What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[Lurker]

The perfect form of fairness is that each person pays for exactly what they use, no more, no less. Since this is totally impractical for everything that the government provides, taxes based on income or consumption have to be used.

I did start my post by saying I was limiting my discussion to income taxes.

Your scenario is unfair if the higher payer doesn't get 10,000 times the amount services from the government as the lower payer. The problem is that the left wants to make it even more disproportionate and unfair while claiming just the opposite.

I'm sorry, I think you missed my point completely. I was trying to show that your complaint:

The top 20% of income earners paid 70% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, 46% of taxpayers don't pay any federal income tax.

is invalid as it only considers half of the relevent data. In my example where I earned paid $20,000 in taxes and you only paid $2, using your parlance above comes to

The top 50% of income earners (me) paid 99.9% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, 50% of taxpayers (you) paid less than 0.1% of taxes.

The percentages you quoted are meaningless without including how much of the total income they earned. My example country populated by you and I illustrates this concept.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now that we have that cleared up. We can focus on the point that the rich do carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden despite all the whining from the Buffetites about the rich not paying their "fair share".

Cow cookies. They are getting a disproportionate share of the benefits of the ecconomic infrastructure and creating a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden on government.

The ones not paying their fair share are the 46% of the people that pay zero federal income tax.

You're snivelling again. The people not paying federal income tax are paying a lot of sales taxes and such at the state and local level, to some extent subsidizing the Walton slime when they extort tax concessions out of local governments. Where is the fairness in that?

Those who do not pay income tax generaly do not have an awful lot of disposable income to begin with. These people can be divided into several diffent sets.

There are young people who do not yet have skills or experience to get a decent-paying job.

Some are disabled and will never be able to work. Some have worked but become disabled.

Some are retired and have paid income tax for decades.

Some are married and living in single-earner families.

Asking them to kick in more in taxes deprives them of the chance to survive with any dignity, perhaps suppresses the wages of those who pay the lowest tax rates now because of competition for fewer jobs. It would suppress small businesses because they would be able to sell less to their hard-pressed neighbors.

Only the Walton slime, with their ecconomies of scale and their ability to make local government dance to their tune would survive.

You need to think these things out a little further.

 

[Neally]

Cow cookies. They are getting a disproportionate share of the benefits of the ecconomic infrastructure and creating a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden on government.

Ho hum. You've repeatedly made this assertion and have yet to prove it. Proof by assertion fallacy. You think that the poor don't use many government benefits, do you? That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

The people not paying federal income tax are paying a lot of sales taxes and such at the state and local level, to some extent subsidizing the Walton slime when they extort tax concessions out of local governments. Where is the fairness in that?

And the people that pay a lot of federal income taxes are paying even more sales taxes and state taxes than the poor, so your point is meaningless.

Asking them to kick in more in taxes deprives them of the chance to survive with any dignity, perhaps suppresses the wages of those who pay the lowest tax rates now because of competition for fewer jobs.

I know it's a real bummer that stuff costs money and people have to pay money if they want stuff. Your argument now seems that dignity is more important than fairness.

You need to think these things out a little further.

You need to let go of your wealth envy and stop repeating the same fallacies.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ho hum. You've repeatedly made this assertion and have yet to prove it. Proof by assertion fallacy. You think that the poor don't use many government benefits, do you? That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

The poor seem to only get police attention after a crime has been committed. And what benefit are they getting from the arrest of people with a little personal use weed in their pockets?

How much of any city budget is taken up by police services?

BTW, the rich benefit from police activity. They have to drive on the roads that the cops are supposed to keep clear of drunk drivers and speeders and SUV drivers who expect everyone else to watch out for them while they talk crucial business deals on their cell phones.

And the people that pay a lot of federal income taxes are paying even more sales taxes and state taxes than the poor, so your point is meaningless.

Cow cookies. They pay a far smaller percentage of their income in sales tax because they are more likely to just invest everything above what they need to live on.

I know it's a real bummer that stuff costs money and people have to pay money if they want stuff. Your argument now seems that dignity is more important than fairness.

No. I am saying that if you are going to do business and reap a profit, you need to pay your utility bills and stop expecting the disabled, the young and the elderly to pay them for you.

You need to let go of your whining about having to pay your utility bills and stop repeating the same fallacies.

 

[Neally]

The poor seem to only get police attention after a crime has been committed.

Irrelevant. Poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate share of crime thus consuming a disproportionate share of public resources in the form of police, fire, courts, and incarceration.

