quote Originally posted by maryjane: I'm being quite realistic. Here's the explanation. If you live in a damp flea infested cardboard box, the guy living up under the nice dry overpass is rich in comparison. If your total assets are nearly zero, or if you have found yourself not owning a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of, anyone with significntly more or in significantly better financial shape is rich in comparison. That number, would likely include many of the people who currently very much support "someone else" paying more taxes. and, those who fall above that number (even f by $1) are viewed by those well below that threshold-- as being "rich". Set the threshold at $140,000 total assets including gross wages and watch this thread become all but ominously silent. It's ALWAYS about coveting and "OPM"--other people's money--always. Again, if Buffet and others were really serious, they would have already written the checks--they haven't, because they are looking at OPM too.

assets? Liquid assets? retirement? that is not income, should that be included? As mentioned, a different type of tax is needed.

quote The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems. In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

quote Originally posted by Bullet: [QUOTE]The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems. In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

[/QUOTE]

Why not do it anyway? Why not make taxes fair?

quote Originally posted by Bullet: The first problem with Buffett's view is that the number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems. In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

You have to start somewhere. We can't just continue to say, "Well the deficit is to big to overcome so lets not worry about it". I don't believe a country is just allowed to declare bankruptcy and clean the slate. Let's begin to pay the money back and if the millionaire/billionaires want to start by paying more taxes then let them have at it.

[This message has been edited by Bwhit12 (edited 08-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Why not do it anyway? Why not make taxes fair?

Please give your definition of "FAIR". I really want to hear it.

I believe "FAIR" means equal or same or in equal percentage.

I already showed you that the so called rich are paying a much higher percentage of the taxes collected by the government in relation to the amount of income they are earning. If I was them I would want the taxes to be more FAIR too. Its just that you and I do not agree on what FAIR is.

Aww... rich people trying to get street cred... how cute...

quote Originally posted by Bwhit12: You have to start somewhere. We can't just continue to say, "Well the deficit is to big to overcome so lets not worry about it". I don't believe a country is just allowed to declare bankruptcy and clean the slate. Let's begin to pay the money back and if the millionaire/billionaires want to start by paying more taxes then let them have at it.

The problem is that as soon as you tax the rich more, say $73 billion more, the government will then spend at least that much more. The net impact on the dept is then ZERO or even worse.

We do not have a tax revenue problem......we have a spending problem.

quote Originally posted by Bullet: The problem is that as soon as you tax the rich more, say $73 billion more, the government will then spend at least that much more. The net impact on the dept is then ZERO or even worse. We do not have a tax revenue problem......we have a spending problem.

Understandable, but we need to do both at the same time and with the Liberal party in there spending FOR SURE will not stop. The Republicans got screwed their last run in office with the war, so it made them look like spending maniacs. Hopefully someone with a business mindset will get in office and get the country headed back in the right direction.

[This message has been edited by Bwhit12 (edited 08-16-2011).]

$0.41 of every single dollar the government spends is borrowed money.

Do the math if you were doing the personally.

We have a spending problem PERIOD!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If "the rich" are taxed at a lower percentage, it would be the net taxes after deductions. Tax deductions are built into the tax code to encourage various activities. Many of those activities involve investments. So the money you complain that they aren't being taxed will typically be going to something that benefits the economy. Take away those investments and it is a negative to the economy, and it ends up being more money the government has to WASTE. And oh, man, does the government know how to waste money.

We are talking about BILLIONAIRES right. With that much money they are still, even if they were taxed at 50% , have billions left to spend how ever they wish and if they don’t want to lose there their billionaire status they will invest to make more billions so they are still richer than most here on this forum. Well maybe except for you. You seem to be way to against this for you not to be one of those.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.

Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: .. the entire concept of an INCOME TAX is destructive and detrimental to productivity. If you are going to tax people for their excesses you should tax consumption, not production. I'd like to see the entire tax code and the IRS tossed into the trash heap and have us impose an across the board consumption tax.

I agree with that.

But first, let's define income.

Income is profit, pure and simple. Wages, salaries, and commissions are not income, because they are not profit. They are an even exchange for one's labor. Income is wealth for which one has not labored, i.e. equity in a home, lottery winnings, stock dividends, 401K interest, etc.

