U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 08-17-2011, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Long Island
27,574 posts, read 15,494,362 times
Reputation: 7482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
what, do you know her personally?
doesnt matter if I do

FACT: making 60k (which is what buffet himself says she makes) puts her in the 15% bracket..and that's based on her ENTIRE 60k being taxed..and we ALL KNOW that is never the case...even single you have the personal exemption, and the standard deduction

buffets states he gets taxed at 17% and that is less than his secretary...fact that is a LIE

there is no disbuting that fact

buffett lied

he said his secretary pays 30% in federal taxes

if she is single/renterthis would be the number

That would give her taxable income of $50,250 ($60,000 less 1 exemption @ $3,400 and a standard deduction of $5,360) and a federal income tax liability of $8,986.25 – $4,386.25 + 25% of the excess over $31,850. So, the secretary’s effective Federal income tax rate is only 15% ($8,986.25 / $60,000). Hmmmm.



Well, maybe Buffet is throwing in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. OK, add on 7.65% — 6.2% for Social Security and .1.45% for Medicare. That gets the secretary up to 22.65%.

so FACT is that she would only be rated at 15% for INCOME...if you want to throw in payroll, (which is not income tax) it still only brings her up to 22%...certainly not the 30% that buffett lied about

other FACTS:we're talking about a married secretary, with a stay-at-home spouse. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have two kids under the age of 17. They place $4,000 in an IRA and itemize $15,000 in deductions. Here the tax picture changes dramatically. Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal, of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.

meanwhile buffett paid over 8 million in taxes

buffett want the rates (for ALL) to be higher,, because it wont effect him, but it will hurt his competition....those are facts
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2011, 08:56 AM
 
22,770 posts, read 27,513,652 times
Reputation: 14605
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
doesnt matter if I do

FACT: making 60k (which is what buffet himself says she makes) puts her in the 15% bracket..and that's based on her ENTIRE 60k being taxed..and we ALL KNOW that is never the case...even single you have the personal exemption, and the standard deduction

buffets states he gets taxed at 17% and that is less than his secretary...fact that is a LIE

there is no disbuting that fact

buffett lied

he said his secretary pays 30% in federal taxes

if she is single/renterthis would be the number

That would give her taxable income of $50,250 ($60,000 less 1 exemption @ $3,400 and a standard deduction of $5,360) and a federal income tax liability of $8,986.25 – $4,386.25 + 25% of the excess over $31,850. So, the secretary’s effective Federal income tax rate is only 15% ($8,986.25 / $60,000). Hmmmm.



Well, maybe Buffet is throwing in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. OK, add on 7.65% — 6.2% for Social Security and .1.45% for Medicare. That gets the secretary up to 22.65%.

so FACT is that she would only be rated at 15% for INCOME...if you want to throw in payroll, (which is not income tax) it still only brings her up to 22%...certainly not the 30% that buffett lied about

other FACTS:we're talking about a married secretary, with a stay-at-home spouse. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have two kids under the age of 17. They place $4,000 in an IRA and itemize $15,000 in deductions. Here the tax picture changes dramatically. Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal, of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.

meanwhile buffett paid over 8 million in taxes

buffett want the rates (for ALL) to be higher,, because it wont effect him, but it will hurt his competition....those are facts

So what you're saying here is: You're making up numbers.

You don't know whether or not she's unmarried, or married to a stay at home dad, or married to a doctor. You don't know if she has 6 kids or 0 kids. You don't know if she has a house, and you don't know if she has a mortgage. You don't know what tax bracket she's in. You don't know if she contributes to an IRA or not. You don't know what she pays in state taxes.

You obviously didn't read the article, either, if you don't know whether or not to include payroll taxes. And in order to call Buffett a liar, you would've needed to actually read what he wrote.

Last edited by le roi; 08-17-2011 at 09:06 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
12,654 posts, read 9,093,953 times
Reputation: 6857
Quote:
Originally Posted by chariega View Post
Interesting article by Warren Buffet. "Stop Coddling the Super Rich" in the NY Times today. Could it be other rich Americans feel the same?



