Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 03-14-2016, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,575,805 times
Reputation: 22639

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
Billionaires pay more in absolute dollars, but their effective tax rate is lower because of the ratio of different types of income.
I understand they pay more in absolute dollars, that was my point.

People like to imply taxes are heavier on wage earners than billionaires because they might have a lower effective tax rate, but bottom line someone paying five million bucks in taxes at an effective rate of 17% is still carrying a lot more of the income tax burden than some high income white collar person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2016, 09:34 AM
 
Location: NY/LA
4,663 posts, read 4,549,540 times
Reputation: 4140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
I understand they pay more in absolute dollars, that was my point.

People like to imply taxes are heavier on wage earners than billionaires because they might have a lower effective tax rate, but bottom line someone paying five million bucks in taxes at an effective rate of 17% is still carrying a lot more of the income tax burden than some high income white collar person.
Yes, but that argument doesn't counter the post you were replying to. Since the effective tax rate is higher for the high-income white collar person that it is for the billionaire, it really does make it more difficult to build wealth (high salary professionals) than maintain it (billionaires with assets).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
Billionaires pay more in absolute dollars, but their effective tax rate is lower because of the ratio of different types of income.
It's about capital gains.

They already have their wealth so to them it's a matter of keeping the wealth.

They are also better educated in investing and can afford to pay for advice.

They are smarter with their money.

Their wealth didn't just drop in their laps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,575,805 times
Reputation: 22639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
Yes, but that argument doesn't counter the post you were replying to. Since the effective tax rate is higher for the high-income white collar person that it is for the billionaire, it really does make it more difficult to build wealth (high salary professionals) than maintain it (billionaires with assets).
It certainly did counter it, he said the US tax system is a tax on trying to get rich, not on being rich. The rich are taxed quite heavily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2016, 04:11 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,918,932 times
Reputation: 8743
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
I dunno man people like Buffet, Gates, and Bloomberg pay a lot more income tax than your average high salary person.
They might choose to order their lives that way, but if you've earned, say, $100 million and paid taxes on it, and you just spend it, not investing it or earning any additional money through working, your income tax obligation is (and should be) zero.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2016, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,575,805 times
Reputation: 22639
So you're bringing up an example of who? I thought the post was about actual billionaires, not some mythical billionaire who has it all stuffed in sacks buried in the woods.

Wait, do you mean like drug kingpins?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2016, 08:47 AM
 
350 posts, read 416,226 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
I understand they pay more in absolute dollars, that was my point.

People like to imply taxes are heavier on wage earners than billionaires because they might have a lower effective tax rate, but bottom line someone paying five million bucks in taxes at an effective rate of 17% is still carrying a lot more of the income tax burden than some high income white collar person.
I really do not care what they pay in absolute dollars. A billionaire paying only 17% is paying a smaller percentage of his income than someone slinging hash at a diner.


Billionaires should not be paying a smaller percentage than a minimum wage worker. Lower income wages are taxed at a higher percentage if you include all the associated payroll taxes.

Wage earners do have an overall higher tax burden. Nothing to imply, it is a fact. Even Warren BuffeTT acknowledges this fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Arizona
3,155 posts, read 2,732,691 times
Reputation: 6070
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Agree, totally.
All the average guy can do is try to improvise, adapt and overcome the stacked deck.
And in this country, that CAN be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 02:35 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,918,932 times
Reputation: 8743
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
So you're bringing up an example of who? I thought the post was about actual billionaires, not some mythical billionaire who has it all stuffed in sacks buried in the woods.

Wait, do you mean like drug kingpins?
Mitt Romney is an example. He's retired, and has already paid income tax on whatever money he has, so any taxable income he generates is purely voluntary. He doesn't need it. He can just spend his money and pay no tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,575,805 times
Reputation: 22639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Mitt Romney is an example. He's retired, and has already paid income tax on whatever money he has, so any taxable income he generates is purely voluntary. He doesn't need it. He can just spend his money and pay no tax.
Mitt Romney's isn't an example because he invests his money so files income taxes on the dividends and capital gains.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top