Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Patriotic Millionaires... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Patriotic Millionaires...
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I Don't know how to do that,link to a web page thingee, so here's the web site address
"fiscalstrength.com/"

I'm hoping to read your feelings, about this.

Patriotic Millionaires willing to let Bush's tax cuts expire. Awesome!
These guys walk the talk! [Cool]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You've been here since 2004 and have yet to use the 'full reply form' button?

Just click on the URL button once there... Link

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or really, just post a full URL and not just the domain name and the system will usually handle it properly:

http://businessforsharedprosperity.org/resources/The+Business+Case+for+Letting+High-End+Tax+Cuts+Expire

(Also relevant to the general theme here)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just skimmed it, and it seemed like there wer a lot of good points, BUT saying that the economy was better under Clinton than Bush seems to be such a glaringly inadequate argument I wonder how they even included it. The economy was booming for lots of reasons not necessarily related to tax policies, and not all of it was real gains, some of it was the bubble caused by easy credit that has now burst. Kind of makes me doubt the validity of the rest of the things on the site.
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well let me try

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well al be....

it werkt . [Embarrassed]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carlotta : economy was better under Clinton than Bush seems to be such a glaringly inadequate argument.
__________________________________________________________

Yes there are to many variables. Perhaps that should not have been included.
BUT,
the point that is being made is, these men/women, are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. I think it's most likely they could not have made their money in any other country

I see these millionaires as wealthy but not greedy,like some of the skweeky wheels out there. [Big Grin]

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well... keeping to the theme of being off topic - you can just post the full URL, HOWEVER, if it is quite long, some browsers will have trouble rendering the URLs properly and sometimes you can get screens where you have to scroll from side to side just to read each post - very annoying.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shrug. The guys who can hire whole divisions of their firms to keep their taxes low don't mind a 3% increase?

I'd like to see what the actual percentage of their income taxed was and at what rate. If it's below 36%, then what are they really proposing? Nothing much.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So hate the guys that can hire firms to keep their taxes low, but pity the guys that can buy off all of Congress to keep their taxes low? Please explain, Flye.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd much rather see the amount of allowable deductions reduced than dicking with the marginal rate.

I would be in favor of altering the AMT so it's a flat 35% tax on income above $373,650. I suspect that would raise far more money than bumping the current rate, back to the 39.6% rate that Clinton introduced in 1993. And at the same time it would remove a lot of the distortions in the tax code.

Instead, we end up with the kind of shell game that existed in the 1950-70's, where the marginal rate was very high, but the very wealthy used tax shelters to effectively pay much less.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
forgot to mention, the argument I found very compelling is that raising the tax rate won't affect hiring because payroll is tax deductible anyway and isn't considered profit. Don't know why I didn't make that connection before. On the flip side, does anyone here think that raising the tax rate WILL negatively affect hiring and/or small business? How?
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not just the tax rate that's going up, there's at least one deductible I know of that won't exist anymore. My boss has payed my car payments for me for the past 14 years. Instead of a raise she gave offered to pay the bill. It saved her money because it was tax deductible, and it saved me money because instead of $400/month on my pay check which equals around $325 actual money, I get the 400/month car.

She informed me that starting in January, she no longer gets that tax break for paying for the car, so she gave me the money on my paycheck instead. So I essentially got a minor pay decrease.

Eh, my point is that I believe there is more to these tax breaks expiring than just the general rate.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So hate the guys that can hire firms to keep their taxes low, but pity the guys that can buy off all of Congress to keep their taxes low? Please explain, Flye.

Fine, but only because it's you Peter.

If Moby has his accountant scrounging around keeping his effective tax rate at 22%, then what does it really matter to him if the government bumps it up to 39%. He still does not face that burden.

I'd prefer that the tax code is jiggered to that John (Yacht Basin) Kerry actually PAYS his 36%, never mind the 39%.

