Will WA finally get a state tax? (Seattle: real estate, school)

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by Ira500

It was actually Warren Buffett the multi billionaire who pointed out that he paid less taxes than his secretary. He was trying to convey that the rich have a lot of loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes, and he thought that was unfair.

If he said he paid less tax than his secretary, it would be a bald-faced lie. Period.

He didn't say that. He carefully said that he paid a lower tax RATE than his secretary. Go look it up.

In reality, he pays MILLIONS of dollars in taxes each year, far more than his secretary will ever make.

Is fortune a reliable source for you? Here's a quote of his federal income tax alone, not to mention the other property, sales, and business taxes he pays.

Donald Trump vs. Warren Buffett: How Buffett's Taxes Prove Trump Wrong | Fortune.com

In short, Buffett paid $1.8 million in federal income taxes in 2015 on about $11.6 million in income, for a rate of just under 16%.

You think his secretary paid more tax than that in a year? Really?

His rate though, living from interest income from investment, is less than the payroll tax rate on wages. Because it should be. Investment income is a different thing, often based on on money has already been taxed as income.

Don't get sucked in by carefully worded, but ridiculous statements. We can debate about how much they should pay, but let's do it from a position of truth. The rich already pay a lot in taxes.

[franklin42]

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

If he said he paid less tax than his secretary, it would be a bald-faced lie. Period.

He didn't say that. He carefully said that he paid a lower tax RATE than his secretary. Go look it up.

In reality, he pays MILLIONS of dollars in taxes each year, far more than his secretary will ever make.




You think his secretary paid more tax than that in a year? Really?

His rate though, living from interest income from investment, is less than the payroll tax rate on wages. Because it should be. Investment income is a different thing, often based on on money has already been taxed as income.

Don't get sucked in by carefully worded, but ridiculous statements.

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. It's pretty obvious that the secretary didn't pay more taxes than Mr. Buffet.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by franklin42

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. It's pretty obvious that the secretary didn't pay more taxes than Mr. Buffet.

It's obvious to me too, but listen how they say it, and how it was said here. The intent is to mislead. And SOME people actually think people like Buffet pay less TAX than the common working class, when that is absolutely not true.

[Ira500]

I did not intent to mislead, and meant rate, not actual taxes paid. However, Warren Buffett is worth about 45 billion dollars, and his worth increases just about every year. So even his 11.6 million in income seems really small compared to his actual gain in worth. He is the largest shareholder in the company he created, Berkshire Hathaway. The stock goes up in value frequently, and they continue to buy large shares of other companies. So if you just look at the surface, and see that he's "earning" about 12 million per year on 45 billion dollars worth of wealth, it seems very low. But the value of his shares continue to increase, making him one of the wealthiest five people in the world. And, unlike a lot of other companies, I don't think Berkshire Hathaway pays a dividend, so it's not actual "income" he gets to report.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Asking the rich to pay their fair share is perfectly sensible.

What's this "fair share" BS I'm always hearing about? The richer you are, the more more property tax, and the more sales tax, you pay.

Don't you realize that someone who owns a lakefront mansion in Medina pays way more property tax than does someone who rents a studio apt? Or that someone who spends a lot pays way more sales tax than someone who spends a little?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Ira500

It was actually Warren Buffett the multi billionaire who pointed out that he paid less taxes than his secretary. He was trying to convey that the rich have a lot of loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes, and he thought that was unfair.
As far as legislators paying less taxes than their staff, it's possible. Because in the state of Washington, members of the state legislature don't make much money, and their secretaries might make more. It's technically a part time job, so maybe it's a good hourly wage, but for a few months a year, it's a full time gig, but only pays in the thirty thousand a year range.

It was Obama and Clinton who made their returns public, revealing that they paid less tax than their secretarial staff. They thought it was grossly unfair, and should be remedied.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Asking the rich to pay their fair share is perfectly sensible.

And what is "fair"? To liberals person A paying nothing, or less than nothing, and person B paying 38% is "fair". The nuts voting in Seattle and the people they elect have no idea what "fair" means.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It was Obama and Clinton who made their returns public, revealing that they paid less tax than their secretarial staff. They thought it was grossly unfair, and should be remedied.

That's right. I remember Obama pointing out that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. Thanks.

[xPlorer48]

I do not want a state income tax, period, and will vote no every time. Sales tax is high, near 9% and our property taxes are increasing due to escalating property values. I think we should rethink all the tax benefits we give to Boeing and Microsoft.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by clikrf8

Sales tax is high, near 9%

Try 10.5% in King County... Yeah, the Sales Tax is so high that along with car tax and skyrocketing housing prices I will say it is getting close to unbearable. A state income tax will be great for the other emerging IT centers such as Triangle metro in North Carolina, Austin, Dallas, Houston among many soon-to-be tech cities such as Nashville, Tampa, Pittsburgh, etc that have much lower taxes and lower cost of living. People are fleeing the Bay Area because the combination of 10% state income tax, high sales tax and housing costs into the oblivion.