Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

[amy31416]

I don't have all the documents to make the calculations, but I'm wondering if anyone has kept track of how much wealth they'd have if they never had to pay income taxes.

I think these numbers could be quite an eye-opener to middle class folks who are currently struggling, and I've never seen articles discussing this.

I'm sure there's someone out there who tracks this sort of thing.

[ILUVRP]

i will ask mitt if i see him.

[Dr.3D]

i will ask mitt if i see him.

Yeah, he would probably know.

[Steven Douglas]

It's all going to be different based on what everyone does differently with their income. Assuming just savings, and no investments to speak of, they'd certainly be a sight wealthier than they are now, but still much worse off than they should be, because of the hidden inflation tax from a thoroughly DEBAUCHED currency, which is still very much in effect.

The income tax is a way of cannibalizing just you. The inflation tax is a way of feasting on you AND your children and grandchildren.

[Zippyjuan]

For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm

The Tax Policy Center estimates that for tax year 2011, 46% of households will end up owing nothing in federal income taxes.

The percentage was closer to 40% before the recession, Greenstein said.

[cubical]

For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm

well the money would flow to lower income workers. employers could not afford to keep talent if they did not raise their salary.

[VBRonPaulFan]

For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm

actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.

[helmuth_hubener]

actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.

This is:

a) incorrect, and
b) shortsighted

For the population not paying net income taxes, they still are having the price of everything they buy driven up -- approximately doubled -- by the crippling taxes paid by the individuals and businesses selling them goods and services. Also, the prices are doubled again by the crippling totalitarian micromanagement (called "regulations") the state imposes on everything and everyone.

Far more importantly, it's the long-term growth trajectory that's the key. Let's take someone whose entire income depends upon the state -- someone like a welfare mother or a Boeing executive. The state is eliminated, their income goes to zero. True. They now have no additional stream of wealth coming in for them to consume, so no matter how cheap goods are it doesn't help them because they can't buy any... until they: get a job! Previously, they were doing nothing the market considered at all worthwhile, meaning they were just destroyers of wealth. Now, they can join the ranks of the productive.

And that's the huge difference. Right now millions upon millions upon millions of people (just in the U.S.) are devoting their lives to destroying the economy. Yes, they are spending their entire lives, every day, day after day, destroying the wealth created by you and me. Trillions of dollars -- that is, billions of man-hours -- that is, millions of irreplaceable lives of human beings -- are being squandered, wasted, burned, in that enormous bonfire that is the state.

Time to put out the fire.

[Zippyjuan]

Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders).

It is the higher income workers (the 52% who do pay income taxes) who would have more money to spend if the income tax was eliminated.

[cubical]

Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders).

It is the higher income workers (the 52% who do pay income taxes) who would have more money to spend if the income tax was eliminated.

Because those who employ will have more money to do so. If you and I owned a business and we both instantly got a 20% raise(due to no longer paying taxes), I would have more money to hire away your talent and more money to bid on future labor. Either you would have to match me or out bid me.

[LibForestPaul]

I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.

[The Free Hornet]

I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.

Yes (however I don't know about Newt's moon colonies). It is about quality of life and living in a free society that cherishes individual liberty. Would you rather be rich and in jail or poor but free?

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.

Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.

[helmuth_hubener]

Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.

While all counter-factuals are of necessity speculative, I do not find it in any way divorced from reality. I would imagine the estimate of 50 years worth of progress-inhibition is based on an intuitive understanding of many facts LibForestPaul has observed throughout his life. We have all observed the destructive consequences of having the state and having taxation.

But you do find it to be divorced from reality? How so? Do you have an alternative estimate?

[TheTexan]

threw this together http://jsfiddle.net/8pr4k/embedded/result/

[oyarde]

Looking at just what I had at Social Security and medicaid , only the first 30 years I worked , I would be retired next year , working part time , now, expecting to work another 15 yrears....

[KingRobbStark]

You kidding. The filthy IRS did an audit of my dads business (for the year 2010), and they claimed that he owes over 200k. That's not even including the penalties, and interest. They said they will calculate that later. $#@!ing pigs. Though that doesn't makes any sense, because my dad doesn't even pay that much on taxes to start with. So how can he owe more than what he originally pays? Can anyone offer any input?

