9/11" tax in the airports
    You kill me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize....

  6. #5
    Banned Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Eating more pork.
    Posts
    4,592
    Your income is taxed based on the amount above the brackets. Your not taxesd on the first 14? then taxed a percent on the 14 to 25? and then taxed a differant rate for everything abouve 25 and so on. Those are not the exact numbers.
    Tax goes up as your income goes up.

  7. #6
    Tuna Junky mantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    154
    This story you read is true. See this yahoo new link.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._taxes_rich_dc

    The rich people can create all kinds of Trust and other "stuff" to reduce the actual tax they have to pay. In many cases, the most wealthy pays much less tax in percentage compares to the middle class.

  8. #7
    One crazy MOFO/Mail man
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T dot
    Posts
    2,295
    Everyone has the chance to take advantage of these tax exemptions. The rich are just more likely and able to do so.
    w00t

  9. #8
    II MrWebb78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Sac
    Posts
    5,954
    most actual rich people are rich because they understand money, and how it works. im doing my damndest to learn loopholes in the tax system.

    but as an employee it is pretty standard that the more you make, the more they take.
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey

    There is a wide difference between speaking to deceive, and being silent to be impenetrable. - Voltaire

    If it can be imagined, it can be done. - Me

    6'2"
    273 lbs.

  10. #9
    Tuna Junky mantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    154
    We are not just taking about exemptions. Not everyone can take advantage of these "loopholes". You gotta have some money first before if you can do or form "things" to take advantage of these things. For example , you can create a foundation, however, it takes a bit of cash to create one.

  11. #10
    One crazy MOFO/Mail man
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T dot
    Posts
    2,295
    Bolded for those that cant read

    Everyone has the chance to take advantage of these tax exemptions. The rich are just more likely and able to do so.
    They are exemptions... it is your own fault if you don't know them and how to make them work for you.
    w00t

  12. #11
    Banned Reinier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    south west Holland Europe
    Posts
    8,842
    I know rich business people pay very little tax and cheat their way out. a friend of mine works for shell and he says he sees any tax payd as a loss

  13. #12
    Tuna Junky mantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    154
    Gonepostal,

    No need to use word of insult.

    I disagee that everyone can benefit from these "exemption" even if they knew how.

    I like to form a certain type of founation, but I don't have $500,000 to do it. I know how to do it, but I don't have the money to do it. You can argue that it's my "fault" that I don't have the money to do it.

    There are things that rich people are doing to avoid paying taxes "legally" which are not exemptions. They are loopholes. Here is one thing that my boss is doing....

    He formed a non-profit foundation and donated some of his own money into it. He hired himself as the president of the foundation, and pays himself a nice salary. Certain assets were aquired under the foundation, and he gets to use them.

    You can call the above example "exemptions", but I call them loophole.

  14. #13
    Ash "Money" Hegde Y2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    4,789
    Its true that not everyone can take advantage of the tax rules. For example, you can choose a standard deduction, or itemize your deductions. If you dont own a house, then you dont have mortage interest, which generally (not always) makes or breaks your ability to itemize. On the other hand, if you have a million dollar house with huge monthly payments, you will be able to deduct the interest and lower your tax. You do have to have a certain amount of money in order to take advantage of tax rules.
    "We fight our battles, we wage our wars, we settle the score, with honor and blood" - Atreyu

    Dontate to my favorite charity!

  15. #14
    One crazy MOFO/Mail man
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T dot
    Posts
    2,295
    Please read carefully.

    I didn't say everyone COULD take advantage of these exemptions but rather everyone has the CHANCE to do so. Is it my fault you don't own a million dollar house? No but if you had one you could take advantage of it. Everyone has the chance to take advantage of the tax laws and should. Most don't and it is their fault. I never said the tax laws were fair to the rich and poor.
    w00t

  16. #15
    A$$hole detector RoidRage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    469
    Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
    Descending cumulative percentiles

    Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

    Number of returns: [1]
    1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
    1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
    1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
    1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
    1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
    1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
    1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
    1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
    1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
    1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
    1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
    1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
    1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
    1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
    2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572

    Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
    1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
    1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
    1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
    1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
    1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
    1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
    1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
    1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
    1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
    1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
    1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
    1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
    1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
    1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
    2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682


    Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
    1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
    1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
    1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
    1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
    1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
    1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
    1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
    1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
    1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
    1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
    1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
    1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
    1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
    1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
    2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075


    Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
    1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
    1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
    1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
    1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
    1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
    1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
    1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
    1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
    1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
    1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
    1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
    1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
    1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
    1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
    2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755



    Descending cumulative percentiles
    Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%

    Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
    1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
    1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
    1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
    1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
    1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
    1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
    1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
    1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
    1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
    1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
    1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
    1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
    1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
    1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
    2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179


    Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
    1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
    1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
    1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
    1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
    1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
    1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
    1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
    1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
    1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
    1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
    1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
    1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
    1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
    1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
    2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86


    Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
    1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
    1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
    1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
    1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
    1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
    1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
    1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
    1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
    1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
    1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
    1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
    1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
    1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
    2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01


    Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
    1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
    1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
    1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
    1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
    1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
    1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
    1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
    1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
    1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
    1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
    1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
    1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
    1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
    2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09


    N/A-- Not applicable.
    [1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
    [2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
    [3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
    [4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.

    Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.

    Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.


    So you see the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.09% of income taxes. The top 10% pay 67.3% and the top 5% pay 56.47%. The top 50% are those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. The top 1% are those making $293,000 and up. So when people say only the rich are getting a benefit from tax cuts, then congradulations those of you that make $26,000 or more YOU'RE RICH!

