Buffett: Tax the Rich

[LTC8K6]

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.

Not the poor who don't have anything to eat.

The oft spoken of, bottom large percentage of income earners who supposedly pay nothing or negative income taxes. Whatever you want to say the number is...30% 40% 50%, since no one can agree. Most of those folks.

The rich? That was concerning capital gains taxes, not income taxes. I don't see why there should even be such a tax.

I have no problem with the rich also paying an extra 1% income tax if income taxes are going to be raised.

 

[L.Y.S.]

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.

Look at the link.

 

[respect]

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%.

Again, you are conflating investments with wages which is silly. Non-billionaires do not pay higher rates than billionaires on capital gains. People earning high salaries do not pay less than people who earn less on their income taxes.

And for that matter, what is it with you and billionaires? If one is a billionaire, they have already accumulated that wealth and paid whatever taxes on it. Do you think that tax rates should be based on how much wealth one has previously accumulated? And if not, why do you keep bringing it up?

For example, if a billionaire earns $4,000 in capital gains in a year and a teacher earns $10,000 in capital gains, do you think the billionaire should pay a higher tax rate? If not, the fact that they are a billionaire is irrelevant.

 

[jimtron]

Again, you are conflating investments with wages which is silly. Non-billionaires do not pay higher rates than billionaires on capital gains.

I agree with the second sentence above.

People earning high salaries do not pay less than people who earn less on their income taxes.

And for that matter, what is it with you and billionaires? If one is a billionaire, they have already accumulated that wealth and paid whatever taxes on it.

I don't necessarily have a problem with billionaires. I have a problem with people making millions or billions of dollars and only paying 15% or so percent in taxes while people making far, far less pay 20 to 30% in taxes. I'm not against wealthy people, I just don't think they should pay a smaller percentage of taxes than people making less money. I'm not even talking about progressive tax necessarily. But I'm for sure against Warren Buffet paying 18% on his income while someone making a couple hundred thousand is paying around 30%.

Do you think that tax rates should be based on how much wealth one has previously accumulated? And if not, why do you keep bringing it up?

When have I brought up wealth being previously accumulated? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

For example, if a billionaire earns $4,000 in capital gains in a year and a teacher earns $10,000 in capital gains, do you think the billionaire should pay a higher tax rate? If not, the fact that they are a billionaire is irrelevant.

No (I don't think teachers should pay a lower capital gains tax than billionaires).

 

[respect]

I agree with the second sentence above.

So you think that investments and wages are the same thing? Your inability to distinguish between a guaranteed wage for work performed and the risk associated with investment does not make them the same, it only suggests unkind things about your intellect.

I don't necessarily have a problem with billionaires. I have a problem with people making millions or billions of dollars and only paying 15% or so percent in taxes while people making far, far less pay 20 to 30% in taxes. I'm not against wealthy people, I just don't think they should pay a smaller percentage of taxes than people making less money. I'm not even talking about progressive tax necessarily. But I'm for sure against Warren Buffet paying 18% on his income while someone making a couple hundred thousand is paying around 30%.

Do you really not understand that the billionaire has already become a billionaire?

When have I brought up wealth being previously accumulated? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Every time you cry about billionaires.

No (I don't think teachers should pay a lower capital gains tax than billionaires).

Breach of rules 0 and 12 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Watching the vid now, but I also wanna point out first that never exiting a winning position, which Warren Buffett has famously promoted as a strategy, also defers capital gains taxes in their entirety for an indefinite period.

 

[jimtron]

So you think that investments and wages are the same thing?

No.

Do you really not understand that the billionaire has already become a billionaire?

I really do not understand the question.

Then you should shut it, and if you don't understand why, I'm sorry but any answer has to involve insulting your intellect. Your answers here are not rational and consistent.

I suspect that your "reasoning" is emotional whether you recognize it or not.

I won't shut it, thanks. If you care to take a direct quote from me and point out how it's factually incorrect, or how you disagree--feel free. I don't think you've made a compelling case so far.

 

[jimtron]

Watching the vid now, but I also wanna point out first that never exiting a winning position, which Warren Buffet has famously promoted as a strategy, also defers capital gains taxes in their entirety for an indefinite period.

Would you mind specifying how that relates to the topic at hand (I don't mean that in a sarcastic, rhetorical way--I'm sincerely curious)?

Here's a quote from Buffet's NYT article that this thread is about:

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

 

[respect]

No.

Why do you keep comparing them then?

I really do not understand the question.

The billionaire is already a billionaire, their taxes now are not relevant to that (generally, things like property taxes will be based on what they already own).

In terms of income, capital gains etc taxes the billionaire is taxed on what they are earning this year for this year. The fact that they have already accumulated a billion plus dollars in assets does not affect this.

I won't shut it, thanks. If you care to take a direct quote from me and point out how it's factually incorrect, or how you disagree--feel free. I don't think you've made a compelling case so far.

Try to rap your head around the obvious, it does not matter that they are billionaires then.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Would you mind specifying how that relates to the topic at hand (I don't mean that in a sarcastic, rhetorical way--I'm sincerely curious)?

It relates because the top people who "make money with money" aren't paying 15% on all of their gains, one can increase one's net worth in a given investment and pay no tax at all until gains are realized by selling. A lot of Buffett's yearly personal net worth increase is likely not taxed at all.

 

[jimtron]

Why do you keep comparing them then?

I'm not sure what you mean--could you directly quote me doing that? I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. I know that investments and wages are different. But some people make a living only (or mainly) from investments. I don't think that justifies paying less tax--it's not "wages," but it is income.

