<p>There are a lot of people that use these exchanges. I know many.</p>
<p>Let’s not kid ourselves…</p>
<p>May not be easy…but doable…</p>
<p>My expartner’s father is in the process of doing one right now.
I am going to have lunch Monday with somebody who has done several…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s true. I forgot about tax-free bonds. I also agree about not having to pay AMT if there is enough other income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was what I was wondering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If one earns $100 million and gets another $100 million in LTCG, what is their LTCG taxed at? Would most of it be taxed at 22%?</p>
<p>No. 15 percent.</p>
<p>The taxpayer in your example does not pay amt because the taxpayer’s tax rate on ordinary income is higher than the amt tax rate.</p>
<p>Let’s say this wealthy person pays 35% on %100 million earned income, $35 million. For simplicity I am ignoring that s/he pays at a lower rate for the first $400,000 or so. They will be in the decimal points. Normally, the LTCG $100 million will be taxed at 15% or $15 million. Total tax $50 million except this doesn’t pass amt test since he has to pay minimum $56 million. Did i get this right? Roughly speaking? If s/he has to pay additonal $6 million, that puts LTCG rate to 21%.</p>
<p>I am not rich, not anywhere close. I am arguing away to protest the antagonistic attitude towards the wealthy as if they don’t pay anything when they in fact pay more than the learned article in venerable NYT implies. Aren’t you worried that prominent people/institutions mislead? I would hope they are the ones who hold firm when the crowd goes nuts. They shoudln’t be the one stirring up.</p>
<p>The taxpayer does not pay the additional $6 million. The taxpayer does not pay amt.</p>
<p>The most taxes can go up with the amt because of cap gains is small…</p>
<p>Several thousand dollars. That is it. </p>
<p>Your argument would make more sense if you actually knew what you were talking about, Igloo.</p>
<p>You are getting a red square from me.</p>
<p>The super wealthy are doing super…</p>
<p>I just looked up form 6251. There doesn’t seem to be any limit to apply amt, just that you calculate amt and if that’s bigger than the regular tax you have to pay the difference. What did I get wrong here?</p>
<p>You can give me a red square if that makes you feel better.</p>
<p>You are so wrong…Post 545.</p>
<p>I can’t spend anymore time on this…</p>
<p>You came up with a conclusion without the facts. You wanted to come up with that conclusion.</p>
<p>Just google amt and cap gains…</p>
<p>Have a good weekend.</p>
<p>
The only portion of LTCG that could be taxed at 22% would be while the AMT exemption is phasing out. For a married couple, last year the exemption was about $75,000.</p>
<p>7% of $75,000 is about $5000. 15% of $100,000,000 is $15,000,000 . $5000 doesn’t even register.</p>
<p>And as dstark pointed out, because there is so much income in the 35% bracket, this taxpayer would not have to pay AMT, because his regular income tax will far exceed the AMT. You pay one or the other, whichever is higher. AMT is not an add-on tax.</p>
<p>
The wealthy do pay a lot. The 1%ers make about 17% of all the income, but pay 37% of all the taxes, which means they pay at a rate that is about 3x higher than everyone else, on average.</p>
<p>dstark wants them to pay even more.</p>
<p>Of course the top 1 percent pay more and more…</p>
<p>And if the top 1 percent continues to get 93 percent of all income gains in this country…</p>
<p>The top 1 percent will pay an even bigger share of the Income taxes…</p>
<p>Over a very long period of time, at the rate the country is going …the top 1 percent can eventually pay almost all the income taxes.</p>
<p>Because the top 1 percent will make most of the income.</p>
<p>Think about it.</p>
<p>Damn right. I want the top 1 percent to pay more. I think I have been pretty clear about that for a long time.</p>
<p>^^Well, I’m sure people who want the rich to pay more will be gratified that no matter what happens at the end of the year, there are new and higher taxes for the rich to pay.</p>
<p>A new medicare tax on unearned income of 3.8% to pay for the health care act.
State taxes going up…even retroactively in California, to 13.3% for top earners. If you’re in New York, you get to pay 12.7%. I don’t know of any state income taxes that are going down, are they out there? I doubt it. Add that on to whatever whammies are in store for the “rich”…and they will be paying plenty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had a sneaking suspicion that there’s more to amt than my simplified version of it. AMT was the reason I gave up doing my doing taxes. Thank you for clarifying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t there a better way to make them pay more than vilifying them all?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505[/url]”>http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505</a></p>
<p>I like the other link better that I had up here. It was very clear, but it had a political headline, so I got rid of it.</p>
<p>Your numbers are wrong, notrichenough…</p>
<p>Aren’t they?</p>
<p>“The wealthy do pay a lot. The 1%ers make about 17% of all the income, but pay 37% of all the taxes, which means they pay at a rate that is about 3x higher than everyone else, on average.”</p>
<p>That is misleading isn’t?</p>
<p>What you wrote is false, notrichenough, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Sure, there’s an unbiased source. So I’m curious to know what the, “new tax cuts for the rich and the institution of a tax code that’s even less progressive,” is about? What are the new cuts being proposed for the rich? What tax code is being pushed that’s even less progressive? Or is trying to keep things the way they are is a new tax cut?</p>
<p>The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you, dstark:</p>
<p>[Review</a> & Outlook: How Much the Rich Pay - WSJ.com](<a href=“Review & Outlook: How Much the Rich Pay - WSJ”>Review & Outlook: How Much the Rich Pay - WSJ)</p>
<p>I think I will trust what they say over some group called “Citizens for Tax Justice”.</p>
<p>Lol…</p>
<p>Do you read what you write? </p>
<p>Do you read your own links?</p>
<p>You wrote taxes, not income taxes. Did you mean to write income taxes?</p>
<p>"“The wealthy do pay a lot. The 1%ers make about 17% of all the income, but pay 37% of all the taxes, which means they pay at a rate that is about 3x higher than everyone else, on average.”</p>
<p>The CBO does not disagree with me. ;)</p>
<p>Another link. dstark this is your own link upthread somewhere.</p>
<p>[Summary</a> of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation](<a href=“Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation”>Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation)</p>
<p>The 17%/37% numbers come from the IRS, by the way:</p>
<p>[Summary</a> of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation](<a href=“Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation”>Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation)</p>
<p>“In fact, when all taxes are considered, the share of taxes that each fifth of households pays is similar to its share of the nation’s total income.[22] * ITEP data show that in 2011, the bottom fifth of households received 3.4 percent of the total income in the nation and paid 2.1 percent of the total taxes.* The middle fifth of households received 11.4 percent of income and paid 10.3 percent of taxes.* The top 1 percent of households received 21.0 percent of income and paid 21.6 percent of taxes.* The tax system as a whole is only mildlyprogressive.[23]”</p>
<p>[Misconceptions</a> and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities](<a href=“http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505]Misconceptions”>http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505)</p>
<p>This is what counts…All taxes…not just one tax…</p>
<p>What you wrote was false, notrichenough. False.
And people write these falsehoods over and over…to come to the conclusions they want, and to manipulate people into accepting those bogus conclusions.</p>
<p>What is these retroactive state taxes busdriver? I’m unaware.</p>