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.
My question about your claim that Buffett shields himself from taxation.
Quote:
No they dont because as YOU said, people can grow wealth without it being taxed.
Not anyone, just
a) hedge fund managers
b) people who are paid in stock options
c) people who inherit money.
Quote:
Now tell me how people take these "profits" out of these investments and NOT PAY TAXES ON IT?
I said they don't pay wage taxes. Key word is wage.
Maybe you can't read? Do you know what a wage tax is?
It is a waste of time talking to you, because I say "wage tax" and you translate that as "tax" in your rebuttal. I say "hedge fund manager and inheritor" in my statement and you rebut as if I had said "wage earner." Furthermore you don't answer my questions, you ask new ones of your own. It's not worth my time having a discussion with someone who is dishonest.
My question about your claim that Buffett shields himself from taxation.
You didnt ask a question, you made a statement which was wrong. When you answer my question about why he stopped paying dividends, you'll have proof you are wrong, but shocking, you wont answer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Not anyone, just
a) hedge fund managers
b) people who are paid in stock options
c) people who inherit money.
I said they don't pay wage taxes. Key word is wage.
Maybe you can't read? Do you know what a wage tax is?
It is a waste of time talking to you, because I say "wage tax" and you translate that as "tax" in your rebuttal. I say "hedge fund manager and inheritor" in my statement and you rebut as if I had said "wage earner." Furthermore you don't answer my questions, you ask new ones of your own. It's not worth my time having a discussion with someone who is dishonest.
So now the only tax we're concerned about is wage taxes? Tell me why people who dont have wages, should pay wage taxes? Wow, I sold a hotel on Friday and paid a transfer tax, according to your argument, you should have paid those transfer taxes for me. Woo hoo, I'll be waiting for a check from you to pay "your fair share" of a tax you dont owe
No you didnt, in fact you specifically said you wouldnt answer. If you knew why he stopped paying dividends, you'd have your own answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
People who have income from other sources should have that income taxed at the same rate as wages.
I agree. Lets have EVERYONE pay the same tax rate and not let 51% of americans pay ZERO. You dont have a problem though with those in poverty paying zero, do you? Maybe the problem is that the tax rates are too high on income, not that capital gains are too low. Thought never entered your mind, did it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
No, because a transfer tax isn't a tax on personal income.
Transfer taxes are a reduction from personal income, so they do affect taxes owed.
O.K. I am beginning to see where you are confused. You are confusing people who already living over seas with people who will be moving to live over seas. Certainly nobobdy who is already living overseas wants to pay taxes both to the U.S. and in the Article that you cite in the U.K. that is like double taxation. I can understand an American wanting to renounce citizenship in order to have to pay only one tax...the country he is living in.
From your article.
the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence. …Additionally, the U.S. government has implemented tougher rules requiring expatriates to report any foreign bank accounts exceeding $10,000, with stiff financial penalties for noncompliance. “This system is widely perceived as overly complex with multiple opportunities for accidental mistakes, and life-altering penalties for inadvertent failures,” Hodgen says. These stringent measures were put into place to prevent Americans from stashing undeclared assets in offshore banks, but they also make life increasingly difficult for millions of law-abiding expatriates
You are shifting arguments midstream. I can understand why, the original argument was a dead loser. Why would anyone move to the U.K. from the U.S. to pay lower taxes, when the taxes are actually higher in the U.K. for the very wealthy. The answer they wouldn't makes your original argument that they will leave dead on Arrival.
Now if you had said that expatriots american living overseas already would renounce citizenship to avoid having to pay two seperate taxes then I would have agreed.
Again, these people are not leaving the country for tax reasons. The people quoted in the article have already left and are denouncing citizenship because they don't want to have to pay double tax. That is a completely seperate tax issue.
are you even trying at this point?
"Many of these are wealthy people seeking to escape what they see as the excessive taxes and political tyranny of the United States government. And increasingly, much of this exodus is not only composed of of retirees — but younger Americans."
You cannot disprove that above statement but pointing to a completely different statement...I said that already...
yes there are people who have been living overseas for years and don't want to be double taxed...that doesn't change that many have left and are considering to leave for tax reasons.....
its funny that you mentioned the U.K., well the article goes on to say:
"Even relatively high-tax nations such as the United Kingdom are attractive compared to theclass-warfare system that President Obama is creating in the United States."
yeah, that is a whole different thing is for another thread..
