Here is part of the Charlie Rose interview with Paul Ryan:
Let’s start with the Buffett Rule. Do you think it’s unfair, as the president said, for Governor Romney to have $21 million in income and pay only 13.9 percent in tax while most Americans pay a much higher rate?
______________________________________________________________
The Buffett Rule makes for good politics, but it doesn’t make for good economics. And here’s why: 80 percent of American businesses file their taxes as individuals, as S corporations, partnerships, LLCs. So when you impose an alternative minimum tax like the Buffett Rule, for every one Warren Buffett you get, you get so many more successful small businesses, which are our job creators.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/charlie-rose-talks-to-paul-ryan
Is Paul Ryan right?
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainTax them zero and we'll have a 0% unemployment rate and it will be paradise on Earth according to Ryan.
Here is part of the Charlie Rose interview with Paul Ryan:
Let’s start with the Buffett Rule. Do you think it’s unfair, as the president said, for Governor Romney to have $21 million in income and pay only 13.9 percent in tax while most Americans pay a much higher rate?
______________________________________________________________
The Buffett Rule ...[text shortened]... /www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/charlie-rose-talks-to-paul-ryan
Is Paul Ryan right?
There are very few "small businesses" that employ people making more than a $1 million in profits yearly.
Originally posted by Metal BrainNot really.
Here is part of the Charlie Rose interview with Paul Ryan:
Let’s start with the Buffett Rule. Do you think it’s unfair, as the president said, for Governor Romney to have $21 million in income and pay only 13.9 percent in tax while most Americans pay a much higher rate?
______________________________________________________________
The Buffett Rule ...[text shortened]... /www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-12/charlie-rose-talks-to-paul-ryan
Is Paul Ryan right?
Somebody being taxed at X% for each dollar of income over $1,000,000 is not really being "gotten." They're still doing really well. Yes, they're job creators and should be lauded. But that doesn't mean it's so unfair to tax them at, say, 25%.
I don't think taking them at 25% instead of 15% has any negative impact on their incentive to earn money by creating jobs. I'm not sure exactly where on the Laffer curve the incentive to work starts to wane, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than 25%.
No, he is wrong and he knows it. Most small businesses don't make over $1 million in profits. Business owners tend to re-invest what they make in their business. A tax on large profits is an extra incentive to invest since you then pay less taxes. Since this investment creates jobs, the opposite of what Ryan claims is true.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's a little more complicated than that, since re-investment of profits is not always 100% deductible. For example, if you take $1m in profits and buy a new building, most of that is going to have to be capitalized (or depreciated) and very little will be deductible in the first year.
No, he is wrong and he knows it. Most small businesses don't make over $1 million in profits. Business owners tend to re-invest what they make in their business. A tax on large profits is an extra incentive to invest since you then pay less taxes. Since this investment creates jobs, the opposite of what Ryan claims is true.
Like most of these issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Originally posted by sh76Of course. But whenever I hear "...which are our job creators" like Ryan says here, I know I am hearing a PR buzzphrase.
It's a little more complicated than that, since re-investment of profits is not always 100% deductible. For example, if you take $1m in profits and buy a new building, most of that is going to have to be capitalized (or depreciated) and very little will be deductible in the first year.
Like most of these issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
It is as if they say, "Let there be jobs because my taxes are low."
Demand for goods and services by sufficiently large numbers of people is the job creator, as it demands in return, that those people work for what they want.
Originally posted by JS357One of the problems is that the jobs are being created overseas and not here.
Of course. But whenever I hear "...which are our job creators" like Ryan says here, I know I am hearing a PR buzzphrase.
It is as if they say, "Let there be jobs because my taxes are low."
Demand for goods and services by sufficiently large numbers of people is the job creator, as it demands in return, that those people work for what they want.
Originally posted by sh76Not always 100% deductible, sure. But in general you do pay less taxes, so a tax that kicks in when you reach heavy profits will generally encourage investment.
It's a little more complicated than that, since re-investment of profits is not always 100% deductible. For example, if you take $1m in profits and buy a new building, most of that is going to have to be capitalized (or depreciated) and very little will be deductible in the first year.
Like most of these issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Not always 100% deductible" was a bit of an understatement. In many cases, very little of a small business infrastructure reinvestment is deductible in the year it is made.
Not always 100% deductible, sure. But in general you do pay less taxes, so a tax that kicks in when you reach heavy profits will generally encourage investment.
Originally posted by LuckBerkshire Hathaway could be sued by its stockholders for breach of fiduciary duty if it were to pay more to the government than required by existing law, without there being offsetting benefits. So when there is a dispute, it has to be worked out.
When is Buffett's company going to pay the billion they owe in taxes?