It is grace on the cheap to sign that document knowing that the rate doesn't apply to yourself though loop holes, deductions and frankly money laundering.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Flye. What do you think of JWatts' suggestion?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlotta:
forgot to mention, the argument I found very compelling is that raising the tax rate won't affect hiring because payroll is tax deductible anyway and isn't considered profit. Don't know why I didn't make that connection before.

That argument ignores what will happen to the money after it gets taxed, so I wouldn't put much trust in it.

Anybody who would have earned the additional money would have either invested it (which would have indirectly created more jobs) or have spent it(which would have directly created more jobs.)

So at the very least we will see more jobs created in the public sector versus jobs created in the private sector. And since public sector jobs tend to be more expensive than private sector jobs, the entire economy will have a net loss in jobs. (or a lower net gain in jobs)

All that being said, we need to get a handle on our national deficit. At this time I think raising taxes is the lessor of two evils.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anybody who would have earned the additional money would have either invested it (which would have indirectly created more jobs) or have spent it(which would have directly created more jobs.)
You forget the "saved it" option, which creates no jobs (and is the activity that increase most distinctly among high income earners when their taxes are cut).

"Spent it" doesn't apply here, because we're talking about an income level that's above the general spending plateau. A person can only spend so much before they hit simple, practical limits.

As for investing, that's 50/50 depending on whether you're talking about making capital investments or market/financial investments. While the former kinds do create jobs, they're generally also tax deductible, so taxation is a moot point, while the latter are a higher risk/reward form of savings that similarly don't really do much but bring profits to the investors, not what they've invested in.

[ November 22, 2010, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That argument ignores what will happen to the money after it gets taxed, so I wouldn't put much trust in it.
And to be clear- you're wrong here. That argument is about what happens to money before it's taxed. If you use the money to create a job it's not taxed, because that's a deductible capital investment. When you raise the tax rates that apply to the people deciding what to do with that money, it encourages a shift to spending it in ways that exempt it from taxation and lead to more profits in the future, like higher wages or more jobs to increase productivity and worker purchasing power.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You forget the "saved it" option, which creates no jobs (and is the activity that increase most distinctly among high income earners when their taxes are cut).

Unless, you are talking about Scrooge McDuck here with vast piles of gold and greenbacks in a large vault in the basement, then I didn't forget the "saved it" option.

If I "save it" in any meaningful sense, it get's re-invested in the economy.

Let's say I put $10,000 into my emergency fund at the local bank earning very little interest. The bank still uses all of the savings money (minus reserves) to lend out for loans. The loaned money is then invested in the economy creating jobs.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
"Spent it" doesn't apply here, because we're talking about an income level that's above the general spending plateau. A person can only spend so much before they hit simple, practical limits.

[Roll Eyes] If they don't "spend it", then they "invest it". The money doesn't magically disappear into a whole in the ground outside of comic books and Marxist pamphlets.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And to be clear- you're wrong here. That argument is about what happens to money before it's taxed.

No, that's your argument. The topic was referring to whether tax cuts lead to higher job growth. Ignoring what would happen to the taxed money if it wasn't taxed is moronic.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. The argument is if this movement is actually meaningful. I don't particularly find it so. Warren Buffet is a hypocrite if he isn't paying his 'fair share' after lecturing the rest of us on it.

All he need do is write a check. Does he?

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

pretty sure we are interested in US jobs and employment. So when talking about investment there might be little or no improvement in employment in the US. Indeed it is entirely possible that increased investment can lead to a more rapid loss of US jobs and employment. (Ie decreased tax burder resulted in faster offshoring for IBM and many other companies).

Also investment could lead to efficiency which can substitute for employment. Ergo your argument implying that savings -> investment -> jobs is by no means a truism and can often be directly contradicted.

Also the greater the wealth of an individual, the greater the percentage of that wealth is invested in foreign economies.

So by having a lower marginal tax rate on high net worth individuals tends to harm the US economy and employment.

fly,

people have both absolute and relative fairness. While an individual may recognize that they are 'paying to little taxes' and recognize it as an absolute unfairness, taking less deductions than ones peers and paying more taxes than them is a relative unfairness. As a pratical matter peoples behaviours over the short term are based almost exclusively on the relative unfairness compared to ones peers.

