|
Public companies are accountable to its stock holders, and only really the larger of them since you and me wouldn't be having any say (practically) in their shareholder meeting. A government is accountable via the media, where every blunder is measured out large and where everyone big enough with an agenda, is out to get a piece of attention. Like human rights violations for example.
Not quite accurate. Public companies (any company actually) are accountable to many parties, including its consumers, employees and contractual counterparties. A democratic government is generally accountable to the voters, but there is a bigger likelihood of misinformed decision-making when voting than when making a market decision, because the consequence of any single vote is negligible.
Concretely, consumers buy stuff from a company because they like that stuff enough to part with their money. Companies respond accordingly to that consumer demand. Voters, however, kind of just do whatever the fuck they want as each individual vote is so inconsequential, and no individual voter has much of a stake in the outcome. One way to counter poor voting behavior is a strong civic culture such as those seen in Scandinavia. A corollary is that without a strong civic culture, democracy can lead to very bad outcomes.
|
On August 18 2011 02:49 Tien wrote:
I can see the communist manifesto taking on more and more popularity.
Would be nice, because the stuff about the economic consequences (in "the capital") still holds true.
|
On August 18 2011 05:43 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 02:49 Tien wrote:
I can see the communist manifesto taking on more and more popularity. Would be nice, because the stuff about the economic consequences (in "the capital") still holds true.
Partially true, but in a very limited way. Inspired by smith marx overemphasized the importance of labor inputs. This though has been invalidated in modern economics and a going back to it would have horrible consequences economically.
|
On August 18 2011 05:19 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 05:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 18 2011 04:34 Ig wrote:On August 17 2011 06:57 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? Number wise yes, but not percentage wise. I think he mentions it in his article. He pays around 17% while his coworkers pay around 30? HE did mention it. What a crock of crap. I don't mean you, as I know Buffett said it, but first, his tax records are not public, so he can claim whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can verify it. Not even the IRS can come out and call him a liar, as they are bound by disclosure laws. Second, payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount, so his fellow employees pay payroll taxes on their entire income where he does not. He pays the same taxes as they do, and more, up to the cap that applies to social security taxes. Third, he said a lot of his income is from capital gains, which when compared to the wages his employees are making, it's apples and oranges. Fourth, he most certainly has dividend income, which is taxed at a lower rate these days, but that income is being double taxed anyways, as the corporation paying the dividend has already paid tax on that, a rate that you can be sure Mr. Buffett is not including in his 17% calcuation. Fifth, I'm sure Mr. Buffett has plenty of private foundations in his name that he contributes to annually, which he determines how the money is to be spent in charitable ways. These contributions are deducted from his income before calculating his taxes, even though he dictates how the money is spent, instead of the government. Sixth, it's safe to say that his 17% number is based on his total income before all these deductions that he is taking and not based on his taxable income, whereas his "coworkers" do not have deductions to that extent. Misleading at best. It's not misleading at all, so stop trying to mislead us because you have an obvious agenda/vendetta against this man and his words. He can indeed claim whatever he wants, but for a cause such as this, why would he lie? The payroll tax cap is one of the issues, I'm not sure why you would bring that up against him. The rich should be taxed by their entire income, they can afford it. Capital gains at his tax bracket are probably the only thing on which he is currently taxed more than his workers, but after 2012 short term capital will be taxed at the income tax rate of the individual and long term capital gains will be capped at 20%. You only need to own something for 12 months before selling it to qualify as a long term capital gain, do you see any problems yet? Double taxing such large dividends is fine, it should be taxed more quite frankly. Do you really think there's an issue with Buffett giving money to charities as he pleases? To say he's denying the government it's share is a straw man, it's simply what he wanted to do because he didn't want to coddle his children and family with wealth by passing it down to them. Regardless of what you say about his deductions, the fact is the tax rate on the rich is quite low in the US even when compared against previous decades and the money they save isn't being reinvested back into workers, production, or even R&D. A look back at history when we had similar policies and chain of events should bring up the Great Depression as a result. Take your straw man to the Tea Party where they'll believe it. His argument, however "invalid" you may deem it, wasn't a straw man, so it's quite annoying to see you present it as one. I don't understand how you think it wasn't misleading either. Sure, you may think it's justified regardless, but that's completely different than misleading... It was a straw man because it chose to misrepresent Buffett's statements without making note of something very obvious. Granted, the numbers are vague at best, but Buffett doesn't mislead us at all - his income breakdown and gifts to charity have many similarities with other rich or super-rich people, resulting in similar (or in the ballpark) overall tax rates that are indeed lower than their secretaries'. Has nobody here seen this obvious connection? *edit* I suppose I forgot to mention the issue of Buffett giving virtually all of his money to charity. If a middle-class couple with no children did the same with say, 500k they saved up over time, nobody would say a damn thing, but if Warren Buffett does it, it's suddenly denying the government money?
