Jonny Depp's simple economic plan....

[Playinghardball]

[Bluenorthwest]

1. I'll second that.

Johnny is a good guy.

[Brickbat]

2. I really doubt he said that.

But it's nice to look at.

[Adrahil]

3. K&R NT

[TBF]

4. It's a good plan -

but I'm not sure he even lives in this country.

[Brickbat]

6. He left France because he didn't want to be taxed there and the U.S.

[angstlessk]

10. There may be other reasons...check out this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021346260

[Democracyinkind]

51. Which is perfectly reasonable. Opinion offered by someone in pretty much the same situation. nt

[jmowreader]

5. Too simple

Even if you taxed the 1% out of existence, there aren't enough of them tp solve the economic problems.

[angstlessk]

8. Ya know it's called a beginning....

No, but THAT and enabling the rest of the community to make a decent wage might.l

[adirondacker]

9. yea, I'd move it to the top 30%. nt

[CFLDem]

11. Hell, I'd raise it on the top 80%.

With income disparity the way it is, those are the pricks making all of the money.

[larkrake]

19. just tax the corporations, for once

the one percent will fall in line with them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. .....uh huh,....sure......

[nikto]

13. It would help clean up the mess

No more economic royalty?

It couldn't hurt in the long run.

[ErikJ]

14. MORE tax brackets needed as well.

In the 1950's we had about 20 tax brackets progressively higher. Now we have about 2 or 3. The GOP are getting closer to their "flat-tax" dream all the time.
By the way, the 1950's tax rate on the median income was less than it is today.

[quakerboy]

38. That is a simple assertion, but not necessarily correct

Seeing as the top 1% hold over a third of the wealth in our nation, and take home about 20% of the income each year, raising their taxes by a fairly reasonable amount actually can make a big difference.

Think about it. If you add a 25% tax on the top one % income, you are talking about adding 5% to the tax base. Im pretty sure that most any of us would take 5% raise any day of the week.

In point of fact, That's almost exactly what we need to do to bring some semblance of of fairness into the system. It turns out that the 25% I pulled out of my rear is almost exactly the difference between the top marginal rate of 39.6% and the capital gains rate of 15%.

If you looked at taxing the wealth as opposed to the income, then that number nearly doubles, though its not sustainable. Without actually doing them any substantial harm in the pocketbook.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. Do you listen to Rush much?

That is exactly his argument.

The top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year.

If the very wealthy take almost half of total earnings, they should certainly pay almost half of America's tax bill.

[jmowreader]

58. I don't listen to Rush at all

Limbosevic's argument is, we can't fix the problem just by raising taxes only on the rich, so we shouldn't do anything but cut-cut-cut: cut taxes, cut non-defense spending, cut social programs.

Yes, there are still people who think lowering tax rates increases tax revenues. It's never actually happened, but they will tell you that it works every time it's tried.

The theory given by the very far left is, we can fix all the economic problems and make things all shiny and new by just taxing the shit out of the rich.

That sounds really nice, but the problem is not just that there aren't enough of the rich to solve the problem themselves (and if they really WANTED to fix the problem they would have by now), but they own congressmen who only know how to write tax cuts.

Do you really want to fix the economy? Throw away the entirety of the Internal Revenue Code and replace it with the one we had when Nixon was in office, with the brackets adjusted for inflation. (I was going to say Eisenhower, but Ike purposely set tax rates high to punish the rich for war profiteering.) The beauty of loopholes, which the Nixon tax code was full of, is that the only way you can use them is to spend money in ways that benefit the economy.

[LiberalAndProud]

59. They have no intention of cutting middle class taxes.

They have no problem and voice no objection when tax rates for the rich are cut while simultaneously raising taxes on the middle class. I'd be wiling to go back to the tax structure that Reagan left us for a start. Our current tax code is beyond ridiculous.

[jmowreader]

61. You mean the first Reagan tax code?

I could almost live with the Kemp-Roth structure, but the tax code he left office with - 28 percent top tax rate and tax hikes on the working class - was the beginning of all the evil in the world.

[arikara]

40. But taxing them

and taxing the corporations, and quit with the corporate welfare schemes, and stop with the warmongering activity. That would all be a good start.

