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.
Sorry you are wrong. Buffet pays less as a percentage because he receives most of his income from capital gains, which is taxed at a lower percentage than income tax. This is the same for most of the very wealthy.
So in other words, Buffet pays capital gains taxes on top of income taxes. Like I said before, you can't pay income taxes when there's no income. Capital gains aren't income, the money goes right back into the business. When he cashes out, he pays income taxes.
Judging from the responses in my last two threads I say yes, it is liberals who are truly greedy and selfish. Liberals call me greedy and selfish for wanting to keep the spoils of my labor, yet they have no problem going to the polls and voting themselves other people's money. Yet I'm greedy for not wanting to surrender more of my liberty and property for redistribution? Not to mention how they ridicule working class people who don't vote in lock step with the Communist left. They say if you make less than $250,000 a year and you don't vote Communist you have Stockholm Syndrome. Really? So if I'm a blue-collar working class person and I have a work ethic and earn my money by providing someone with a service, that being my labor, rather than vote myself other people's money, I have a psychiatric disorder? It just goes to show you who the truly greedy are. Not surprising that it's the same camp of people who see nothing wrong with a sitting Congressmen sending pictures of his private parts to women on the internet. Very telling. Discuss.
So in other words, Buffet pays capital gains taxes on top of income taxes. Like I said before, you can't pay income taxes when there's no income. Capital gains aren't income, the money goes right back into the business. When he cashes out, he pays income taxes.
Not exactly. Hypo Buffet sells 2000 shares of xyz. He makes 1 million in capital gains. The amount he made in excess to what he paid. That 1 million is taxed at 15% and that is the total that he pays. However, if he worked for a company and they paid him an ordinary salary of 1 million a year, he would be paying in the neighborhood of 35 to 45%. See the difference.
Had he not had the seed money there would have been no CNN. How are you not getting that.
So your claim is that Turner's billboard company somehow morphed into CNN all by itself with no effort or work on Turner's part? That's kind of hard to believe.
What do you think happens to seed money if no effort is made to capitalize on the investment, no matter how large or small?
You're blind ideology is causing you to completely missthe fact that Turner's efforts caused his small (in comparison) inheritance to grow to 200,000% of the initial value. That'sA LOT of self-made wealth.
So your claim is that Turner's billboard company somehow morphed into CNN all by itself with no effort or work on Turner's part? That's kind of hard to believe.
What do you think happens to seed money if no effort is made to capitalize on the investment, no matter how large or small?
You're blind ideology is causing you to completely missthe fact that Turner's efforts caused his small (in comparison) inheritance to grow to 200,000% of the initial value. That'sA LOT of self-made wealth.
Like I said we are not going to agree on this. He did an extraordinarily good job with his inheritance; however, he would not have been able to do, if not for the inheritance.
Not exactly. Hypo Buffet sells 2000 shares of xyz. He makes 1 million in capital gains. The amount he made in excess to what he paid. That 1 million is taxed at 15% and that is the total that he pays. However, if he worked for a company and they paid him an ordinary salary of 1 million a year, he would be paying in the neighborhood of 35 to 45%. See the difference.
OK, I've gone over this before on this site yet it seems that the data just doesn't sink into people's minds. The idea that the rich can fund this country and we will all live happily ever after is bull**** liberal class warfare.
Here is the data, straight from the IRS. I'm using the latest available, 2008 individual income.
Please notice the top 5% of the tax payers, the rich of the rich. Please also note that this includes people with incomes at $159K, not exactly living the high life. So, let's say that the government made the income tax rate 50% for the top 5% of earners, the government would get a whopping $857,632,500,000 extra. So, around $850 Billion dollars extra a year if the top 5% paid 50% in taxes. That would not even cover the current deficit of over 1.4 or so TRILLION that we are running. So, as we can plainly see, the rich CAN NOT FUND THE GOVERNMENT! WE DO NOT HAVE A FUNDING PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!
Like I said we are not going to agree on this. He did an extraordinarily good job with his inheritance; however, he would not have been able to do, if not for the inheritance.
...based on what? Do you have a cite for that? Or are you just randomly making assumptions that fit your worldview?
Notice how Ivory Soap says it's 99.44% pure, but you refuse to accept Turner's 99.95% self-made wealth as the genuine article.
The difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity is liberals want the federal government to take our taxes and use it for whatever charitable needs the Feds sees fit while conservatives want to allow the individual to keep some of his/her income and decide for themselves which charity to give to.
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.