So, could we somehow get the IRS to accept this definition? Or any definition? Doubtful.

So, you are correct. The current system should be scrapped in favor of the consumption tax you suggested (which is a national sales tax, if I interpret it correctly) or a flat tax.

quote Originally posted by Bullet: The problem is that as soon as you tax the rich more, say $73 billion more, the government will then spend at least that much more. The net impact on the dept is then ZERO or even worse. We do not have a tax revenue problem......we have a spending problem.

Never said he didn't have a spending problem. But we have to get out of this mess and going cold turkey isn't going to work or happen. Time to have everyone pay into the system and take less from it.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: It's ALWAYS about coveting and "OPM"--other people's money--always.

Another black and white issue is it? So you admit YOU covet other peoples money and assume everyone does the same but then criticize them for it....interesting.

As for myself I think a progressive tax system is a fair one (If managed correctly) I'm sure there are lots of families struggling to put food on their tables everyday, I don't think they should have to pay the same percentage as someone that has more money than they know what to do with, I don't even think they should pay the same as the middle class or someone who is making the same amount as them but is single for example. I also think Mr. Buffett is pointing out the inadequacies and unfairness of the current U.S. tax code (as it relates to his employees and himself) and why he has to "write a cheque" to prove that his opinion is valid is beyond me.

quote Originally posted by newf: I also think Mr. Buffett is pointing out the inadequacies and unfairness of the current U.S. tax code (as it relates to his employees and himself) and why he has to "write a cheque" to prove that his opinion is valid is beyond me.

You're not missing anything.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: We are talking about BILLIONAIRES right. With that much money they are still, even if they were taxed at 50% , have billions left to spend how ever they wish and if they don’t want to lose there their billionaire status they will invest to make more billions so they are still richer than most here on this forum. Well maybe except for you. You seem to be way to against this for you not to be one of those. Steve

These folks don't just have their billions setting around in a safe some where. Most of it is tied up in investments. When the government takes "50%" then that money is no longer doing anything productive. Ross Perot is a billionaire, but much of his money was/is tied up in assetts that are creating 1000s of jobs. If the government took 50% then you could expect a reduction in the number of people he employs. Then those who became unemployed would no longer be paying taxes. Taxes are a vicious unproductive cycle.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Warren Buffett states his tax rate is about 16%, I am using his statement. I would be jumping for joy if mine was that low.

We need more information. We need to know if he draws a salary, or if that is on his investments. Those two things are taxed at a different rate...again, because tax incentives are encouraging certain kinds of activities, like investments.

quote But first, let's define income. Income is profit, pure and simple. Wages, salaries, and commissions are not income, because they are not profit. They are an even exchange for one's labor. Income is wealth for which one has not labored, i.e. equity in a home, lottery winnings, stock dividends, 401K interest, etc. So, could we somehow get the IRS to accept this definition? Or any definition? Doubtful.

Unfortunately the government's definiton is not the same as yours, it's closer to what the dictionary defines it as.


in·come (nkm)
n.
1. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.
2. The act of coming in; entrance.

Here is the IRS definition.

What is Earned Income?

Earned income includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working.

There are two ways to get earned income:

You work for someone who pays you
or
You work in a business you own.


Taxable earned income includes:
Wages, salaries, and tips;
Union strike benefits;
Long-term disability benefits received prior to minimum retirement age;
Net earnings from self-employment.
Nontaxable Combat Pay election. You can elect to have your nontaxable combat pay included in earned income for EITC. The amount of your nontaxable combat pay should be shown on your Form W-2, in box 12, with code Q. Electing to include nontaxable combat pay in earned income may increase or decrease your EITC. See Publication 3. Armed Forces Tax Guide, for more information.

Examples of Income that is Not Considered Earned:
Interest and dividends
pensions
Social security
Unemployment benefits
Alimony
Child support.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: As for myself I think a progressive tax system is a fair one (If managed correctly) I'm sure there are lots of families struggling to put food on their tables everyday, I don't think they should have to pay the same percentage as someone that has more money than they know what to do with, I don't even think they should pay the same as the middle class or someone who is making the same amount as them but is single for example. I also think Mr. Buffett is pointing out the inadequacies and unfairness of the current U.S. tax code (as it relates to his employees and himself) and why he has to "write a cheque" to prove that his opinion is valid is beyond me.