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...rich.html?_r=1


raise taxes cut spending...best of both worlds IMO.
A rich person should pay $1,000 for a Twinkie while a poor person should get the Twinkie for free. This is what passes for fairness in the mind of the liberal.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,765 posts, read 26,092,281 times
Reputation: 12276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
A rich person should pay $1,000 for a Twinkie while a poor person should get the Twinkie for free. This is what passes for fairness in the mind of the liberal.
I doubt it is telling more about the mind of the liberal, but it surely is telling of what your mind is capable of imagining.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Boston, MA
12,654 posts, read 9,093,953 times
Reputation: 6857
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I doubt it is telling more about the mind of the liberal, but it surely is telling of what your mind is capable of imagining.
Is it the twinkie that is throwing you?

Progressive taxation mandates that people pay more for the same services based on what they make. Tell me where I'm mistaken.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 02:04 PM
 
3,216 posts, read 3,238,855 times
Reputation: 1274
Buffet lost all my respect. If you want to play level, then put tax at 0% and every one play at the level field.

Taxing the so call rich is not the answer to the reckless spending problem. Cutting spending is the solution. The super congress will do nothing. If anything will be done, it would be have been done 30 years ago. The super congress is just another way to expand payroll for the federal government.

If they really want to fix the system, just look at what has worked after the civil war to until 1913. In this little over 1/2 century, many poor moved up to middle class, and many middle class moved up to the rich.

How that happened? Simple, small government, liberty, honest money and no income tax. Tax is left to the state. If NY has higher tax than NJ, people can move to NJ to enjoy a lower tax, etc. There were competition between the states. But everything changed after 1913. Federal government sized power and in just 100 years, it has destroyed the greatest country in world history.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island
40,129 posts, read 16,614,810 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
doesnt matter if I do

FACT: making 60k (which is what buffet himself says she makes) puts her in the 15% bracket..and that's based on her ENTIRE 60k being taxed..and we ALL KNOW that is never the case...even single you have the personal exemption, and the standard deduction

buffets states he gets taxed at 17% and that is less than his secretary...fact that is a LIE

there is no disbuting that fact

buffett lied

he said his secretary pays 30% in federal taxes

if she is single/renterthis would be the number

That would give her taxable income of $50,250 ($60,000 less 1 exemption @ $3,400 and a standard deduction of $5,360) and a federal income tax liability of $8,986.25 – $4,386.25 + 25% of the excess over $31,850. So, the secretary’s effective Federal income tax rate is only 15% ($8,986.25 / $60,000). Hmmmm.



Well, maybe Buffet is throwing in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. OK, add on 7.65% — 6.2% for Social Security and .1.45% for Medicare. That gets the secretary up to 22.65%.

so FACT is that she would only be rated at 15% for INCOME...if you want to throw in payroll, (which is not income tax) it still only brings her up to 22%...certainly not the 30% that buffett lied about

other FACTS:we're talking about a married secretary, with a stay-at-home spouse. They file jointly, pay a home mortgage and have two kids under the age of 17. They place $4,000 in an IRA and itemize $15,000 in deductions. Here the tax picture changes dramatically. Taxable income drops to $27,800 -- the 15 percent tax bracket. With child tax credits, secretary now pays $1,419 in federal taxes, or 2.4 percent of $60,000. Add in another 2 percent for $1,218 in state taxes, and secretary pays a grand total, state and federal, of 4.4 percent on the $60,000-a-year salary.

meanwhile buffett paid over 8 million in taxes

buffett want the rates (for ALL) to be higher,, because it wont effect him, but it will hurt his competition....those are facts
Before you call someone a liar you should present more facts rather than guessing his secretaries situation. Buffett doesn't give the specifics but if you consider nothing else (state tax, social security, medicare) she would be at least in the 25 % just for federal, Warren Buffet would be very close to 15% due to his large stock sale.


Assuming your made up facts are correct:

- You may want to argue the system is treating Buffet unfairly.

- the secretary making $60K should have those deductions taken away (the system is slanted)

- the system is working perfectly (Warren Buffett is crazy)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Long Island
40,129 posts, read 16,614,810 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So why does he hide his fortune behind tax law instead of paying his fair share?

Answer: Buffett is a lying hypocrite.

What would that accomplish?

Answer: nothing
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2011, 03:30 PM
 
4,814 posts, read 3,430,816 times
Reputation: 1112
Koch Responds to Buffett’s Call for Tax Hikes

“Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending.... — Charles G. Koch, Chairman and CEO, Koch Industries, Inc.

Rate this post positively 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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM.

© 2005-2020, 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