And what benefit are they getting from the arrest of people with a little personal use weed in their pockets?

Arguing the value of different laws is irrelevant and off topic.

How much of any city budget is taken up by police services?

What ever it is, the poor use a disproportionate amount.

BTW, the rich benefit from police activity.

I never claimed otherwise.

Cow cookies. They pay a far smaller percentage of their income in sales tax because they are more likely to just invest everything above what they need to live on.

I didn't say anything about % of income. I'm talking absolute dollars. We are talking about who pays more and who consumes more. The poor pay a larger percentage of their income for everything. Sorry, there is no graduated cost basis for food, shelter, gas or other necessities. Again it's a pity stuff costs money and people have to pay money if they want stuff.

No. I am saying that if you are going to do business and reap a profit, you need to pay your utility bills and stop expecting the disabled, the young and the elderly to pay them for you.

Everyone should indeed pay their own utility bills. The rich contribute far more than the poor for government. Both as a % of their earnings, as a % of the total earnings, in absolute dollars and just about any other metric, yet somehow the left still insists it isn't fair. Oh, except your fictitious, "they use more government services" concept.

 

[SezMe]

The rich contribute far more than the poor for government. Both as a % of their earnings, as a % of the total earnings, in absolute dollars and just about any other metric, yet somehow the left still insists it isn't fair.

Please provide some cites for these claims.

 

[leftysergeant]

Everyone should indeed pay their own utility bills.

Then stop snivelling about it. There are government services which are only required due to specific ecconomic activities, like rewgulation interstate commerce, inspecting food processing facilities, monitoring pollution and enforcing job safety laws and that sort of thing. Why should I, retired and no longer extracting wealth from the physical and social infrastructure, pay a larger percentage of my income toward such things than do the Koch roaches?

The rich contribute far more than the poor for government. Both as a % of their earnings, as a % of the total earnings, in absolute dollars and just about any other metric, yet somehow the left still insists it isn't fair. Oh, except your fictitious, "they use more government services" concept.

Last I heard, the police were not generally funded by income taxes.

 

[Neally]

Please provide some cites for these claims.

Cities? Do you think that the documentation that shows this to be true for the federal government would somehow be different on the state or city level?

Then stop snivelling about it.

That the poor should pay their fair share, and that they do, are two different things.

There are government services which are only required due to specific ecconomic activities, like rewgulation interstate commerce, inspecting food processing facilities, monitoring pollution and enforcing job safety laws and that sort of thing.

Those are regulations that affect businesses, not individuals. Sorry, but if you want those regulations, you're going to pay for them via the taxes paid by corporations and that cost built into the cost of goods and services passed on to the consumer.

Why should I, retired and no longer extracting wealth from the physical and social infrastructure, pay a larger percentage of my income toward such things than do the Koch roaches?

Why should I, of middle income, pay to support all the subsidies, and additional services consumed by the poor?

Last I heard, the police were not generally funded by income taxes.

Most states have income taxes, which do help fund the state police. Local police could be funded by property taxes or a variety of other sources of funds. Property taxes are based on property value, which the wealthy have more of and therefore pay more for.

 

[leftysergeant]

Those are regulations that affect businesses, not individuals. Sorry, but if you want those regulations, you're going to pay for them via the taxes paid by corporations and that cost built into the cost of goods and services passed on to the consumer.

Cow cookies. You could take it out of the capital gains income that the investors collect. Passing the costs of regulation on to working stiffs who do not benefit as greatly from the profits of the corporations is just the rich parasitising the middle class.

Why should I, of middle income, pay to support all the subsidies, and additional services consumed by the poor?

Which subsidies?

 

[SezMe]

Cities? Do you think that the documentation that shows this to be true for the federal government would somehow be different on the state or city level?

It is generally poor form to answer a question with a question. I'll repeat myself:

Please provide some cites for these claims.

Why should I, of middle income, pay to support all the subsidies, and additional services consumed by the poor?

Why should the affluent pay to support all the subsidies and additional services consumed by those of merely middle income?

 

[leftysergeant]

The people whining about higher taxes are mostly saying that it is all supposed to be about them.That's why they invented a name like "job creators" for the parasitic class.

 

[Neally]

Passing the costs of regulation on to working stiffs who do not benefit as greatly from the profits of the corporations is just the rich parasitising the middle class.

Again, you want regulations, you'll have to pay for them through the increased costs to the business which will be passed on to the consumer.

