Originally posted by quackquackBuffett gets much of his income not through an ordinary wage. Therefore (2) is not true - the not-$38-billion-thing, remember? - and Buffett effectively pays a much lower nominal tax rate than for example a medical specialist who earns a high income but pays a (relatively) large percentage of his total income in taxes because his income is mostly made up of an ordinary wage.
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 ...[text shortened]... d come up with the nonsensical argument that his secretary has a higher tax burden than he does.
Originally posted by generalissimohttp://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
[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]
Who knows how Eisenhower would've responded to future healthcare challenges -- but we do know that a certain pinko named Nixon made this rather extensive healthcare reform proposal in 1974. Sounds a lot like Obama's ideas.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut what do you expect from a socialist like Nixon?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Who knows how Eisenhower would've responded to future healthcare challenges -- but we do know that a certain pinko named Nixon made this rather extensive healthcare reform proposal in 1974. Sounds a lot like Obama's ideas.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou seem to agree that Buffet pays more and a higher percentage of his wages than other in taxes and then also pays other taxes augmenting his total bill. There is nothing else to discuss.
Buffett gets much of his income not through an ordinary wage. Therefore (2) is not true - the not-$38-billion-thing, remember? - and Buffett effectively pays a much lower nominal tax rate than for example a medical specialist who earns a high income but pays a (relatively) large percentage of his total income in taxes because his income is mostly made up of an ordinary wage.
Buffet simply pays everything at the maximum rate. He pays more not less than everyone. Your averaging of two tax streams to get Buffet to a lower rate is simply the wrong way to look at things. It creates as meaningless a number as if you averaged the temperature and the time.
Originally posted by quackquackWell, explain to me how looking at what percentage of Buffett's income is paid in taxes is not looking at it the right way.
You seem to agree that Buffet pays more and a higher percentage of his wages than other in taxes and then also pays other taxes augmenting his total bill. There is nothing else to discuss.
Buffet simply pays everything at the maximum rate. He pays more not less than everyone. Your averaging of two tax streams to get Buffet to a lower rate is simpl ...[text shortened]... at things. It creates as meaningless a number as if you averaged the temperature and the time.
By the way, it's impossible to average a temperature and time.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLook at income separate from capital gains. They are taxed at different rates, they are treated differently for FICA purposes and there are different deductions against them you can take. They are different and to me averaging them is just as impossible and meaningless as averaging temperature and time.
Well, explain to me how looking at what percentage of Buffett's income is paid in taxes is not looking at it the right way.
By the way, it's impossible to average a temperature and time.
When you look at his income is Buffett is the highest bracket? yes
When you look at capital gains is he somehow paying less capital gains than others? no
Then his tax rate is as high as anyone in this country and the any average simply creates a false picture of the situation.
Originally posted by quackquackYes, they are taxed at different rates, so someone whose nominal income is made up entirely of a high ordinary wage will have a higher nominal tax rate than Warren Buffett.
Look at income separate from capital gains. They are taxed at different rates, they are treated differently for FICA purposes and there are different deductions against them you can take. They are different and to me averaging them is just as impossible and meaningless as averaging temperature and time.
When you look at his income is Buffett is the h ...[text shortened]... h as anyone in this country and the any average simply creates a false picture of the situation.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you say about the unions has often been true, they've had to do a bit of soul searching in recent years, but The United Steel Workers, for example, has announced its intention to enter into a cooperative venture with Spain's Mondragon Cooperatives. It's something the unions should have been doing since day one, in my opinion. Such a venture could have a huge impact on economic democracy within the US. If it's successful, it could revolutionize the way businesses are conceived of here. That's but one example of how we could get from point A to point B.
Now explain to me how the poor are to push these interests without the necessary money or skills?
Anybody who has the money or skills is trying to maintain the status quo.
Even labor unions usually end up serving money interests and end up being led by people with both management skills and high salaries whose main interest is to maintain the status quo.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut that is a meaningless fact as Buffet pays a higher percentage in each category. You are talking about technical facts and I am talking about who really pays and Buffett pays a higher percentage total in all relevanted taxed categories.
Yes, they are taxed at different rates, so someone whose nominal income is made up entirely of a high ordinary wage will have a higher nominal tax rate than Warren Buffett.
Originally posted by quackquackI don't know how I can explain it more clearly, or I am missing the point of what you're trying to say.
But that is a meaningless fact as Buffet pays a higher percentage in each category. You are talking about technical facts and I am talking about who really pays and Buffett pays a higher percentage total in all relevanted taxed categories.
Originally posted by generalissimoThis makes me sick. You don't see a problem with what you wrote?
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.
Originally posted by generalissimoI think it could be argued that it is compatible with equality before the law on the grounds that wealth is not an essential attribute of a person. The tax is not being levied on the person, but on each dollar earned, and it applies to income as it is earned, which is to say that, when you start earning in a progressively taxed dispensation, you know already the level of tax that will apply to each dollar. I think applying different levels of taxation to different levels of income is a whole different ball game from applying different laws to people of different races, creeds or sexual orientations, for instance.
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 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 cons ...[text shortened]... for a system which works more effectively while not being too restrictive on the more affluent.
However, I wouldn't press this point too strenuously because I basically agree with you that we have the system we have because it's practical.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe principle of equality before the law is trivially satisfied because the tax laws are the same for everyone.
I think it could be argued that it is compatible with equality before the law on the grounds that wealth is not an essential attribute of a person. The tax is not being levied on the person, but on each dollar earned, and it applies to income as it is earned, which is to say that, when you start earning in a progressively taxed dispensation, you know alrea ...[text shortened]... sly because I basically agree with you that we have the system we have because it's practical.