Ie your children may recognize it is fair for them to have to do chores, but will be really upset if they have to do even slightly more chores than their sibling.

So one can believe that taxes should be higher for their income bracket and take all allowable deductions and yet not be a hypocrite.

You seem to want Buffet to be a hypocrite if he doesn't pay a higher tax rate than what he obligated to.

[ November 22, 2010, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
JWatts,

pretty sure we are interested in US jobs and employment. So when talking about investment there might be little or no improvement in employment in the US. Indeed it is entirely possible that increased investment can lead to a more rapid loss of US jobs and employment. (Ie decreased tax burder resulted in faster offshoring for IBM and many other companies).

That may be true, but it has no relevancy on the rate of the tax code. You are conflating two issues that are only tangentially related.

If investment in the US is not directly correlating with jobs in the US, that is a problem with our trade policy, not our tax code.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Also investment could lead to efficiency which can substitute for employment. Ergo your argument implying that savings -> investment -> jobs is by no means a truism and can often be directly contradicted.

Savings nearly always directly translates to investment in the modern American economy. And investments generally translate to jobs. If those jobs are in China versus the US, again that's a matter of trade policy.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Also the greater the wealth of an individual, the greater the percentage of that wealth is invested in foreign economies.

So? This is just a non sequitor. If you lower the amount to invest, investment will decrease in the US as long as the percentage invested is greater than zero. This has absolutely nothing to do with aggregate tax rates.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He is if he lectures us.
Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

quote:
So? This is just a non sequitor. If you lower the amount to invest, investment will decrease in the US as long as the percentage invested is greater than zero. This has absolutely nothing to do with aggregate tax rates.
Say we have two groups.

Group A - 10 people with 100 to invest all of which will invest in the US.

Group B - 1 person with 1000 to invest half of which will invest in the US, half overseas.

Then raising taxes on B, and lowering taxes on group A are the greatest net benefit to the US.

So changing how the tax burden is distributed matters. Increasing it on the wealthiest, and decreasing it on the middle class should result in a net benefit to the US economy all else being equal.

quote:

If investment in the US is not directly correlating with jobs in the US, that is a problem with our trade policy, not our tax code.

It can be both. We essentially subsidize foreign investment now with our tax code.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So who is stopping Buffet and Gates from giving away all but their last hundred million to the government right now?

If they did that, it would more than compensate for the tax increases they apparently want on millions of millionaires.

So why don't they? Do they think can make more effective use of their capital than the governmnet?

I don't see them as being particularly patriotic. It's easy to give your money away when you have more of it than you can ever spend, and it's even easier to advocate taxing more Americans on more and more of their money. They aren't anything special, at least in regards to this story.

And Buffet would have just lost his shirt if we hadn't bailed him out during this last financial crisis. He owes the taxpayers anyway. It looks like his conscious finally got the better of him.

Our government is becoming more and more like a tin pot dictatorship anyway. The more it gets, the more it uses what it's got to oppress us all. Frankly, it would be much more patriotic to give the government LESS money so it would have more trouble finding new ways to abuse the citizens.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Unless, you are talking about Scrooge McDuck here with vast piles of gold and greenbacks in a large vault in the basement, then I didn't forget the "saved it" option.

If I "save it" in any meaningful sense, it get's re-invested in the economy.

Let's say I put $10,000 into my emergency fund at the local bank earning very little interest. The bank still uses all of the savings money (minus reserves) to lend out for loans. The loaned money is then invested in the economy creating jobs.

If you're doing that with an actual local bank, then you will see some benefit, certainly. If you're doing it with a big, one, on the other hand, it's most likely packed off to wall street and dumped into derivatives or more profiteering loans that aren't structured for nearly the same degree of mutual profit. In any case, if you put anything more than short term money in that kind of account, then, at best, you're just contributing to the debt cycle rather than making productive investments.