It didn't misrepresent anything, it was fairly accurate from what I read.
And who said donating to charity is denying the government money? I believe Kaitlin was merely mentioning that was how such a low figure came about. I don't think he was saying there was anything wrong with it.
|
On August 18 2011 03:20 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 03:15 Tien wrote:
Capitalists aren't the ones bankrupting this country.
True socialism is founded off the back of capitalism.
Wealth disparity is not what is destroying America.
Our government levels of waste and spending is. Going by catchphrases is what is destroying America.
Well.. he has a point, even if it's not well articulated. The conclusion I got from both the Buffett articles and the rebuttals is that there's a consensus that its unfair that billionares often pay less % of their income than their employees. But looking at the amount of money that would result if the top .5% were paying higher tax rates, it's still an inconsequential amount of money and it's dishonest to blame the inequitable tax structure on the encompassing federal deficit. It's definitely un-just, but the only long-term solution is going to be spending a hell of a lot less money.
|
Interesting, but irreverent in my opinion.
Sure we could keep taxing the rich more and more, but they didn't control our markets which lead to these crashes. The government wastes the money that we invest to improve the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_Visitor_Center
Read the part about the adjustment of cost for the building then they blame it on weather and fuel prices. Our government is so fucking corrupt that they actually let shit like that happen. And it isn't just in that one big project something as simple as building a road is overpriced every time and whatever subcontracter they use low bids then adjusts the price later to rape our tax dollars.
I wish people would pay more attention to our representatives rather than big buisness. Because both sides are corrupt.
|
On August 17 2011 06:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? Number wise yes, but not percentage wise. I think he mentions it in his article. He pays around 17% while his coworkers pay around 30? HE did mention it. What a crock of crap. I don't mean you, as I know Buffett said it, but first, his tax records are not public, so he can claim whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can verify it. Not even the IRS can come out and call him a liar, as they are bound by disclosure laws. Second, payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount, so his fellow employees pay payroll taxes on their entire income where he does not. He pays the same taxes as they do, and more, up to the cap that applies to social security taxes. Third, he said a lot of his income is from capital gains, which when compared to the wages his employees are making, it's apples and oranges. Fourth, he most certainly has dividend income, which is taxed at a lower rate these days, but that income is being double taxed anyways, as the corporation paying the dividend has already paid tax on that, a rate that you can be sure Mr. Buffett is not including in his 17% calcuation. Fifth, I'm sure Mr. Buffett has plenty of private foundations in his name that he contributes to annually, which he determines how the money is to be spent in charitable ways. These contributions are deducted from his income before calculating his taxes, even though he dictates how the money is spent, instead of the government. Sixth, it's safe to say that his 17% number is based on his total income before all these deductions that he is taking and not based on his taxable income, whereas his "coworkers" do not have deductions to that extent. Misleading at best.
What the hell? You do notice that you twist the story around to fit your bias right?
What a crock of crap. I don't mean you, as I know Buffett said it, but first, his tax records are not public, so he can claim whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can verify it.
So not being able to verify his statements makes him a liar by default?
Second, payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount, so his fellow employees pay payroll taxes on their entire income where he does not. He pays the same taxes as they do, and more, up to the cap that applies to social security taxes.
Maybe I dont understand this point but you are saying that the employees pay more percentage wise and he pays more in total $?
Third, he said a lot of his income is from capital gains, which when compared to the wages his employees are making, it's apples and oranges.
Where is the significant difference? Both increase wealth. Maybe you explained this point further up, but as it is, it's a baseless claim. Like your girlfriend claiming that her making out with that guy was DIFFERENT, REALLY!!!1
Fourth, he most certainly has dividend income, which is taxed at a lower rate these days, but that income is being double taxed anyways, as the corporation paying the dividend has already paid tax on that, a rate that you can be sure Mr. Buffett is not including in his 17% calcuation.
So first you are speculating and basing on that speculation you claim that this income is different than a wage?
Depending on the frame you are working with, wages paid to employees come from profits of the last year, which has been taxed already, like the dividends.
This is assuming though, that corporation can't count current dividends towards cash flow instead of profits. Not sure about that, but if it does, it invalidates your point that is even based on a speculation.
Fifth, I'm sure Mr. Buffett has plenty of private foundations in his name that he contributes to annually, which he determines how the money is to be spent in charitable ways. These contributions are deducted from his income before calculating his taxes, even though he dictates how the money is spent, instead of the government.
Again frame of reference and speculation to suit your story. Even if true, the point is, that he paid only 17% of whats left over. What remains of your speculation is "I'm sure his company built a new house instead of giving monies to Buffet. This expenditure counts towards Buffets taxes!"
