[turtle777]

I don't understand something about "paying the fair share".

Obama said in his State of the Union:

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

If he really thinks that it would be fair to pay MORE than he currently does, why doesn't he do so ?
Why doesn't he cut a check to the IRS ?



-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

He's not talking about him, he's talking about "people LIKE him"

[The Final Dakar]

I don't understand if people are this stupid or are being willfully obtuse.

Let's make this a metaphor everyone will enjoy. Government spending is a boulder. Obama thinks the stronger people (like him) should do more to help move the boulder.

"Well why doesn't he just go help move it himself?"

Because it's going to be ineffectual, dipshit. I understand objecting to "moving the boulder." But don't play stupid as to why someone is trying to get a collaborative effort (particularly from those who can "help" the most).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand something about "paying the fair share".

Obama said in his State of the Union:



If he really thinks that it would be fair to pay MORE than he currently does, why doesn't he do so ?
Why doesn't he cut a check to the IRS ?



-t

Perhaps because it is the height of folly to think that a national taxation system ... of any variety ... can be operated on voluntary contributions?

Now the US government is funded primarily by an income tax system. As a matter of public policy that was essentially settled 100 years ago and codified into the highest law of the land by the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. Since its inception the US federal income taxation system has been largely progressive in nature. That is, the higher one's income the higher one's marginal tax rate is. Beginning in the 1980s with the Reagan Administration the taxation system, while still progressive, has been significantly "flattened" largely as a result of conservatives holding the reigns of power in Washington. So the "paying one's fair share" debate is centered around the following:

1. The marginal rate at which income is taxed. Should it be flat, where everyone pays the same rate? Or highly progressive, with the highest income earners subject to rates at 70% as it was in the 1960s? Or somewhere in between?

2. The effective rate at which income is taxed after deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. are factored in. Should the US tax code remain so convoluted that multi-billion dollar corporations like G.E. are able to pay $0 in federal income tax by astutely taking advantage of it? Should deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. simply be eliminated altogether? Or should the tax code be simplified while keeping key provisions intact?

3. Whether or not different types of income should be taxed at different rates. Should wage income be taxed at a higher rate than capital gains or dividend income? Or is a dollar earned a dollar earned and it should be taxed the same? This goes to the heart of the so-called "Buffett Rule". Warren Buffet makes nearly all of his money as capital gains and dividend income ... which is taxed at 15%. Whereas his secretary ... who I imagine brings in a 6 figure salary ... gets taxed at approximately 34%. So is this the way the system should be simply because she made her money working a "9-to-5" as opposed to buying and selling assets like her boss?

Now here's my stand ....

Regarding #1, even as an essentially center-left guy I could support a "flat" tax under the right circumstances. Such a system could eliminate what I consider to be a lot of silly arguments over who is paying how much so that the focus can be on setting the appropriate priorities for what is being paid for as a nation. Having said that, the "progressive" income tax is so ingrained into our culture that I don't see a "flat" tax as being politically viable anytime soon. But who knows? I never thought I'd see a black President in my lifetime and look how that turned out! In the meantime, I'd argue for a "flatter" income taxation system, provided that #2 was significantly simplified as well to essentially "lower the rates and broaden the base". And as for #3, I simply see no justifiable reason why Kobe Bryant as a "player" should get taxed at a much higher rate than Jerry Buss as an "owner". And for the record since we are on the topic, I also think that property taxes and estate taxes should be eliminated. IMO it's total BS that you have to pay the government just to own something or to leave your money to your family after you die. So with all that said ... I'd venture to say that clearly my views on the "paying one's fair share" debate can't pigeon-holed ideologically. That's just my 2 cents ....

Now what say you?

OAW

[besson3c]

Republicans seem to enjoy waging strange fruitless battles

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't understand if people are this stupid or are being willfully obtuse.

Let's make this a metaphor everyone will enjoy. Government spending is a boulder. Obama thinks the stronger people (like him) should do more to help move the boulder.

"Well why doesn't he just go help move it himself?"

Because it's going to be ineffectual, dipshit. I understand objecting to "moving the boulder." But don't play stupid as to why someone is trying to get a collaborative effort (particularly from those who can "help" the most).

Didn't see this before I made my post. I tried to be a bit nicer about it ... but I definitely appreciate the sentiment.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Well, that's not aimed at anyone in particular. But I've tired of seeing the same disingenuous argument on various forums, aimed at any well-off person that dare say they can afford an increase in tax burden.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, that's not aimed at anyone in particular. But I've tired of seeing the same disingenuous argument on various forums, aimed at any well-off person that dare say they can afford an increase in tax burden.

