So people who earn a million a year pay a lower tax rate than the middle class

[OohPooPahDoo]

And here we go again. FEDERAL INCOME TAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICA. [/qouote]
Other than the fact its federal and the fact it is levied on income, you're right.

If you have a problem with FICA taxes then join me in getting rid of Social Security and let people save their own money.

And stiff everyone whose already paid into the system? Brilliant.

They'd do better and retire richer.

You can predict the future? How well did people do in 1930?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay Skull Pilot, I get it. I understand why you dodge my points. Other posts don't have those bothersome facts and details which would require you to know what you are discussing on more than just a "bumper sticker" level.
If you ever DO get your game up, feel free to take a crack at it. Again:

I understand that the details and complexity of real life, don't make for lite internet banter but if you're going down a complex road filled with details... well there it is. So let's try again but I'll pare it down a bit. If you simply find even this shortened version too in-depth, I understand.

The truth is that middle class has paid the highest percentage of income in this country for quite some time.

Our tax code is designed to benefit the rich and those of us who own corporations, more than it does our citizens. As a business owner, I get dozens of write-offs that you don't. Cars, computers, phones, travel, you name it, I can deduct it and you can't.
More than that, if I'm having a particularly good year, I can simpy "defer" a large portion of my compensation or choose any of a dozen other ways to avoid paying taxes on it.

I own a business too asshat. What type of business do you own? Is it an S corp? If it is you cannot defer compensation other than via deferred comp life insurance set up or via a qualified retirement plan. Every cent of profit in an S corp passes through to the personal income of the shareholders.

Obviously you're nat familiar with Executive Compensation as it relates to the the income group being discussed.

QUEStION TO CONSERVS: Can a single mom raising two kids and making $50K a year, get by on only $15K?

Arbitrary number. Are you implying that she pays 35K a year in taxes? That's 70% and you say you deal in facts.

Again, it's not that you don't have the answer, it's that you clearly don't even understand the question. I was referring to the fact that many executives in the $1M+ club are able to defer up to 2/3 of their income (or even more!) and thus don't pay taxes on that income during that year. Then, they find ways to reduce their liability again later. This is so common and substantial that over 50 lawyers at Jones Day, specialize in nothing but how to accomplish exactly what I'm describing. Jones Day | Home key in "executive compensation". That's just one firm, btw.

She can defer taxes the usual ways.

Really? A secretary can defer comp? In "the usual ways"? What are the usual ways offered to secretaries?

Earned income is earned income. And who are you to decide how much money someone needs to get by? What loopholes exactly. You say there are all these loopholes for earned income but you give no examples.

There are thousands of attorneys who charge between $350 and $900 an hour for their advice on executive comp. Do you think all those millions are paid to those attorneys because the rules are fair? They are paid to get the tax burden of a high net worth individual to 15% or 10% or even less.

There are no taxes on net worth are there?
Sorry. I assumed you would at least be familiar with the term "high net worth individual".

Only on income whether it be earned or capital gains. If one has no income as defined by the law then one pays no income taxes. If you want to redefine income then argue that point but don't try to pretend you deal in facts when you talk about net worth and try to relate that to taxes. BTW you do realize that by deferring income you are not avoiding taxes. Sooner or later you will realize that income and you will pay taxes on it.

The OP is wrong. The rich absolutely pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

You may now continue dodging these points. The fact that you and the ConservaRepubs here have done so, proves their validity.

I used a specific example of earned income. One who earns a million a year does indeed pay a higher percentage in income taxes than one who makes 50K.

That is a fact.

You're wrong. But you're so unsophisticated in this regard, it's not worth even trying. It's like trying to discuss physics with a beagle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And here we go again. FEDERAL INCOME TAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICA. [/qouote]
Other than the fact its federal and the fact it is levied on income, you're right.

If you have a problem with FICA taxes then join me in getting rid of Social Security and let people save their own money.

And stiff everyone whose already paid into the system? Brilliant.

the idea of a transition is too much for your little sheep brain huh?

They'd do better and retire richer.