But, you're also still talking small potatoes, not the upper end. People that already have their short and mid-term savings in place and so have no interest in doing anything but looking for the best return they can get, which means, without other factors to redirect it, the money goes into financial derivatives and stock market speculation; credit and loans or, effectively, rigged gambling that simply cycles the money from one wealthy shareholder accumulating money tossed into the pot by people further down the ladder that don't have the same degree of influence over the market.

The risk on capital investments, the kind that actually create jobs, is high enough and the return low enough that without strong tax incentives favoring them, money gets parked into safer investments that have no, or even a net negative effect on the overall economy.


quote:
If they don't "spend it", then they "invest it". The money doesn't magically disappear into a whole in the ground outside of comic books and Marxist pamphlets.
If they invest it in ways that requires risky loans and credit to be offered to try to get a good return, then it would have been better for them to toss it in that hole.

Any time they put their money into making loans rather than capital investments, they implicitly put an extra degree of drag on the economy, because of the need to pay the entire loan back, rather than simply paying out a small share of the ultimate profits in proportion to the investment

quote:
No, that's your argument. The topic was referring to whether tax cuts lead to higher job growth. Ignoring what would happen to the taxed money if it wasn't taxed is moronic.

If the money is put into to job creation, it isn't taxed; there's no "if" there at all. Job creation depends almost exclusively on the demand for products and the amount people are willing to pay for them taxes (aside from FICA) aren't part of the equation at all, because they're only applied to what's left after payroll is deducted.

Higher taxes on upper income levels very explicitly increase the relative return on tax exempt capital investments by allowing them to transfer more value. (Likewise they encourage putting more money into boosting lower level salaries and wages than than does upper level ones by increasing the relative marginal costs)

Demand drives job creation- businesses hire people when their current staff cannot produce enough to keep up with the ideal production point, similarly lack of demand drives layoffs. Short external influences businesses will naturally seek to shrink their workforces to the smallest size they can while still meeting production goals and to pay their employees the least they can for their level of production without risking them being able to get a better offer elsewhere. That's simple efficiency. Taxes only enter the equation as a secondary factor since they're applied after the fact. Higher upper level taxes increase the relative profitability of hiring more people or paying better wages by moving the profit focus from what can be extracted in the short term to working for long term returns.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
]Say we have two groups.

Group A - 10 people with 100 to invest all of which will invest in the US.

Group B - 1 person with 1000 to invest half of which will invest in the US, half overseas.

Then raising taxes on B, and lowering taxes on group A are the greatest net benefit to the US.


Then you should be advocating laws banning US citizens from investing in foreign countries. And probably traveling to foreign countries too, since that's always the most direct investment. But either way this has next to nothing to do with differences in marginal rates. As I said before the issues are at best tangentially related.

The problem with hypothetical scenarios, is that you can make them say anything you want. How about this far more likely scenario:

Group A - 10 people with $100 to spend. They buy goods at big box discounter which gets all of its goods from China.

Group B - 1 person with $1000 to spend. He buys a mink fur for his wife from a US fur chain, backed by a US supplied mink farm, 100% of the money going to production in the US.

So hypothetically it would make sense to tax the poorer group at a higher rate so that the rich guy can buy more US made luxury goods. And the poor guys can all work on the mink farm.

[ November 23, 2010, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
You seem to want Buffet to be a hypocrite if he doesn't pay a higher tax rate than what he obligated to.

According to Forbes, Buffet pays perhaps less than $10 million in taxes, a tiny percentage of his $50 billion net worth. Forbes says when you add it all up, and he’s probably paying less than 5% in taxes.

From MSNBC:
quote:
... a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.

