Warren Buffett and the rich

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]"Taxation on anything deters it."

Maybe if you're buying something, but we're talking about going the other direction. There's a briefcase with a million dollars in it. If I tax that money will it deter you from wanting it?

More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent.[/b]

Of course taxation decrease your desire for the brief case. It simply makes the brief case is less valuable. You will take less risk to get it and invest less money in trying to get it. You'll hire fewer people to get it. You will be less likely to find innovative ways to get the brief case. From your arguements and your example you seem oblivious to the fact that taxes have huge effects of behavior.

Originally posted by normbenign
"More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent."

I wrote a few post ago that the highest marginal rates really were meaningless in those days, because there were so many loopholes and shelters, which for the most part are gone now.

I wrote a few post ago that the highest marginal rates really were meaningless in those days, because there were so many loopholes and shelters, which for the most part are gone now.

Outstanding. And since you're not just making s*** up, link?

Originally posted by quackquack
Of course taxation decrease your desire for the brief case. It simply makes the brief case is less valuable. You will take less risk to get it and invest less money in trying to get it. You'll hire fewer people to get it. You will be less likely to find innovative ways to get the brief case. From your arguements and your example you seem oblivious to the fact that taxes have huge effects of behavior.

So says you, but the data is on my side.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I already (showed) you you're wrong. Putting you fingers in your ears and going "lalalala" doesn't make it not so.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

It also shows long periods of consistent, rapid gains in the Dow even when the top marginal tax rates were in the topping 80-90% !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

Your the one who lives in liberal "lala" land. Just about everthing you spent back then was deductable. Comparing today's federal rates to those rates is not an equivalent comparison. Furthermore, other taxes like state and local are at record heights and now state taxes themselves can be double digits. Regulation is crazy now. Keep raising taxes and govenrment spending and watch unemployment skyrocket.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
So says you, but the data is on my side.

Only a fool like yourself thinks that there is no negative effects to taxation but you are more interested in punishing rich people than coming up with either an effective or fair policy so I'm done wating my time pointing out how dumb your brief case example or your payroll tax is equivalent to income examples are.

Originally posted by quackquack
Your the one who lives in liberal "lala" land. Just about everthing you spent back then was deductable. Comparing today's federal rates to those rates is not an equivalent comparison. Furthermore, other taxes like state and local are at record heights and now state taxes themselves can be double digits. Regulation is crazy now. Keep raising taxes and govenrment spending and watch unemployment skyrocket.

Outstanding. And since you're not just making s*** up, link?

You're claiming there were so many more deductions that it more than offset the 80 and 90+ percent marginal tax rate.

I'm calling bulls***

I provided links for my claims. Where's yours?

Originally posted by quackquack
Only a fool like yourself thinks that there is no negative effects to taxation but you are more interested in punishing rich people than coming up with either an effective or fair policy so I'm done wating my time pointing out how dumb your brief case example or your payroll tax is equivalent to income examples are.

And this is where we're at right now. I'm providing FACTS, you're providing ad hominems.

Copy and paste where I said payroll tax is equivalent to income tax. I specifically said the ratio of one to the other depends on your income.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]I wrote a few post ago that the highest marginal rates really were meaningless in those days, because there were so many loopholes and shelters, which for the most part are gone now.

Outstanding. And since you're not just making s*** up, link?[/b]

Just use the thinker a bit? Would you or anyone, put thousands, even millions of dollars at risk, if at the end the government got 90% of the profits?

If you have a good business model, you may profit 50% of your sales revenues. Of that profit, you would willingly give up 90% and keep on doing that when one bad year could wipe out what you actually earned in the last ten?

You would be rightfully pissed if the government took 50% of your pay, but 90% would guarantee a work stoppage.

I'm not selling something that isn't pretty much common knowledge even among hard line Democrats. And I refuse to waste time looking up links which you will forget next week when making the same claim.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But in a flat tax system richer people pay way more taxes than poor people, and you just called this "ridiculous".

It is certainly less ridiculous than paying a higher percentage on a higher amount.

Originally posted by normbenign
Just use the thinker a bit? Would you or anyone, put thousands, even millions of dollars at risk, if at the end the government got 90% of the profits?

If you have a good business model, you may profit 50% of your sales revenues. Of that profit, you would willingly give up 90% and keep on doing that when one bad year could wipe out what you actually ...[text shortened]... use to waste time looking up links which you will forget next week when making the same claim.

Actually you're dead wrong for a couple of reasons.

First of all we're talking about 90% of just the top marginal income bracket, not corporate taxes so right out the gate you're talking apples and oranges.

Second of all ONLY your income above and beyond that specific watermark. In other words the first X amount of dollars you earn aren't taxed at all, and then from that point to the next bracket it's taxed a very tiny amount, and so on.

Currently the top marginal rate is $379,151 and 35%. This means if you earn $379,152, one single dollar is taxed at 35%.

But thank you for just admitting you just made that claim out of hand and have no facts to back it.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And this is where we're at right now. I'm providing FACTS, you're providing ad hominems.

Copy and paste where I said payroll tax is equivalent to income tax. I specifically said the ratio of one to the other depends on your income.

You are not providing FACTS you are simply picking an event in history and deciding what is and is not the cause.

Your statement that wages below X amount pay no income tax and wages above Y amount pay no payroll tax implies that somehow they are equivalent but as most taxes in this country they are so far off in magnitude the wealthy once again get the raw end of the deal.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Actually you're dead wrong for a couple of reasons.

First of all we're talking about 90% of just the top marginal income bracket, not corporate taxes so right out the gate you're talking apples and oranges.

Second of all ONLY your income above and beyond that specific watermark. In other words the first X amount of dollars you earn a ...[text shortened]... k you for just admitting you just made that claim out of hand and have no facts to back it.

FACT: I think you are intentionally missing his point but I'll let you two work this one out.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are not providing FACTS you are simply picking an event in history and deciding what is and is not the cause.

Your statement that wages below X amount pay no income tax and wages above Y amount pay no payroll tax implies that somehow they are equivalent but as most taxes in this country they are so far off in magnitude the wealthy once again get the raw end of the deal.

"an event"

FACT: For decades the top marginal income tax rate was over 80 and 90 percent, and during those periods we still had significant economic growth.

That is a FACT, not an opinion.

I have never denied the wealthy pay more taxes.

Originally posted by quackquack
FACT: I think you are intentionally missing his point but I'll let you two work this one out.

Uh.. No.

He gave a hypothetical scenario where the top marginal corporate taxes were 90% when in fact they were significantly less.

Originally posted by quackquack
It is certainly less ridiculous than paying a higher percentage on a higher amount.

So why do you favour a flat tax rather than flat amount?