[John F Kennedy III]

You kidding. The filthy IRS did an audit of my dads business (for the year 2010), and they claimed that he owes over 200k. That's not even including the penalties, and interest. They said they will calculate that later. $#@!ing pigs. Though that doesn't makes any sense, because my dad doesn't even pay that much on taxes to start with. So how can he owe more than what he originally pays? Can anyone offer any input?

Bump

[oyarde]

//

[osan]

I don't have all the documents to make the calculations, but I'm wondering if anyone has kept track of how much wealth they'd have if they never had to pay income taxes.

Impossible to tell without making assumptions, but I would perhaps be somewhere around $100 million. Maybe more even... hard to say.

[Mundane]

I don't know, but I do know I paid the same amount in personal income tax in 2 months as I did in one year income tax, just before incorporating, making the same money.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?

Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure). Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement? or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year? Most would use the money themselves.

[Danke]

I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?

Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure). Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement? or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year? Most would use the money themselves.

And that would be a bad thing vs. a bureaucrat spending it for you?

[cubical]

I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?

Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure). Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement? or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year? Most would use the money themselves.

You don't see talent as an essential part to business? If you have more free resources to grow your business, you will pay for the best employees or you will get passed by your competition. Why do you believe everyone would take that 20% and consume it?

[evilfunnystuff]

I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?

Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure). Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement? or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year? Most would use the money themselves.

But you are not seeing the forest see the forest for the trees, outside of burying it in a secret spot for retirement, everything you could possibly do with it is creating more demand for workers.

This would create a more lucrative job market for everybody.

[blustreeak]

"Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders)."

A family member of mine makes around 500k net a year and runs a small business. He ends up paying around 120k in Income taxes every year. I asked him if he had to pay no income tax would he hire more workers. He said yes, he would also add an intern or two because he gets a lot of requests for that, but takes on only a few because of the costs. He also said he would give his employee's better holiday bonuses and likely hirer another young young worker and maybe a part time marketer to expand a little bit. Small businesses employ most of America. To say that those owners who run them would not pass along income they saved to their workers if income tax is eliminated is not true in my opinion. Without the income tax America grew to be the envy of the world with immigrants coming here non-stop to be a part of our way of life. Our economy is imploding for lots of reasons, but one of them is we are punishing the productive and discouraging hiring by taxing them out the wazoo.

I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.

[EcoWarrier]

I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.

100% correct. Do not tax production by abolishing income, sales and property taxes. Use commonly created wealth to fund common services. Geonomics does that.

[oyarde]

100% correct. Do not tax production by abolishing income, sales and property taxes. Use commonly created wealth to fund common services. Geonomics does that.

What is commonly funded wealth ? I must have missed that in life, I have no commonly funded wealth , I have a little bit that I was able to retain , of my earnings after all the theft ....

[Zippyjuan]

"Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders)."

A family member of mine makes around 500k net a year and runs a small business. He ends up paying around 120k in Income taxes every year. I asked him if he had to pay no income tax would he hire more workers. He said yes, he would also add an intern or two because he gets a lot of requests for that, but takes on only a few because of the costs. He also said he would give his employee's better holiday bonuses and likely hirer another young young worker and maybe a part time marketer to expand a little bit. Small businesses employ most of America. To say that those owners who run them would not pass along income they saved to their workers if income tax is eliminated is not true in my opinion. Without the income tax America grew to be the envy of the world with immigrants coming here non-stop to be a part of our way of life. Our economy is imploding for lots of reasons, but one of them is we are punishing the productive and discouraging hiring by taxing them out the wazoo.

I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.

Good for him. That is not typical though. If he is making $500k a year, he is in the top one percent of all wage earners.

[Nickels]

I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's. I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.

and I strongly disagree that income is everything. if it were, then having high minimum wage would make sense. if cash equals wealth, then printing money would always make sense. If higher wages always meant better living, then we'd be stupid to let the market decide on it. Income taxes, just like the rate of interest or rate of money printing (credit extension) affect prices of goods and services, so eliminating it altogether WOULD nominally change the prices, but not necessarily mean people would be wealthier, the only thing I can think of that's guaranteed, is leaving enforcers jobless.