[Vincardog]

54. It would be a great start and it would stop them from doing more harm.

[angstlessk]

7. There ain't nothing sexier than a good looking liberal..he and Clooney

Make sleeping so much more fun

[ErikJ]

15. That would solve 90% of the economic problems.

We also need many more tax brackets as well on the rich.
Higher tax would:
------keep more money circulating in the economy rather than the rich's banks and stocks.

----------Tamp down greed whcih motivates the rich to make short-term gambles with their company and our economy.

--------Keep the rich from gambling so much on the stock market and commodities markets which causes unsustainable bubbles that crash - taking the whole economy with it

------Keep more money in the corporations rather than senior level executives salaries, so that the corps could pay their employees more and/ or expand to hire more people.

[Cryptoad]

16. Ummmmm ,,,,,

[Wounded Bear]

17. A lot...nt

[grahamhgreen]

18. Yup. It's what works.

[Nye Bevan]

20. "Johnny Depp moves back to America to avoid paying taxes in France"

Actor Johnny Depp has moved out of France and returned to America because he didn’t want to become a permanent French resident and pay income tax there.

The Pirates of the Caribbean star and his longterm partner, French singer/actress Vanessa Paradis, moved to her native country in the 1990s to live away from the Hollywood spotlight with their two children.

However, Depp has now moved his family out of France after government officials asked him to become a permanent resident, as he feared he would end up paying tax in both countries.

He tells Britain’s The Guardian newspaper, “Well, I kind of do (live back in America). I’m between wherever I end up on location, and then the States. (I left because) France wanted a piece of me. They wanted me to become a permanent resident. Permanent residency status – which changes everything. They just want… Dough. Money… I’m certainly not ready to give up my American citizenship.”

http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2011/11/johnny-depp-moves-back-to-america-to-avoid-paying-taxes-in-france/

[pragmatic_dem]

28. To avoid paying taxes in BOTH countries. nt

[Nye Bevan]

30. The US credits foreign taxes paid against your US tax bill. (nt)

[pragmatic_dem]

34. Not when I worked in Canada, I had massive tax bill, paid both US and Canadian taxes and top

US/Canadian tax firm filed for me (paid by corporation) and could not reduce bill.

[Nye Bevan]

35. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_tax_credit

[pragmatic_dem]

37. Yes, I am aware of this, however, it didn't help my situation

on work visa back in early 1990s and I don't recall why. Plus I paid taxes to Provence and city. I was not making huge salary but there might have been income limits, eventually Canadian govt. asked me to take perm. residence and the thought of double taxes and expensive tax work killed that idea and i didn't go back, although looking back, it isn't clear I made best decision because at that time I could get a decent US health plan out of pocket for fam4 and with no pre-existing bullshit at $5K per year.

Times have changed.

[joeglow3]

44. You got fucked

I am a tax CPA and have done many ex-pat/in-pat returns for multiple Big Four firms and have never seen a situation you are describing.

[pragmatic_dem]

55. lol - maybe so

More likely there was some exception. Wish I could remember firm, too lazy to dig it out of files. Maybe D & T?

I still have RRSP up there. Trying to figure out what to do with that. Been holding on to it for emergency.

[joeglow3]

57. If D&T did it, I can't imagine it was wrong.

That is one of the firms I worked at. However, I cannot think of a situation where you would get taxed twice and not get an FTC.

[arikara]

41. Canada has just made a deal with the US

where they send banking information of whoever the US deems to be a citizen over so that the US can claw back all sorts of taxes. Thousands of these people don't even realize that they are considered to be US citizens. There are a lot of very upset people. The banks don't like it either because they're responsible for compiling and sending the info and it will cost them money.

Apparently the US is the only country that demands taxes from people when they aren't resident in the country.

[jtuck004]

21. But this President make their tax cuts permanent. Maybe you another party,

one that gives a flying rats ass about working people. Because that would mean backtracking on those he has done the most for, and their banks.