You can predict the future? How well did people do in 1930?[/QUOTE]

Even with the ups and downs market returns are better than anything around

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay Skull Pilot, I get it. I understand why you dodge my points. Other posts don't have those bothersome facts and details which would require you to know what you are discussing on more than just a "bumper sticker" level.
If you ever DO get your game up, feel free to take a crack at it. Again:

I understand that the details and complexity of real life, don't make for lite internet banter but if you're going down a complex road filled with details... well there it is. So let's try again but I'll pare it down a bit. If you simply find even this shortened version too in-depth, I understand.

The truth is that middle class has paid the highest percentage of income in this country for quite some time.

Our tax code is designed to benefit the rich and those of us who own corporations, more than it does our citizens. As a business owner, I get dozens of write-offs that you don't. Cars, computers, phones, travel, you name it, I can deduct it and you can't.
More than that, if I'm having a particularly good year, I can simpy "defer" a large portion of my compensation or choose any of a dozen other ways to avoid paying taxes on it.

I own a business too asshat. What type of business do you own? Is it an S corp? If it is you cannot defer compensation other than via deferred comp life insurance set up or via a qualified retirement plan. Every cent of profit in an S corp passes through to the personal income of the shareholders.

Obviously you're nat familiar with Executive Compensation as it relates to the the income group being discussed.



Arbitrary number. Are you implying that she pays 35K a year in taxes? That's 70% and you say you deal in facts.

Again, it's not that you don't have the answer, it's that you clearly don't even understand the question. I was referring to the fact that many executives in the $1M+ club are able to defer up to 2/3 of their income (or even more!) and thus don't pay taxes on that income during that year. Then, they find ways to reduce their liability again later. This is so common and substantial that over 50 lawyers at Jones Day, specialize in nothing but how to accomplish exactly what I'm describing. Jones Day | Home key in "executive compensation". That's just one firm, btw.

She can defer taxes the usual ways.

Really? A secretary can defer comp? In "the usual ways"? What are the usual ways offered to secretaries?

Earned income is earned income. And who are you to decide how much money someone needs to get by? What loopholes exactly. You say there are all these loopholes for earned income but you give no examples.



There are no taxes on net worth are there?
Sorry. I assumed you would at least be familiar with the term "high net worth individual".

Only on income whether it be earned or capital gains. If one has no income as defined by the law then one pays no income taxes. If you want to redefine income then argue that point but don't try to pretend you deal in facts when you talk about net worth and try to relate that to taxes. BTW you do realize that by deferring income you are not avoiding taxes. Sooner or later you will realize that income and you will pay taxes on it.

The OP is wrong. The rich absolutely pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

You may now continue dodging these points. The fact that you and the ConservaRepubs here have done so, proves their validity.

I used a specific example of earned income. One who earns a million a year does indeed pay a higher percentage in income taxes than one who makes 50K.

That is a fact.

You're wrong. But you're so unsophisticated in this regard, it's not worth even trying. It's like trying to discuss physics with a beagle.

Deferred compensation does not avoid the tax burden it merely delays it. It matters not in the log run.

And one can only be taxed on what one earns in a year if the income was deferred then he didn't earn it as far as the law in concerned. And that fictitious single mother could have deferred 22000 dollars of her income annually in qualified retirement plans .

And I have several people on deferred comp plans. My two key employees both have a life insurance policy on them that can be used for deferred comp. I'm hoping that one of them will buy in to the business in the future and I can then give him the money that accumulates in the policy so as to cover the price. My wife and I have similar insurance policies as well as a 401K that we max out. So you see I actually have these things you only talk about.

And for all your self flouted sophistication you don't understand that income is not considered income until you realize it that is until it shows up on line 43 of the 1040. The line labelled Taxable Income

 

[IndependntLogic]

I own a business too asshat. What type of business do you own? Is it an S corp? If it is you cannot defer compensation other than via deferred comp life insurance set up or via a qualified retirement plan. Every cent of profit in an S corp passes through to the personal income of the shareholders.

Obviously you're nat familiar with Executive Compensation as it relates to the the income group being discussed.



Arbitrary number. Are you implying that she pays 35K a year in taxes? That's 70% and you say you deal in facts.

Again, it's not that you don't have the answer, it's that you clearly don't even understand the question. I was referring to the fact that many executives in the $1M+ club are able to defer up to 2/3 of their income (or even more!) and thus don't pay taxes on that income during that year. Then, they find ways to reduce their liability again later. This is so common and substantial that over 50 lawyers at Jones Day, specialize in nothing but how to accomplish exactly what I'm describing. Jones Day | Home key in "executive compensation". That's just one firm, btw.

