Arnolds Taxes...

[Larry Gude]

...I got something I want all you 'progressive' tax rate fans to think about because you are also the folks who typically decry money in politics, especially when your guy loses.

Last night they streamed on the bottom of the screen this interesting tidbit:

Arnold income 2001: $30 million...Fed taxes $7 million...Cali State taxes $3 million...Governors annual salary $175,000...Arnolds gifts to charity 2001 $4 million.

Now, $30 million is a lotta scratch. We all think about that and say "Wow! One year and I'd buy me an Island and retire!"

The mindset that drives you towards a $30 million income is not the one that somehow drops off the face of the earth the next year...though I'm sure there are exceptions.

The person who reaches that kind of ability to command that kind of money, executive, actor, musician, athlete, teacher...(just trying to see if you are paying attention!) SPENDS that kind of money like you and I do: Mortgage, auto, food, clothes and then SPENDS millions on staff, assistants, travel, exorbitant gifts etc. Figure up the principal and interest on a $10 million pad.

Point is they have a lifestyle to maintain and LOTS of people who depend on that lifestyle and it ain't cheap.

Real point is if you think somebody is going to pay $10 million in taxes and NOT try to get their moneys worth out of governments, you are high. They have the same right as you or I and they have WAY more incentive.

Wanna reduce that influence, reduce that incentive.

Or, you can explain how Arnold got his $10 million worth out of government last year.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Wanna reduce that influence, reduce that incentive.

*she scratches her head as Larry's point flies over it*

I did notice that Arnold's charitable donations exceeded his State income tax. I like it when incredibly wealthy people give big $$$ to charity and to help fund schools or what have you. It puts lie to the rantings of liberals that the rich are greedy and keep their money under their mattress.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sorry darling...

...I'll try again.

If you had to pay $1500 a gallon for gas, most people pay $1.50 and some people get it for free, all because your $1500 balances everything out, wouldn't you try to do something about it?

If you buy a $10 million home it costs a lot more to run and maintain it but at least you are getting more for your money.

Progressive rates dictate that in effect Arnold has to pay 1,000 times the cost of our home, but all he gets is our home.

Arnold got a check for $30 million for being the star in a movie that would not have pulled audience like it does were it not for HIM. He then writes a check for 3 and 7 million bucks for...what?

The charity, he is GIVING what he sees fit to the charity of his CHOICE. If you are paying $10 large you'll want to do the same, try and get it to go where you'd like, yes?

 

[Bruzilla]

I guess I miss the point too. Why would Arnold care where his $10,000,000 bucks went? He has several hundred million in assets, what does he need to get from the government? I doubt he's looking for federal cheese or food stamps. Anything he wants he can rent or buy. I think to a guy who has a net worth of like $700 million isn't going to be worried about $10 million.

 

[Larry Gude]

You bunch of...

...commies! LOL

I don't know how else to put this, but damned if I won't try!

It is inconsistent to argue, as campaign finance reform fans do, that there is to much private money in politics while also supporting tax policies that put people, the top 5% of earners, in the position of paying for 50% of everything government chooses to spend AND then expect them to not have undue influence.

If Arnold cares so little about $10 million he can write me a check today. Assets, like the ones that make Bill Gates the richest man, are NOT cash and are highly exposed to government action/inaction. See Enron, MCI, Global Crossing et al (California?).

I'd argue Arnold has MORE interest in what government is up to than the average Joe. He has MUCH more on the line.

I still argue that the ONLY way to reduce undue influence is to reduce undue liability. The ONLY way to increase civic awareness is through civic participation which inlcudes tax policy.

It is just as wrong for the poor to pay no taxes. They then have no stake, no real ownership in our country. Then we have the ugly spectre of people who pay nothing supporting policies that force others to pay for them.

My lonely opinion it seems!

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Why would Arnold care where his $10,000,000 bucks went? He has several hundred million in assets, what does he need to get from the government? Anything he wants he can rent or buy. I think to a guy who has a net worth of like $700 million isn't going to be worried about $10 million.

That is one of the most amazing statements I think I have read on these forums. Can I rephrase it for you?

"How dare Arnold care where the government spends his $10 million he paid in taxes! He has plenty! Why should he care in light of how much more than that he has!"

