|
United States7483 Posts
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. 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.
First statement is completely wrong, we have too many examples to keep pretending this is the case. Second statement is also wrong, you don't know what the numbers look like, and that's clear. It's also not the only issue. Taxes going up won't solve the problem, but it will help, and in conjunction with making government spending more rational and reasonable, we'd make headways. BTW, don't blame Obama for the bailouts, he was continuing with Bush's initiative. And yes, as it looks like, it was an amazingly good decision to bail out the companies (at least according to an analysis by the Princeton Review), it would have been disastrous if we hadn't.
Stop being angry just to be angry, and go educate yourself.
|
Honestly, I think Buffett should publish his fucking tax return if he wants to throw this out there.
|
On August 17 2011 07:29 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:20 DeepElemBlues wrote: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.
@ semantics you're forgetting something, supply and demand, once the amount of bread he has(after the 10 percent he gives out) reaches a certain point, it will be hard to sell more bread because the market for bread is only so big(Asians don't eat bread, they eat rice and noodles), so all the extras will spoil. Thus he cannot get all the bread there was easily(since his in come will approach a constant, while the cost of flour and yeast will rise exponentially).
However, if given enough time, he will(though he would've passed away by then) approach that. but before He can approach that, everyone(except asians and himself) will starve due to his near monopoly.
|
Why are economics threads in TL always so damn stupid. Second post down and already it's like total lollerville in terms of intelligent discourse. What Buffett says is true though. Republican party and Libertarians are a total sham. Their rhetoric is garbage. They're just a party of the rich for the rich.
|
If you look at historic American tax rates from the "golden age" of America (50's, 60's) that many politicians talk about, you will find that taxation on the rich was about 90%. America used that money to support housing, education, and job programs which is how the huge middle class America used to have came about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#1930_-_1980
Taxes were cut significantly in the 80's by Regan.
To balance the budget (reduce 1.5 trillion in over spending a year) America will have to cut military, social security, medicare, or raise taxes. This is because even by cutting every social program to nothing, the budget will still be over spending by about 700 billion a year.
Thus the question is not if to tax, but who to tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
|
I guess this is why Ron Paul is winning the Republican TL vote.
|
I cant belive people are actually arguing against Mr buffett and Mr Gates proberly 2 of the most intelligent business-men you will find in the world.
I gaurentee if those 2 were president and vise president in USA. It be a much better place then it is now
|
On August 17 2011 08:04 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:58 Kaitlin wrote: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:[quote] 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.
With the exception of capital gains, it's mathematically impossible for a higher taxable income to have a lower % of income taxes than a lower taxable income. If you want evidence, I submit that the tax rates increase for each successive tax bracket, given that it's a "progressive" tax rate structure. What other evidence could there possibly be ? Pull out a Form 1040 and see for yourself.
|
Unbelieveable how there are people out there still defending our flawed system. Yes, someone making $200k+ a year is rich and should have no problem paying more in taxes. These people need to give a little back to the country that has allowed and enabled them to generate so much wealth for themselves. I make $60k per year and even I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it would fix all of the flaws of our system. But we're talking people who are currently living extremely comfortably, and these extra taxes would be pennies in comparison to how much $$$ they are raking in. It is pure selfishness and greed. Go back to your Michelle Bachmann rally, asshole.
Another thing - the flawed Republican thinking of "Don't tax job creators! They won't be able to hire as many people!" Guys, it mahy have worked for Reagan in the 80's, but this trickle down economics bullshit doesn't work anymore. When job creators receive these ridiculous tax cuts, that saved money is not going into new jobs. It is going into the bank accounts of the executives, where it will be safe and sound for when they retire.
Signed,
Former Republican
|
On August 17 2011 08:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Why are economics threads in TL always so damn stupid. Second post down and already it's like total lollerville in terms of intelligent discourse. What Buffett says is true though. Republican party and Libertarians are a total sham. Their rhetoric is garbage. They're just a party of the rich for the rich.
If it's a party of the rich, and it's only the richest 1% that Obama wants to tax, why do Republicans have more support than just that richest 1% ?
|
On August 17 2011 07:58 SharkSpider wrote:
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.
Seems like you did not read the article. Buffett is not saying that people who make 500k are included in the "super rich".
