Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103
  1.    #1  
    Isn't this the truth! Mr Buffett pays only 17% of his salary to taxes, while his employees, who are obviously paid significantly less than he, pay at least, if not more than 30% of theirs. Granted, much of his wealth is tied up in tax-deductible vehicles, but with the magnificent wealth this man possesses, I would think above a certain level, such vehicles should be reconsidered as tax - deductible.

    There is a persuasion which strongly believes in raising taxes to pay for our nation's crises and deficits, whether they be subprime, healthcare, infrastructure, alternative fuel research, etc, yet it is always amazing how seldom you see the taxes of the super, super rich being raised.

    Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, John Kerry and his wife, Michael Dell, the ceo of Merrill Lynch and the like.

    These people are paid in the area of one hundred to several hundred million dollars per year. You can't tell me they need all that money to get by in a year.

    Congress should be passing legistlation which hikes the taxes on the super rich considerably to pay for Iraq, healthcare, or the subprime thing.

    Taxes should NOT be raised on households which bring in anything less than $300,000.

    We have enough disgustingly wealthy people in this country to solve the country's problems.
    It shouldn't be up to the little people to be hammered by being forced to shoulder more of the burden than their billionaire neighbors do by a percentage basis.
    Last edited by treosensei; 10/31/2007 at 09:05 PM.
  2. #2  
    Sounds like Charlie Rangel's proposal (which I support).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  3. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosensei View Post
    Isn't this the truth! Mr Buffett pays only 17% of his salary to taxes, while his employees, who are obviously paid significantly less than he, pay at least, if not more than 30% of theirs. Granted, much of his wealth is tied up in tax-deductible vehicles, but with the magnificent wealth this man possesses, I would think above a certain level, such vehicles should be reconsidered as tax - deductible.

    There is a persuasion which strongly believes in raising taxes to pay for our nation's crises and deficits, whether they be subprime, healthcare, infrastructure, alternative fuel research, etc, yet it is always amazing how seldom you see the taxes of the super, super rich being raised.

    Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, John Kerry and his wife, Michael Dell, the ceo of Merrill Lynch and the like.

    These people are paid in the area of one hundred to several hundred million dollars per year. You can't tell me they need all that money to get by in a year.

    Congress should be passing legistlation which hikes the taxes on the super rich considerably to pay for Iraq, healthcare, or the subprime thing.

    Taxes should NOT be raised on households which bring in anything less than $300,000.

    We have enough disgustingly wealthy people in this country to solve the country's problems.
    It shouldn't be up to the little people to be hammered by being forced to shoulder more of the burden than their billionaire neighbors do by a percentage basis.
    I think you are assuming a lot here.

    1. Filing status affects, dramatically, how much you end up paying.

    For simplicity, combined taxable income of $100,000:

    Married, filing jointly: $17,848 (~ 18%)
    Single: $22,000 (~22%)
    Head of household: $20,175 (~20%)
    Married, filing separately: $22,600 (~23%)

    Here is what you are going to pay with a taxable income of $1,000,000:

    Married, filing jointly: $322,206 (~32%)
    Single: $329.074 (~33%)
    Head of Household: $325,961 (~33%)
    Married, filing separately: $336,103 (~34%)

    2. What people need is an irrelevant arguement for the simple reason of:

    a. Who is going to determine what is "needed".
    b. Taxes are based on income, not need.

    Seriously, who are you - or anyone else for that matter - to tell people "what they need" (and don't need)?

    The fact of the matter is that, right now, the top 1%, who earn 15% of all income, pays 29% of all taxes. The top 5% pays 50% of all taxes.

    Furthermore, that top 1% are shouldering 50% more of the tax burden than they did in 1977.

    The system is not progressive, it is more confiscatory. The logic here is that the rich gets most of the tax breaks because they are already paying the overwhelmg portion of the tax burden.
  4. #4  
    If Mr. Buffett truly feels that he is not paying enough in taxes, then he need only write a check to the United States Treasury for any amount he feels appropriate.