I understand. Just saying that I've experienced the same frustration when clearly intelligent people choose to persist with such foolishness.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I understand. Just saying that I've experienced the same frustration when clearly intelligent people choose to persist with such foolishness.

OAW

Next up: "Poor people need skin in the game." Because if you don't owe on Federal taxes, you obviously don't pay local, state, or sales taxes, either.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Deductions are bad. They lead to pandering to special interest groups and loopholes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, that's not aimed at anyone in particular. But I've tired of seeing the same disingenuous argument on various forums, aimed at any well-off person that dare say they can afford an increase in tax burden.

Most of the times I've seen it, it has been about Warren Buffett, and I think the counter-argument that his company actually cheats on the taxes it already owes carries some weight

[subego]

I'm sure I'll get dogpiled, but the whole idea of taxing companies in the first place strikes me as misguided

Under what circumstance won't they cover their tax burden by raising their prices?

If they're raising their prices it sounds like I'm paying for it anyway.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand something about "paying the fair share".

Obama said in his State of the Union:



If he really thinks that it would be fair to pay MORE than he currently does, why doesn't he do so ?
Why doesn't he cut a check to the IRS ?



-t

If you pay more to the IRS then you owe does it not just become a credit or a refund issued... I don't think you can pay more then you owe with out actually owing more in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If they're raising their prices it sounds like I'm paying for it anyway.

Different "you" though. This is a case where taxation is voluntary: if you refuse to pay the tax, you'll stop buying the product. It shifts the tax burden from the poor (who aren't buying more stuff because they can't) to the rich (who buy more stuff even if they don't have any taxable income in the first place and are just depleting their savings (or have found a tax loophole on their income)). It has a lot of the advantages of a sales tax.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

If you pay more to the IRS then you owe does it not just become a credit or a refund issued... I don't think you can pay more then you owe with out actually owing more in the first place.

There is a place in the form where you can choose to pay extra

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Different "you" though. This is a case where taxation is voluntary: if you refuse to pay the tax, you'll stop buying the product. It shifts the tax burden from the poor (who aren't buying more stuff because they can't) to the rich (who buy more stuff even if they don't have any taxable income in the first place and are just depleting their savings (or have found a tax loophole on their income)). It has a lot of the advantages of a sales tax.

"Burden" has two meanings here. There is the burden you are speaking about, which is what segment of society pays the most taxes, and then there is a burden on a specific individual.

You are correct about the first type of burden. With regards to the second type of burden, the result is the opposite. That tax takes up a much larger percentage of a poor person's income versus what they receive for it. Sales taxes are regressive.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There is a place in the form where you can choose to pay extra

Really! Wow wonder how many people actually do that.

[lpkmckenna]

Dear turtle777:

If you weren't aware, the idle rich who live off investments and do no work whatsoever pay HALF the Federal taxes that the working rich pay for the exact same income.

Are you too stupid to understand that "paying your fair share" is about ending the undeserved tax holiday the idle rich have enjoyed for 2 decades?

So, are you an apologist for the idle rich, or do you believe in fairness?

Really? Personal attack, infractioned.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

If you pay more to the IRS then you owe does it not just become a credit or a refund issued... I don't think you can pay more then you owe with out actually owing more in the first place.

I think you can list your capital gains as regular income. But that doesn't solve the problem for everyone.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If you weren't aware, the idle rich who live off investments and do no work whatsoever pay HALF the Federal taxes that the working rich pay for the exact same income.

Are you too stupid to understand that "paying your fair share" is about ending the undeserved tax holiday the idle rich have enjoyed for 2 decades?

So, are you an apologist for the idle rich, or do you believe in fairness?

Dear lpkmckenna,

Please stop being such a presumptuous ****.

Nowhere in my post did I even say what my opinion is. So stop making shit up.

All I asked is why Obama doesn't voluntarily give more, if he really thinks that HE (personally) doesn't pay his fair share. Same is, of course, true for Buffet, that pompous crony capitalist ass.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't understand if people are this stupid or are being willfully obtuse.

Let's make this a metaphor everyone will enjoy. Government spending is a boulder. Obama thinks the stronger people (like him) should do more to help move the boulder.

"Well why doesn't he just go help move it himself?"