So Buffet has the sub 5% rate and feels those of us paying over 40% should pay more and you don't think that's hypocritical? Maybe you don't know what "hypocrite" means. Here you go, from Dictionary.com:
quote:
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
From VDH:
quote:
Why did Buffett not become an advocate of higher taxes on those who make over $250,000 when he was in his twenties and thirties and desperately trying to pile up his first five or so million? Did he really pay astronomical income taxes at those astronomical tax rates in the 1950s and 1960s or seek to avoid them through capital gains lower taxes and write-offs?
So yeah, Buffet is a raging hypocrite. There is nothing even remotely patriotic about advocating higher taxes for everyone else when you're paying less that virtually all of them.

If Buffet thinks he pays too little, he's more than free to quit using the tax loopholes he uses to stay at that sub 5% level. Nobody and nothing forces him to do that. When he starts paying 40+ percent like the rest of us, then he can talk.

[ November 29, 2010, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's hypocritical is Buffet and Gates making big noises about an income tax upwards of 60% for the wealthy while still insisting that making $250,000 a year should be the lower margin. I have friends who make that much and, though they certainly are not living hand to mouth, they are definitely not living in the lap of luxury. They have a medium sized business and they planned well for their retirement. Now these über rich want to punish and rape those "barely rich" while their plan "barely" touches their own ability to live their own life-styles.

If these über rich wish to have a way to deal with their "wealth guilt" then let's set up a system that makes it real easy for them to donate 90% of their income if they wish. That kind of generosity should be voluntary so the giver gets full credit for the effort.

Otherwise, it's pure theft.

[ November 29, 2010, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
According to Forbes, Buffet pays perhaps less than $10 million in taxes, a tiny percentage of his $50 billion net worth.
I've personally argued that taxes should likely be based on net worth. I'm pretty sure you are an individual who has argued against that actually.

quote:
Forbes says when you add it all up, and he’s probably paying less than 5% in taxes.
He might well be - as I said earlier that most people will not allow themselves to be at a relative disadvantage, if the tax loopholes are such that such a tiny amount can be paid then most individuals who have good tax attorneys will be paying the least that they can.

Please as always link your source,

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx

quote:
[quote]So Buffet has the sub 5% rate and feels those of us paying over 40% should pay more and you don't think that's hypocritical.
You've confounded a few things in your math and sources.

The marginal net income tax rate that was talked about in the paper is primarily about the impact of poverty programs having discountinous cut offs resulting in enormous marginal tax rates on the poor. So the cutoff for foodstamps, TAFDC, Parent Medicade, and Child Medicade result in enormous marginal tax rates as you cross each threshold to lose that government transfer.

Ie in the paper there is a graph that shows the marginal effective tax rate of the loss of different government transfers - Loss of food stamps, loss of parent medicade, and loss of child medicade each have an infinite effective marginal tax rate.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.148.1683&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Interestingly if you are really concerned about the marginal effective tax rate in the paper - then there are three things that would significantly change it.

1) make social programs like medicare and foodstamps available to all incomes. (then the loss of such programs never causes a spike in the marginal tax rate)

or alternatively

2) eliminate all government transfers ( since they never receive these income subsidies, then there would be no significant marginal tax increase)

3) change the slope of benefits, so instead of strict cutoffs they are sloped over longer periods of income and are more continuous.

So your sources are totally misinterpreting the research (shocking I know).

Your 5% source is here I believe, which is just a number tossed out.

http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/11/24/dear-mr-buffett-put-up-or-shut-up-on-taxes/

The 'marginal tax on net income' for Buffet would be the 40% in the NBER paper like everyone else due to the way that the paper does their calculation.

Your source makes the same argument that I do that donated share should have the capital gain paid on them. I'm perfectly fine with an annual cap on deductions for charity being 100k.