"In 1993, the first year of Clinton's "soak the rich" presidency, 306 individuals officially and legally renounced their American citizenship and moved to financially less restrictive locations such as Ireland, Switzerland and the Caribbean. And thousands more Americans have been speaking with lawyers quite seriously about this very topic.
By comparison, in 1982, the year after Ronald Reagan drastically lowered taxes, not even one American renounced citizenship."
and yes the numbers are low...but if the numbers comprise of mostly wealthy people...then that is millions maybe even billions in lost revenue..and before you say "dur, dur, it was only 306"....thousands more were considering doing the same....yes the number were low but they have continue to increase and jumped rapidly in recent years...
so this is the history, this is what happened...1982 and 1993...I have said that since the beginning of this...that is the history of this, not my fault, sorry, you're going to have to deal with that...you cannot disprove or downplay that by spinning, denying and deflecting it...but good job trying......and yet here we are, 2011, and you people are trying to raise taxes on them again thinking the outcome would be different...based on what?....nothing but what you "feel" and "think"...
NO-ONE should be paying more than 15% tops( I think it should be 10%) to the federal government
if the federal government cant opperate on 15% of EVERONES taxable income...then we have a spending problem
Agreed, but you will never get through with your argument. Think of how many people constantly want someone else to pay for their services. Shared sacrifice my ass.
Lets see, high earners pay most of the taxes, low earners uses an equal amount or more of these Govt services, but pay very little for them. Economy is bad, tax revenue down, instead of living within our means, cutting services to meet revenues, lets not ask folks to give up their free services...lets ask the high earners to pay more so the same free services can be dolled out....
This is the thing - this entire issue is really a red herring. It's populist political rhetoric. Increasing taxes for the rich under Obama's plan will not bring in significant revenue to pay off the deficit even before you deduct the negative effect - individuals finding tax shelters, loss of business, etc.
One must ask ourselves what's the difference between the 1950's marginal tax rate was almost 80% for the top earners, and today? Did we collect that much revenue? No of course not. The difference is the 80% was the marginal tax rate, it was set at an almost unrealistic amount of income when corrected for inflation, and the tax code was rife with different and complex tax shelters. The average tax rate was about the same as it is now per income.
Then we had the Tax Reform Act of 1986 when we went to one top tax rate of 28% for the highest earners. This was a joint Democrat/GOP bill one might add. Why did we do it? Well, the tax rate was simplified - instead of 30+ different rates we went to 4, the minimum income for tax was increased dramatically (something the democrats liked), the tax shelters were greatly eliminated. Also - to get back revenue from the increased minimum level - corporate taxes were increased. The result? - our tax revenue increased and our deficits decreased. Investments were funneled away from wasteful tax shelters and into more productive areas. Democrats were happy, GOP was happy.
Now this is what we have today - Tax rates for the rich have creeped up a bit actually, corporate taxes remained high, but also tax shelters are increasing, and 50% of wage earners now pay no tax at all. So yeah, we can increase taxes for the rich but, guys - IT"S ONLY A TRICKLE IN THE BUCKET. The rich will find ways not to pay the tax.
This is what I am suggesting:
1.) The real issue is to reform taxes - eliminate the new types of tax shelters, you will probably get more revenue. Also, make the tax fair for the rich AND the poor. Both should pay their fair share. You don't have to directly increase the tax rate for the rich, their are other methods.
2.) Obama - stop using this issue for political purposes. It's a red herring. This is NOT the issue that will make a significant impact to the economy and may be counterproductive. You know that. It's a political ploy. The result is that the issue is just dividing the nation.
3.) GOP - Stop trying to fight it. People are stupid, they just think "yeah, increase it for the rich and not me". It makes them feel good. Instead, use it like the Dems used it in 1986. OK he wants to increase it for the rich a few percentage points? Let him, don't matter, it won't help, but it also won't significantly hurt. Have him decrease corporate tax rates (this WILL help the economy), have him eliminate some of the liberal tax shelters, etc. Do the deal and let him think he won, then attach something that WILL actually help the nation.
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.
So now the only tax we're concerned about is wage taxes? Tell me why people who dont have wages, should pay wage taxes? Wow, I sold a hotel on Friday and paid a transfer tax, according to your argument, you should have paid those transfer taxes for me. Woo hoo, I'll be waiting for a check from you to pay "your fair share" of a tax you dont owe 