Budget Deal Makes Permanent 82 Percent of President Bush’s Tax Cuts.
By Chye-Ching Huang

January 3, 2013
Related Areas of Research

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA)[1] , which President Obama signed into law last night, makes permanent 82 percent of President Bush’s tax cuts.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office estimate that making permanent all of the Bush tax cuts would have cost $3.4 trillion over 2013-2022.[2]

That’s the price tag for making permanent:

all of the income, capital gains, and dividends tax cuts first enacted under President Bush;
the estate tax at the levels that it was at in 2012; and
the increase in the cost of “patching” the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), caused by the other Bush tax cuts, to ensure that more middle-income taxpayers are not subject to the AMT. The other Bush tax cuts threw more taxpayers onto the AMT. That increased the cost of indexing the AMT parameters for inflation. (Otherwise, the AMT would have cancelled out much of the value of the other Bush tax cuts.[3] The $3.4 trillion does not include the cost of indexing the AMT for inflation that would have existed even without the Bush tax cuts.)
...

More here.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Since President Obama's reelection, the top rate of income tax on the rich has increased by 4.6%.

The top rate of tax on interest income for the rich has increased by 8.4%.

The top rate of tax on capital gains and dividends for the rich has increased by 8.8%.

And these increases are permanent.

[jtuck004]

24. That doesn't overcome the cuts that came previously. And it doesn't overcome the

tax advantages people like Mi$$ RobMe have been given to destroy people's jobs.

[Nye Bevan]

31. The top income tax rate is back to the Clinton-era level.

How much higher do you want it to be?

[jtuck004]

32. To start with no more special treatment for so-called investment, a dodge being

used to take assets and put them in the pockets of the wealthy.

[SomethingFishy]

42. How about closer to the level it was when we were prospering?

Before the 80's.. And you know even I don't think we need to go that far. Anything over 1 million a year should be taxed at 50%, and the cap should be removed from S.S. Plus any money you don't work for, capitol gains, inheritance, should also be taxed at 50%.

Not to mention that adding 4.8% to the taxes but leaving all the loopholes doesn't really do shit.

[joeglow3]

46. What good does removing the cap on SS do?

All the accomplishes is increasing their SS payouts when they start drawing.

[SomethingFishy]

48. Not the cap on payouts... the cap on pay ins..

Right now you only pay in on anything under... I believe it's $125,000..

Tax them fuckers for every penny they "earn".

I make between 60-75,000 a year depending on how much work I get. I support 5 people with that money. I pay 26% income tax out of my checks. I get about 3% of that back at the end of the year.. So me, a person supporting 5 people on 75k a year pays 23% and Warren Buffet with all his money to pay lawyers and accountants pays less than 15%. Hardly seems "fair and balanced".

[joeglow3]

49. You are confusing income taxes with SS taxes

[SomethingFishy]

50. Am I? Ok then strike the S.S. line from my response.

Agree with it now?

[joeglow3]

52. Yes, I agree with you.

[LanternWaste]

43. Eisenhower-Kennedy rates.

Eisenhower-Kennedy rates.

[phleshdef]

33. What cuts that came previously?

You mean the ones that only benefitted folks who pay into social security every paycheck (aka not the rich)?

Admit it, you pulled that out of your ass.

[jtuck004]

36. Since you brought up "ass", hi.

Try reading what was posted previously. Though I won't be able to read your answer. Enjoy the echo.

[marble falls]

23. Unavoidable, the sooner the better.

[YOHABLO]

25. Johnny Depp still only pays taxes on $117,000 for FICA .. and how much is he worth?

[Nye Bevan]

27. He will receive the exact same Social Security check as someone earning $117,000 when he retires,

so that seems fair to me. He pays the same into the system and gets the same out of the system.

[joeglow3]

47. You realize what you draw is based on what you pay in, right?

[kitt6]

26. Malaysia's war crimes on

Bush and Cheney.

[kitt6]

29. Bush and Cheney/Malaysia

developing......

[daleanime]

45. Good!

That's a start.

[chompers]

53. It's working out for France.

[Boom Sound 416]

56. He lives in France

[Recursion]

60. And how do you do that? Income taxes don't hit capital gains.

That's where they make their money.

But capital gains taxes also hit the middle class pretty hard when it comes to retirement funds. And right now we don't have a progressive capital gains tax at all.

[Cha]

62. K