We do have a progressive tax system, and the question about where Buffett's income came from never was answered. If it's from investments, those are taxed separately from earned income. It's important to compare the same things. He mentions investment managers paying "only 15%" but again, is that investment or earned income? Apples and oranges. Investments are taxed less than earned income to encourage people to invest, because that grows the economy. What happens when people don't invest? They pull their money out of investments and put it in savings, etc. That's when the stock market crashes.

The issue about where Buffett's tax figures came from is also in question. In Boonie's first Eat the Rich post, he quotes Buffett saying his employees tax rates "ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent" when we have a top federal income tax bracket of 35%. Without knowing how those figures were arrived at, the comparison is meaningless. It sure is good fodder to stir up some good class hatred. The proletariat hate the bourgeois, who hate the wealthy, and no one cares what the wealthy thinks as long as the political contributions keep coming in.

A tax hike on those with AGI of over $1 Million a year could be done without hurting the middle class directly, but those wealthy individuals already spend tons of money to make sure their tax burden is as low as possible. It's not a stretch to suggest raising the taxes too much will give them incentive to pack up their dollars and leave. They have the means to relocate, so the incentive to live and do business here needs to outweigh the incentive to leave. Outsourcing is already demonstrating what happens in the corporate world when the incentive to leave is greater.

As for "writing a check" to prove his opinion is valid, it's not about proving validity. It's about leading by example. I hope you understand that concept one day.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What happens when people don't invest? They pull their money out of investments and put it in savings, etc. That's when the stock market crashes.

Not entirely. People have to understand what happens to money that is saved (in the bank). It's not like you take a bag of cash into the bank, deposit it in your account, and it sits in the vault. The banks lends the money to others to buy houses, vehicles, start businesses and so on. Savings are an important part of the economy. If everyone spent every dollar they had, it would help the consumption portion of the economy, but there wouldn't be much money available to lend. Unless The Fed just printed more money, then the flood of dollars causes devaluation and inflation.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We do have a progressive tax system, and the question about where Buffett's income came from never was answered. If it's from investments, those are taxed separately from earned income. It's important to compare the same things. He mentions investment managers paying "only 15%" but again, is that investment or earned income? Apples and oranges. Investments are taxed less than earned income to encourage people to invest, because that grows the economy. What happens when people don't invest? They pull their money out of investments and put it in savings, etc. That's when the stock market crashes. The issue about where Buffett's tax figures came from is also in question. In Boonie's first Eat the Rich post, he quotes Buffett saying his employees tax rates "ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent" when we have a top federal income tax bracket of 35%. Without knowing how those figures were arrived at, the comparison is meaningless. It sure is good fodder to stir up some good class hatred. The proletariat hate the bourgeois, who hate the wealthy, and no one cares what the wealthy thinks as long as the political contributions keep coming in. A tax hike on those with AGI of over $1 Million a year could be done without hurting the middle class directly, but those wealthy individuals already spend tons of money to make sure their tax burden is as low as possible. It's not a stretch to suggest raising the taxes too much will give them incentive to pack up their dollars and leave. They have the means to relocate, so the incentive to live and do business here needs to outweigh the incentive to leave. Outsourcing is already demonstrating what happens in the corporate world when the incentive to leave is greater. As for "writing a check" to prove his opinion is valid, it's not about proving validity. It's about leading by example. I hope you understand that concept one day.

So you don't know where his income is coming from but you are sure his comment is comparing apples to oranges? Even though you state the comparison is meaningless. Then you claim class hatred when the only hatred I see in this thread is by the regular "regurgitators" hating who they consider a rich liberal.

As for outsourcing, I would think a huge part of that is companies using lower wages in different countries to maximize profit. Maybe moving the head offices of companies is done to avoid taxation but then that has ethical questions IMO.

Leading by example??? Oh, I think I understand the concept AND I think Buffett is doing an awesome job at that to be honest, his philanthropy is something that I think we can all aspire to.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-17-2011).]