Because it's going to be ineffectual, dipshit. I understand objecting to "moving the boulder." But don't play stupid as to why someone is trying to get a collaborative effort (particularly from those who can "help" the most).

"If I'm going to be miserable, I might as well have company."

Right?

[ghporter]

The thing that gets me about the way the current tax system in the US works is that, while it is supposed to be a progressive system with higher rates for higher incomes, it works almost in the opposite way. The most common way people obtain higher levels of income is through investments which are taxed differently from wages. Further, more deductions are available to people whose gross income is very high than for people whose income is very low. There are even special deductions for the cost of generating investment income. People like most of us, in between high and low, have a few deductions and a few exemptions, but we're stuck in the higher couple of brackets, paying a higher percentage of our overall income in taxes than someone who "earns" a whole lot more through investments. Shouldn't income from "work" be encouraged by a lower tax rate instead of income from "not doing anything" and getting dividends and such?

As I've said before, there are reasons not to tinker much with the tax code. Like Windows' code, nobody really knows how all the pieces really work together and there is a strong risk of unintended consequences. But that shouldn't keep us from starting over, from developing a better code base so to speak, that does what the revenue process is supposed to do, and is both equitable and transparent. The "tax resistance" movement has some excellent points (as long as one doesn't follow their so-called reasoning too far!), including the potential for some significant abuse of the majority of the population through the obfuscated and byzantine tax process. One example of this is how the Internal Revenue system is used for taxation, entitlements, social realignment, encouragement of particular types of business, etc. I'd almost buy the tax conspiracy whackos if I thought our beloved legislators were both smart enough and coordinated enough to pull it off...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Most of the times I've seen it, it has been about Warren Buffett, and I think the counter-argument that his company actually cheats on the taxes it already owes carries some weight

Well, that's an interesting rebuttal, because we're talking personal income, not corporate profits, right? Further, I seem to recall repeatedly hearing that it's the company's duty to shareholders to maximize profit, which I imagine investing in good accountants does. So, as long as we're talking legal loopholes, I think that's fair game by the other sides standards. If we're talking illegal stuff, than I don't care what side he's on, that total BS all the way.

Now, if Buffet is pulling Swiss Bank account bullshit to finagle his taxables, then yeah, I think he's a hypocrite. Doubly so if he says what he does with the intent of finding away out of it should it come to pass.

But I have not seen any of that demonstrated.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"If I'm going to be miserable, I might as well have company."

Right?

If paying taxes makes you miserable, I suppose. Strikes me as melodramatic. I'm not sure I even qualify as middle class in this country, but I work 40+ hour weeks, but since I know how to live within my means and don't feel entitled to digital cable, DVRs, pay channels, an iPad, or a smartphone, you could easily chop 1k from my yearly and I'd barely notice (Save for my savings account being a little lighter at years end).

Wonder why it's so much harder for every one making more above me.

[Athens]

What I wish to see is something very simple. And I use this example of why I like progressive tax systems because you can use it to encourage saving for example. If some one can move from one tax bracket to another by saving money then smart people would do that to save giving the government more money then they want to. But overall a simple tax credit system to encourage desirable stuff.

100% of all income treated the same way

Basic Exemption of $15,000
From $15,000 to $35,000 10%
From $35,001 to $65,000 15%
From $65,001 to $95,000 20%
From $95,001 to $195,000 30%
From $195,001 to $395,000 40%
From $395,001 to $695,000 50%
From $695,001 and up 75%

As for Tax Credits
10% Taxable Income to Retirement Savings Plan (To encourage saving for retirement)
5% Taxable Income to Education Saving Plan (To encourage saving for education of children)
5% Taxable Income to Medical Savings Plan (To encourage saving for medical expenses)
5% Taxable Income to Charitable Contributions (To encourage charity)
2% Credit for each child (To encourage children)

And leave it at that

So some one making $55,000 could do this
Put $4000 into RSP
Put $2000 into ESP
Put $2000 into MSP
Give away $2000 to a charity

Whats left to be taxed is $30,000 at 10% ($3000.00)

They have $8000 saved up, paid $3000 in taxes, gave away $2000 and was left with $42,000 to live with and 8000 saved

Same person same income not using any of the credits

$55,000 with $40,000 taxable at 15% means $6000 in taxes and no savings, leaving the $49,000 to spend and nothing saved, nothing given to charity, and government share of being twice as much.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, as long as we're talking legal loopholes, I think that's fair game by the other sides standards. If we're talking illegal stuff, than I don't care what side he's on, that total BS all the way.

