Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No.
But I used this example in the thread - You Can't Soak the Rich, post #28.
Tiger Wood's generates income, that is taxed. Warren Buffet generates wealth, that is not taxed. Tiger Wood's wealth is currently income based. Warren Buffet's wealth is asset based. At some point Tiger Wood's will stop accumulating wealth based on income and start accumulating wealth based on assets, when he makes the transition his lifestyle won't change but his tax burden will. Actually, I bet the odds are that Tiger Wood's has already structured some of the income from endorsement deals in such a manner that greatly reduces his reportable taxable income from those deals.
Are you saying that you don't see the problem with our current system of taxation? The real impact of Bush's tax cuts is that "rich" people have less of an incentive to employ tax avoidance strategies given the lower marginal rates, do you still believe that rolling back Bush's tax cuts will actually cause rich people to pay more if it is not in their financial interests to do it?
|
But he gives lots of money to Charities. In my view giving money to a charity is pretty much equivalent to being taxed, just you are picking what you want done with your money. His business still gets taxed. Also how does he avoid the estate tax? Maybe I don't understand that tax well enough but when he dies all of his assets will be transfered to his beneficiaries and each of them will be taxed for the value of those assets no?