Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think we should just tax billionaires who WANT to pay more, like say buffett or gates.
then it would be strictly voluntary, and we will thank them, of course.
It sounds like you heard Warren Buffett interviewed yesterday on television. I heard the same interview. I think you missed the point completely.
Buffett did make a strong argument that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate. He explained that his current tax rate averaged about 17% while his secretary paid 23%. He was the first to see the inequity in that. Incidentally, Buffett's position is shared by Bill Gates. Although, Bill is in the habit of letting his father and others speak for him.
I understand completely where Buffett is coming from. He has enough integrity to point out a systemwide problem. Yet, Buffett believes that as long as the system tolerates this there is no point in him doing anything, but taking advantage of it. I've been in that boat before myself. There are some tax breaks and perks that are available to people because of their status or occupation. The key is reforming the system so that perks disappear. Its not expecting the one person who has the integrity to point the problem out to voluntarily pay more money.
Buffett and the super wealthy primarily get away with what they do because most of their income is derived from capital gains (example: profit from the buying and selling of securities) as opposed to working for wages. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate in this country than ordinary income is.
I suspect that we'll now probably see some "flat taxers" come along now. The reason I oppose a flat tax is two-fold: 1. Some of the super rich do benefit from it, but professionals like myself would end up paying a lower rate and since there are a lot of us, I would still expect overall tax revenues to decline; and 2. Some tax deductions which exist are socially useful and should be kept. If the housing market is in a slump right now, I try to imagine where it would be without the mortgage interest deduction. Additionally, I think the country is better served when people own their property as opposed to renting it. The landlord/tenant relationship is generally a bad relationship. Renters do not have much of an incentive to maintain property and this is why much rental property is in poor condition. Also, I can't imagine not letting employers deduct the cost of wages of employees from their taxes. Nor, can I imagine not allowing a deduction for charitable contributions.
We'll never solve the budget problem without some increase in tax revenues. It only makes sense that those who are getting the best deal should pay more.
It sounds like you heard Warren Buffett interviewed yesterday on television. I heard the same interview. I think you missed the point completely.
Buffett did make a strong argument that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate. He explained that his current tax rate averaged about 17% while his secretary paid 23%. He was the first to see the inequity in that. Incidentally, Buffett's position is shared by Bill Gates. Although, Bill is in the habit of letting his father and others speak for him.
I understand completely where Buffett is coming from. He has enough integrity to point out a systemwide problem. Yet, Buffett believes that as long as the system tolerates this there is no point in him doing anything, but taking advantage of it. I've been in that boat before myself. There are some tax breaks and perks that are available to people because of their status or occupation. The key is reforming the system so that perks disappear. Its not expecting the one person who has the integrity to point the problem out to voluntarily pay more money.
Buffett and the super wealthy primarily get away with what they do because most of their income is derived from capital gains (example: profit from the buying and selling of securities) as opposed to working for wages. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate in this country than ordinary income is.
I suspect that we'll now probably see some "flat taxers" come along now. The reason I oppose a flat tax is two-fold: 1. Some of the super rich do benefit from it, but professionals like myself would end up paying a lower rate and since there are a lot of us, I would still expect overall tax revenues to decline; and 2. Some tax deductions which exist are socially useful and should be kept. If the housing market is in a slump right now, I try to imagine where it would be without the mortgage interest deduction. Additionally, I think the country is better served when people own their property as opposed to renting it. The landlord/tenant relationship is generally a bad relationship. Renters do not have much of an incentive to maintain property and this is why much rental property is in poor condition. Also, I can't imagine not letting employers deduct the cost of wages of employees from their taxes. Nor, can I imagine not allowing a deduction for charitable contributions.
We'll never solve the budget problem without some increase in tax revenues. It only makes sense that those who are getting the best deal should pay more.
i guess buffett never heard of leading by example.
i just wish that obama would call him on his bluff, but we know that isn't going to happen.
What irks me about raising taxes is it's being touted as the only way to resolve the issue..as part of a "balanced approach"...etc.
I relate this the only way I know how..to a regular family budgeting their monthly expenses. We don't have the luxury of voting ourselves an increase in income, so we have to find ways to spend less. Believe it or not, you don't need the cable package..or the high speed internet..or the cell phone with unlmited data package...etc. I see the "if only we had more money" as a cop-out and an excuse used by the poor and ignorant...or the rich and reckless. If you can't learn to live within your means, and always have an "out" of voting yourself more income..then it's just going to contribute to more and more waste and inefficiency.
Another family example..let's say you give your child an allowance..he goes out and buys expensive clothes, eats out every night, buys some new gadgets..then can't pay for something he needs and comes back to you saying "if only you paid me more I'd be able to handle this". Would you be happy about that? But when the government comes and says "you haven't paid me enough" you say..YEAH! we're not paying enough!!! The government has shown itself time and time again to be terribly inefficient..If I'm going to give my money to someone only to watch them squander it....then have them tell me they need more? are you crazy?!!!
There are some who aren't pulling their weight yes..and I agree they should be paying their share...but using the "revenue" argument as a crutch is just going to be an enabler for the government to become more pervasive and bloated and in more of our business...instead of being fiscally responsible, cleaning up the incredible waste..and using the additional tax from deadbeats to increase a SURPLUS. they are behaving like the welfare recipients they are..blowing it cause they know another check is coming next month...
Next, what corporate loopholes are we talking about here? I hear it parroted everywhere but I'd like to hear someone give me some real examples. I'm not saying companies aren't doing things like tax shelters/etc. and I believe those things should definitely be stopped. But I think a lot of people think of "loopholes" and "tax breaks" as in real ways of dodging obligations and not in the "government speak" where a "tax break" just means we could be charging your more but we're not. You know..kind of like their definition of "spending cut" isn't actually cutting back the amount they are spending, but rather only spending a little more instead of a lot more....
running a government and running a family budget are not the same thing.
there are various reasons to have certain safety nets in place. safety nets, by definition, will be used when times are tough, which will result in lower revenues for the government. the issue with our revenue side is that we've been taking in low revenues when times are good as well. bottom line is, we're not paying for the services we provide.
we can always debate the merits of the various programs that are relevant to the discussion, but if we choose as a majority to have a program, that program should be funded.
"In a column headlined "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," Buffett wrote in The New York Times on Monday that he paid $6,938,744 in income tax last year, only 17.4 percent of his taxable income."
What am I missing here? Buffett's net worth is $50 billion. His taxable income is only $40-million. That's 0.08% income on his net worth. I'm getting 1.0%, so Im dong 12 times as well as Buffett, with my money. Whe doesn't he just put his wealth into CDs, and make $500-million a year, instead of a paltry $40-million?
But wait. Then the only intelligent contender for the Republican presidential nomination chimies in: "Republican presidential nomination front-runner Mitt Romney, a multimillionaire ex-businessman, said Buffett had failed to take into account corporate taxes paid by his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway."
So, I guess, now I'm also supposed to count the profits of all the companies I own shares in as my "income", and I have to pay their tax, too?
If I'm a better investor than Buffett, and if I know that companies I own shares in are not my own personal wealth (a fact unknown to presidential candidates), how come nobody is coming to me for the answers?
(Quotes from Obama says Warren Buffett is right about taxes - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-warren-buffett-taxes-203903366.html - broken link) )
the idea with the corporate taxes is that he is earning some of his income from dividends, which are taxed at the reduced rate of 15%. those dividends are paid to investors with dollars that the corporation has paid taxes on (in theory), at the corporate tax rate of up to 35%. so it is theoretically possible that the corporation paid taxes of 35% on those dollars already, and then buffet pays 15% long term capital gains tax, for a total tax of 50%. this is rarely 100% true though, as we all have seen the various levels of taxes that corporations actually paid. i own GE stock for instance. they paid no taxes, in fact, got a small refund. so do i subtract that from the 15% i paid?
i guess buffett never heard of leading by example.
i just wish that obama would call him on his bluff, but we know that isn't going to happen.
in the same way that tea partiers that collect social security, use medicare, drive on public roads, use public transportation, have attended public schools and colleges, benefit from safe food being on the shelves, etc., etc., etc....could also lead by example and stop using all those benefits so that the government can spend less money.
The same goes for tax deductions exploited by the rich.
i do agree, we have incentives and disincentives for various reasons. the difference with government programs is that things like unemployment, social security, and medicare still have their targeted purpose, and some people abuse them - though it's a lot harder to do than people make it out to be. oftentimes in the tax code, old tax incentives exist that really don't need to anymore, or need to be changed because it's not 1917 anymore. for instance, not too long ago, the government put a stop to the practice of buying "farm equipment" and "light trucks" where someone was basically purchasing these large luxury SUVs and being able to write it off of their taxes for something that they were not.
i think there are benefits to having incentives and disincentives as a result of tax policy. but, we should look at those in the books and bring them into the new century at least.
No, we should never increase the taxes on the rich. If we do, they will move to Canada (where the ultra-rich are apparently now moving), taking with them all the jobs they created in the U.S. as a result of not paying a lot of taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
