|
On August 17 2011 12:34 Kaitlin wrote:
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".
It's double taxation in the sense that money from capital gains is deferred consumption. My effective tax rate is lower if I had chosen to consume the money rather than save it for the future.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On August 17 2011 12:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The article doesn't provide any statistics whatsoever. It is utterly useless as a source of data. Here's more data:
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/02/10/taxes-and-inequality-lessons-from-abroad/
|
On August 17 2011 12:41 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:38 macil222 wrote: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.
The principle remains the same. And its not like the progressives actually just wanted to go back to previous rates. They were not happy back then and they never will be. The reason is because they are driven by some foolhardy notion of equality. The more you tax now the less there will be for everyone later. The truly greedy and irresponsible among us are those who want to squander the wealth we have now via taxation and spending rather than grow and invest our wealth so we have even more later for the next generations.
|
On August 17 2011 12:35 domovoi wrote:
Except the one that actually matters, the effective rate: 27.1%, one of the highest in the world. So, yeah.
Here's an international comparison, which shows that we're currently lower than average. Focus on the effective tax rate, since the statutory tax rate doesn't matter:
![[image loading]](http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/wsj-20090203.jpg)
Now, also take a look at how our effective tax rate compares historically.:
+ Show Spoiler +
It's also not a stretch to theorize that the low effective corporate tax on American companies drives down corporate taxes in other nations.
|
Both of those graphs indicate that corporations pay more than "very little" as you asserted or nothing as someone else asserted. The historical chart is similar looking for the entire Western World, fyi.
|
On August 17 2011 12:52 domovoi wrote:
Both of those graphs indicate that corporations pay more than "very little" as you asserted. The historical chart is similar looking for the entire Western World, fyi.
Which is why I pointed out that we probably drove it down, since we're the biggest economy and all.
The main idea, of course, is that corporations pay very little now, compared to what they used to. You can even plot out how our deficit growth correlates strongly with the decrease in effective corporate tax rates, though the causative factor is more limited, of course.
|
Here's a simple chart for you that demonstrates Buffet's argument:
![[image loading]](http://www.impactefficiency.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2007_IncomeTaxRates_ByShare.png)
Notice how the effective tax burden is actually progressive up to the upper-middle professional class, as I previously noted, but drops off as you venture into the truly wealthy.
|
What a great man. Its things like this that keeps me believe in humanity despite all the absolutely awful people in this world
|
On August 17 2011 12:57 sunprince wrote:
Which is why I pointed out that we probably drove it down, since we're the biggest economy and all.
I'm not sure what evidence there is that would lead you to conclude the US "probably" drove down corporate tax rates across the world, rather than the other way around following the success of low-tax countries like Hong Kong. Except your own bias.
The main idea, of course, is that corporations pay very little now, compared to what they used to. You can even plot out how our deficit growth correlates strongly with the decrease in effective corporate tax rates, though the causative factor is more limited, of course.
Everyone in the Western world pays very little now compared to what they used to. We're passed the silly days of extremely high marginal tax rates. The lowering of tax rates has little to do with the deficit given that inflation-adjusted tax revenue has increased significantly.
|
On August 17 2011 12:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 11:20 Supamang wrote: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.
Oops, that was a mistake by me to put it in the same category as deductions and exemptions. There are still deductions, exemptions, different types of income, different business entities, etc. as reasons as to why people dont pay their full tax bracket percentage
Regardless, the two notions that corporations pay taxes equal to their tax brackets or that corporations completely evade taxes are way too simplistic. Many corporations pay a good amount of taxes, many also evade a good amount of taxes. The argument should be about how much corporations ACTUALLY currently pay in general and whether or not that is fair. I was trying to dispel the idea that the tax code is as simple as tax brackets and loopholes
|
On August 17 2011 13:01 domovoi wrote:
The lowering of tax rates has little to do with the deficit given that inflation-adjusted tax revenue has increased significantly.
Revenue has obviously increased significantly since the population and GDP have grown. But revenue has actually dropped precipitously as a % of GDP since the Bush tax cuts, which is the only way to measure it that matters:
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tkoBGZGxru0/TLRfae9jxRI/AAAAAAAAAMw/gxhUjGRY9I0/s1600/Federal+Tax+Revenue.jpg)
So even though our economy has been getting bigger, we're collecting proportionately less and less taxes. We should obviously get that back in line while we're slashing spending.
|
On August 17 2011 13:00 sunprince wrote:Here's a simple chart for you that demonstrates Buffet's argument:
I understand and sympathize with Buffet's argument. It doesn't mean the US lacks a progressive taxation system, and the chart is consistent with that once you get passed the misleading axes and realize that the further right you get, the less people each axes represents.
Not to mention that capital gains isn't the same as income. Here's a simple exercise for you:
Let's say capital gains is 50% and income tax is 50%.
I make $2 today. 50% is taxed immediately, so I have $1.
If I invest it rather than spend it, then wait for it to double ($2), when I take it out I'm left with $1.50.
This is the same as taxing income at 62.5% if I choose to invest. $2 -> $.75 (invest)-> $1.50
On the other hand, if I had spent the $1 immediately, it's just a 50% income tax.
|
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. 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.
Why are you "absolutely convinced" that you are right? Do you know Buffett personally? do you know someone who does know him personally? I consider myself a cynical person but going as far as being completely convinced of Warren Buffetts evil greediness despite only basing this on conjecture is a bit much for me.
|
On August 17 2011 13:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:01 domovoi wrote:
The lowering of tax rates has little to do with the deficit given that inflation-adjusted tax revenue has increased significantly. Revenue has obviously increased significantly since the population and GDP have grown. But revenue has actually dropped precipitously as a % of GDP, which is the only way to measure it that matters: So even though our economy has been getting bigger, we're collecting proportionately less and less taxes.
Why are you looking at rates? Look at per capita. There's no fundamental reason for inflation-adjusted spending per capita to increase.
|
On August 17 2011 13:07 domovoi wrote:
I understand and sympathize with Buffet's argument. It doesn't mean the US lacks a progressive taxation system, and the chart is consistent with that once you get passed the misleading axes and realize that the further right you get, the less people each axes represents.
Yes, but he's suggesting only to increase the taxes on the wealthiest 0.3% anyway, which that graph would support as reasonable.
On August 17 2011 13:08 domovoi wrote:
Why are you looking at rates? Look at per capita. There's no fundamental reason for inflation-adjusted spending per capita to increase.
Absolute taxes per capita doesn't mean anything. As GDP goes up, of course people end up paying more taxes in absolute terms as the average income increases.
What we want to know is, has the percentage of their income that people are paying, and the graph shows that's gone down.
|
On August 17 2011 13:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:07 domovoi wrote:
I understand and sympathize with Buffet's argument. It doesn't mean the US lacks a progressive taxation system, and the chart is consistent with that once you get passed the misleading axes and realize that the further right you get, the less people each axes represents.
Yes, but he's suggesting only to increase the taxes on the wealthiest 0.3% anyway, which that graph would support as reasonable.
Is there a specific breakdown he's going for or is this speculation?
|
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can.
|
On August 17 2011 13:19 SharkSpider wrote:
Is there a specific breakdown he's going for or is this speculation?
Quoting the article in the OP that almost no one actually read:
On August 14 2011 Warren Buffet wrote:
I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
|
On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can.
You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could.
He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/images/corptaxrates_graph_2.jpg)