Which subsidies?

You think that the poor don't use many government benefits, do you? That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

The people whining about higher taxes are mostly saying that it is all supposed to be about them.That's why they invented a name like "job creators" for the parasitic class.

The people whining about the rich needing to pay higher taxes are mostly ignoring the fact that they are already carrying most of the burden of funding the government, but somehow it still isn't "fair".

It is generally poor form to answer a question with a question. I'll repeat myself:

Repeat yourself all you want. I'll do the same: Do you think that the documentation that shows this to be true for the federal government would somehow be different on the state or city level?

Why should the affluent pay to support all the subsidies and additional services consumed by those of merely middle income?

They shouldn't, everyone should pay for what they use. Absent a way to accurately and equitably calculate that, we have the current system in which the wealthy already pay a disproportionate share, yet the left constantly harps about the need for them to pay more.

 

[SezMe]

That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

Since you bailed out on supporting your other claim, maybe you'll have a stiffer spine on this one. Do you have a cite that says that the poor use the legal system more than the rich?

They shouldn't, everyone should pay for what they use. Absent a way to accurately and equitably calculate that, we have the current system in which the wealthy already pay a disproportionate share, yet the left constantly harps about the need for them to pay more.

Another unsupported claim. Wanna go for the trifecta?

 

[dc1971]

You are free to pay more in taxes. The government already has laws in place which allow that.

Huh?

How? Where? When?

 

[dc1971]

The ones not paying their fair share are the 46% of the people that pay zero federal income tax.

Yet they pay taxes in other ways that are completely fair.

 

[RandFan]

Missing the point...

Buttet alone paying more taxes won't solve the problem Buffet wants to solve.

Buffet doesn't really want to pay more taxes. He want's America to be fiscally responsible. So, he is willing to call for policies that will raise his taxes to keep us from passing on our debt to more and more generations.

 

[Brainster]

I would eat at his table provided they weren't serving dog.

 

[Neally]

Since you bailed out on supporting your other claim, maybe you'll have a stiffer spine on this one. Do you have a cite that says that the poor use the legal system more than the rich?

Is this your lame approach at debate, demanding citations for obvious facts? The fact that crime is higher in poor neighborhoods shouldn't take a citation, but here you go:

The main finding is that even at extreme levels of neighborhood poverty, variation in disadvantage is positively associated with variation in homicide rates.

http://www88.homepage.villanova.edu/lance.hannon/Forthcoming%20in%20SSQ.pdf

DC’s highest-poverty neighborhoods suffer the highest rates of social problems such as violent crime, teen parenthood, low education achievement and child abuse and neglect, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau and DC government data by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

http://www.dcfpi.org/press-release-poverty-major-cause-of-social-problems-in-district-of-columbia

While all communities are affected by crime and the criminal justice system, residents in large urban areas are particularly impacted.Moreover, within large metropolitan areas, the residents of poor, largely minority neighborhoods suffer disproportionately.

http://gsppi.berkeley.edu/faculty/sraphael/actc30.pdf

Let me guess, you now demand citations that prove crime costs money to the taxpayers in terms of investigations, enforcement, court costs, incarceration...

Another unsupported claim. Wanna go for the trifecta?

For all people earning $1 million+, their total income is $726.9 billion. That is 10% of all reported AGI earned reported to the IRS. They paid 177.5 billion in taxes which is 20% of all the taxes collected - a disproportionate share, but wait, they aren't paying their fair share!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/28132.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TaxPolicyBlog+%28Tax+Foundation+-+Tax+Foundation%27s+%22Tax+Policy+Blog%22%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Yet they pay taxes in other ways that are completely fair.

Sure, but the discussion here is about income tax.

 

[SezMe]

Is this your lame approach at debate, demanding citations for obvious facts? The fact that crime is higher in poor neighborhoods shouldn't take a citation, but here you go:

That is not what I asked for nor do your citations support your claim.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sure, but the discussion here is about income tax.

That has sod all to do with the costs of the criminal justice system.

Since police and fire departments and schools are generallyfunded by property and sales taxes collected within the service area, the por are going to pay more toward those services than is a gazillionaire living outside the city limits.

Nobody makes a dime without exploiting the commons in some way. The measure of the value extracted from the commons is most easily taken by income levels.

The top-paid executives should, then, be paying several hundred times what the average factory worker pays, whether in a flat tax or progressive tax. I would, of course, favor a progressive tax rate because making more money usually involves more activity which requires proportionately more regulation.