The way I read the accusation, it's the illegal kind and they are being prosecuted for it. I have not cared enough to investigate who's right, I'm just saying that the argument on its face seems relevant.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The way I read the accusation, it's the illegal kind and they are being prosecuted for it. I have not cared enough to investigate who's right, I'm just saying that the argument on its face seems relevant.

Then I would say that makes him a dick head on two different levels, and really, that takes some skill.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If paying taxes makes you miserable, I suppose. Strikes me as melodramatic. I'm not sure I even qualify as middle class in this country, but I work 40+ hour weeks, but since I know how to live within my means and don't feel entitled to digital cable, DVRs, pay channels, an iPad, or a smartphone, you could easily chop 1k from my yearly and I'd barely notice (Save for my savings account being a little lighter at years end).

Wonder why it's so much harder for every one making more above me.

Well, if it makes you happy and gives that warm fuzzy feeling, check the box on the 1040 and give until you collapse in ecstasy.

Personally, I don't like the way DC spends my forced contributions, so the less they get, the better.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then I would say that makes him a dick head on two different levels, and really, that takes some skill.

You don't make it to the top without significant skills

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, if it makes you happy and gives that warm fuzzy feeling, check the box on the 1040 and give until you collapse in ecstasy.

I said it doesn't make me miserable. And what box are we talking about here?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't make it to the top without significant skills

Yeah, there was that study that came out last week about it...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I said it doesn't make me miserable. And what box are we talking about here?

No checking of boxes even needed. I'm sure all the bleeding hearts on this forum will make ample use of this link, otherwise you might feel like guilty deadbeats for not paying your fair share.

Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

Knock yourselves out people!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand something about "paying the fair share".

Obama said in his State of the Union:



If he really thinks that it would be fair to pay MORE than he currently does, why doesn't he do so ?
Why doesn't he cut a check to the IRS ?



-t

And again, if the rich allegedly don't pay their fair share of the federal income tax burden (when the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes), what about the other half of the country that pays nothing? Not to import my thread into yours, turtle, but I have yet to see Presidente Obama respond to this objection. I have yet to see anyone even effectively pose the question to him.

Honestly, when leftists are asked the question you've asked above, their response is almost always along the lines of, "we need the greedy rich people to pay more, not just the generous liberals among us!" It's a total cop out of course. First of all, it's a proven, objectively verifiable fact that conservatives are substantially more generous as a group than liberals. But the collectivists want all the "evil rich people" who came to their wealth by some great fortune (never hard earned work, no!) to pay more, perhaps save for those fellow leftists with close ties to them, plus their confederated corporations. Cretins.

People think the 1% have it great today, and in many respects they do. But their wealth doesn't hold a candle to the ultra-wealthy of history. Anyone else heard this fact recently? Back in Rockefeller's day, he could write a personal check for the entirety of the then US federal debt without harming his financial supremacy. In contrast, today Uncle Socialist could dispossess all the "millionaires and billionaires" in the country of their entire fortunes combined, and they'd only pay for a portion of a current year's deficit spending, not even touching the national debt at all.

[Shaddim]

Exactly. It has nothing to do with how much they take in and everything to do with how much goes out. They can financially rape all the millionaires and billionaires in this country and it won't scratch the surface. They have to stop blindly spending, otherwise this country won't exist in 20 years.

[ghporter]

Ever had a boss who never touched anything related to work? The kind of person who sent someone to get him coffee and showed everyone a smug, fixed smile if you saw him at all? Not a nice person to work for, right? Compare that to a boss that rolls up his or her sleeves and does real work with the employees. Much better relations in the latter, and it's easier to work for someone who seems to be connected with you.

I see the income taxation thing as related to this. Mitt Romney doesn't pay as large a proportion of his income in taxes as I do, and he never gets his hands dirty. Warren Buffet notes that it's "not right" that he should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, and he seems to be the kind of guy that gets his own coffee.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

People think the 1% have it great today, and in many respects they do.

Um, in what respects don't they?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Ever had a boss who never touched anything related to work? The kind of person who sent someone to get him coffee and showed everyone a smug, fixed smile if you saw him at all? Not a nice person to work for, right? Compare that to a boss that rolls up his or her sleeves and does real work with the employees. Much better relations in the latter, and it's easier to work for someone who seems to be connected with you.

