Warren Buffett - "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" - Page 18

On August 17 2011 11:08 hacpee wrote:
And you think most good athletes (MJ) didn't make the majority of their cash on endorsements?

On August 17 2011 11:08 hacpee wrote:


And you think most good athletes (MJ) didn't make the majority of their cash on endorsements?

Taxes should be a flat % regardless, amongst all levels of income imo.

On August 17 2011 10:57 sunprince wrote:


Are you deliberately playing dumb, or truly incapable of understanding why low taxes on capital gains and dividends amounts to a regressive tax system?

On August 17 2011 11:06 hacpee wrote:


You can describe many things in simplified terms depending on what you want to know.

On August 17 2011 11:12 domovoi wrote:

Do you know anything about US taxation policy? It's one of the most progressive taxation systems within the Western world (due to the lack of VAT). However, overall rates are lower than other countries.

Also, capital gains tax is double taxation. The invested money comes from your income, which was taxed. When the investment is liquidated, it's taxed again.

On August 17 2011 11:05 Retry17 wrote:
I laugh at people telling me that lowering taxes is not effective.

History tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden.

Periods of higher tax rates (when you try to over tax the rich) are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. Lets look at some nifty facts from history.

Did you know that President Kennedy implemented across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

President Reagan (an era that is commonly bashed because people don't focus on the positives of tax cuts and instead focus on government spending) proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Don't tell me I have strawman arguments when the facts are right in front of your face. These aren't my fucking ideas, history has proven them. I don't understand how you could argue any of these facts, but I eagerly await the posts telling me that I don't understand anything and to go back to the 10th grade.

On August 17 2011 11:15 dreamsmasher wrote:
there are ways to avoid capitals gains taxes. most large corporations pay almost nothing in terms of taxes.

a good one that is accessible by even ordinary people is to set up a roth IRA (i'm not hugely knowledgeable about all the methods, but my parents setup one for me when i was a kid too), or setting up a charitable foundation (gates etc...)

On August 17 2011 11:05 Retry17 wrote:
I laugh at people telling me that lowering taxes is not effective.

History tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden.

Periods of higher tax rates (when you try to over tax the rich) are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. Lets look at some nifty facts from history.

Did you know that President Kennedy implemented across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

President Reagan (an era that is commonly bashed because people don't focus on the positives of tax cuts and instead focus on government spending) proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Don't tell me I have strawman arguments when the facts are right in front of your face. These aren't my fucking ideas, history has proven them. I don't understand how you could argue any of these facts, but I eagerly await the posts telling me that I don't understand anything and to go back to the 10th grade.

On August 17 2011 11:00 hacpee wrote:


There are 6 tax brackets. So when you win 6 star leagues, you continuously get less and less money. Then the decline stops.

Now what progressives want to do is tax it up to 90%. So when you win 10 starleagues, you get 10% of your money. Then they also want to tax the money you earn on the side, IE endorsements which are like capital gains.

On August 17 2011 10:36 thebigdonkey wrote:


http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/kwze6btvQoc/Warren Buffett s Home/5BBHaXPy2Ro

Yup that looks like the house of a man swallowed by his wealth and greed. You forget that he has shareholders and thousands of employees to look after. I challenge you to watch some interviews of him, his partner, and some of his employees. It's hard not to come away impressed at how grounded he is.

There are LOADS of tax phase outs, exceptions, deductible expenses, and whatnot that can lower your tax burden to below what youd pay with just your gross income.

On August 17 2011 11:11 dreamsmasher wrote:


that's exactly what he's saying read what i wrote in my post.

the traditional way of thinking is that increasing marginal tax rates decreases marginal productivity, and by neoclassical economics that the people who make the most are the most productive (in the economic sense, not the colloquial sense). thus those people will spend and 'reinvest' so to speak back into the economy.

what buffet is saying is that for the mega rich -- this traditional logic does not hold.

for example my parents recently bought me a pretty nice computer and smartphone + data plan. i was really taken aback because when i was growing up my parents did not have the level of income that they make, but when i asked my parents about it (feeling kind of bad to allow them to spend so much money on a whim), they just said tax write off on behalf of dad's business.

On August 17 2011 11:12 domovoi wrote:
Do you know anything about US taxation policy? It's one of the most progressive taxation systems within the Western world (due to the lack of VAT). However, overall rates are lower than other countries.

On August 17 2011 11:12 domovoi wrote:
Also, capital gains tax is double taxation. The invested money comes from your income, which was taxed. When the investment is liquidated, it's taxed again.

On August 17 2011 11:20 Supamang wrote:

Second of all, the way the tier system works is that its dependent on different sections of the money. The top tier being 90% does NOT mean 90% of your entire government goes to the government. Say the tax brackets were:
[b]1. 0~$10K = 0%
2. $10K~50K = 10%
3. $50K~$100K = 20%
4. $100K+ = 30%

If you made $150,000 a year, that does NOT mean you have to pay $45,000 to the government ($150,000 * 30% = $45,000). The amount you pay is going to be $29,000. The first $10,000 you earn of the $150,000 will be tax free so thats $0 taxes paid. The next $40,000 ($10K to $50K) will be taxed at 10%, meaning you'll pay $4000. The next $50K ($50K to $100K) will be taxed at 20%, meaning youll pay $10,000 of that bringing you to a total of $14,000. The final $50,000 of your $150,000 ($100+) will be taxed at 30%, meaning youll pay $15,000 of that, bringing your total taxes payable to $29,000.

what buffet is saying is that for the mega rich -- this traditional logic does not hold.

On August 17 2011 11:17 domovoi wrote:

Wrong. Corporations pay a ton in taxes. Not sure what that has to do with capital gains...

Uh, rich people can't set up a Roth IRA. They can set up 401k's like everyone else, but they are limited to $15,000 in contributions a year. And that only avoids income tax. That doesn't avoid capital gains tax. It's taxed when you cash in on it.

Stop making up shit, seriously.

On August 17 2011 11:17 domovoi wrote:
Wrong. Corporations pay a ton in taxes. Not sure what that has to do with capital gains...
a good one that is accessible by even ordinary people is to set up a roth IRA (i'm not hugely knowledgeable about all the methods, but my parents setup one for me when i was a kid too), or setting up a charitable foundation (gates etc...)

On August 17 2011 11:25 domovoi wrote:

Yeah, and he uses a fucking anecdote to prove it. And retarded people for some reason accept it as truth. Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.