The billionaire is already a billionaire, their taxes now are not relevant to that (generally, things like property taxes will be based on what they already own).

In terms of income, capital gains etc taxes the billionaire is taxed on what they are earning this year for this year. The fact that they have already accumulated a billion plus dollars in assets does not affect this.

OK.

Try to rap your head around the obvious, it does not matter that they are billionaires then.

To me it does. Again, I have nothing against billionaires. But if you earn a million or a billion dollars, in my opinion you shouldn't be able to only pay 15 or 18% when middle class people are paying 20 to 30%. That's my opinion. To me it's unfair that Buffet only has to pay 18% in taxes, while millions of Americans making much, much less, pay a much higher percentage in taxes.

So to me it matters that someone can make millions or billions and pay a smaller percentage than someone making hundreds of thousands. In my opinion.

eta: to try and put it more plainly: a billionaire shouldn't be in a lower tax bracket than a hundred-thousandaire. That's why the term "billionaire" is relevant.

 

[jimtron]

It relates because the top people who "make money with money" aren't paying 15% on all of their gains, one can increase one's net worth in a given investment and pay no tax at all until gains are realized by selling. A lot of Buffett's yearly personal net worth increase is likely not taxed at all.

Right. But do you agree or disagree with Buffet's point that there are extremely wealthy people who pay a lower tax bracket than middle class people?

 

[respect]

I'm not sure what you mean--could you directly quote me doing that? I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. I know that investments and wages are different. But some people make a living only (or mainly) from investments. I don't think that justifies paying less tax--it's not "wages," but it is income.

You claim to understand that they are not the same, yet you cry that some make a living from just capital gains. If you can't understand why they are taxed differently you don't understand.

OK.

So why is the fact that they are a billionaire relevant?

To me it does. Again, I have nothing against billionaires. But if you earn a million or a billion dollars, in my opinion you shouldn't be able to only pay 15 or 18% when middle class people are paying 20 to 30%. That's my opinion. To me it's unfair that Buffet only has to pay 18% in taxes, while millions of Americans making much, much less, pay a much higher percentage in taxes.

So to me it matters that someone can make millions or billions and pay a smaller percentage than someone making hundreds of thousands. In my opinion.

eta: to try and put it more plainly: a billionaire shouldn't be in a lower tax bracket than a hundred-thousandaire. That's why the term "billionaire" is relevant.

So you want tax rates to be based on previously accumulated (and taxed) wealth.

 

[bikerdruid]

like it says.....

 

[jimtron]

You claim to understand that they are not the same, yet you cry that some make a living from just capital gains. If you can't understand why they are taxed differently you don't understand.

So you're saying that no one makes a living only from capital gains? Like I said, just quote me and point out where I got something wrong.

So why is the fact that they are a billionaire relevant?

From my previous post:

"a billionaire shouldn't be in a lower tax bracket than a hundred-thousandaire. That's why the term "billionaire" is relevant."

So you want tax rates to be based on previously accumulated (and taxed) wealth.

No.

eta: Respect, maybe this would be easier if you tell me which part(s) of Buffet's NYT article you disagree with. Specifics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you think that investments and wages are the same thing? Your inability to distinguish between a guaranteed wage for work performed and the risk associated with investment does not make them the same, it only suggests unkind things about your intellect. ...

I'm self employed. My wages aren't guaranteed. There's a chance my clients won't pay for the services they contracted for. I have to purchase the goods I sell and invest in supplies to provide services. The government considers my net profits to be wage income. It would seem to contradict your version of economics.

 

[respect]

So you're saying that no one makes a living only from capital gains? Like I said, just quote me and point out where I got something wrong.

Where the hell did I say that?

From my previous post:

You haven't explained why

"a billionaire shouldn't be in a lower tax bracket than a hundred-thousandaire. That's why the term "billionaire" is relevant."

No.

You have a strange way of showing it.

eta: Respect, maybe this would be easier if you tell me which part(s) of Buffet's NYT article you disagree with. Specifics.[/QUOTE]

The entire notion that his secretary is taxed more than him is stupid

Several breaches of rules 0 and 12 removed. Remain civil and do not engage in personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[egslim]

I'm suggesting that if Buffet really feels he is not paying enough

You can stop right there, because you're only setting up a strawman.

Buffett's article starts with: "OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me."

So Buffett feels a taxpolicy meeting certain criteria, namely, that the rich pay a lower taxrate than the middle class, is unjust and should be changed.

 

[3point14]

I'm self employed. My wages aren't guaranteed. There's a chance my clients won't pay for the services they contracted for. I have to purchase the goods I sell and invest in supplies to provide services. The government considers my net profits to be wage income. It would seem to contradict your version of economics.

Wins the thread.

If someone very rich (or indeed not so rich) decided to invest in your business, then they'd be running about the same risk to their money as you, but would only be paying a portion of the tax. Oh, and you're doing all the work.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Sorry for not reading a whole thread that I started myself.

But what kind of tax could close the "investor class" and the "working stiff"?
An increase in capital gains tax?
That does make investing much less attractive. Small investors usually already have to pay fees to banks and fund managers so this makes it less likely that they'll even turn a profit. A higher capital gains tax for the super rich? where to draw the line?
A so called "death tax" on inheritance?
The later is 35% percent (I think) in the Netherlands. I'd feel absolutely sick to pay such a percentage over money that my parents already paid tax over.