|
On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best.
Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth. That statement is outrageous. If things were fair, then everyone should pay an equal, flat, cash amount for government. That is what fair means, everyone contributes equally. As an example, if people were pitching in to buy a friend some present, it would be fair to charge everyone an equal amount for the present, regardless of how much the individual earned. It would not be fair to overcharge the higher earners because "they can afford it".
|
On August 17 2011 07:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:44 turdburgler wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote: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. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most. i think your list of tax deductible things is too specific to get into in a more general thread on the issue ; / the main point seems to be that as you get richer, the cost of keeping yourself alive doesnt go up, so a linear tax increase makes no sense. tax increases should be exponential or something, because it not only becomes difficult to find more expensive food as you get richer, but some costs such as medical bills can go down But the point is, tax deductions, tax exempt income, etc. are the very things that rich people direct their money towards to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. This is exactly what creates this illusory lower % of income being paid by Buffett this his secretary. The fact is, comparing bottom line income taxes paid relative to "taxable income", I'd nearly guarantee Buffett's rate is higher than his secretary.
How is it an illusion if the super rich use these tools to lower their tax burden. The fact is through these tools they pay less tax. This is the point Buffett was making. Just because if they hadn't used those tools they would pay more than their secretaries doesn't make it so.
|
On August 17 2011 07:53 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth. That statement is outrageous. If things were fair, then everyone should pay an equal, flat, cash amount for government. That is what fair means, everyone contributes equally. As an example, if people were pitching in to buy a friend some present, it would be fair to charge everyone an equal amount for the present, regardless of how much the individual earned. It would not be fair to charge the higher earners because "they can afford it".
I disagree. The person who earns most should pay most. In my ethics this is fair. We have different philosophical views of the concept of fairness.
|
This man is a hero in my eyes!
|
On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of how much they earn, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best.
The point is, unless and until something is done with the level of government spending, the rich will always be the source for additional taxes, until they pay 100% or say fuck this, I'm outta here. Then what ? The problem is not that the rich don't pay enough.
Look at what is happening between states. CA imposed taxes and Amazon left, or more accurately cut ties within the state. In Ohio, Kasich put in some business-friendly measures and I'm hearing a couple of movies are going to or have started filming in Ohio, of all places. Again, job losses from the likely alternative, California.
Until some responsibility is taken for the level of spending, there will never be enough taxes to cover it, but the rich will always be the target. The rich, and the "evil" businesses. Eventually, they will leave to greener pastures. The rich can live where ever the fuck they want. Don't forget that.
|
On August 17 2011 07:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:38 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote: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. And in my opinion, I disagree. you just keep responing in one liners. care to elaborate?
Your opinion is that richer people should pay a larger %. My opinion is that they should not. What is there to elaborate about?
|
On August 17 2011 07:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:38 Ghostcom wrote: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. 60% income tax, are you a rich student with expensive lifestyle, or you also include healthcare costs, social security/pension insurance and similar ? Because according to wiki income tax in Denmark is 42%-63%, so with your 100$ leftover I would guess that you are on the bottom of that scale ?
Healthcare costs etc. are all covered by the danish tax which wiki should also have told you. The tax system is not a scale, there are 3 categories in it: low, middle and high, which you get put into depending on your annual earnings (also, the wiki percentages seems off, but perhaps they haven't included all the taxes (church tax which you can opt out of)). The ranges between when you have to pay low, middle and high tax are just pretty much retarded meaning that pretty much only people living on welfare pay the lowest tax, everyone else pays middle and upwards.
|
On August 17 2011 07:22 Deathmanbob 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 ? 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
From 2007
"The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS."
Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/who-pays-most-income-tax.htm
|
On August 17 2011 07:53 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth. That statement is outrageous. If things were fair, then everyone should pay an equal, flat, cash amount for government. That is what fair means, everyone contributes equally. As an example, if people were pitching in to buy a friend some present, it would be fair to charge everyone an equal amount for the present, regardless of how much the individual earned. It would not be fair to charge the higher earners because "they can afford it".