Please read the article and come back to join in on the discussion.
|
On August 17 2011 08:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 08:04 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:58 Kaitlin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. With the exception of capital gains, it's mathematically impossible for a higher taxable income to have a lower % of income taxes than a lower taxable income. If you want evidence, I submit that the tax rates increase for each successive tax bracket, given that it's a "progressive" tax rate structure. What other evidence could there possibly be ? Pull out a Form 1040 and see for yourself.
Buffett was talking for the most part about capital gains. So why do you exclude that from the discussion?
|
On August 17 2011 08:08 Xirroh wrote:If you look at historic American tax rates from the "golden age" of America (50's, 60's) that many politicians talk about, you will find that taxation on the rich was about 90%. America used that money to support housing, education, and job programs which is how the huge middle class America used to have came about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#1930_-_1980Taxes were cut significantly in the 80's by Regan. To balance the budget (reduce 1.5 trillion in over spending a year) America will have to cut military, social security, medicare, or raise taxes. This is because even by cutting every social program to nothing, the budget will still be over spending by about 700 billion a year. Thus the question is not if to tax, but who to tax.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
What the fuck are you talking about? After 1981, Reagen actually raised taxes...like a million times get your facts straight.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 08:04 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 08:00 Whitewing wrote: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.
Then you haven't even thought about it, or you're incapable of logical thought. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't try in this case. Let's say everyone pays $10,000 a year in taxes period. Those people who only earn $10k a year certainly can't afford it. What about those who earn $30k? They can't really afford it either. People who earn absolutely absurd amounts of money wouldn't even notice it. There is no set number that works period, so it's ridiculous. Further, beyond viability, the next question is fairness. Is it fair that the poor should have absurdly high taxes proportionally to their income when the super rich don't even notice it? That's the situation your flat tax creates.
|
Amazing article, Buffet is the man. The fact that with his wealth he is paying 17.4% of his income in taxes while I work a upper middle class job 8-5 paying 33%+ makes me sick.
|
On August 17 2011 08:06 Kaitlin wrote:
Honestly, I think Buffett should publish his fucking tax return if he wants to throw this out there.
Why do you seem so angry in all these political-economic threads?
|
On August 17 2011 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 08:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Why are economics threads in TL always so damn stupid. Second post down and already it's like total lollerville in terms of intelligent discourse. What Buffett says is true though. Republican party and Libertarians are a total sham. Their rhetoric is garbage. They're just a party of the rich for the rich. If it's a party of the rich, and it's only the richest 1% that Obama wants to tax, why do Republicans have more support than just that richest 1% ?
...Have you been missing the past 20 years or is this a sers question?
|
On August 17 2011 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 08:08 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Why are economics threads in TL always so damn stupid. Second post down and already it's like total lollerville in terms of intelligent discourse. What Buffett says is true though. Republican party and Libertarians are a total sham. Their rhetoric is garbage. They're just a party of the rich for the rich. If it's a party of the rich, and it's only the richest 1% that Obama wants to tax, why do Republicans have more support than just that richest 1% ?
Dear Kaitlin, Many People back the Republicans in random areas besides that(abortion, immigration, Garbage disposal, etc.)
|
On August 17 2011 08:11 Kaitlin wrote:
If it's a party of the rich, and it's only the richest 1% that Obama wants to tax, why do Republicans have more support than just that richest 1% ?
Muslim Atheist Kenyan. That is all.
....well, not really. Plenty of intelligent conservatives out there who vote on principle. Kind of being marginalized now, though.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 08:13 Dragom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 08:08 Xirroh wrote:If you look at historic American tax rates from the "golden age" of America (50's, 60's) that many politicians talk about, you will find that taxation on the rich was about 90%. America used that money to support housing, education, and job programs which is how the huge middle class America used to have came about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#1930_-_1980Taxes were cut significantly in the 80's by Regan. To balance the budget (reduce 1.5 trillion in over spending a year) America will have to cut military, social security, medicare, or raise taxes. This is because even by cutting every social program to nothing, the budget will still be over spending by about 700 billion a year. Thus the question is not if to tax, but who to tax.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png What the fuck are you talking about? After 1981, Reagen actually raised taxes...like a million times get your facts straight.
Correct, Reagan signed a bill to increase taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
