Re:Buffett and related tax matters

[4776]

Re:Buffett and related tax matters

Just hijacked the thread:
Warren Buffett's challenge to republicans: put your money where your mouth is

Sorry about that.

I should clarify my position on the tax code regarding high income persons.

I think that having the top begin and end at (about)$187,000 is nonsense. There should be higher brackets than that and they should, of course, impose higher rates of taxation.

I think that income above some amount (say a million) should be taxed at the applicable (new) rate regardless of the source of income.

Is that OK - Fair- Terrible - Crazy - or what?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Just hijacked the thread:
Warren Buffett's challenge to republicans: put your money where your mouth is

Sorry about that.

I should clarify my position on the tax code regarding high income persons.

I think that having the top begin and end at (about)$187,000 is nonsense. There should be higher brackets than that and they should, of course, impose higher rates of taxation.

I think that income above some amount (say a million) should be taxed at the applicable (new) rate regardless of the source of income.

Is that OK - Fair- Terrible - Crazy - or what?

I oppose progressive brackets

its an invitation for politicians to pander to those in the lower brackets by promising those taxpayers (or non taxpayers) all sorts of things paid for by raising the top bracket rates

 

[sookster]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I approve of progressive tax rates, because the extremely rich are unempathetic bastards.

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I think that having the top begin and end at (about)$187,000 is nonsense. There should be higher brackets than that and they should, of course, impose higher rates of taxation.

I think that income above some amount (say a million) should be taxed at the applicable (new) rate regardless of the source of income.

I definitely agree, BUT, Buffet's example points out why that isn't the main problem. The main problem is that rich investors are taxed at a much lower rate- 15%. Billionaires pay 15% where somebody who supports a family of four on $35k/year by working two jobs is in the 25% bracket, plus the guy making $35k pays 6% FICA, plus their employer pays 6%, and really the employers just reduce their pay by 6% to cover it. So, the guy who is making $35k is actually paying 37% on the money he earns over $34,500/year. while the billionaire is only paying 15% on their income above the same amount. That's the biggest problem.

On top of that, middle class people pay a much higher percentage of their income to property taxes, sales taxes, unemployment taxes, disability taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. than super rich people do, so it's even worse than that.

Capital gains taxes only have two brackets. $0-$34,500 is taxed at 5%, anything somebody makes above $34,500 is taxed at 15%. We need more brackets. If we want to keep the rates low for regular folks saving up for their kids' college or something, that's fine by me, but we should create a new bracket where investment income above say $200k/year is taxed at 35% or so. Or we could just do away with the distinction between investment income and wages and just tax all income the same under the income tax brackets we have now.

Buffet was at a big banquet with a couple hundred super rich people once and he famously announced his challenge to the room that if anybody there could prove to him that they paid a higher percentage in taxes than their own secretary he would give them $1 million. Nobody was able to collect. Every single one of the megamillionares and billionaires in the room paid lower tax rates than their own secretaries did. That isn't because of income taxes, that is because we give such a massive tax break to super rich investors.

 

[4776]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I definitely agree, BUT, Buffet's example points out why that isn't the main problem. The main problem is that rich investors are taxed at a much lower rate- 15%. Billionaires pay 15% where somebody who supports a family of four on $35k/year by working two jobs is in the 25% bracket, plus the guy making $35k pays 6% FICA, plus their employer pays 6%, and really the employers just reduce their pay by 6% to cover it. So, the guy who is making $35k is actually paying 37% on the money he earns over $34,500/year. while the billionaire is only paying 15% on their income above the same amount. That's the biggest problem.

On top of that, middle class people pay a much higher percentage of their income to property taxes, sales taxes, unemployment taxes, disability taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. than super rich people do, so it's even worse than that.

Capital gains taxes only have two brackets. $0-$34,500 is taxed at 5%, anything somebody makes above $34,500 is taxed at 15%. We need more brackets. If we want to keep the rates low for regular folks saving up for their kids' college or something, that's fine by me, but we should create a new bracket where investment income above say $200k/year is taxed at 35% or so. Or we could just do away with the distinction between investment income and wages and just tax all income the same under the income tax brackets we have now.