    Income based on "need" is BS. Setting aside the obvious point that it is simply communism, I challenge anyone who espouses such a practice to actually try living it for themselves. Remember that all one "needs" is subsistence food and water, basic shelter, clothing and emergency medical service. Anything else is luxury.

    Personally, I will continue my efforts to become one of the "evil rich" who has more wealth than I "need".
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosensei View Post
    Taxes should NOT be raised on households which bring in anything less than $300,000.
    I agree. Three big issues I have is with a report I heard on CNN just a matter of days ago. They said that the Dems in Congress are:

    1) Proposing to let the tax cuts that was initiated 3 or 4 years ago that directly effect that class of income earners in a very positive way to expire and not either extend them or make them permanent.

    2) They also reported the Dem majority were not seriously considering adjust the vastly outdated ATM tax. This tax was original set up something like 50-70 years ago to help correct the loop holes the super rich were taking to pay no taxes. The problem is that this tax has never been adjusted since it's conception so that now the average middle class family with both parents working and bringing in under $100,000 are being hit and hit hard by this ATM tax. We were one of them last year!!!

    3) In our stat of WA the Dem controlled gov in WA state have raised taxes a great deal including starting a NEW death tax. This is a Tax that I never agreed with and while many states are eliminated this unfair tax our state starts a new one! At least WA is not as bad OR at being overtaxed...yet.

    Believe me, I have no loyalty to any party. I look at the individual issue and actual individual, not the party. I have a laundry list of my major concerns with the Rep party's issues over the last 10 years as well. But I do not ever recall siding with a Dem on an issue about taxes.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosensei View Post
    Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, John Kerry and his wife, Michael Dell, the ceo of Merrill Lynch and the like.
    Don't forget to include the Founders of the "ownership society".

    Taxes should NOT be raised on households which bring in anything less than $300,000.
    As presented, $300K is arbitrary and means completely different scales of personal economy, whether living in Charleston, South Carolina or New York, New York and therefore isn't a well-founded basis.

    Personally, I believe the income tax (State and Federal) should be abolished and replaced with a flat consumption tax. In this way, all personal economies contribute proportionally.

    Paying for the furtherance of current tax giveaways is not even conceivable in today's world-wide war cost nightmare and a domestic economy which is being propped up by short-term fixes rather than healthy, long-term measures.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Personally, I believe the income tax (State and Federal) should be abolished and replaced with a flat consumption tax. In this way, all personal economies contribute proportionally.
    I started a thread on a Flat Tax a couple years ago here. The devil is in the details (i.e. what are the provisions of increasing % and the process to approve it), but for the most part I support it. I think I would lean more towards an income based flat tax vs a consumption flat tax though. But again, depending on the details I could still be swayed either way.
  8. #8  
    An interesting article on Taxes (yes, I know it is from <gasp> The New York Times, but it is informative and should be accepted or refuted for it's facts).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/bu...leonhardt.html
    ----------
    Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts
    By DAVID LEONHARDT
    ...
    " There are big philosophical questions about taxes that facts alone canít answer. How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn? Will higher tax rates cause more cheating? How important is it to ensure that take-home pay is rising for every group of Americans?

    But there are also some basic facts that ideology canít change.

    If you keep these five in mind, you will have an easier time keeping up with the debate:

    As a group, the rich pay a greater share of taxes than in the past.
    ... <author provides details here>

    The affluent are paying more of the taxes because theyíre making so much more money.
    ... <author provides details here>

    Corporates taxes have dropped significantly in recent decades.
    ... <author provides details here>

    The nationís total tax bill hasnít changed much over the years.
    ... <author provides details here>

    The budget deficit is worse than either party says it is.
    ... <author provides details here>
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I started a thread on a Flat Tax a couple years ago here. The devil is in the details (i.e. what are the provisions of increasing % and the process to approve it), but for the most part I support it. I think I would lean more towards an income based flat tax vs a consumption flat tax though. But again, depending on the details I could still be swayed either way.
    Why income vs. consumption? Just curious.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by mgriffith View Post
    If Mr. Buffett truly feels that he is not paying enough in taxes, then he need only write a check to the United States Treasury for any amount he feels appropriate.
    He is smarter than that. He puts that money to better use helping others in more need than the US government.

