Buffett - Stop coddling the super-rich

[VA Cowboy]

I'm all for offing the elderly.

They really serve no purpose, and just slow everyone else off.

Plus, the money their heirs would get from their life insurance would help boost the economy.

I'm only for getting rid of elderly NFL owners/GM's

 

[superpunk]

I don't care if it is two cents of stealing from taxpayers, it is still two cents. And, you don't have any data to back up that it is "only a small portion". Nobody knows. They could find out, they just don't care. Hell, it ain't their money, why would they?

Welfare only accounts for 2% of our total budget. The percentage of our budget which goes toward people who are defrauding the welfare system accounts for even less than that. Obviously we can't know exactly, but again it is an incredibly small percentage. Not even worth thinking about in the grand scheme of things, but it makes a convenient talking point for politicians to talk about when it comes to balancing the budget (i.e. welfare reform) because everyone hates poor people, and everyone REALLY hates poor people who are gaming the system.

But it's classic misdirection. If the politicians can drive you crazy with talk about welfare reform, and make you think that is a real issue, then they don't have to answer questions about all the money they're wasting on defense and maintaining America's empire and giving outrageous tax breaks to the rich.

Should we do something about it? Sure. Every little bit helps. But it's not going to make any significant difference in our budget.

 

[Plymkr]

Understood.

It was just something I had seen first hand. There are many other avenues that the government ain't gonna touch that could help. But, then they may lose votes. Can't have that.

So, the American people get screwed.

 

[VA Cowboy]

But it's classic misdirection. If the politicians can drive you crazy with talk about welfare reform, and make you think that is a real issue, then they don't have to answer questions about all the money they're wasting on defense and maintaining America's empire and giving outrageous tax breaks to the rich.

Speaking of classic misdirection...

 

[superpunk]

Speaking of classic misdirection...

If you're going to drop a one-liner please make it relevant and/or funny.

 

[VA Cowboy]

If you're going to drop a one-liner please make it relevant and/or funny.

It was both. kthxbye

 

[superpunk]

Or neither.

 

[Midswat]

Sick burns being tossed to and fro.

 

[VA Cowboy]

We needz to make teh wealthy pay their fair sharez!!!1!!!!1111!!!!

In 2006, the bottom 50 percent of all income tax filers paid only 2.99 percent of all income taxes. *


So...I guess that means the top 50 percent paid 97.01 of all income taxes. We dang, we need to tax them more!!!!!!!

* http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[VA Cowboy]

Sick burns being tossed to and fro.

...or just to

 

[superpunk]

We needz to make teh wealthy pay their fair sharez!!!1!!!!1111!!!!

In 2006, the bottom 50 percent of all income tax filers paid only 2.99 percent of all income taxes. *


So...I guess that means the top 50 percent paid 97.01 of all income taxes. We dang, we need to tax them more!!!!!!!

* http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The statistical manipulation here does not change the fact that letting the Bush era tax cuts would almost balance our budget by itself - everyone would pay more in taxes, but especially the wealthiest Americans who are now paying taxes at an absurdly low rate, which was the point of Buffett's piece.

 

[superpunk]

here's Buffett's entire article, it might help some who are struggling with the simple concepts he is presenting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

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.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

 

[VA Cowboy]

The statistical manipulation here does not change the fact that letting the Bush era tax cuts would almost balance our budget by itself - everyone would pay more in taxes, but especially the wealthiest Americans who are now paying taxes at an absurdly low rate, which was the point of Buffett's piece.

Where's the manipulation?

Also, I believe Obama stated he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K/yr. I guess when everyone starts paying more taxes he'll weasel his way out of calling it a tax increase. Typical.

And I really doubt the budget will get balanced just by increasing taxes through the expiration of the tax cuts. You really believe the Democrats and Obama will take the extra revenue and instead of increasing spending will pay down the debt??? Yeah, right.

And finally, if Buffet has some point to make he can take his billions and write a check to the gov't. Maybe he can put his money where his mouth is.

 

[superpunk]

Where's the manipulation?

Just in making the statistics look worse than they are. Obviously the bottom 50% pay a far smaller share under any system - they make far less money. There is no way we could tax them enough so that changes - it becomes a meaningless statistic in that respect.