Sixth, it's safe to say that his 17% number is based on his total income before all these deductions that he is taking and not based on his taxable income, whereas his "coworkers" do not have deductions to that extent.
Restating your point to make it look more, eh? And another baseless assumption to suit you. This time about Buffet and his coworkers. Great.
|
On August 18 2011 06:30 Drowsy wrote:
The conclusion I got from both the Buffett articles and the rebuttals is that there's a consensus that its unfair that billionares often pay less % of their income than their employees. But looking at the amount of money that would result if the top .5% were paying higher tax rates, it's still an inconsequential amount of money and it's dishonest to blame the inequitable tax structure on the encompassing federal deficit. It's definitely un-just, but the only long-term solution is going to be spending a hell of a lot less money.
Yes. The U.S. has neglected basic bookkeeping for the past decade, as its expenditures have nearly doubled (and will continue to increase at a similar rate under the compromise budget agreed to by Obama and the Republicans) while tax revenues have stagnated. The end result is that the government is now borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that it spends (a key to the downgraded credit rating), and no elected officials are willing to admit that they need to either cut spending to the bone or spike up taxes and devastate an already poor economy. Either solution would spell political suicide anyone who votes for it, which is precisely why no one has done anything while Bush and Obama have spent the nation into a corner.
If legislators do brave the lobbyists and raise taxes on the super-rich, they'll have a few more drops in the tax bucket while removing that investment capital from the market, meaning more tax dollars and a weaker economy. They'll also remain miles and miles away from financial stability, which is where this country will continue to be until and unless it cuts federal spending in half or figures out a way to increase its tax revenues by 50% above projections.
|
Seeing a bunch of children argue about economics is irritating.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."
When the majority can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority, the system is broken, and will fail. We have 50% of the population paying 3% of the taxes, and they want more, and can vote themselves more. A flat tax is the only fair tax. Shared burden.
|
On August 18 2011 07:12 gimpy wrote:
Seeing a bunch of children argue about economics is irritating.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."
When the majority can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority, the system is broken, and will fail. We have 50% of the population paying 3% of the taxes, and they want more, and can vote themselves more. A flat tax is the only fair tax. Shared burden.
You seriously come into the thread insulting everybody by calling them children then follow that up by suggesting a flat tax? Seriously?
Anybody who understands economics at all can throw out the suggestion of a flat tax immediately. You're supposed to learn why flat tax is unfair to the poor in middle school, or early high school at the latest.
Way to show us!
|
On August 18 2011 05:21 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Public companies are accountable to its stock holders, and only really the larger of them since you and me wouldn't be having any say (practically) in their shareholder meeting. A government is accountable via the media, where every blunder is measured out large and where everyone big enough with an agenda, is out to get a piece of attention. Like human rights violations for example. Not quite accurate. Public companies (any company actually) are accountable to many parties, including its consumers, employees and contractual counterparties. A democratic government is generally accountable to the voters, but there is a bigger likelihood of misinformed decision-making when voting than when making a market decision, because the consequence of any single vote is negligible. Concretely, consumers buy stuff from a company because they like that stuff enough to part with their money. Companies respond accordingly to that consumer demand. Voters, however, kind of just do whatever the fuck they want as each individual vote is so inconsequential, and no individual voter has much of a stake in the outcome. One way to counter poor voting behavior is a strong civic culture such as those seen in Scandinavia. A corollary is that without a strong civic culture, democracy can lead to very bad outcomes.
The problem is that people tend to only listen to what they want to listen to. Liberals will tend to watch MSNBC and ignore Fox News, Conservatives will tend to watch Fox News and ignore MSNBC.
If people stop only watching the news programs that make them feel better and do more independent research, I think wed get a more moderate and more informed voting population. Unfortunately, theres no way to force people to do that. In the end, those in power will primarily resort to cheap political tricks and manipulations to get the votes they need instead of being geniune about their beliefs. Even politicians can be very misinformed because they know that they only have to play to the base desires of the people who support them.
|
On August 18 2011 07:12 gimpy wrote:
Seeing a bunch of children argue about economics is irritating.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."
When the majority can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority, the system is broken, and will fail. We have 50% of the population paying 3% of the taxes, and they want more, and can vote themselves more. A flat tax is the only fair tax. Shared burden.
Children huh? You come in here immaturely insulting the people trying to have a meaningful discussion and you think youre the adult? lol
Not only that, theres people here who are very informed about the economic system. If you took the time to read some of the earlier pages youd see that.
And you suggest a flat tax...So those guys making $10,000 a year need to pay the same percentage as those making $10,000,000 a year? What about cost of living? How would it be a good thing to tax those who can barely afford the cost of living at the same percentage of those who have 10x the cost of living in after tax income?