    Income based on "need" is BS. Setting aside the obvious point that it is simply communism, I challenge anyone who espouses such a practice to actually try living it for themselves. Remember that all one "needs" is subsistence food and water, basic shelter, clothing and emergency medical service. Anything else is luxury.

    Personally, I will continue my efforts to become one of the "evil rich" who has more wealth than I "need".
    Not sure why you have to be "evil" to be "rich." There are those in the upper 1% of incomes that are quite nice and charitable people. Despite your apparent disdain for him, Mr. Buffet is one of them. But I think you're stating in the simplest of terms that you believe in a capitalistic society and for the most part, I would agree. But I have to wonder why you think a flat tax equates to communism?
  11. #11  
    A case can be made that the tax rules and especially the loopholes allows the super-rich to shelter most of their income or pay the lower capital gains rate on them. I believe that was Mr. Buffets main point.

    A middle class wage earner depending on W-2 income has no such options and gets hit by regressive payroll taxes (SS + Medicare).

    I think that a progressive flat tax will be the simplest and best way to go.
    Progressive => two or three tiered rates
    flat => NO DEDUCTIONS/CREDITS
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    A case can be made that the tax rules and especially the loopholes allows the super-rich to shelter most of their income or pay the lower capital gains rate on them. I believe that was Mr. Buffets main point.

    A middle class wage earner depending on W-2 income has no such options and gets hit by regressive payroll taxes (SS + Medicare).

    I think that a progressive flat tax will be the simplest and best way to go.
    Progressive => two or three tiered rates
    flat => NO DEDUCTIONS/CREDITS
    I agree.

    Do we need tiers at all though? Can't the flat tax be just that - flat? My concern is that we'll find ourselves with 10 tiers or 50 tiers before long once that pandoras box is open. e.g. This group needs this special treatment so they need a tier of their own.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Can't the flat tax be just that - flat?
    I think so, but I would support a starting point where the flat tax kicks in. In other words everyone who earns $20,000 or more pays 8% period.

    Of course the starting amount and the percentage are numbers thrown out.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/01/2007 at 09:54 PM.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Why income vs. consumption? Just curious.
    Like I mentioned above, the devil is in the details. A lot of times the Consumption plans are basically a sales tax. It would depend on the definition of consumption and what it applies to. In other words if it encompasses milk, eggs, bread, etc... it will certainly effect the very poor in a negative way for the basics without a second thought for those above the extreme poverty level. If it included TVs, cars, boats, alcohol, fast food, etc... then others will say it targets them at the exclusion of another class of people.

    An income base flat tax is a lot less open to perspective of one's own financial situation. Simply if you make money everyone pays the same percentage. If I make a $1000 I pay $80 at an 8% flat rate. If I make $1,000,000 I pay $80,000 at an 8% flat rate.

    I have also seen plans purposed that is a combination of both with a very low flat rate (like at around 4 - 5%) along with consumption tax on non essential items like fishing boats, jewelry, video games, etc...
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/01/2007 at 09:59 PM.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I think so, but I would support a starting point where the flat tax kicks in. In other words everyone who earns $15,000 or more pays 12% period.
    This is where it get thorny for me though and perhaps why I cannot help but consider a consumption tax vs. income at times. I mean I hate to kick someone in the teeth that is below the poverty level and had the gumption to get a job. Yet, I also know that same person will be drawing from the system as well and I'm not sure how you break that cycle of dependency on the handouts. So if we say that those earning $15k or lower don't have to pay the flat tax, then I'd like to see some caveats to that. For instance, capping the no tax to 3 years. Or maybe they don't have to pay taxes for each year, up to 4 years, IF they take advantage of job training programs offered to help them increase their wages.

