|
On August 17 2011 07:23 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin 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. 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 ? If anything that just shows how much money the rich actually have and that it will only help if they pay way more and it wont hurt them a single bit. I dont see that as a good argument at all for the ones who disagree with Buffett.
So, your response is that it's never enough ? The rich should just fund the government, no matter how irresponsible the spending becomes ?
|
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 ?
So how much do the rich own? How much does the rest of the tax-payers own?
Say the total tax revenue was 1.5 billion. Now, if the rich owned 7 trillion, paying 60% of 1.5 billion is nothing. If the other 95% only owned 1 trillion, paying 40% of the the 1.5 billion is a much bigger hit to them in terms of what they can spend.
Just like if I take 30% of the $10 you have and 30% of the $1 I have, my spending power decreases a whole lot more than yours.
That's why you need more than just percentages.
|
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.
Companies don't pay taxes on their expenses, you know.
And there's something perverse about companies accounting for product development costs as assets in their financial accounting to raise their stock but counting it as an expense on their tax accounting to lower their taxes.
|
On August 17 2011 07:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Your argument makes no sense. In either scenario you gave out more food. Since you gave out 10,000 times the amount of food than the other person your. Thus, you gave out more food and your help is better.
Math is a tool to help us understand things, yes it can be used in misleading ways, however until you explain how in this particular instance the 17% vs 30% is misleading, your argument is weak.
|
On August 17 2011 07:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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?
His is more generous it's more of a sacrifice
1000000 is how much food is given by you 1000x1000
He gives out 1000, but you have 1000x10000 = 10000000
1000000/10000000= 10% of what you gave at maximum, if he had more food you're giving out less and less % of your total.
Just remember the French revolution was brought about from bread shortages where the wealthy had most of the bread and the poor did not.
Also you're not analogous, say you gave out that 1000000 bread every 1 year but sense you have 10000000 bread to which you sold the 9000000 with profits allowing you to accumulate enough money to buy 11000000 if you gave out that 1000000 or even a flat 10% every year while you gained 10% in stock before you gave out 10% you would eventually consume all the bread there was, leaving the man who gave out only 1000 with no bread not even for himself.
|
Fuck it, burn the whole damn country to the ground.
Seriously though, tax the super rich, to hell. Almost none of them actually use their own money to invest anyways.
And then tax the living shit out of massive corporations as well. They don't actually create jobs when you lower taxes on them.
|
On August 17 2011 07:23 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin 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. 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 ? If anything that just shows how much money the rich actually have and that it will only help if they pay way more and it wont hurt them a single bit. I dont see that as a good argument at all for the ones who disagree with Buffett.
The argument is obvious. We don't like wealth distribution. Should the rich pay more just because they earn more? No! If society were truly fair, then everyone should pay a set dollar amount, no more, no less. Society is not fair however, and the rich already pay an overwhelming majority of our income taxes. They shouldn't be forced to pay any more.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin 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. 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.
Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue.
|
On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already?
No. After 250,000 a year you get tax BREAKS and pay far less than anyone else percentage wise which is outrageous. I pay a higher percentage of my wages to taxes than some rich guy who makes millions.
|
On August 17 2011 07:28 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote: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. Companies don't pay taxes on their expenses, you know. And there's something perverse about companies accounting for product development costs as assets in their financial accounting to raise their stock but counting it as an expense on their tax accounting to lower their taxes.
The point was that regulation hampers product development. And taxes do play a role in expenses. Take SS taxes. Unemployment insurance. These taxes raise the cost of hiring a worker.
|
On August 17 2011 07:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote: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.
Man Whitewing, you hit the jackpot man, exactly what all we middle class people feel. I vote for you if you run for president(if i can, im not old enuf to vote T.T)
|
On August 17 2011 07:29 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:26 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:23 zeru wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin 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. 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 ? If anything that just shows how much money the rich actually have and that it will only help if they pay way more and it wont hurt them a single bit. I dont see that as a good argument at all for the ones who disagree with Buffett. So, your response is that it's never enough ? The rich should just fund the government, no matter how irresponsible the spending becomes ? What does that have to do with anything. We're talking about the rich not paying enough tax not irresponsible government spending. Stay on subject.
I'm sorry. I made the same mistake that so many right-wing tea-bagging conservative lunatics do that irresponsible government spending was somehow related to how much taxes should be paid by the rich. My bad.
|
+ Show Spoiler +[QUOTE]On August 17 2011 06:38 thebigdonkey wrote:
In an [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html]op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Times[/url], Warren Buffett wrote (in the same common-sense folksy style readers of the Berkshire Hathaway annual newsletters will recognize) that he and his kind, the "super-rich", do not bear their fair share of the tax burden. Mr. Buffett has said repeatedly in the past that he believes he does not pay enough in taxes. This time, he dragged his friends into the mix. Among many inconvenient truths in the article, Mr. Buffett said the following, which struck a particular chord with me:
[quote]Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
Their arguments are somewhat hollow though. They argue that Buffett's "proposal" (their words, not his) will only be a drop in the pond when it comes to balancing the budget and as such should be dismissed. But if you read Buffett carefully, he speaks nothing about a complete solution for the crisis, only about equal burden for all. How the world's third wealthiest man can come under reproach (from far lesser men, in my opinion) for his opinions on investment, entrepreneurship, and taxation is behind me.
The biggest failure of the Bush administration to me, the one that turned me off to Republicans/Tea Partiers more than anything else, was just how much they catered to the wealthiest Americans. What made it worse was that they bribed the middle and lower class with pennies so that the richest among us could have more mountains of gold. The bottom 90% was swindled and so many are still too ignorant to see it. They coerce people with claims of shared moral high ground when all it really is blackmail and fear mongering...all with one hand in their constituents' purses.
These "representatives of the people" are nothing more than hired servants to the highest bidder. Is it any wonder that when adjusted for inflation, the average worker is making less now than they did 30 years ago while executive compensation explodes by hundreds of percent? In killing organized labor, they told us that they were protecting us from the evils of socialism and promoting fairness throughout. One can't help but feel that they're simply building a castle for the wealthy complete with moat.
I really don't understand your point of view. "The government only serves the wealthiest of Americans while the bottom 90% is swindled, therefore, the solution should be to raise tax rates to give the government more power." You realize you're contradicting yourself right?
All forms of government are evil and corrupt to some degree. The conservative viewpoint is lower taxes and smaller government so they have less power in our day to day lives so their corruption is pretty much irrelevant. Yet, you are anti-conservative.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."- Thomas Jefferson.
|
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 ?
Again, you're ignoring the taxation as a percentage of overall earning.
|
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 ?
But how much each group earns ?
|
On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin 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. 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. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue.
In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers.
What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc.
|
On August 17 2011 07:31 ckw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No. After 250,000 a year you get tax BREAKS and pay far less than anyone else percentage wise which is outrageous. I pay a higher percentage of my wages to taxes than some rich guy who makes millions.
You clearly know nothing about federal income taxation.
|
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 ?
stop being dumb.
the top 1% have over 95% of the country's wealth, so the fact that they only pay 38% in taxes is astounding.
|
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.
I'm a student. I pay 60% and manage to save up what equals @ 100 USD a month after all expenses are paid. I think that is too much and I think it is retarded that there isn't just a flat percentage on ALL income (except inheritance - the tax has already been paid once, taxing the money twice seems excessive at best, or put more directly, like stealing) which is the same for everyone - THAT is the only thing that is fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