[ November 29, 2010, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Making the government programs available to all income levels is something I've not heard before, but I think it's a fascinating idea. My guess is that if this were the case, we would see a slight increase in people signing up for these programs, but not a big increase. I've been on WIC before, and we take our kids to get their shots at the public clinic, and it's really a pain to go through all the paperwork and bureaucracy. Plus there's the sense of shame that you aren't able to take care of yourself or your family on your own. Most people I know of who have been on government programs want to get off of them as soon as possible. I bet those who want to stay on them permanently, who are in a cycle of poverty and don't aspire to get out of it, are below the current income cutoff anyway so they wouldn't make a difference in enrollment rate one way or another.
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlotta:
Plus there's the sense of shame that you aren't able to take care of yourself or your family on your own. Most people I know of who have been on government programs want to get off of them as soon as possible.

Shame is a concept our culture is quickly losing.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but since we're arguing here, can you prove your point? Or at least provide evidence that this loss of shame is causing more people to sign up for government benefits?
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Carlotta,

if everyone were eligible, then the management of it would change - it would probably be similar to how other governments administer health care. People don't feel shame in using it because there isn't really. It would be something covered as part of your taxes.

Out of curiosity do any of you feel 'shame' over tax deductions? Economically speaking a tax deduction for health care expenses is fairly similar to a government transfer for those same expenses. Most tax deductions should provide similar 'shame' if there is any moral implication for signing up for these items.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Carlotta:
Plus there's the sense of shame that you aren't able to take care of yourself or your family on your own. Most people I know of who have been on government programs want to get off of them as soon as possible.

Shame is a concept our culture is quickly losing.
Unless you turn Japanese, I think that you can go back in all sorts of cultural history without finding oodles of people who choose dignity over the survival of their family, Jwatts.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Carlotta,

if everyone were eligible, then the management of it would change - it would probably be similar to how other governments administer health care. People don't feel shame in using it because there isn't really. It would be something covered as part of your taxes.

Out of curiosity do any of you feel 'shame' over tax deductions? Economically speaking a tax deduction for health care expenses is fairly similar to a government transfer for those same expenses. Most tax deductions should provide similar 'shame' if there is any moral implication for signing up for these items.

Hmm. In the one case, I am allowed to keep money that I would ordinarily pay into the system.

In the other, I take Other People's Money to pay for my broken toe.*

Fail


*Yes, it is possible that someone can game the system enough that their tax deductions result in taking other people's money (see political pandering to the masses and America's idiotic tax policy). We are talking principles here.

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Unless you turn Japanese, I think that you can go back in all sorts of cultural history without finding oodles of people who choose dignity over the survival of their family, Jwatts.

When it comes to the survival of the family, I think a little shameful behavior is in order. I wouldn't object to a starving person stealing a loaf of bread either.

When it's gotten to the point where I commonly see men refusing to marry the mother of their children, because they don't 'want to be tied down' (ie they want to play on the XBox all weekend and not have to change diapers) Or just having three children by three different women, I believe things have gone too far.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Unless you turn Japanese, I think that you can go back in all sorts of cultural history without finding oodles of people who choose dignity over the survival of their family, Jwatts.

When it comes to the survival of the family, I think a little shameful behavior is in order. I wouldn't object to a starving person stealing a loaf of bread either.

When it's gotten to the point where I commonly see men refusing to marry the mother of their children, because they don't 'want to be tied down' (ie they want to play on the XBox all weekend and not have to change diapers) Or just having three children by three different women, I believe things have gone too far.

I agree that such a man is a grotesque insult to malekind.

I disagree that he's anything new under the sun.

On the contrary, it's today when genetics tests give such louses fewer and fewer places to hide. (except in Sharia courts, where a gene test isn't proof of sex, because you need four eye witnesses to see man sporking woman, in order to recognize that he fathered her baby.) [DOH]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

having deductions shifts the tax burden from those who take the deduction to those who don't.

If you are taking the deduction in a very real way the public is indeed paying for your big toe. Similar for deducting interest, house payments, a whole host of other things.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
JWatts,

having deductions shifts the tax burden from those who take the deduction to those who don't.

If you are taking the deduction in a very real way the public is indeed paying for your big toe. Similar for deducting interest, house payments, a whole host of other things.

I agree. I support removing/eliminating as many deductions as is politically possible from the US tax code.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1