Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
Guess you didn't even read it huh?
"The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy?including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives?were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.
For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.
Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed."
|
i read what you posted here. considering that was the only thing that was posted, i thought it was what you were thinking was important.
however, since we're going ot play this game:
Quote:
|
It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult.
|
and around the time you're quoting 'tax shelters' like it's offshore investments:
Quote:
|
The company traces its origins to Zapata Oil, founded in 1953 by future-U.S. President George H. W. Bush, along with his business partners John Overbey, Hugh Liedtke, Bill Liedtke, and Thomas J. Devine. Bush and Thomas J. Devine were oil-wildcatting associates
|
means that it's about this time that offshore investments/banks seem to really get started.
So how is a tax rate supposed to be effectively applied, if the 'worth' of the individual or company is kept offshore?
how does your article have any basis of relevancy, if it's trying to explain how the 'increased taxes won't do much good', if the real problems are even worse today than they were in the 1950s?
do business and live in north america? pay north american taxes.
if not, go move to Libya. potentially take it over.