Buffet was at a big banquet with a couple hundred super rich people once and he famously announced his challenge to the room that if anybody there could prove to him that they paid a higher percentage in taxes than their own secretary he would give them $1 million. Nobody was able to collect. Every single one of the megamillionares and billionaires in the room paid lower tax rates than their own secretaries did. That isn't because of income taxes, that is because we give such a massive tax break to super rich investors.

Note that I suggest all income over a set amount (a million in this case) taxed at the higher (new) rate cap gains or whatever

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I definitely agree, BUT, Buffet's example points out why that isn't the main problem. The main problem is that rich investors are taxed at a much lower rate- 15%. Billionaires pay 15% where somebody who supports a family of four on $35k/year by working two jobs is in the 25% bracket, plus the guy making $35k pays 6% FICA, plus their employer pays 6%, and really the employers just reduce their pay by 6% to cover it. So, the guy who is making $35k is actually paying 37% on the money he earns over $34,500/year. while the billionaire is only paying 15% on their income above the same amount. That's the biggest problem.

On top of that, middle class people pay a much higher percentage of their income to property taxes, sales taxes, unemployment taxes, disability taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. than super rich people do, so it's even worse than that.

Capital gains taxes only have two brackets. $0-$34,500 is taxed at 5%, anything somebody makes above $34,500 is taxed at 15%. We need more brackets. If we want to keep the rates low for regular folks saving up for their kids' college or something, that's fine by me, but we should create a new bracket where investment income above say $200k/year is taxed at 35% or so. Or we could just do away with the distinction between investment income and wages and just tax all income the same under the income tax brackets we have now.

Buffet was at a big banquet with a couple hundred super rich people once and he famously announced his challenge to the room that if anybody there could prove to him that they paid a higher percentage in taxes than their own secretary he would give them $1 million. Nobody was able to collect. Every single one of the megamillionares and billionaires in the room paid lower tax rates than their own secretaries did. That isn't because of income taxes, that is because we give such a massive tax break to super rich investors.

you act as if billionaires are taxed less due the the AMOUNT OF MONEY they make when it involves the TYPE of income they have and EVERYONE IS TAXED LESS ON INVESTMENT INCOME (of course other than those who PAY ZERO INCOME TAX ON EARNED INCOME-IE HALF OF THE COUNTRY)

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I approve of progressive tax rates, because the extremely rich are unempathetic bastards.

The rich person who hires you should live up to that depiction of him or her and fire you for saying that:mrgreen:

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

EVERYONE IS TAXED LESS ON INVESTMENT INCOME

Why are you cap-screaming things that everybody knows and which are irrelevant?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Why are you cap-screaming things that everybody knows and which are irrelevant?

Irrelevant? OMG is that rather silly.

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Irrelevant? OMG is that rather silly.

We've been over this so many times that I have a hard time believing you still don't understand, so explaining it to you yet again seems pointless.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

We've been over this so many times that I have a hard time believing you still don't understand, so explaining it to you yet again seems pointless.

Oh I understand that there is lots of envy and that the only consistency I see from the left is that anything that makes the rich pay more-no matter how idiotic it is or how destructive it is to America's economy is ok with them

that's why everyone ought to pay the same rate on same kind income. Then people like you cannot sit back and demand the rich pay more and more without people like you paying more and more

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Oh I understand that there is lots of envy and that the only consistency I see from the left is that anything that makes the rich pay more-no matter how idiotic it is or how destructive it is to America's economy is ok with them

that's why everyone ought to pay the same rate on same kind income. Then people like you cannot sit back and demand the rich pay more and more without people like you paying more and more

Don't play dumb. You understand why tax breaks for investment means tax breaks for the super rich. Go ahead, explain back to me what my argument is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Don't play dumb. You understand why tax breaks for investment means tax breaks for the super rich. Go ahead, explain back to me what my argument is.