If you look around at all the tax codes in the first world you would be hard pressed to find any that are "one flat fee" for all levels of earners. Therefore, just because your opinion of what is fair is one thing does not make it so. There are many reasons why a percentage is more fair than a flat fee, but that is not the issue of the OP. That is an issue upon which there is already significant consensus and unfortunately for you, your opinion is in the minority.
|
On August 17 2011 07:54 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:50 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:44 turdburgler wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most. i think your list of tax deductible things is too specific to get into in a more general thread on the issue ; / the main point seems to be that as you get richer, the cost of keeping yourself alive doesnt go up, so a linear tax increase makes no sense. tax increases should be exponential or something, because it not only becomes difficult to find more expensive food as you get richer, but some costs such as medical bills can go down But the point is, tax deductions, tax exempt income, etc. are the very things that rich people direct their money towards to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. This is exactly what creates this illusory lower % of income being paid by Buffett this his secretary. The fact is, comparing bottom line income taxes paid relative to "taxable income", I'd nearly guarantee Buffett's rate is higher than his secretary. How is it an illusion if the super rich use these tools to lower their tax burden. The fact is through these tools they pay less tax. This is the point Buffett was making. Just because if they hadn't used those tools they would pay more than their secretaries doesn't make it so.
It's illusory because we're not comparing taxable income of Buffett to taxable income of his secretary or co-workers. Comparing "taxable income" will result in Buffett's % being higher.
|
I'm not really sure it's fair for Buffet to say this. Without commenting on whether or not rates are too high or low (I'm Canadian anyways), the simple fact is that he has a whole lot of money. There's super rich and then there's his kind of super rich, the guy could pay double taxes and still have enough money to afford anything he wants. Thing is, that isn't true for someone who makes, say, 500 thousand a year. Those people are still in the range where tax rates affect things like how nice their house is, where they can vacation to, etc. That is, I would argue that they have a more "material" reason to want lower tax rates than someone who brings in billions.
When most people look at taxes and incomes they think of the difference between a 50k and 500k income, but really the difference between 500k and 5 million is pretty big, as well, yet most taxation systems stop rate increases well under that. When people talk about rate increases for the super rich, they need to talk about the income levels they actually want to start increasing rates at, because in my country, at least, I know tradespeople who pay the same tax rates as top executives because they bring in six figures.
|
Warren Buffet is a hack seriously taxing the rich heavier does nothing expect make the business owners of the rich hire less people. Even if we taxed them 100% of the income we still wouldn't take in enough to even dent our deficit. The problem with this country isn't whos paying less or more (because the rich definatly pay more being the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes) its about the out of control government spending. No Obama I don't want my tax dollars going to Gm and no I don't want your stimulis to give 10k to Ohio State to find out why College students don't use condoms more often (look that shit up), no I don't give a shit why horse shit is purple and no I don't want you to give more of my money to other people.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:53 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth. That statement is outrageous. If things were fair, then everyone should pay an equal, flat, cash amount for government. That is what fair means, everyone contributes equally. As an example, if people were pitching in to buy a friend some present, it would be fair to charge everyone an equal amount for the present, regardless of how much the individual earned. It would not be fair to overcharge the higher earners because "they can afford it".
Are you deliberately being stupid? Of course it's 'fair' for everyone to pay an equal amount based on percentages and not a flat equal amount, because not everyone earns an equal income, and it's ridiculous to think a flat amount from everyone would work. We're not overcharging the higher earners, right now we're absurdly undercharging them.
|
One of the very few billionaires with enough credibility to write this. Interesting read. Surprised people question his motives though? The man is one of the biggest philanthropists and he's not arguing higher taxation will solve the problem. He is just asking for it to be fair. It's such a simple article how can people be confused...
On August 17 2011 07:59 CajunMan wrote:
Warren Buffet is a hack seriously taxing the rich heavier does nothing expect make the business owners of the rich hire less people. Even if we taxed them 100% of the income we still wouldn't take in enough to even dent our deficit.
