Originally posted by quackquack He is the maximum bracket in every category and pays an insane total. You illogically consider his capital gains a diluting factor when it adds to his total tax bill.
Buffett's net worth is $47 billion. According to your claim, he has paid around $38 billion in taxes by now, if he's paid 45% over what he's earned. Is that your claim?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Right-o, he is just lying, then. I suppose his pledge to give 99% of his fortune away to charity is a lie, too? He's just doing it for the publicity!
Whatever makes you sleep at night...
He can do what he wants with his wealth. The federal government will gladly accept all his money if he wishes to pay more taxes. Buffet wishes for others to pay more taxes and I think his dishonest assessment that his secretary is over taxed but he is undertaxed should not be a basis for that change.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Buffett's net worth is $47 billion. According to your claim, he has paid around $38 billion in taxes by now, if he's paid 45% over what he's earned. Is that your claim?
His net worth I'd imagine includes items that will be taxed in the future. The problem with this country is not that Buffet pays only 100s of millions in taxes, it is that too many people wants more services than is justified by their own tax contribution.
Originally posted by quackquack His net worth I'd imagine includes items that will be taxed in the future. The problem with this country is not that Buffet pays only 100s of millions in taxes, it is that too many people wants more services than is justified by their own tax contribution.
So you retract your earlier statement that Buffett pays the maximum nominal rate over his income.
Originally posted by quackquack His net worth I'd imagine includes items that will be taxed in the future.
Which I was told by my financial advisor was a good reason for starting a pension fund - you effectively pay less tax overall.
The fact is that the richest people generally pay the lowest percentage in tax. I realize that you are arguing that we should all pay equal amounts regardless of our earnings, but I disagree. I think the current system is unfair, and that taxes go some way in terms of rectifying it - though not nearly enough.
I simply don't believe anyone has ever done anything that genuinely deserves the kind of wealth that some people amass.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra So you retract your earlier statement that Buffett pays the maximum nominal rate over his income.
No, you just asked me about his net worth not income. I believe Buffet's tax bill is billions which to me is beyond substantial -- maybe to a rich guy like you it is nominal.
When you bet on things, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you know what you are doing, you can make some very good bets and make a lot of money. The flip side is that you can also lose. When you have people who win on their bets and people who lose on their bets you end up with people who have more money than they should and people who have less money than they should.
That's just life.
I'd suggest working towards a place where a person has a better chance to succeed than try to simply strip everyone of wealth and make everyone poor.
Originally posted by twhitehead Which I was told by my financial advisor was a good reason for starting a pension fund - you effectively pay less tax overall.
The fact is that the richest people generally pay the lowest percentage in tax. I realize that you are arguing that we should all pay equal amounts regardless of our earnings, but I disagree. I think the current system is unfa ...[text shortened]... nyone has ever done anything that genuinely deserves the kind of wealth that some people amass.
Did your financial advisor tell you that it is difficult to start a pension fund or that the out of pocket costs are in the millions, that there is a huge risk that it never gets off the ground and that you need special skills? It is just ridiculous to look at a person who perfected their skills, worked hard their whole life and had good fortune and then make believe anyone could have done what they did and that they don't share enough of the fruits of their efforts.
Originally posted by quackquack No, you just asked me about his net worth not income. I believe Buffet's tax bill is billions which to me is beyond substantial -- maybe to a rich guy like you it is nominal.
Okay, so your statement is that Warren Buffett has paid $38 billion by now? Yes or no?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It is indeed money that distorts democracy. Obama is far to the right of Eisenhower's policies, yet Obama is the "left" candidate. The politicizing of the SCOTUS (one of the more serious mistakes of the Founding Fathers) has ensured that money is now entrenched in the political system of the U.S. On the long term this will do grave damage to the U.S. ec ...[text shortened]... s the electorate realizes they have to stop it soon (perhaps with a contitutional amendment).
Obama is far to the right of Eisenhower's policies, yet Obama is the "left" candidate
Somehow I can't imagine eisenhower advocating healthcare reform or a public option, nor can I imagine eisenhower saying he'd like it better if the "wealth was spread around".
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Okay, so your statement is that Warren Buffett has paid $38 billion by now? Yes or no?
If yes, well you're simply mistaken.
If no, you were mistaken earlier.
Take your pick.
I honestly don't know Buffets tax bill or the accuracy of any of your income statements so I cannot comment on that.
I know I disagree with your illogical argument that a guy who
(1) pays billions in taxes and
(2) is in the maximum tax bracket at all points in time
paid less tax than anyone else.
And I think if you feel we need more tax revenue, we should try to make it more condusive to having guys like Buffett who pay huge amounts of taxes rather than create a system where people with the potential to make huge amounts of money refuse to put their capital at risk because they keep too little upside.
Originally posted by Teinosuke I'm copying over (with minor corrections) what I posted in the "Limbaugh leaves New York" thread on July 16.
In a graduated income tax system, the equity is guaranteed by the fact that taxation is equal for each portion of income taxed. Using figures chosen for the sake of argument, let's imagine a country where tax rates are 10% up to 10,000 dollars, 3 ed it in the first example, and I can't see how this violates the principle of equity.
The tax system you just mentioned (with progressive taxation) is indeed the most practical and logical one a country could adopt, however, it isn't reconcilable with the principle of equality under the law (and for the sake of truth we shouldn't pretend it is, even if it categorizes as "social justice" among the more socialist inclined posters here), for the obvious reasons. My support for such system is based on its practicality rather than its principle of social justice, and Im sure other conservatives here will agree with me that ultimately the search should be for a system which works more effectively while not being too restrictive on the more affluent. Such unwanted burden on the most affected groups under progressive taxation can be easily ameliorated with reasonable tax rates, regardless of the circumstances in which these individuals find themselves in I believe a 75% tax rate seems rather restrictive for example.
Originally posted by quackquack I honestly don't know Buffets tax bill or the accuracy of any of your income statements so I cannot comment on that.
I know I disagree with your illogical argument that a guy who
(1) pays billions in taxes and
(2) is in the maximum tax bracket at all points in time
paid less tax than anyone else.
And I think if you feel we need more tax reven ...[text shortened]... huge amounts of money refuse to put their capital at risk because they keep too little upside.
It seems the language keeps confusing you. Do you know what a nominal tax rate is? I never claimed Buffett pays less taxes than most but he certainly has an effective nominal tax rate which is lower than that of most.
Originally posted by generalissimo [b]Obama is far to the right of Eisenhower's policies, yet Obama is the "left" candidate
Somehow I can't imagine eisenhower advocating healthcare reform or a public option, nor can I imagine eisenhower saying he'd like it better if the "wealth was spread around".[/b]
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. " - Eisenhower
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It seems the language keeps confusing you. Do you know what a nominal tax rate is? I never claimed Buffett pays less taxes than most but he certainly has an effective nominal tax rate which is lower than that of most.
We agree
(1) Buffett pays more total taxes than most.
(2) Buffet is in the highest bracket in each relevant category
Somehow you think that becuase a large percentage of his bill is at capital gains rates that he pays less taxes than most (you are comparing nonequivalent things). There are FICA benefits, 401(k) deductions, transit check deductions, HSA and FSA benefits (and millions of other things that a tax expert could tell you) that people get on their ordinary income that he does not get on his capital gains. There are also millions of deductions that people take on their income that he does not get on his capital gains. Of course you ignore the deduction, ignore the fact that he is always in the highest bracket and always paying the highest total and come up with the nonsensical argument that his secretary has a higher tax burden than he does.
04 Aug '10 18:50
The Vicissitudes of Voting
Back to Top