She can defer taxes the usual ways.

Really? A secretary can defer comp? In "the usual ways"? What are the usual ways offered to secretaries?

Earned income is earned income. And who are you to decide how much money someone needs to get by? What loopholes exactly. You say there are all these loopholes for earned income but you give no examples.



There are no taxes on net worth are there?
Sorry. I assumed you would at least be familiar with the term "high net worth individual".

Only on income whether it be earned or capital gains. If one has no income as defined by the law then one pays no income taxes. If you want to redefine income then argue that point but don't try to pretend you deal in facts when you talk about net worth and try to relate that to taxes. BTW you do realize that by deferring income you are not avoiding taxes. Sooner or later you will realize that income and you will pay taxes on it.



I used a specific example of earned income. One who earns a million a year does indeed pay a higher percentage in income taxes than one who makes 50K.

That is a fact.

You're wrong. But you're so unsophisticated in this regard, it's not worth even trying. It's like trying to discuss physics with a beagle.

Deferred compensation does not avoid the tax burden it merely delays it. It matters not in the log run.

And one can only be taxed on what one earns in a year if the income was deferred then he didn't earn it as far as the law in concerned. And that fictitious single mother could have deferred 22000 dollars of her income annually in qualified retirement plans .

And I have several people on deferred comp plans. My two key employees both have a life insurance policy on them that can be used for deferred comp. I'm hoping that one of them will buy in to the business in the future and I can then give him the money that accumulates in the policy so as to cover the price. My wife and I have similar insurance policies as well as a 401K that we max out. So you see I actually have these things you only talk about.

And for all your self flouted sophistication you don't understand that income is not considered income until you realize it that is until it shows up on line 43 of the 1040. The line labelled Taxable Income

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

 

[BillyV]

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

Well, you're correct that deferred compensation is a profitable niche for many law firms due to the complexity of the tax law in this area and the contracts and documentation required, although the 57 attorneys at this firm that you cite are involved in "Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation"; employee benefits are also a complex area of tax law (as well as law unrelated to tax). However, I'm not sure how much of a "tax dodge" these programs provide; yes the executive avoids paying tax on this compensation until it is paid, but generally the employer is not able to take a tax deduction until the employee vests in the compensation and is able to receive it. So any personal income that may be sheltered would be offset by unsheltered corporate income; kind of a zero sum game. These kinds of agreements are, I believe, more geared toward tying the executives to the employer by what is sometimes referred to as "golden handcuffs," they are less likely to leave the company before the plan is vested. However, this is not my area of expertise; I'd be interested to hear your experience with this area, which seems much more comprehensive. Are there certain tax code sections you rely on to provide tax benefits to both employer and employee?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

Well, you're correct that deferred compensation is a profitable niche for many law firms due to the complexity of the tax law in this area and the contracts and documentation required, although the 57 attorneys at this firm that you cite are involved in "Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation"; employee benefits are also a complex area of tax law (as well as law unrelated to tax). However, I'm not sure how much of a "tax dodge" these programs provide; yes the executive avoids paying tax on this compensation until it is paid, but generally the employer is not able to take a tax deduction until the employee vests in the compensation and is able to receive it. So any personal income that may be sheltered would be offset by unsheltered corporate income; kind of a zero sum game. These kinds of agreements are, I believe, more geared toward tying the executives to the employer by what is sometimes referred to as "golden handcuffs," they are less likely to leave the company before the plan is vested. However, this is not my area of expertise; I'd be interested to hear your experience with this area, which seems much more comprehensive. Are there certain tax code sections you rely on to provide tax benefits to both employer and employee?

Well well well. Someone who knows a bit about what he's talking about. Yes, Golden Handcuffs, Golden Parachutes, stock options which can then be converted or transferred to revocable trusts and so on.
And look, my point has nothing to do with Obama being somehow better than the GOP on this issue. My point is actually that he's not. Or at least not by any degree that will make a true difference because what difference does the marginal tax rate make, if you're not paying taxes on your actual income anyway?
My point is simply that our tax code favors the rich and businesses more than the average citizen.
I would have thought this fairly easy to convey and understand but ideology and politics can be rather blinding.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You're wrong. But you're so unsophisticated in this regard, it's not worth even trying. It's like trying to discuss physics with a beagle.