As opposed to the non-existant hatred of rich conservatives I guess.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: As opposed to the non-existant hatred of rich conservatives I guess.

Ahhhh yes... that makes it OK then.

quote Originally posted by newf: As for outsourcing, I would think a huge part of that is companies using lower wages in different countries to maximize profit.

And the problem is ?
Maximizing profit is the job of corporations, companies, and even private citizens.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: We need more information. We need to know if he draws a salary, or if that is on his investments. Those two things are taxed at a different rate...again, because tax incentives are encouraging certain kinds of activities, like investments.

investments in what?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: investments in what?

Everything and anything.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Everything and anything.

Wow, I wish I could do that with all the disposable income I have, oh wait, my income tax percentage is twice his.... there goes my investment money... straight to the IRS.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Yes, he pays more dollars, so, how about a national sales tax (a consumption tax)?

I think the idea has merit. But, as always, there may be unintended consequences that haven't been thought out. I don't know. If there was a serious proposal for this, I'd like to see the research.

quote The unfair part is that everyone pays a different percentage. Either everyone pays the same dollar amount, or they pay the same percentage amount. That way, the system is "fair"... the system doesn't know your income, there are no loop-holes.

Do you think that "loop-holes" are lawful or unlawful reductions in tax liability.

quote As an "almost a millionaire", you must have used the tax loop holes to employ hundreds of people and make huge investments, and you kept the economy going with your tax deductions, right? You make mention that Buffett was doing this with the money he didn't pay in taxes, so I assume you did the same thing?

I invested about a quarter of that amount, and kept a contractor and his crew busy for the better part of 2 years on various projects. Not "hundreds" of jobs, so I guess that isn't good enough for you?

quote Frankly, a millionaire isn't a big deal anymore, I get PO'ed when BILLIONAIRES pay a lower percentage in taxes that I do. As mentioned, I don't think Buffett worries about the next grocery bill, or how he is going to fund his retirement. With our current tax system he should pay the same percentage in taxes as everyone else. If he wants to invest his money, then he needs to think about that AFTER he pays his taxes. Just like the rest of the middle class.

What is this obsession you have with percentage? Why must it be a certain percentage? Buffett, in his example, paid more in taxes in one year than you will probably make in your entire life. And you STILL don't think it is *fair*?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What is your percentage? Which tax form do you file?

more than Buffett

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: more than Buffett

OK, so I guess you want to end the conversation. So be it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What is this obsession you have with percentage? Why must it be a certain percentage? Buffett, in his example, paid more in taxes in one year than you will probably make in your entire life. And you STILL don't think it is *fair*?

With our current tax system, which is percentage based, no it is not fair. I don't have an obsession with it... it is what it is, and it is broken. Yes, Buffett also earned more in one year than the population of a small town would earn. So.. based on our current tax system, he should pay more dollars. It is not the amount he pays, it is the percentage. What is your obsession with amount paid? He pays more, but he earns more, which is what income tax is setup to do.. tax percentage of income.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: What is your obsession with amount paid?

Because things are paid for in dollars, not percentages.

quote He pays more, but he earns more, which is what income tax is setup to do.. tax percentage of income.

Or, you could look at it the other way...he earned more, so he paid more. Seems to be working pretty well.

Since you won't answer what your tax bracket is, or what tax form you file, we can't know your aggregate or net tax percentage and will have to take your word for it.. And since Buffett hasn't posted his tax forms online, I guess we'll have to take his word as well.

Took me a few to find it.

http://www.marklevinshow.co...dling-warren-buffett

quote As most of the media goes gaga over Billionaire Obama fundraiser Warren Buffett calling for tax hikes, (like he did in 2001, and 2004, and plenty of times in between), let’s remember a few things. Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett Profits from Government Spending Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.

So it's the typical bs in the end.

Brad

I wonder if the tax deductions he received helped to fund this "playground": https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/087467.html

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Yup, the rich only get richer.

And you say that like it's a bad thing.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And you say that like it's a bad thing.

Yes, in the current state the economy is in. How many rich CEOs of bailed out companies lost their houses, their families, everything? The middle class bailed them out, but got shafted in the process.