|
On August 17 2011 11:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Warren Buffett is rich? Good for him. He made the money honestly, he didn't rob anyone. He already pays a higher percentage of his income than anyone else. What I think is fair is everyone paying an equal percentage. In fact, that's almost the definition of fair. But fairness to some people means anyone who isn't successful should be subsidized until death at the expense of those who are. That sounds more like a parasite society to me, lacking in basic human dignity and self-sufficiency.
No, that is not the definition of fair, that is the definition of equal. Fairness involves a subjective measure based on logic and reason. What you're talking about is like zero tolerance, no thinking, no logic, no reason, only adherence to a set law, in your case, the law of equality in relation to a fixed tax percentile.
The idea behind the fairness of taxes and the existence of tax brackets is not so that the rich can subsidize the poor. It is that you pay an amount relative to how much you gain from government. Do you think the poor, someone who doesn't own a house, car, have children, a marriage, a college education, or a steady job benefits as much from an organized state as the CEO of a multi-national corporation? It would only be fair for the CEO to pay more because he's getting more. The poor should not subsidize the luxuries of the rich.
|
Increasing the capital gains tax is a very delicate issue, as it has a significant impact on investment opportunities and the direction in which capital investment flows; nonetheless, I can't fault Buffet for suggesting an increase on top earners as a helpful step towards a balanced budget, given other likely spending cuts and potential tax increases.
|
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where they have to spend their money in order to acquire more status. They can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
|
On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where you have to spend your money in order to acquire more status. You can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegie and Rockefeller.
And you have absolutely no idea whether you are right, wrong, or somewhere in between.
For all you know, Buffet could be a old broken man nearing the end of his life, sad and depressed by the fact that he has everything when millions of others have absolutely nothing and wants to make whatever difference he can.
|
Uh, none of those links say they pay very little. They do say that they don't pay nearly as much as the statutory rate, but an effective rate of 27.1% is still very high and completely at odds with the original statement that large companies don't pay any taxes. I mean, just browse any random large company's 10-K and you can see how wrong that is.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312510238044/d10k.htm
|
On August 17 2011 11:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Jeez....
Some rich guy says something that conforms to the liberals' worldview and they go nuts. I've heard this repeated everywhere. First of all, it's old news. Second, just because some random rich dude agrees with your convictions doesn't mean you need to repeat it endlessly and post links to it and make threads about it on TL.
The issue is largely irrelevant, it won't make a significant dent in our ridiculous spending. I know it makes poor people feel really happy when they can shaft people who are better off than they are, but personally I've never felt much appeal for an emotion driven, envious, class-warfare mentality.
Warren Buffett is rich? Good for him. He made the money honestly, he didn't rob anyone. He already pays a higher percentage of his income than anyone else. What I think is fair is everyone paying an equal percentage. In fact, that's almost the definition of fair. But fairness to some people means anyone who isn't successful should be subsidized until death at the expense of those who are. That sounds more like a parasite society to me, lacking in basic human dignity and self-sufficiency.
It's like you came straight from Fox News. Sorry, but this is simply a flawed and even dangerous mindset, and an increasingly popular one as the media becomes more willing to use misinformation to gain votes.
Warren Buffett is more than 'some random rich dude,' he's one of the most knowledgeable and experienced people in the financial world. When conservative politicians are saying 'don't tax the rich, it will kill business and ruin the economy,' and then the person who stands to benefit from their policies the most essentially says 'no, that's bullshit,' you know something is wrong.
The arguments against a flat tax rate are beyond count, but at the center of them all is the notion that people who have more money are better able to pay without any negative effect on their life or business.
A person who makes $100,000,000 a year will hardly be held back from investing and expanding business because he's afraid of taxation on his new income. The idea that the rich will stop spending their money if we tax it more is one of the biggest and most well-circulated lies of recent years. It's convenient misinformation that has spread like wildfire with the rise of right-wing extremism.
Anyways, compare the person who makes $100,000,000 a year to a person who makes $25,000 a year. Taxed at a flat 50%, one of these people will still live comfortably and run a business, while the other will struggle to pay bills or make a living at all. As the tax rate lowers, you still see the low-income person having to make huge sacrifices to survive, while the high-income person is barely affected at all. Once the rate gets extremely low, the government no longer has the income to support itself, meanwhile the poor person is still struggling and the rich person is still very comfortable. Now, if you tax the rich person at a higher rate, and the poor person at a lower rate, suddenly the country has services and infrastructure to support the ultra-poor while hardly affecting the ultra-rich at all.