    Of course the starting amount and the percentage are numbers thrown out.
    Gotchya. I wasn't going to take you to task over numbers you clearly used to make a point. That said, I wonder what the percentage would have to be?
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Like I mentioned above, the devil is in the details. A lot of times the Consumption plans are basically a sales tax. It would depend on the definition of consumption and what it applies to. In other words if it encompasses milk, eggs, bread, etc... it will certainly effect the very poor in a negative way for the basics without a second thought for those above the extreme poverty level. If it included TVs, cars, boats, alcohol, fast food, etc... then others will say it targets them at the exclusion of another class of people.

    An income base flat tax is a lot less open to perspective of one's own financial situation. Simply if you make money everyone pays the same percentage. If I make a $1000 I pay $80 at an 8% flat rate. If I make $1,000,000 I pay $80,000 at an 8% flat rate.

    I have also seen plans purposed with a low flat rate along with consumption tax on non essential items like fishing boats, jewelry, video games, etc...
    I tend to agree. My concern with consumption taxes would be the inevitable list of exemptions. First it will be (and rightly so) milk and eggs while Dems are in power. Then when the GOP gets back in it will be Yachts because, "...they create 50 new jobs for immigrant workers, which real Americans don't want." etc. etc.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    This is where it get thorny for me though and perhaps why I cannot help but consider a consumption tax vs. income at times. I mean I hate to kick someone in the teeth that is below the poverty level and had the gumption to get a job. Yet, I also know that same person will be drawing from the system as well and I'm not sure how you break that cycle of dependency on the handouts. So if we say that those earning $15k or lower don't have to pay the flat tax, then I'd like to see some caveats to that. For instance, capping the no tax to 3 years. Or maybe they don't have to pay taxes for each year, up to 4 years, IF they take advantage of job training programs offered to help them increase their wages.
    I fully agree. I am not one to support the Dole or Welfare generation after generation. I like your ideas and could very easily get behind it.


    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Gotchya. I wasn't going to take you to task over numbers you clearly used to make a point. That said, I wonder what the percentage would have to be?
    I personally think 8-10% is a good flat percentage.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    This is where it get thorny for me though and perhaps why I cannot help but consider a consumption tax vs. income at times. I mean I hate to kick someone in the teeth that is below the poverty level and had the gumption to get a job. Yet, I also know that same person will be drawing from the system as well and I'm not sure how you break that cycle of dependency on the handouts. So if we say that those earning $15k or lower don't have to pay the flat tax, then I'd like to see some caveats to that. For instance, capping the no tax to 3 years. Or maybe they don't have to pay taxes for each year, up to 4 years, IF they take advantage of job training programs offered to help them increase their wages.
    This sounds as if it's something of an income tax version of the Clinton Welfare overhaul. The right carrots and sticks could get the right results without demonizing a class of citizens and allow them sufficient bootstrap tools to have a genuine opportunity to compete.
  19. #19  
    What about the population that has 0-15K in W-2 income and makes a lot more in cash, either under the table or dealing in illicit products?

    Perhaps a 50/50 split between consumption and income (no exemptions), each 5%, would be more equitable. Income could go to the Feds and consumption could go to the state and local governments.

    Should corporations be taxed similarly?

    This would have the effect of decimating the entire taxation industry as returns would take an individual (or corporation) moments to prepare and file.
  20. #20  
    It does not have to be limited to W-2s. A flat rate tax can include any income be it W-2s, investment returns, real estate gains, etc...

    As far as under the table, it is officially illegal now and it would be illegal with a flat tax. If people want to cheat the system outside of the law they will no matter what system is in place. As long as there physical money exchanging hands in our economy these practices will continue to a certain degree.

    I don't know enough to give an opinion on how corps would be included. I know it is addressed in a lot resources, I am just not sure how they worked it out.

    A big Yes & a No. There would certainly be a large downsizing in the industry (I wonder how many people are employeed by Intuit's TurboTax?). A lot of them will have to turn to the business client side from home based business owners to corps, as I would image there would have to be more regulations on this side of a system like this. Since this is projected to give more cash in the pockets of both the individual, as well as the gov, I would imagine there will be more need for financial planning, investment management, etc...
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/02/2007 at 03:38 AM.
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions