Buffett: Tax the Rich

[WildCat]

Well, he's planning on giving 99% of his fortune away, so I think it's safe to say that his motive isn't reducing taxes.

Huh? How does putting 99% of his worth into a tax shelter lead you to that conclusion?

 

[WildCat]

Risk is already factored into investments in the form of higher expected returns and in practice this is exactly how it works.

Exactly. And increasing taxes lowers the expected returns, meaning more potential investments slip into the "too risky" category.

 

[Babbylonian]

Huh? How does putting 99% of his worth into a tax shelter lead you to that conclusion?

You do know the difference between a charity and a tax shelter, right?

 

[jimtron]

Huh? How does putting 99% of his worth into a tax shelter lead you to that conclusion?

I thought tax shelters were for people who wanted to hold onto as much of their money as possible. If someone is going to give away 99% of their money, I don't think their goal is to save on taxes.

eta: do you think Buffet is giving away 99% of his fortune to lower his taxes?

 

[JadeStonesFromSaturn]

The problem with trying to tax the rich is this: They can move money to accounts offshore, control them with trusts set up in other countries.

That's a silly argument.

People will still murder each other no matter the laws, so should we legalize killing of other humans?

Perhaps the solution would be to figure out ways to penalize such actions effectively? Threats of nationalizing their industries comes to mind.

 

[WildCat]

Speaking of risk, should tax on gambling winnings be low since gambling is so risky?

What's the societal gain to increasing gambling?

 

[WildCat]

So a billionaire should get a tax break because he's a lousy investor? Weird.

Are you under the impression that only billionaires pay capital gains taxes?

 

[WildCat]

You do know the difference between a charity and a tax shelter, right?

Yes.

All charities are tax shelters but not all tax shelters are charities.

 

[jimtron]

What's the societal gain to increasing gambling?

There isn't one--I never said there was.

 

[WildCat]

There isn't one--I never said there was.

So why were you comparing gambling to capital investments?

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe that is called back tracking and/or sidestepping.

Let's review:

Yes, I was talking about income taxes, not all conceivable taxes. We've already been over this more than once, and frankly, it's getting tiring.

You have a good evening, or whatever the case may be.

 

[jimtron]

So why were you comparing gambling to capital investments?

At least one person argued that capital gains should incur less taxes because investing is risky. From post #43:

jimtron: "Why should someone making $40k a year pay a higher percentage of taxes than a billionaire?"

LTC8K6:

Risk vs reward perhaps?

If you put your money out there, you are taking a big risk.

Your average Joe takes no such risks.

Also, investments build industry and create jobs.

Your average Joe's paycheck doesn't.

 

[Babbylonian]

Are you under the impression that only billionaires pay capital gains taxes?

No, and I'd apply the same reasoning to anyone. I do suspect though that multi-millionaires and billionaires are more likely to make risky investments if only because they have the "extra" money available to do so.

Yes.

All charities are tax shelters but not all tax shelters are charities.

Wrong. While one might receive a tax deduction based on charitable contributions, that money is gone and whatever deductions are accrued do not result in tax savings that exceed or even match the contributions.

With a tax shelter, the idea is to keep the money (or its value in property) and reduce/avoid its associated tax burden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I was talking about income taxes, not all conceivable taxes. We've already been over this more than once, and frankly, it's getting tiring.

You have a good evening, or whatever the case may be.

Sidestepping it is then.

Why should we tax the poor 1% of their income upon which they can't afford basic food and shelter and not increase taxes on the rich who have more than enough to spare?

Oh that's right, you don't want to answer.

 

[jimtron]

While it is true that you haven't argued for an increase in the overall tax rate for any group, you've argued for an increase in the tax rate applied to capital gains, even after multiple people have explained the reasoning behind having the lower capital gains tax rate.


Well, you've repeatedly brought up people like secretaries and teachers (occupations generally viewed with sympathy or favor) and compared them to the "rich". And you've done very little to address the issue of "risk" and "double taxation" that has been brought up.

So, if you're trying to point out sympathetic individuals and ignoring points of debate, it certainly looks like your trying to resort to "emotional arguments" (even if that wasn't your intention.)

I brought up secretaries because that was Buffet's example. I also mentioned cops and firefighters and teachers, because they have jobs with high risks that are also beneficial to society. Some folks pointed out that investors are taking on risk and adding benefit to society and therefore deserve a lower tax rate--well, same for cops and firefighters and teachers. I didn't mean to make an appeal to emotions.

I'm not against wealthy people and investors. I just don't think they deserve to pay 15% when there are other hard working people making far less paying 30%.

Regarding double taxation--I didn't mean to skirt that issue. Someone please tell me how investors like Buffet are double taxed (this is not a rhetorical question)?

eta:

While it is true that you haven't argued for an increase in the overall tax rate for any group, you've argued for an increase in the tax rate applied to capital gains, even after multiple people have explained the reasoning behind having the lower capital gains tax rate.

I might be mistaken, but I don't remember arguing for an increase in any tax rate. IIRC my main point is that billionaires shouldn't pay half the percentage of taxes as people making far, far less. I think I have responded to some who explained why they think capital gains should be low.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Ok, time to let Warren Buffet speak for himself. You be the judges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOn371TCPo

 

[jimtron]

Ok, time to let Warren Buffet speak for himself. You be the judges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOn371TCPo

Yes, for anyone who wants to understand (and of course not necessarily agree with) Buffet's views on this topic, please watch the Charlie Rose interview linked above. It's an in-depth interview, not one of those quick segments where a bunch of pundits yell at each other.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Are Obama or Buffett talking about raising the maximum on capital gains tax? Otherwise I haven't seen taxing the "super rich" even being honestly discussed, if we only raise payroll taxes the richest person that's going to have much effect on is probably Lebron James or Justin Bieber. The Warren Buffetts of the world stopped making a majority of their money from salaries long ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are Obama or Buffett talking about raising the maximum on capital gains tax? Otherwise I haven't seen taxing the "super rich" even being honestly discussed, if we only raise payroll taxes the richest person that's going to have much effect on is probably Lebron James or Justin Bieber. The Warren Buffetts of the world stopped making a majority of their money from salaries long ago.

It's a moot point since Obama keeps agreeing to extend the cuts. What makes anyone think he won't cave in to the Repub economic extortion next time around?

The real question is why do the Repubs keep complaining?

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

The real question is why do the Repubs keep complaining?

Having nothing to complain about isn't politically viable. They gotta either find something to criticize or go home and get real jobs.