Deferred compensation does not avoid the tax burden it merely delays it. It matters not in the log run.

And one can only be taxed on what one earns in a year if the income was deferred then he didn't earn it as far as the law in concerned. And that fictitious single mother could have deferred 22000 dollars of her income annually in qualified retirement plans .

And I have several people on deferred comp plans. My two key employees both have a life insurance policy on them that can be used for deferred comp. I'm hoping that one of them will buy in to the business in the future and I can then give him the money that accumulates in the policy so as to cover the price. My wife and I have similar insurance policies as well as a 401K that we max out. So you see I actually have these things you only talk about.

And for all your self flouted sophistication you don't understand that income is not considered income until you realize it that is until it shows up on line 43 of the 1040. The line labelled Taxable Income

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

I don't care how much your clients make. But I find it incredulous that anyone would trust their money to you.

And there are only so many ways to defer compensation and as I said before deferring compensation is NOT the avoidance of taxes it merely delays the inevitable.

You said that your fictitious single mother had no way to defer taxes but she does whether or not she chooses to do so is not the point is it? And I have known people who always maxed out their qualified plans so as to defer taxes. It's called prioritizing.

SO tell me if you have an earned income of X and on line 43 of the 1040 you enter 1 million do you or do you not pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than someone who makes Y and has 50K entered on line 43 of the 1040?

For all your blathering to the contrary the answer is yes you do pay a higher percentage.

 

[francoHFW]

A) The EFFECTIVE rate on the richest is much lower- Corporate effective tax was most recently 12%, while Pubs go on ad nauseum that our rate is the highest. MORE Pubcrappe.
B) When you count ALL taxes and fees, the POOREST pay as much or more %wise as the rich, and the middle class more.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Deferred compensation does not avoid the tax burden it merely delays it. It matters not in the log run.

And one can only be taxed on what one earns in a year if the income was deferred then he didn't earn it as far as the law in concerned. And that fictitious single mother could have deferred 22000 dollars of her income annually in qualified retirement plans .

And I have several people on deferred comp plans. My two key employees both have a life insurance policy on them that can be used for deferred comp. I'm hoping that one of them will buy in to the business in the future and I can then give him the money that accumulates in the policy so as to cover the price. My wife and I have similar insurance policies as well as a 401K that we max out. So you see I actually have these things you only talk about.

And for all your self flouted sophistication you don't understand that income is not considered income until you realize it that is until it shows up on line 43 of the 1040. The line labelled Taxable Income

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

I don't care how much your clients make. But I find it incredulous that anyone would trust their money to you.

And there are only so many ways to defer compensation and as I said before deferring compensation is NOT the avoidance of taxes it merely delays the inevitable.

You said that your fictitious single mother had no way to defer taxes but she does whether or not she chooses to do so is not the point is it? And I have known people who always maxed out their qualified plans so as to defer taxes. It's called prioritizing.

SO tell me if you have an earned income of X and on line 43 of the 1040 you enter 1 million do you or do you not pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than someone who makes Y and has 50K entered on line 43 of the 1040?

For all your blathering to the contrary the answer is yes you do pay a higher percentage.

Okay, your petty insults are weak - especially coming from someone who has displayed such a colossal level of ignorance in your posts.
Again, you have Sarah Palin Syndrome: Iit's not that you don't know the answers, it's that it's clear you don't even understand the question. Even more, the question you ask is where your completel ignorance comes through loud and clear.
The answer to the questions above is that X can very easily pay a much lower percentage of their income than Y. Only someone completely ignorant on the subject would even ask such a stupid question.
Proof you say? Easy enough. If X has an actual income of $10M and has $6M put into stock options, $2M deferred and $1M put into other vehicles, then he pays 50% of $1m or $500K on $10M which equals 5%.
As far as the sinlge mom, perhaps you should brush up on your English. I didn't say it would be possible for her to defer 40% of her income, I said it would be practical. But of course, if it supports the ideological position, reality and such aren't really relevant, are they? Got it.
So okay, it's obvious that you are not just ignorant on the subject but you're so blinded and hypnotized by ideology, that you couldn't see the obvious if it bit you. Done here.
Now usually,

 

[IndependntLogic]

A) The EFFECTIVE rate on the richest is much lower- Corporate effective tax was most recently 12%, while Pubs go on ad nauseum that our rate is the highest. MORE Pubcrappe.
B) When you count ALL taxes and fees, the POOREST pay as much or more %wise as the rich, and the middle class more.