Those aren't tax breaks-you operate on the assumption that the standard model is the current progressive rate on earned income. yet for a majority of our country's history neither earned nor investment income was taxed.


everyone should pay the same rate. mainly to prevent millions of people who think like you from demanding that OTHERS keep paying more and more to fund what YOU want

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

everyone should pay the same rate. mainly to prevent millions of people who think like you from demanding that OTHERS keep paying more and more to fund what YOU want

So you counter the overwhelming economic, moral and utilitarian arguments in favor of progressive taxation (which I've presented to you a dozen times without any substantive counter argument from you) with "we shouldn't have it because you want it"...

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

So you counter the overwhelming economic, moral and utilitarian arguments in favor of progressive taxation (which I've presented to you a dozen times without any substantive counter argument from you) with "we shouldn't have it because you want it"...

what overwhelming arguments

1) the argument that a politician can buy the votes of the many by promising them goodies paid for by tax hikes on the few-the same system that has created the massive government bloated nonsense we have today and crippling deficits because the middle and lower class votes drive spending that these classes never see the bill for?

2) what economic arguments?

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

what overwhelming arguments

I've presented the arguments to you many times. If you honestly still don't remember them, there is no point in going on since you aren't even paying attention. How about this. Tell me back just one of the arguments I've made in favor of progressive taxation and I'll flesh out the rest once again.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I've presented the arguments to you many times. If you honestly still don't remember them, there is no point in going on since you aren't even paying attention. How about this. Tell me back just one of the arguments I've made in favor of progressive taxation and I'll flesh out the rest once again.

the only reason why this sham was foisted on the american people was

1) it was supposed to be temporary
2) Like the current death tax-it didn't effect but a small small minority
3) those who don't pay enough taxes still have the same individual voting rights as those who pay most of the bills

all that other crap is designed to serve as a facade for this power grab congress engineered with the 16th Amendment.

I couldn't care less what "ARGUMENTS" you have made-most of those who spew the usual talking points in favor of this nonsense aren't telling the real truth behind their motivation anyway

its a scheme designed to buy those who represent net tax consumers votes paid for by net Tax payers

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I couldn't care less what "ARGUMENTS" you have made

Then I guess we're done here.

 

[sookster]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

The fact that we have labor isn't in my control, it is just some religious praise to capitalism. He or she isn't any more special than me. If I had the money that some of these people had to begin with, you would see me on msn.com headlines. It isn't hard.

 

[apdst]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Is this the same Warren Buffet that is billion dollars behind in his income taxes?

It's easy to propose higher taxes, when you're not going to pay your ****ing taxes, anyway. :rofl

 

[Henrin]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

So you counter the overwhelming economic, moral and utilitarian arguments in favor of progressive taxation (which I've presented to you a dozen times without any substantive counter argument from you) with "we shouldn't have it because you want it"...

What are the economic benefits to a system that allows people to get more back than put in and treats other people like the slaves to their interests?

How do you maximize happiness in a system where some pay more than others?

How is it moral to use coercion as your method of payment?

How is it that the purpose of taxation is funding of a government, but the purpose of the progressive tax system is distributing of wealth and all the while people believe this is fair? Fair would be a system where everyone pays the same or at least can take part in services they decide. Not a system of force that is clearly not balanced toward being fair and balanced but more towards wanting a greater return out of government at someone else's expense.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

Is this the same Warren Buffet that is billion dollars behind in his income taxes?

It's easy to propose higher taxes, when you're not going to pay your ****ing taxes, anyway. :rofl

Its also easy to demand others make sacrifices that don't affect you

be it non tax payers demanding net tax payers pay more or billionaires demanding someone who is merely rich pay 2 or 3 times more taxes

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

I definitely agree, BUT, Buffet's example points out why that isn't the main problem. The main problem is that rich investors are taxed at a much lower rate- 15%. Billionaires pay 15% where somebody who supports a family of four on $35k/year by working two jobs is in the 25% bracket, plus the guy making $35k pays 6% FICA, plus their employer pays 6%, and really the employers just reduce their pay by 6% to cover it. So, the guy who is making $35k is actually paying 37% on the money he earns over $34,500/year. while the billionaire is only paying 15% on their income above the same amount. That's the biggest problem.

On top of that, middle class people pay a much higher percentage of their income to property taxes, sales taxes, unemployment taxes, disability taxes, vehicle taxes, etc. than super rich people do, so it's even worse than that.