WOW! What exactly is the limit I should be looking for? If I pay $15K in taxes but still have enough net to cover my bills and enjoy life a little, should I too stop worrying about where my tax money is being spent?

And in answer to your question about what does he need to get from the government, that answer would be the same and more as those who pay nothing!

 

[SurfaceTension]

I would tend to think that someone like Arnold is way beyond the saturation point. He probably pays someone to worry about his "fair share" (i.e. reducing it where possible), and concentrates more on dodging government rather than making demands upon it.

Demands on government, and interest in gov't programs, tend to be inversely proportionate to tax paid....I guess I'm missing your point as well.

 

[willie]

It's unanimous. No one understands this thread.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by willie
It's unanimous. No one understands this thread.

What is not understood?

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by willie
It's unanimous. No one understands this thread.

I get it. It's a matter of principle. Tis why I'm for a flat tax. If the poor had to chip in their fair share they may just be a little less gung ho for all the "free programs".

 

[Ken King]

I get it too. But I am for a “consumption tax”, that way all those that get paid under the table or obtain money from illegal avenues pay their share too when they make purchases. If you don’t want to be taxed as much as you have been you simply don’t spend your money.

The only drawbacks to “consumption taxes” are black-markets and smuggling. For that they can put all the out of work IRS agents on those tasks.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but we already deal with "consumption" taxes. That's the problem. You are taxed when you earn it and when you spend it.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Steve
Yeah, but we already deal with "consumption" taxes. That's the problem. You are taxed when you earn it and when you spend it.

Understood, but eliminating the "progressive" (and, for some, oppressive) payroll taxes and establishing a "consumption" tax would in my mind be more in line with paying one's fair share and put the taxes on only one side of the equation.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Ken King
Understood, but eliminating the "progressive" (and, for some, oppressive) payroll taxes and establishing a "consumption" tax would in my mind be more in line with paying one's fair share and put the taxes on only one side of the equation.

Agreed, but it all just seems to be illusory to me, calling it one thing or another. What do you think the consumtion tax should be set at? 10%, 15%, stratified to the 'class' of item purchased?
The last would probably be the best. 1% for food, clothes, etc., up to 15% or more for diamonds and Humvees?

 

[Ken King]

Steve,

Let me educate myself a little more on the topic before I dare offer a specific percentage. I certainly don't consider myself an economic wizard. Hell, I can say with absolute confidence that I don’t even qualify as a novice. But it seems to me that the current payroll scheme has way too many flaws, when viewed from a point of equity, that there has to be a better method. My thinking is that it should be one that is all-inclusive where citizens contribute without regard to the source of their funds.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Ken King
Steve,

Let me educate myself a little more on the topic before I dare offer a specific percentage. I certainly don't consider myself an economic wizard. Hell, I can say with absolute confidence that I don’t even qualify as a novice. But it seems to me that the current payroll scheme has way too many flaws, when viewed from a point of equity, that there has to be a better method. My thinking is that it should be one that is all-inclusive where citizens contribute without regard to the source of their funds.

I threw that last out as an example, not to put you on the spot Ken. I think the 'consumption' route sounds plausible. That way, given my example for instance, the poor (and everyone) would pay very little tax on those things needed to survive. But if one were to start purchasing luxury items, well then you'd pay more tax. That does not negate the requirement for Government to start fulfilling it's role in responsibility to the proletariat.

 

[Lilly]

Maybe I am missing the point too . . .

I understand that of course WE ALL want to see our tax 'investments' in the government pay off - and yeah if I was handing out $10mil I would definitely expect some feedback. But unfortunately that just isn't the way it works!! If we all got out what we put in we would turn into a class society.
I am with Christy on the flat tax - so much simpler!!!

 

[Bruzilla]

I guess what Larry's saying is that if Arnold is paying 10 million in taxes, he (as governor) will be more interested in how that money is spent in CA, meaning that he may unfairly influence decisions that are made that he can benefit from? If that's true I doubt it's much of an issue as from what I've been hearing most of Arnold's business interests are outside of the state of CA (he left just like everybody else )

Steve, what I meant when I said he wouldn't care where his 10 million went was IRT he wouldn't be worried about receiving any entitlement money nor would he rely on government spending. He pays his 10 million because he has to, and then gets on to living his life.