Edit: Oh and having a flat tax will not change the notion that the super rich will pay the higher percent of total US tax revenues. If everyone paid, for example, 25% of their total income, those top percent of income earners making tens of millions a year will still be paying a larger percent of the total tax burden than the lower-middle class making tens of thousands a year.
|
On August 18 2011 07:12 gimpy wrote:
Seeing a bunch of children argue about economics is irritating.
No forum is without its trolls...
This is not entirely an economic issue, most of the people posting here seem to understand the social and philosophical conundrums of wealth distribution.
Also, I really enjoy reading the TL forums because as an educator I find it reassuring that there is a group of young adults that are capable of independent thought and intelligent discussion.
|
You do realize one of the problem in united states is the complexity of its tax regulation right?
There is deduction,rebates,ect it is so complicated that only the richest demographic can afford to circumvent the system leaving us in a mess of the so called "progressive tax"
The government by trying to give the public the perception of an ideal taxation system it actually broke it.
We don't even know how much are our neighbors are paying because its so FUCKING complicated, and when its complicated lawyers,accountant and their assholes peers can reap its benefits because they are the few people that actually understand how the system works.
The current tax system discriminate agaisnt those who doesn't not have the means to understand it.
Will flat tax resolve this? ABSOLUTELY NOT! but guess what it gives transparency no more running around in circles.
Everyone would have to pay their share and the richest still pay the most(not % wise)
Lastly if you think that there is such thing is a "fair" taxation you are either a very naive or and an idiot, anyone with an average intelligent know that there is no such thing as complete fairness in this world only the desire for it.
Flax tax guarantees transparency and a sense of "fairness".
But it will not happen, those with wealth and intellect always want control over others , failing to do that they will discriminate by the use of law,regulation and terms that only they could understand.
|
Denmark95 Posts
On August 18 2011 07:12 gimpy wrote:
Seeing a bunch of children argue about economics is irritating.
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare."
When the majority can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority, the system is broken, and will fail. We have 50% of the population paying 3% of the taxes, and they want more, and can vote themselves more. A flat tax is the only fair tax. Shared burden.
Apart from the assinine, yet constantly reoccuring, call for a flat tax, you are forgetting something.
Those making the income at the top have a far larger share in society than they are paying taxes for. They gain much more from having a functional market driven society than the ones at the bottom.
If a foreign power invaded and took over tomorrow a substantional percentage of people would probably not even see a drop in living standards. But a lot of rich people might see their living standards drop far beyond their taxation level percentagewise. Consequently the military is not protecting everyone equally.
Equally if sanitation, electricity, roads, police and firefighting disappeared over night.
Percentagewise those services provide an increasingly bigger insurance/service the larger your income. Increasing much faster than the tax brackets as you go up in income.
The progressive tax system as it is currently constructed in the US is only a sorry little patch on that disparity. When the top 400 people own as much of the country as the bottom 156 million the current tax brackets are a joke. Those 400 people are effectively invested in the country, compared to the bottom 50%, at a factor of 390000 to 1. Good thing the goverment is not an insurance company...
But you could go your way of course. And then you would soon remember the recent riots in London as only a small prelude to what happens when you disenfranchise the majority of a population. I can recommend a little French history.
|
Denmark95 Posts
On August 18 2011 08:41 VL-Orion wrote:
Flax tax guarantees transparency and a sense of "fairness".
But it will not happen, those with wealth and intellect always want control over others , failing to do that they will discriminate by the use of law,regulation and terms that only they could understand.
You do understand that a flat tax will exactly accomplish that, right? Your sense of "fairness" will only last until you compare your income(after taxes) to the cost of living.
|
someone needs to make a warren buffett fan club. this takes incredible integrity.
|
Oh Warren Buffet, what a troll you are.
Now that you're old enough to keel over and die any minute now, you want people to have to work harder to get to the same financial position as you.
Like someone already in this thread, even if we took all the money of the top 100 richest Americans, that's like a drop in a bucket of water. Higher taxes won't fix the deficit. It's NOT that simple.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400#p_1_s_arank_-1_
400 Richest Americans = Almost $1,400 Billion
If we took all (100%) their money, which btw, were collectively earned probably throughout half a century average (guessing), that'd just about take care of the national deficit.
And there's a big gap between even the top 30 and the other 370. So including even the top 1000 Americans won't add too much to that.
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up?
|
On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Oh Warren Buffet, what a troll you are.
Now that you're old enough to keel over and die any minute now, you want people to have to work harder to get to the same financial position as you.
What, because Buffet is richer because he works that much harder?
|
Are you implying you and every other American works just as hard as he does?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