  17. #16
    As I Am Paul Stagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    8,668
    First, the reason Buffett is able to pay a 'mere' 3% is that almost ALL of his income comes from tax sheltered investments, which are essentially generated via his vast WEALTH (which is not typically taxed until you die.) He is not a representative sample of the nations top 1% of wage earnres.

    Baed on those pesky facts RR posted (which those on the left are want to ignore), the 'tax cuts for the rich' argument holds virtually no water.

    The most important stat - the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes.
    Squats work better than supplements.
    "You know, if I thought like that, I'd never put more than one plate on the bar for anything, I'd never use bands or chains, I'd never squat to parallel or below, and I'd never let out the slightest grunt when I lift. At some point in your lifting career (assuming you're planning on getting reasonably strong and big), you're going to have to accept that most people think you are some kind of freak." -Sensei
    "You're wrong, and I have a completely irrelevant pubmed abstract that may or may not say so." - Belial
    I has a blog.
    I has a facebook.

  18. #17
    bone crusher
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    0
    yes paul but you neglect payroll taxes which fund social security and medicare (technically, although they are manipulated into general fund revenues), and are extremely regressive since only the first ~35000 USD in income are taxed

    Regardless, we should move to a consumption based tax (similar to a VAT or sales tax) in which absolute necessitities are not taxed (such as food) but all other goods are. Very simply, rich people buy more useless crap, so they will pay more tax. No more loopholes and tax shelter bullsh it
    Last edited by the doc; 05-22-2003 at 10:07 AM.

  19. #18
    bone crusher
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    0
    also, i challenge anyone to refute Warren Buffett's opposition to the tax cuts revealed in hit recent op-ed piece in the washington post

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May19.html

  20. #19
    One crazy MOFO/Mail man
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T dot
    Posts
    2,295
    1. Warren Buffett's income does not come from tax sheltered investments. They come from investments period. But under the proposed tax bill the elmination on taxes on dividends and the reduction of taxes on capital gains his taxes could take a serious nose dive to the single digit percentages. The rich hold much more stock both in percentages and monetary value then the average joe so they would disproportionatly benifit from these reductions/eliminations.
    2. RR posted data that predates 2001 which has no relevance to any debate on current tax bill proposals.
    3. The percentages are calculated based on magnitude which is irrelevant really. For example say Warren Buffet's income for one year is 500million and say the tax rate on this is his stated ~30%. That is 15 million. How many middle class citizens have to file tax returns to equal that 15 million??? A LOT! He being one person seems to be paying a disproportionate amount of taxes if you look at the magnitude. But you need to look at it at a relative perspective. Top 1% pays a lot of money I agree but they make much more...
    4. Oh the most important stat really is the trend of tax rates of upper vs middle class. The top is paying less taxes over time... who picks up the slack?
    w00t

  21. #20
    One crazy MOFO/Mail man
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T dot
    Posts
    2,295
    Originally posted by the doc
    No more loopholes and tax shelter bullsh it
    If we only lived in a perfect world....
    I agree with your view on Warren Buffet. He is a no-nonsense guy that actually cares about someone else's wealth then his. Great guy, and always gives out sound advice.
    w00t

  22. #21
    A$$hole detector RoidRage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    469
    bottom line is that rising taxes are horrible for an economy.

  23. #22
    bone crusher
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    0
    Originally posted by RoidRage
    bottom line is that rising taxes are horrible for an economy.
    Absolutely no evidence to support this. Do you think the tax money just evaporates? Of course not, it is spent by government to build roads, bridges, sewers, tanks, missiles, pay salaries of workers who buy more goods and services... need i go on?

    What is absolutely outrageous is borrowing from my future to fund rediculous tax cuts that only increase the 6.5 TRILLION USD federal debt. Since a significant portion of the bonds that fund the debt are owned by foreigners, the taxes which are spent on debt interest (almost 20% of discretionary spending) leave our country and DO NOT benefit our economy

  24. #23
    As I Am Paul Stagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    8,668
    There is ample evidence to show that government spending of $$ is far less an impact than private.

    A) it costs money to collect and administer the revenue, so instead of the private sector just using the money, the government uses some of it to adinister taking it.

    B) Government spending is incredibly inefficient.

    I agree the debt is a huge issue, but the solution is to stop borrowing and stop spending so freaking much.
    Squats work better than supplements.
    "You know, if I thought like that, I'd never put more than one plate on the bar for anything, I'd never use bands or chains, I'd never squat to parallel or below, and I'd never let out the slightest grunt when I lift. At some point in your lifting career (assuming you're planning on getting reasonably strong and big), you're going to have to accept that most people think you are some kind of freak." -Sensei
    "You're wrong, and I have a completely irrelevant pubmed abstract that may or may not say so." - Belial
    I has a blog.
    I has a facebook.

  25. #24
    A$$hole detector RoidRage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    469
    Amen paul!

    Taxes are just another form of legalized stealing. The only way I would be in favor of any tax is something like a 3% tax that would go strictly to defense as it is written in the constitution that the fed. government provide defense. It is not written in the constituition that the governement supply salary to susie crackwhore for sitting on her ass all day.

    So you having people getting there money back and then in turn spending more since they have more your stimulating the consumer expendatures portion of the GDP. Since people have more dough there more willing to invest so the investment portion of the GDP is stimulated and the government is spending responsibly so the government spending portion of the GDP is stimulated. Economics 101. All that from a simple tax cut. So why are they so evil again?

    Gone postal answer this, Why is it wrong for the government to give your money back? Do you feel UNDERtaxed?
    Last edited by RoidRage; 05-22-2003 at 11:09 AM.

  26. #25
    Banned Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Eating more pork.
    Posts
    4,592
    Back to the subject of not taxing things we need, I like the idea of tax holidays. No sales tax on purchases up to a certain amount. Some states do it before school starts.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •