U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2018, 08:05 AM
 
10,265 posts, read 6,491,094 times
Reputation: 10837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post


Buffet didnít say that.
He is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he's not paying less money you are right, but you are ignoring the facts.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2018, 08:13 AM
 
5,220 posts, read 2,375,434 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01 View Post
He is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, he's not paying less money you are right, but you are ignoring the facts.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
I pointed out an incorrect statement, Iím not ignoring any facts.

The important part of the Buffet issue is this: Everyone pays the same rate on the same quantity and type of income. There are no special rates that are applicable to rich people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 08:41 AM
 
11,304 posts, read 5,834,479 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
I pointed out an incorrect statement, Iím not ignoring any facts.

The important part of the Buffet issue is this: Everyone pays the same rate on the same quantity and type of income. There are no special rates that are applicable to rich people.

I'd quibble about the important part.


To my mind, the important part of the Warren Buffett tax issue is that he is rich and his income is taxed in a different category at a much lower rate than earned income.


I would imagine Warren Buffett's 'secretary' gets paid pretty big money. All earned income. Let's call it $250K. 35% tax bracket and an effective tax rate of about 30%. Warren Buffett has capital gains and dividends as his income sources. Those are taxed at 20%.


Circling back to the title of the thread, the employer part of Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes is paid with pre-tax dollars. That doesn't show up as employee income just like employer contributions to health insurance and other benefits don't show up as employee income. Since I don't pay tax on it, it lowers my tax bill compared to being self employed paying both sides of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 08:43 AM
 
10,265 posts, read 6,491,094 times
Reputation: 10837
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
I pointed out an incorrect statement, Iím not ignoring any facts.

The important part of the Buffet issue is this: Everyone pays the same rate on the same quantity and type of income. There are no special rates that are applicable to rich people.
No what you did was in effect call the person a liar and say that they were wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 09:41 AM
 
5,220 posts, read 2,375,434 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
I'd quibble about the important part.


To my mind, the important part of the Warren Buffett tax issue is that he is rich and his income is taxed in a different category at a much lower rate than earned income.


I would imagine Warren Buffett's 'secretary' gets paid pretty big money. All earned income. Let's call it $250K. 35% tax bracket and an effective tax rate of about 30%. Warren Buffett has capital gains and dividends as his income sources. Those are taxed at 20%.


Circling back to the title of the thread, the employer part of Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes is paid with pre-tax dollars. That doesn't show up as employee income just like employer contributions to health insurance and other benefits don't show up as employee income. Since I don't pay tax on it, it lowers my tax bill compared to being self employed paying both sides of it.
And you'd be misssing the important part.

EVERYONE can avail themselves of those same preferential tax rates. Youíd be surprised how many people of modest incomes do just that. Instead of wallowing in wealth envy and hate, smart people are doing the same things that Buffet is doing, and reaping the rewards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 10:33 AM
 
11,304 posts, read 5,834,479 times
Reputation: 20949
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
And you'd be misssing the important part.

EVERYONE can avail themselves of those same preferential tax rates. Youíd be surprised how many people of modest incomes do just that. Instead of wallowing in wealth envy and hate, smart people are doing the same things that Buffet is doing, and reaping the rewards.

Nice hyperbole.


95% of the country lives on W-2 income. I have some 1099-DIV and capital gains in my tax return but it's dwarfed by earned income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 10:40 AM
 
736 posts, read 172,216 times
Reputation: 2067
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01 View Post
No what you did was in effect call the person a liar and say that they were wrong.


The lie - repeated all over now - is that Buffet pays less tax than his secretary.


So you've got 100,000 SJWs thinking Buffet paid less money to the government than his secretary Nora - something to get preposterously outraged about for sure.


Lying is ok if you are on the correct side of the PC fence right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
5,822 posts, read 3,765,015 times
Reputation: 4977
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Nonsense. If the employer saved that 6% and was unable to pocket it, competitive pressure would see it go towards lowering end consumer prices to gain market share. That is econ 101. Price competition far outweighs salary competition. Companies like Amazon seek to become more efficient in order to lower prices not increase salaries.
That would depend on the current availability of employees, both those on board and those available for hire. If you can take employees away from your competitor in a low unemployment period, your competitor cannot continue to satisfy their customers, while you gain market share, regardless of prices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
5,822 posts, read 3,765,015 times
Reputation: 4977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
What happened when private employers cut pensions? Did that pay gradually all return to the employees from competitive pressure?

When employers slashed on the job training and forced the cost of education onto the employees, did salaries rise?
That was happening at a time when employees had few choices, either to find another job or go into another career. Things have been turning around lately (for some reason) and it won't be long before a lot of employers will have to gear up offering pensions again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2018, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
5,822 posts, read 3,765,015 times
Reputation: 4977
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
6 of one, half a dozen of another. It still goes toward the employee's benefit. And NO...the company would not automatically raise wages 6.2%, if the payroll tax were suddenly cut. Whoever thinks that doesn't understand business.

Your wages are set by the market...supply and demand. And in my earlier days, by discrimination.

The SS taxes paid by the employer can only be considered as costing the employees in the sense that all expenses for the business "cost" the employees. But that's not really true. The company needs to make a profit...but there's no cap on the profit. If the co. saves money on health insurance or toilet paper or payroll taxes, the company looks FIRST at that as more profit margin. Then, and only then, will it consider giving wage increases, IF necessary to keep their employees.

You only pay someone what the market dictates, or however much it takes to keep someone, and not one penny more.

This is a tired, repetitive conservative meme, where they keep trying to tie taxes of companies & the wealthy to working class & middle class jobs and wages. The two or not related in any meaningful way. And that's a fact.
You forgot that supply and demand also drives employees wages. If you can't hire experienced employees when you need them, you have to sweeten the pot to get them to leave where they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top