Also, I believe Obama stated he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K/yr. I guess when everyone starts paying more taxes he'll weasel his way out of calling it a tax increase. Typical.

And I really doubt the budget will get balanced just by increasing taxes through the expiration of the tax cuts. You really believe the Democrats and Obama will take the extra revenue and instead of increasing spending will pay down the debt??? Yeah, right.

That's what was done before. It should be done again, I don't know whether it would.

And finally, if Buffet has some point to make he can take his billions and write a check to the gov't. Maybe he can put his money where his mouth is.

He's a wealthy man but even if he contributed his entire yearly earnings it still wouldn't put a dent in the deficit. It would be far better to try and get the government to simply raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who can afford such an increase at this point in time. Increasing taxes by 10-15% on people who make millions each year does not hurt those people as much as it would someone who is making 30-50k and living paycheck to paycheck. It would also generate far more money in taxes than any tax on the middle and lower classes could. That is the entire point.

Instead, we see capital gains and taxes on the wealthiest Americans at their lowest rates, at a time in our history when we could use that money more than ever. All in the name of Washington protecting it's wealthy benefactors rather than looking out for the masses.

 

[VA Cowboy]

Just in making the statistics look worse than they are. Obviously the bottom 50% pay a far smaller share under any system - they make far less money. There is no way we could tax them enough so that changes - it becomes a meaningless statistic in that respect.

Of course the more you make the more you'll pay and vice versa, but this shows that the bottom 50% only pay 2.99%. How is that meaningless? And I'm not saying to tax the bottom more, but it's a sham to claim the top isn't shouldering their fair share.

He's a wealthy man but even if he contributed his entire yearly earnings it still wouldn't put a dent in the deficit. It would be far better to try and get the government to simply raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, who can afford such an increase at this point in time. Increasing taxes by 10-15% on people who make millions each year does not hurt those people as much as it would someone who is making 30-50k and living paycheck to paycheck. It would also generate far more money in taxes than any tax on the middle and lower classes could. That is the entire point.

Instead, we see capital gains and taxes on the wealthiest Americans at their lowest rates, at a time in our history when we could use that money more than ever. All in the name of Washington protecting it's wealthy benefactors rather than looking out for the masses.

The bigger issue isn't raising taxes but cutting spending. Even this latest debt-ceiling deal, it stated it'll cut spending by so many trillions of dollars, but that isn't actual cuts but just a decrease in projected new spending.

Also you mention capital gains taxes, but that's not just on the wealthiest, it would apply to most of the middle class also. All of this talk about taxing the extreme wealthy more is just one of those misdirections you mentioned in an earlier post. A study recently reported that the increases mentioned on the 2-3% would result in the range of billions of dollars of new revenue, which would hardly put a dent in the $14.3 trillion and raising deficit.

The bottom line is that the "raise more taxes on the wealthiest" plays to the masses but in the end it winds up resulting in higher taxes for the middle class as well. But talking about that doesn't play well in the polls so the Dems like to disguise it as just a tax on the top 3% or those making over $250,000, etc when in fact it'll end up effecting most of the working class as well. Just like the expiring of the Bush tax cuts. They will spin it as it's not actually a tax hike, but the end result is most of the working class and up will have an increase in their taxes.

But a tax increase in itself wouldn't be a huge issue if they were responsible, but it is just a way for the government to increase their wreckless spending. They can talk about cutting the deficit all they want but what they really want is to spend more which translates to buying more votes.

 

[superpunk]

We have to do both (raise taxes/cut spending) - not like Bush's brilliant plan to cut taxes and spend more. The rich can afford to shoulder alot more of the tax burden than they are currently, and they should. They certainly should not be paying out a lower percentage in taxes than people in lower brackets than themselves.

 

[Midswat]

Why not flat tax?

Why penalize the successful?

 

[marionbarberthe4th]

Boobs thread > This

 

[VA Cowboy]

Why not flat tax?

Why penalize the successful?

That would make too much sense.

 

[superpunk]

Why not flat tax?

Why penalize the successful?

For literally all the reasons we've already mentioned. A flat tax is one of the dumbest economic ideas imaginable. While it sounds good in theory (yeah everyone pays the same) in practice it is not sustainable. Any politician who suggests it should be immediately discounted as a ******.