You can say "it's not fair," but do you really want to live in a "fair" country where the top 10% of earners control 75% of the wealth while the bottom 20% live in poverty? It might surprise you to learn that we already do, and right-wing extremists seek to increase that gap even further, in the interest of the ultra-rich. That is the society lacking in basic human dignity, if you ask me.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
EDIT:
^
what he said
On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where they have to spend their money in order to acquire more status. They can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
dude the man earned his money through investing. he started at age 11, if he can do it at that age, im curious as to how he's been given a chance that noone else has.
|
Look people, the US has one of the most progressive taxation systems in the entire Western World. Stop spouting your lies about its lack of progressivity. The problem is the lack of progressivity in how it distributes the taxes, and the overall low tax burden of everyone. Progressivity is not an issue at all.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html#_ftn1
|
On August 17 2011 12:14 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where you have to spend your money in order to acquire more status. You can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegie and Rockefeller. And you have absolutely no idea whether you are right, wrong, or somewhere in between. For all you know, Buffet could be a old broken man nearing the end of his life, sad and depressed by the fact that he has everything when millions of others have absolutely nothing and wants to make whatever difference he can.
I am absolutely convinced that I am right.
If he felt that way then he would give away his money now, sell his mansion, sell his stake in his company and start living like a regular person. But he is never going to do that. He is going to live like a king until the day his heart gives out.
If he really cares about the poor who have very little then he would not be saying any of this. The system that produces the most wealth for everyone is a system based on free markets. The problem with our system, especially in the United States is not the free markets, its the lack of free markets. Too much regulation, and too much government/corporate collusion.
Look at how many people have gotten rich thanks to warren buffet. Think about all of the stuff those people buy and the jobs that creates. Look at the wealth he created, wealth that would not otherwise exist. Think in terms of his entire lifespan and every dollar that was not taxed. Think about how each of those dollars got multiplied several times over. Higher taxes means less future wealth for everyone. And what would a government a spend that money on? Would they generate more wealth? No they would squander on some phony program to help the poor, which does nothing but hurt the poor by creating dependency. (give a fish vs teach to fish..)
For all the hate the socialists give to capitalism the so called poor in the western world are as well off as the rich were decades ago. In the United States "poor" people with subsidized housing have separate rooms for each child, health care, big televisions in mutliple rooms, broadband, a car for each adult, no lack of appliances and sufficient and often new furniture.
It is so easy to focus on the inequality and cry about it, rather than take the time to realize that if we had forced equality all along then we would simply all be poor, far poorer than the "poor" are today.
Now there are genuine poor in other parts of the world and they need help. Churches do a very good job, there are many charities and organizations such as the peace corp. So encourage pepole to donate and volunteer. Ultimately its up to people in those countries to build a civilization for themselves. If you are talking about a nation taxing its citizens to redistribute wealth to other nations for some sort of global level equality then that is even worse but lets not get into that.
|
On August 17 2011 12:22 domovoi wrote:
Uh, none of those links say they pay very little. They do say that they don't pay nearly as much as the statutory rate, but an effective rate of 27.1% is still very high and completely at odds with the original statement that large companies don't pay any taxes. I mean, just browse any random large company's 10-K and you can see how wrong that is.
In 1998 alone, 94 major corporations paid less than half of the 35% they supposedly shold pay, and 24 of the largest, including General Motors, Pfizer, and JP Morgan, paid nothing. 55% of US companies paid no federal income taxes in at least 1 year during a study of 1998-2005. Additionally, the data seems to show that the larger a corporation, the less taxes it tends to pay.
US corporations do pay taxes, but they pay far less than people thought they should when it was decided to implement that 35%, and they pay less (and sometimes far less) than their corporations in other first-world nations. Thus, by any possible measure you want to use, American corporations pay "little".
|
On August 17 2011 11:12 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 10:57 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:54 SharkSpider wrote:
The only thing worth noting is that the richest people get tax breaks on capital gains and dividends, just like everyone else in the country, which is far from regressive. Are you deliberately playing dumb, or truly incapable of understanding why low taxes on capital gains and dividends amounts to a regressive tax system? 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.
Actually, capital gains is not double taxation, although dividends are. Capital gains are computed by subtracting the amount you invested (what you have previously paid tax on) from the amount you received by selling the investment, therefore you are only taxed on the difference, or the "capital gain".
|
On August 17 2011 12:32 sunprince wrote:
Thus, by any possible measure you want to use, American corporations pay "little".
Except the one that actually matters, the effective rate: 27.1%, one of the highest in the world. So, yeah.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 11:17 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +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. Wrong. Corporations pay a ton in taxes. Not sure what that has to do with capital gains... Show nested quote +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...) 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.
Roth IRAs are not taxed when you withdraw the money, assuming the rules are followed, as far as age requirement and such. Also, capital gains tax and retirement accounts have really nothing to do with each other.
|
On August 17 2011 12:30 domovoi wrote:Look people, the US has one of the most progressive taxation systems in the entire Western World. Stop spouting your lies about its lack of progressivity. The problem is the lack of progressivity in how it distributes the taxes, and the overall low tax burden of everyone. Progressivity is not an issue at all. http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html#_ftn1
You're wrong. The US does have the most progressive income tax, as your link shows.
