|
On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes.
My point is, you were replying to someone talking about how much the rich pay as a percentage of their wealth with a response talking about how much tax the rich pay as a percentage of taxes collected. Those are two different concepts and if you want to argue about either that's fine, but you're either confusing the two.
|
On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes.
YOu really are having reading problems, arent you.
|
On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Another way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%).
So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ?
|
On August 17 2011 07:15 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. i can't believe people really believe that bullshit. wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that.
This is not bullshit. It takes millions of dollars to develop a new product, scale it up, then market and sell the product. Then you need to worry about the government retroactively regulating your product and driving you out of business.
|
please read the article ...
warren buffet pays 17% taxes while people in his office (earinge less) pay on average 30% taxes.
Thats not progressive ... thats broken.
It's also irrelevant, as percentages don't pay the bills, actual numerical amounts of currency do. So Warren Buffett's tax burden is far more progressive than hers.
Proportions and percentages are a misleading way to make a weak argument; if I give out food to 1000 people for 1000 days and someone else gives out food to 1 person for 1000 days, but I have 10000x the food he does, does that mean his help is better than mine?
|
Man usually young people don't just verbatim quote far right talking points because on moral and social issues they get lambasted to shit for how retarded they are, but when finance is involved they think they either know more than everyone else or more likely are aware that 99.9% of people on this forum on both sides don't have a clue what they're talking about and anything that's quoted will have a sense of authority regardless of the content.
I mean I know america thrives on uninformed debate over incredibly complicated issues where they cite conjecture as evidence, but some of the posts in this thread and more importantly in your mainstream media are frankly disgusting for a first world nation.
|
On August 17 2011 06:38 thebigdonkey wrote:
The bottom 90% was swindled and so many are still too ignorant to see it.
Really funny how applicable this statement is becoming to the posters in this thread.
All Buffett is saying is that currently in America the richer you become, the less you pay in taxes as a percentage of your income. It's absolutely true and really needs to change.
|
On August 17 2011 07:16 Minion1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. Lowering taxes does not mean the corporations will hire people here. As technology progresses, less people are needed to do the same job. Plus, since it's becoming a global economy, Asia has an untapped market so they stay close to the consumer. The fact of the matter is lowering taxes for corporations won't bring back jobs. We need to close tax loops and exploits in the system that will generate wealth for the US. Also fair trade and competitive wages around the world would also help.
Yup just look at the UK with their austerity measures how much has the uk econ grown oh yeah 0%, 3 things are known to cause job growth, training/education, infrastructure roads etc. and scientific breakthroughs. Investments into those area's which are often the first to be cut back is what grows and economy. Just look how much the Chinese are pouring into those area's that's is why their econ is growing esp in the infrastructure and education department, along with a renewed interest in science often paying Chinese scientists who left the country to move their research back to china.
|
Make a flat tax and a sensible tax code that doesn't take a half dozen highly trained bureaucrats to break the ice on. It's not that the Super-rich don't pay enough taxes, our tax code is so nebulous that it is VERY easy for those with a little capital to circumvent taxes on income altogether without breaking any laws... companies like GE make literal dozens of billions in profit a year and don't pay a drop in taxes because they know they don't have to! They just shuffle their expenses off to their supergenius accountants who know how to move money well enough to never pay a significant amount of it in taxes. Saying the percentage the super-rich pay is too low is just stupid... The actual percentage may even be too high, it's just that it isn't paid in a HUGE amount of the time.
(Flat taxes would have allowances for charitable donations and would not affect the poverty stricken who already do not pay taxes for good reason... A real flat tax could lower taxes for EVERY group that pays/should pay taxes and increase revenue by a HUGE amount)
|
On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:15 Gaga wrote:On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. i can't believe people really believe that bullshit. wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that. This is not bullshit. It takes millions of dollars to develop a new product, scale it up, then market and sell the product. Then you need to worry about the government retroactively regulating your product and driving you out of business.
Are you saying our gov't shouldn't regulate products??? We're just gonna end up with something like businessmen using plastic shit in babies milk...
|
On August 17 2011 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:
He can send money above and beyond what he's charged in taxes if his poor widdle heart feels that he's not being forced to give enough already.
He's talking about his peers too, he's addressing a problem systemically. Did you read his own article?
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.
He isn't pretending, he thinks he and his peers should actually pay more.
|
On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ?
my question to you is how much did the top 1% make in terms of wealth of the country? if the top% have 50% of the wealth ( numbers pulled out of my ass, just a example) and they only payed 38% of the taxes they are not paying enough of their share. if they only made 25% of the wealth ( again pulling numbers out of my ass) and they are paying 38% of the taxes then they are paying to much. I dont know the numbers but im betting its the former not the latter
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 07:17 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes. YOu really are having reading problems, arent you.
Please point out where I have stated something false.
|
On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes.
No, you don't. Long term capital gains is 15%, no more what. For the very rich, salary is a very small portion of their wealth. Billionaires get most of their wealth from long term capital gains.
|
On August 17 2011 07:17 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes. My point is, you were replying to someone talking about how much the rich pay as a percentage of their wealth with a response talking about how much tax the rich pay as a percentage of taxes collected. Those are two different concepts and if you want to argue about either that's fine, but you're either confusing the two.
Sorry, but you're confusing a couple things as well. Here in the U.S., our income tax is based on our income, not our wealth. The argument of how much the rich pay as a % of all collections refers to whether they are paying their fair share or not, which is the relevant point. Talking about income taxes paid as a percentage of income is ridiculous because our tax code is complicated, and there are many types of income taxed at different rates. Not only that, but the "income" numbers used are inconsistent. Using "taxable income" as a basis, will result in the rich paying a significantly higher % of their income in taxes than the not-so-rich.
|
On August 17 2011 07:23 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:17 DannyJ wrote:On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes. YOu really are having reading problems, arent you. Please point out where I have stated something false.
I think 6 other people have already done that...
Not that you have stated something false, just stuff not related at all to what you are quoting.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:15 Gaga wrote:On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. i can't believe people really believe that bullshit. wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that. This is not bullshit. It takes millions of dollars to develop a new product, scale it up, then market and sell the product. Then you need to worry about the government retroactively regulating your product and driving you out of business.
It is bullshit, study some economics. The 'theory' is that by lowering taxes, they'll spend more of their money on their business, which leads to increased production which requires increased hiring. But this isn't happening. Why? Well, it's because when they do hire, it's cheaper to do it out of the country, and they don't always pump the money that would have gone into taxes back into the economy, and certainly usually not our own economy.
|
On August 17 2011 07:14 zeru wrote:
The income tax for rich people is no doubt a massive joke in the US. If i remember correctly the "rich" in sweden pay 60% income tax. I think even that is too little.
So is it in Denmark and Norway. But to be fair, we also get stuff like free healthcare, schooling, universities etc. I like the Danish system a lot better, America is pretty much fucked because it is too big to get anything important done politically because the campaigns are all about irrelevant stuff like abortion and political mudfights.
|
On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ?
that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