He's making a point about fair play and nothing else really. Pretty sure the man is smarter and knowledgeable than anyone on this forum on how to handle the current economic issues. There is no point making dee duh dee comments about the size of the deficit in relation to the taxation amount.
|
On August 17 2011 07:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of how much they earn, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best. The point is, unless and until something is done with the level of government spending, the rich will always be the source for additional taxes, until they pay 100% or say fuck this, I'm outta here. Then what ? The problem is not that the rich don't pay enough. Look at what is happening between states. CA imposed taxes and Amazon left, or more accurately cut ties within the state. In Ohio, Kasich put in some business-friendly measures and I'm hearing a couple of movies are going to or have started filming in Ohio, of all places. Again, job losses from the likely alternative, California. Until some responsibility is taken for the level of spending, there will never be enough taxes to cover it, but the rich will always be the target. The rich, and the "evil" businesses. Eventually, they will leave to greener pastures. The rich can live where ever the fuck they want. Don't forget that.
You're diverting from the issue. Yes, there are many problems with government spending and the deficit, but that is a different (and very important) issue.
Nobody is saying the super rich should pay 100% taxes. The fact that you're resorting to this type of rhetoric and diverting from the actual issue leads me to believe you have no cogent argument for the actual issue at hand.
|
There is no way out of the debt because our monetary system does not work without debt.
|
On August 17 2011 07:57 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:49 mcc wrote:On August 17 2011 07:38 Ghostcom wrote: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. 60% income tax, are you a rich student with expensive lifestyle, or you also include healthcare costs, social security/pension insurance and similar ? Because according to wiki income tax in Denmark is 42%-63%, so with your 100$ leftover I would guess that you are on the bottom of that scale ? Healthcare costs etc. are all covered by the danish tax which wiki should also have told you. The tax system is not a scale, there are 3 categories in it: low, middle and high, which you get put into depending on your annual earnings (also, the wiki percentages seems off, but perhaps they haven't included all the taxes (church tax which you can opt out of)). The ranges between when you have to pay low, middle and high tax are just pretty much retarded meaning that pretty much only people living on welfare pay the lowest tax, everyone else pays middle and upwards.
Yea it's pretty funny how even if you have a shitty job that pays very little you still pay middle or high taxes :D I think 68% is the max or something, but it depends what you include as tax, there are so many things you have to add up.
|
On August 17 2011 07:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:54 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:50 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:44 turdburgler wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most. i think your list of tax deductible things is too specific to get into in a more general thread on the issue ; / the main point seems to be that as you get richer, the cost of keeping yourself alive doesnt go up, so a linear tax increase makes no sense. tax increases should be exponential or something, because it not only becomes difficult to find more expensive food as you get richer, but some costs such as medical bills can go down But the point is, tax deductions, tax exempt income, etc. are the very things that rich people direct their money towards to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. This is exactly what creates this illusory lower % of income being paid by Buffett this his secretary. The fact is, comparing bottom line income taxes paid relative to "taxable income", I'd nearly guarantee Buffett's rate is higher than his secretary. How is it an illusion if the super rich use these tools to lower their tax burden. The fact is through these tools they pay less tax. This is the point Buffett was making. Just because if they hadn't used those tools they would pay more than their secretaries doesn't make it so. It's illusory because we're not comparing taxable income of Buffett to taxable income of his secretary or co-workers. Comparing "taxable income" will result in Buffett's % being higher.
Actually, Buffett was saying the exact opposite of what you're claiming. So your argument boils down to "Buffett is a liar", with no evidence to actually back up what you're saying.
|
On August 17 2011 08:00 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:53 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 07:46 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right? So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that. Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of their wealth. That statement is outrageous. If things were fair, then everyone should pay an equal, flat, cash amount for government. That is what fair means, everyone contributes equally. As an example, if people were pitching in to buy a friend some present, it would be fair to charge everyone an equal amount for the present, regardless of how much the individual earned. It would not be fair to overcharge the higher earners because "they can afford it". Are you deliberately being stupid? Of course it's 'fair' for everyone to pay an equal amount based on percentages and not a flat equal amount, because not everyone earns an equal income, and it's ridiculous to think a flat amount from everyone would work. We're not overcharging the higher earners, right now we're absurdly undercharging them.
I fail to see your point. Not everyone earns an equal income, but everyone can pay an equal flat dollar amount.
|
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
please don't post w/o thinking. He is one of the most generous people and 1 man can only do so much....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