I've heard this talking point from The Left and I consider it inaccurate. However, there are whackjobs out there who are so blinded by ideology, they will complain that GE paid ZERO in taxes in one breath - and that the corporate tax rate is too high, in the other. When the stats come out and clearly show that the highest paid income earners in America, pay an average effective rate of 19%, they go mute. Or they claim that a single mom making $2500 a month should just you know, get by on $1500 because paying rent, food, clothes etc... are just SO over-rated and it's only because she doesn't have her priorities straight... Whackjobbery is funny to observe. Cheers. See ya in another thread.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Seriously, I do my best not to insult others unless first fired upon but the ignorance and lack of sophiistication you display in your post offers a challenge in that regard. You talk about yout petty little insurance policies and 401Ks as if you're in the same league with my clients - who often earn $2 - $5M a year in income. You're not even on the same continent. It shows in the way that your posts are so blinded by the need to support the BS touted by your ideology / party. Only a complete fool thinks our tax code doesn't favor the rich and corporations.
1. So you're saying as single mom of three kids making $50K, could decide to just not take over 40% of her income. Yeah, that's realistic! Just incredible.
2. Go here: Jones Day | Home Go to "People" and scroll down to "Executive Compensation" There are 57 attorneys listed who work full time doing nothing but sturcturing compensation so that executives will pay 0% taxes on a lot of their income in the current year and also, so that when they DO pay on that income, it will never reach 20%.
Do you really think people who are smart enough to make $5M+ a year in income, wouldn't be able to come up with "Doh de doh, I'll just put it in a 401K and insurance! Duh!" instead of paying $5 - $900 an hour to someone who can show them how to never pay anywhere near the taxes an employee pays?
There are thousands of such attorneys nationwide, making millions upon millions for law firms. They're all there to tell their clients "Hey, buy insurance and use a 401K!". Riiiight.

I don't care how much your clients make. But I find it incredulous that anyone would trust their money to you.

And there are only so many ways to defer compensation and as I said before deferring compensation is NOT the avoidance of taxes it merely delays the inevitable.

You said that your fictitious single mother had no way to defer taxes but she does whether or not she chooses to do so is not the point is it? And I have known people who always maxed out their qualified plans so as to defer taxes. It's called prioritizing.

SO tell me if you have an earned income of X and on line 43 of the 1040 you enter 1 million do you or do you not pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes than someone who makes Y and has 50K entered on line 43 of the 1040?

For all your blathering to the contrary the answer is yes you do pay a higher percentage.

Okay, your petty insults are weak - especially coming from someone who has displayed such a colossal level of ignorance in your posts.
Again, you have Sarah Palin Syndrome: Iit's not that you don't know the answers, it's that it's clear you don't even understand the question. Even more, the question you ask is where your completel ignorance comes through loud and clear.
The answer to the questions above is that X can very easily pay a much lower percentage of their income than Y. Only someone completely ignorant on the subject would even ask such a stupid question.
Proof you say? Easy enough. If X has an actual income of $10M and has $6M put into stock options, $2M deferred and $1M put into other vehicles, then he pays 50% of $1m or $500K on $10M which equals 5%.
As far as the sinlge mom, perhaps you should brush up on your English. I didn't say it would be possible for her to defer 40% of her income, I said it would be practical. But of course, if it supports the ideological position, reality and such aren't really relevant, are they? Got it.
So okay, it's obvious that you are not just ignorant on the subject but you're so blinded and hypnotized by ideology, that you couldn't see the obvious if it bit you. Done here.
Now usually,

Your example is bogus. He is not paying 500K on 10M he is paying 500K on the 1 M he actually received. The rest of the money will be taxed at the time he realizes the income.

Tell me how much in taxes he will pay when the remaining 9M is realized?