Capital gains taxes only have two brackets. $0-$34,500 is taxed at 5%, anything somebody makes above $34,500 is taxed at 15%. We need more brackets. If we want to keep the rates low for regular folks saving up for their kids' college or something, that's fine by me, but we should create a new bracket where investment income above say $200k/year is taxed at 35% or so. Or we could just do away with the distinction between investment income and wages and just tax all income the same under the income tax brackets we have now.

Buffet was at a big banquet with a couple hundred super rich people once and he famously announced his challenge to the room that if anybody there could prove to him that they paid a higher percentage in taxes than their own secretary he would give them $1 million. Nobody was able to collect. Every single one of the megamillionares and billionaires in the room paid lower tax rates than their own secretaries did. That isn't because of income taxes, that is because we give such a massive tax break to super rich investors.

The rich pay the most in effective tax rates.
Sorry but the claim of the middle class paying a higher percentage just isn't true at all.

The discrepancy in taxes in between the top 1% and the top 20%.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

What are the economic benefits to a system that allows people to get more back than put in and treats other people like the slaves to their interests?

How do you maximize happiness in a system where some pay more than others?

How do is it moral to use coercion as your method of payment?

How is it that the purpose of taxation is funding of a government, but the purpose of the progressive tax system is distributing of wealth and all the while people believe this is fair? Fair would be a system where everyone pays the same or at least can take part in services they decide. Not system of force that is clearly not balanced toward being fair and balanced and more towards wanting a greater return out of government.

if everyone had to pay the same rate, the dem party's ability to buy votes would be non-existent. they couldn't promise the masses more and more government paid for only by the rich

 

[teamosil]

Re: Buffett and related tax matters

What are the economic benefits to a system that allows people to get more back than put in and treats other people like the slaves to their interests?

Silly characterizations aside, the economic benefits of progressive taxation come from the reality that the economy needs educated middle class people to work for the companies and a middle class with enough money to spend to keep the companies afloat. When the money gets too concentrated, you lose both those things and everybody ends up worse off for it.

How do you maximize happiness in a system where some pay more than others and it is clear people are angry over it?

There are indeed some people who are angry because they think taxes are too high or too progressive. But, lets be honest, that's just their ignorance. In reality the super rich actually pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. Not only are the taxes not "too progressive", they aren't progressive at all. In fact, they aren't even flat. They're REGRESSIVE. So when somebody gets mad because they think they're too progressive, it's hard to really take them seriously.

As for thinking taxes are too high, that's equally silly. They're lower than they've been for all of modern history in the US. The top tax bracket is just over 1/3 of how high it was at the peak. And they're lower- way lower for the super rich- than they are in any other first world country in the world. Again, complaining that they're too high in a situation like that is just ignorant.

How do it moral to use coercion as your method of payment?

All taxation is mandatory. Without taxation the only option is anarchy. So, we all have this implicit social contract that we are willing to accept some obligations in exchange for having a government and a shot at a decent life. Do you honestly think that is a bad or immoral deal? We have a moral obligation to be in anarchy like Somalia or somewhere?

How is it that the purpose of taxation is funding of a government, but the purpose of the progressive tax system is distributing of wealth and all the while people believe this is fair?

I don't see how that is an argument. You're just saying "it has two purposes, so therefore it must be unfair!" but that doesn't follow.

Whatever system of economic rules we live under, it will play a role in determining who gets what money. If you have a society where investors make the decisions about how the companies run on their own, money is distributed to the investors. If you have a society where employees have the final word on what the company does, money is distributed to the workers. If you have a tax system based on sales taxes money is distributed from those who spend a lot of their income on taxable goods to those who don't. If you switch from a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system, money is redistributed from the poor to the rich. Etc. No matter what you do, the way the rules are set up affects who gets how much money. Currently in the US the rules are set up to radically favor the rich. That's why we are seeing such an absurd amount of wealth being sucked up by a tiny number of people. It's unprecedented in the first world. You normally only see this kind of distribution in third world countries. It's really becoming a problem. So, that means we need to dial things back a little bit. Back to maybe how it was set in the 90s when everybody was getting a bite at the apple.