Jump to content

STILL defending the rich? Even some of the rich aren't defending themselves.


SubwayGuy

Recommended Posts

Oh, that is so not true!! I'll have you know that I donate to various organizations like the MoMA and have also donated here and there to cancer organizations seeing that my mother was stricken with the disease.

 

As for your other point, what does having to be rich have to do with being overtaxed?? Yeah, so I'm upper middle class and I still believe that I am overtaxed, especially as a single professional. If I had 10 kids running around then Uncle Sam would give me a break I suppose, but single working professionals are most certainly overtaxed. I guess they think that families are more important than single folks. :mad: Says a lot about our wonderful tax codes. :tdown:

 

The tax codes need to be adjusted. No argument from me. I do think that Uncle Sam thinks that, in the long run, those 10 kids have the potential to be worth more to Uncle Sam and society in general than the single professional. I've pointed out countless times before that I was in your position ( single taxpayer) for longer than you've been on this earth and the tax rates were HIGHER than they are now so you won't get any sympathy from this quarter. Forget about political labels for a minute and think real hard. Do you really think the "family values" political party and their agenda gives a damn about a single working professional ? Even the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government, Ronald Reagan, wasn't that naive. Mr Buffett may be rich but he isn't stupid IMO. ADJUST the TAX CODE. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The tax codes need to be adjusted. No argument from me. I do think that Uncle Sam thinks that, in the long run, those 10 kids have the potential to be worth more to Uncle Sam and society in general than the single professional. I've pointed out countless times before that I was in your position ( single taxpayer) for longer than you've been on this earth and the tax rates were HIGHER than they are now so you won't get any sympathy from this quarter. Forget about political labels for a minute and think real hard. Do you really think the "family values" political party and their agenda gives a damn about a single working professional ? Even the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government, Ronald Reagan, wasn't that naive. Mr Buffett may be rich but he isn't stupid IMO. ADJUST the TAX CODE. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

That's been my argument all along... The problem with that mentality is that more and more folks are single these days so do we continue with this philosophy of taxing high on the single class folks just because they don't have the spouse with the kids running around? I personally think that idea right there helps to nurture those who have kids and can't afford them because they're led to believe that somehow families are more valued and thus if you have kids you stand a better chance of being assisted via welfare or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also probably paid more in taxes then all of them combined. Its a matter of if you think "percentage of income taxed" is a meaningful statistic. I think its much more interesting to see how the rich pay the vast majority of taxes *already.*

 

Percentage of income taxed is a very meaningful statistic. It adjusts for income level.

 

If the rich make, say, 85% of the wealth, and pay, say, 75% of the taxes, they are not paying their fair share.

 

In our society, the rich pay the majority (not the vast majority...just the majority) of taxes, but they make the vast majority of the money.

 

If, however, the rich made, say, 50% of the wealth, and paid, say, 90% of the taxes, then maybe there would be something to the "aww, the poor rich" argument.

 

Effective Tax Rate Percentage is a MUCH more meaningful statistic because in a simple number it sorts out the need to combine with another statistic to provide a relevant comparison. It can be compared to any other demographic to provide a very fair statement on the fairness of taxation at various income levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is that they spend the money on their business, which means you, Mr. Joe Middle-class, would get the benifits directly through ether higher wages or lower prices on products.

 

That's the "idea" but it doesn't work that way.

 

Prices don't go lower. The Federal Reserve makes sure of that by making sure we stay in a constantly (slowly) inflating world...

 

History dictates the rich don't spend money on their business, they outsource, so that they can pay their executives more of an increased profit pie.

 

A corporate and individual tax policy that discourages that outsourcing, protects American jobs, and penalizes offenders is the only effective weapon at a government's disposal to positively affect employment.

 

If the rich begin investing in their businesses domestically as you are suggesting, then it broadens the tax base (more citizens earning income) and reduces the dependency on social programs.

 

If the rich don't, it recaptures the money in increased taxes on the wealthy.

 

But without incentives, corporations and rich individuals are just going to keep looking out for #1, which is not the American worker nor the American economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's been my argument all along... The problem with that mentality is that more and more folks are single these days so do we continue with this philosophy of taxing high on the single class folks just because they don't have the spouse with the kids running around? I personally think that idea right there helps to nurture those who have kids and can't afford them because they're led to believe that somehow families are more valued and thus if you have kids you stand a better chance of being assisted via welfare or whatever.