But the whole point of Warren Buffet's article is that income tax is a tiny fraction (if not 0%) of incoming wealth for the richest Americans. When you factor in capital gains, the US actually has a regressive taxation system.
Read the damn article before commenting, people.
|
On August 17 2011 12:28 polysciguy wrote:EDIT: ^ what he said Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where they have to spend their money in order to acquire more status. They can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegies and Rockefellers. dude the man earned his money through investing. he started at age 11, if he can do it at that age, im curious as to how he's been given a chance that noone else has.
If he was starting out at age 11 by the time he made his first million and was considered super rich...imagine then if the government started taking a larger % of the money he made. Afterall he didn't "need" a million dollars, who does? The problem is that he was able to invest those untaxed dollars and multiply them several times over
If we took a million from him then, that is potentially billions of dollars in wealth that would not exist today. And not just in his pocket, but the pockets of many, many others.
|
On August 17 2011 11:20 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 11:00 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 10:53 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2011 10:48 hacpee wrote:
So how does it work if I have no idea? You tell me because this is exactly how it works.
Or you could read my previous response to you, or Warren Buffet's actual article, but somehow, I'm pretty sure it would still escape your primitive reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. 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. First of all, who said progressives wanted to tax the top tier at 90%? If its true just give me the source and Ill believe you. Fun fact: 90% top bracket tax rates were under Eisenhower, a Republican president. 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: 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. EDIT: This means that, switching out my fantasy tax brackets for the real current US tax brackets, if you are in the top tax tier you will always have an after-tax income of at LEAST $269,133. All your excess income above the top tier will be taxed at 35%. This is even assuming that you have taken no exemptions, deductions, etc. and that this is all "earned income" rather than other classifications such as "long-term capital gains", which currently get taxed at lower rates. Third of all, to people saying rich people pay their fair share, the tax code is not as simple as just tax brackets. 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. Why do you think people study the tax code for years and are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do peoples taxes? (Ive studied tax for several years as requirements for my accounting undergrad and graduate programs. Not my favorite topic in accounting Ill tell you that)
These "phase-outs" you refer to are actually phase-outs of deductions and exemptions, which in turn, INCREASE the taxes paid as income increases.
|
On August 17 2011 11:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Warren Buffett is rich? Good for him. He made the money honestly, he didn't rob anyone. He already pays a higher percentage of his income than anyone else. What I think is fair is everyone paying an equal percentage. In fact, that's almost the definition of fair. But fairness to some people means anyone who isn't successful should be subsidized until death at the expense of those who are. That sounds more like a parasite society to me, lacking in basic human dignity and self-sufficiency.
He doesn't pay a "higher percentage of his income than anyone else"!!!
That's exactly his point in the article!!! He's saying he pays a LOWER % of his income than the average working joe!!!
Also, tax on capital gains do may affect the decision between investment and consumption, but in overall economic literature, this effect hasn't been found to be significative or conclusive. Since the marginal consumption rate gets lower the higher you income gets (as in, the richer you are, less % of your money you put into consumption), this decision becomes even less important at higher income levels.
|
On August 17 2011 12:32 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:14 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where you have to spend your money in order to acquire more status. You can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegie and Rockefeller. And you have absolutely no idea whether you are right, wrong, or somewhere in between. For all you know, Buffet could be a old broken man nearing the end of his life, sad and depressed by the fact that he has everything when millions of others have absolutely nothing and wants to make whatever difference he can. I am absolutely convinced that I am right. If he felt that way then he would give away his money now, sell his mansion, sell his stake in his company and start living like a regular person. But he is never going to do that. He is going to live like a king until the day his heart gives out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_buffet#Early_life
In 1957, Buffett had three partnerships operating the entire year. He purchased a five-bedroom stucco house in Omaha, where he still lives, for $31,500.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/business/01buffett.html
|
On August 17 2011 12:38 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:28 polysciguy wrote:EDIT: ^ what he said On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where they have to spend their money in order to acquire more status. They can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegies and Rockefellers. dude the man earned his money through investing. he started at age 11, if he can do it at that age, im curious as to how he's been given a chance that noone else has. If he was starting out at age 11 by the time he made his first million and was considered super rich...imagine then if the government started taking a larger % of the money he made. Afterall he didn't "need" a million dollars, who does? The problem is that he was able to invest those untaxed dollars and multiply them several times over If we took a million from him then, that is potentially billions of dollars in wealth that would not exist today. And not just in his pocket, but the pockets of many, many others.
but they were taxed, most likely at higher tax rates than are out there today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
