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.
warren buffet is a billionaire...his 'income' 100k a year..with many write-offs
his SPENDING ....over 20 million a year
tax spending not 'income'
Buffet is an execellent example of my point. Thank you for the example.
Many of the super-rich see virtually all their income as capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate—15 percent—than ordinary income. When Warren Buffett talks about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, that’s because she sees most of her pay through a paycheck, while the bulk of his compensation comes in the form of capital gains and dividends. In 2006, for instance, Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary lost 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government.
100K is his salary it is not his total income. Most of his income is capital gains, which in 2006 was 46 million.
Most of the super wealthy could care less about paying higher income tax. Just don't touch their capital gain tax.
Scenario # 1. John Smith is billionaire. John Smith smith decides his best investment alternatives are in bunghole encyclopedia company located in non existant Country. He takes most of his vast wealth and invests in bunghole company, which of course is outside of the U.S. How much has been invested in the U.S....zero. He makes 100 million off of his investment and 15 % is taxed. 15 million goes to the govt.
That can be changed if the government stops penalizing wealth and economy growing strategies. Stop taxing them excessively.
Quote:
Scenario #2. John Smith is taxed at 50% and 15 million goes to the govt. to pay off debt. 35% go to the govt. to pay for infrastructure, which employees private companies in the u.s to build bridges. 35 million goes directly into the u.s. economy. Which is better for the U.S. economy?
Actually, 35/50 million is 70%. That 70% is not a cost free resource. In other words, the full 70% does NOT flow back into the economy. Therefore, it causes a net loss to the economy.
Don't you get it? Government is a very greedy resource-sucking middleman. Eliminate the middleman's interference and keep more of that money pumped into the US economy by reducing taxes in the US.
That can be changed if the government stops penalizing wealth and economy growing strategies. Stop taxing them excessively.
Actually, 35/50 million is 70%. That 70% is not a cost free resource. In other words, the full 70% does NOT flow back into the economy. Therefore, it causes a net loss to the economy.
Don't you get it? Government is a very greedy resource-sucking middleman. Eliminate the middleman's interference and keep more of that money pumped into the US economy by reducing taxes in the US.
Govt. is a middleman...a facilitator. You seem to think that it is just a large black hole that when money goes in that it never comes out. The fact is that the govt. actually spends money faster than they receive it.
I will grant you that when the govt. gives foreign aid that money is pumped out of the economy.
I just pointed out the fact that Joe smith can choose to pump all of his billions into some other economy. If there were no taxes on Joe Smith he would be able to keep all of the profit, while propping up someone else's economy. It is you that does not get it.
Govt. is a middleman...a facilitator. You seem to think that it is just a large black hole that when money goes in that it never comes out.
Yes. Some goes in; less comes out. The net is negative.
Quote:
The fact is that the govt. actually spends money faster than they receive it.
That's called the National Debt, which we STILL owe (more money taken out of the economy) and on which we're paying interest (even more money taken out of the economy).
Buffet is an execellent example of my point. Thank you for the example.
Many of the super-rich see virtually all their income as capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate—15 percent—than ordinary income. When Warren Buffett talks about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, that’s because she sees most of her pay through a paycheck, while the bulk of his compensation comes in the form of capital gains and dividends. In 2006, for instance, Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary lost 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government.
100K is his salary it is not his total income. Most of his income is capital gains, which in 2006 was 46 million.
Most of the super wealthy could care less about paying higher income tax. Just don't touch their capital gain tax.
"Among exogenous tax changes, we find that tax increases motivated by a desire to reduce an inherited deficit appear to have much smaller effects on output than tax changes taken for long-run reasons."
What you source is saying is that in an economy that we now have, where "tax increases motivated by a desire to reduce an inherited deficit," will not diminish output. That's exactly opposite of what you were arguing.
I make 60k and pay zero in federal taxes to include the payroll tax
This is from the article that I posted. If you don't agree with the article, take it up with newsweek. Keep in mind it was going by what she made in 2006. Why don't people actually read the posts before they respond? It is live Pavlov's dog.
You have absolutely nothing to say about making 46 million and paying only 15%. I did not think so.
We don't have an economy in which proposed tax increases are motivated by a desire to reduce the deficit. The Democrats want to increase spending.
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.