 

The fallacy with that argument is that many people with large families pay taxes and have never been on " welfare " unless you consider their lower taxes as a form of welfare. My in-laws raised nine children and neither they nor their offspring have ever been on welfare or government aid. Many of their children are single taxpayers today paying the same rates you are so maybe it balances out in the long run I really don't know. If balanced tax reform ever comes to pass a single person may end up gaining on one hand but losing on the other. Mortgage deductions and health care plan deductions may be out the window so we'd better be careful what we ask for. The less fortunate,elderly and infirm are always going to be cared for in our society so I hope you weren't counting on throwing them under the bus to lower your taxes. I don't think either extreme of our political landscape really advocates that. I think tax reform along with a closer look at where this money goes, mandated or not, is in order. I look at Exxon-Mobil, for example, and wonder should they get an exemption for oil exploration. Last time I looked that was their reason for being in the first place. If they lose that deduction are they going out of business? OTOH someone else might say "why are we giving money to these areas for mass transit" when most of the US has none. The devil is in the details of what awaits us as the various parts of Congress and this "super committee" work things out. Tax reform coupled with budget reform is not going to be painless for anyone as far as I can see. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The second article is good, and a wealth tax is something I would support although it is highly unlikely it would ever get approved for being too "socialistic".

 

The first article, however, is hogwash. Buffett gave his personal income figures, not those of Berkshire Hathaway. Arguing that corporate taxes already reduced his income is BS. That's like saying that because Microsoft pays taxes, that a software engineer at Microsoft is lying when he says that when his personal salary is 50,000 with a tax bill of 15,000 - his tax rate is "30%".

 

However, on the second point raised in the article, even I don't propose subjecting amounts above the maximum SS benefit to SS taxation. It creates a bureaucratic nightmare and the basis of SS is that you get out based on what you pay in. Here I would actually defend the rich by saying that, no, it's not fair to charge someone SS tax on all their income, and only pay out benefits on a portion. The rich don't need SS beyond what everyone else gets at the maximum, so there's no need to tax and pay additional benefits. In short, LEAVE IT ALONE.

 

If you want to redistribute wealth FROM the rich, that's what the Death Tax is for and why I've proposed lowering the threshold it kicks in at and raising the percentage (personally I feel 2 million should be tax free, then the rest is taxed at 75%). If the rich truly earn it and pay fair taxes based on what they earn, then they can keep it...but not their kids. Their kids can get a head start but not a handout and they need to work if they want to be rich too. No free lifestyles because of mom and dad.

 

Another issue with the tax code I have is Investment income is a luxury most Americans don't have because it is discretionary money that is leftover after essentials, and material discretionaries. A preferential rate should not exist. Investment income should be ordinary income, unless it is part of a qualifying retirement plan such as a Roth IRA, or taxed up front 401(k) / 457 plan. That's a major loophole that would help make it so the rich paid their share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first article, however, is hogwash. Buffett gave his personal income figures, not those of Berkshire Hathaway. Arguing that corporate taxes already reduced his income is BS. That's like saying that because Microsoft pays taxes, that a software engineer at Microsoft is lying when he says that when his personal salary is 50,000 with a tax bill of 15,000 - his tax rate is "30%".

 

The problem with your analogy is that Berkshire Hathaway's primary shareholder is....drumroll...... Warren Buffett! Hence why any taxes against Berkshire Hathaway affects him and his profits directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your analogy is that Berkshire Hathaway's primary shareholder is....drumroll...... Warren Buffett! Hence why any taxes against Berkshire Hathaway affects him and his profits directly.

 

BH a publicly traded corporation, and he is the primary shareholder. Remember, him and the BH Board collectively decide what his compensation is. The remainder is the corporation's earnings and stays on the corp's balance sheet at the end of the year.

 

This is ENTIRELY different from a partnership or sole proprietorship, where the earnings of the business ARE the earnings of the individual(s). But since BH is not a sole proprietorship nor a partnership, that is why I'm saying that article's argument is bunk.

 

Taxes against corporations affect all shareholders. However, using that as an argument is a lot like saying that because someone owns stock in McDonald's that their tax burden figure should also include taxes paid by McDonald's. Additionally, a lot of employees at various companies also own a stake in that company. But you don't see anyone claiming that they've "paid" the corporate taxes too.

 

The size of someone's ownership stake does not alter the principle involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.