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.
Really..and Buffet has lots of capital gains as income ?
Buffet is a smart man. Go read up on his compensation.
Since you are denying that he does, it onus is upon you to present counter evidence, not for me to be your research assistant charged with making your assertion.
Since you are denying that he does, it onus is upon you to present counter evidence, not for me to be your research assistant charged with making your assertion.
I did provide a link to Buffet's compensation.
You just happened to skip over it.
Yet you have no problem commenting on how he'll be taxed on his capital gains while not knowing his compensation ?
Since you are denying that he does, it onus is upon you to present counter evidence, not for me to be your research assistant charged with making your assertion.
It's clearly obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what "tax me" Buffet is doing. You have presented no evidence of anything.
Since you are denying that he does, it onus is upon you to present counter evidence, not for me to be your research assistant charged with making your assertion.
Buffets own books tell you the lenghts he goes through to avoid taxes. For example, when he buys a stock, he makes sure he doesnt sell for over a year, and often times NEVER sells. If he doesnt sell, there is no capital gains on the profits.
Really? I haven't read that in any article on this issue. So you do realize that an increase on capital gains is completely avoidable, right? Please produce some evidence Obama intends to raise capital gains taxes.
0-bama has shown time and again that he will only be happy by raising taxes, anyones taxes.
He is attempting now to incite class warfare by shouting for raising taxes on all those evil people making one million or more. Last time it was anyone making 250k or more. He really doesn't care as long as he can raise taxes and blame someone else.
2. You can't cut us into prosperity. Countries such as Canada and Australia are doing 1000x better than the United States and both have much higher taxes on the wealthy.
That's called a non-sequitur. Canada has 33 Million people and Australia 21 Million people. Their GDP is not even comparable to US GDP.
I'm curious why you didn't mention Switzerland, whose highest tax rate is 20% or Bahrain, where there are no personal income taxes and yes, both countries are doing better than the US, so I guess that would blow your argument out of the water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
Do you really think that tax on those over $1 Million is going to make up even remotely close to $2 Trillion?
There are about 300,000 who earn more than a $1 Million in personal income. If you set the tax rate at 50% after the 1st $1 Million in theory you'd gain $725 Billion a year, assuming the tax was on an average of $5 Million.
About 1/3 of those are sports figures and entertainers. They earn only a little more than a $1 Million, you know, the 7 year contract at $11 Million. That works out to $1.5 Million a year or so.
The rest are attorneys, small business owners and CEOs.
The über-rich (like Warren Buffet) don't actually have incomes. They make their wealth through capital gains, by buying and selling stock, real estate, futures trading and buying and selling businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
I suspect neither Canada or Austrailia have more than 47% of their population paying no federal income taxes.
That's true.
They also don't pay people who don't pay taxes. They don't have the EIC where people get a free tax-payer gift of several thousand dollars a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Our federal government needs to be cut in size and scope by 40% from where it is today. Obama has grown the size and scope of the federal government by nearly 25% alone since he took office and it was already too big then.
I'll support taxes on the "wealthy" when the government fires 1.5 Million federal employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Citation, please.
This is the business forum. We know how to find data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
We can tax the top 2% a little bit more on their income, and make 700 billion dollars...
In theory. In reality it usually works out differently, and not to your benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
I might have been willing to say Yes at one point, but then I wasn't making the $250K household income which now qualifies me as "rich" - although it certainly doesn't feel that way.
The federal government, in spite of the many allegedly talented "you-Harvards" working there, can't quite seem to grasp the concept of "cost-of-living."
They're so stupid they actually believe someone in Los Angeles earning $24,000/year and someone in Cincinnati earning $24,000 have the same life-style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Rates were 91% under Eisenhower -- you know...
That's because FDR set them, and the Democrats had a numerical superiority except for the 2 years when the Republicans had a slight majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
No, they both realized that to run a government and pay its bills and debt, the government needs revenue.
Kennedy cut the rate from 91% to 70% and government revenues increased.
Doesn't anybody suspect this may be just a ploy to look good to the middle class?
He propses it, it doesn't pass and he comes out looking like he cares to the voting block that ain't too thrilled right now.
The really rich aren't worried about it,I'll bet.
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.