Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
While the figures may be somewhat astonishing (the magnitude of the tax savings, the narrowness of who benefits/controls this), the general theme strikes me, unfortunately, as old news.
One datum that I found interesting is that the top 1%, excluding the most wealthy (the top 1% of this 1%), have not been able to lower their taxes. In a stable tax law environment (no significant tax law changes for several years), the top 1% of top 1% were able to adapt to the laws and reduce their effective tax rate by about 1/6. But the other 99% of the top 1% didn't improve their gaming of the system.
That suggests to me that so many of the tax schemes you see advertised, posted, etc. are not cost effective, even for the the vast majority of the wealthy. I'll take my silver linings where I can find them.
Comments
http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/two-tiered-taxes-one-system-rich-one-everyone-else/
While the figures may be somewhat astonishing (the magnitude of the tax savings, the narrowness of who benefits/controls this), the general theme strikes me, unfortunately, as old news.
One datum that I found interesting is that the top 1%, excluding the most wealthy (the top 1% of this 1%), have not been able to lower their taxes. In a stable tax law environment (no significant tax law changes for several years), the top 1% of top 1% were able to adapt to the laws and reduce their effective tax rate by about 1/6. But the other 99% of the top 1% didn't improve their gaming of the system.
That suggests to me that so many of the tax schemes you see advertised, posted, etc. are not cost effective, even for the the vast majority of the wealthy. I'll take my silver linings where I can find them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/thanks-obama-highest-earners-tax-rates-rose-sharply-in-2013.html
although note that 'rose sharply' is still not so high.