I see the income taxation thing as related to this. Mitt Romney doesn't pay as large a proportion of his income in taxes as I do, and he never gets his hands dirty. Warren Buffet notes that it's "not right" that he should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, and he seems to be the kind of guy that gets his own coffee.

Honestly speaking, I'm somewhat shocked, Glenn. That's the least intelligent post I think I've ever seen you write. If I didn't know better I'd think your account got hacked.

The rich don't get taxed less in income taxes than anyone else. They pay the highest rates on income, and there's even a BS Alternative Minimum Tax that originally was designed to hit 150 ultra-high earners but now impacts millions of Americans and their businesses per year. The way that the rich are said to pay lower rates is on their capital gains - money grown from money previously taxed at income tax rates. The capital gains tax rate is low to encourage investment, and lowering that tax rate has always helped the economy substantially each time it has been lowered, but the effect of a low capital gains tax rate is that the rich pay the same low rate as everyone else. Now if it's part of your tax agenda to tax the capital gains of rich people more-if you think that's good economic policy-there are ways to do that in a narrow, targeted fashion that doesn't considerably undermine the profit incentive of people of means to invest their money for capital gains. The so-called "Buffet Rule" is ridiculous on its face though. The sham "Buffet Rule" is a blunt political weapon prized for its high propaganda value, not its sound tax policy. I'm tired from working all night or I'd explain the rest in detail right now. But I must say I expect a lot more sense from someone as worldly wise as you, Glenn.

Oh, and Buffet is a piece of shit. A very good, shrewd investor, definitely, but a piece of shit. You'd be shocked to learn all the underhanded ways he manipulates the government and tax policy to gain him even more money. How he's profited from multiple angles off the heinous Death Tax. You'd be shocked to know about the businesses he robbed people of. At least I hope you'd be shocked. And the kicker is, while he screams for higher taxes for other rich people, he's been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying a decade of taxes that he seems to owe. You try getting away with that without Warren Buffet wealth and influence. What a scoundrel. I firmly believe that one day people will look at Buffet in the same way they look at other high-finance white collar criminals, but right now he's convinced many that he's trying to fight for the little guy by punishing at even greater levels other peoples' success. Oh oh oh, and regarding his image of being down to earth, "getting his own coffee" and living modestly, that's an image he peddles to the public. He claims to live very modestly. Camera crews get access to him at a modest office and modest house. They don't get to see the palatial estates he owns, where he lives most of the time. It's fine and good he has palaces, but he doesn't show them off because it would defeat the quaint, humble image he tries to sell of himself.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And again, if the rich allegedly don't pay their fair share of the federal income tax burden (when the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes), what about the other half of the country that pays nothing? Not to import my thread into yours, turtle, but I have yet to see Presidente Obama respond to this objection. I have yet to see anyone even effectively pose the question to him.

I answered this question on the first page. You still haven't responded to it. No one asks this question because the question is fncking stupid and the answer is fncking obvious.

Honestly, when leftists are asked the question you've asked above, their response is almost always along the lines of, "we need the greedy rich people to pay more, not just the generous liberals among us!" It's a total cop out of course.

This never happened, never did happen, never will happen. You live in a delusional world of your own invention. Taxing the working rich at a higher rate than the idle rich is unfair, that's all there is to it.

First of all, it's a proven, objectively verifiable fact that conservatives are substantially more generous as a group than liberals.

[citation needed] And not just a link to some right-wing blog. An academic source. We're waiting, get on it.

People think the 1% have it great today, and in many respects they do. But their wealth doesn't hold a candle to the ultra-wealthy of history. Anyone else heard this fact recently?

And do you know why this era ended? Income tax.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Honestly speaking, I'm somewhat shocked, Glenn. That's the least intelligent post I think I've ever seen you write. If I didn't know better I'd think your account got hacked.

Jumping to conclusions is your typical response.

The way that the rich are said to pay lower rates is on their capital gains

Everybody know this. We've been talking about it for the entire thread.

money grown from money previously taxed at income tax rates.

So fncking what? Income is income.

The capital gains tax rate is low to encourage investment, and lowering that tax rate has always helped the economy substantially each time it has been lowered

No, this has never happened. There has been no benefit to the economy as a whole.

but the effect of a low capital gains tax rate is that the rich pay the same low rate as everyone else.

Horsesh!t. They pay less. Romney pays a lower tax rate on his total income than your hero Newt Gingrich. This is a fact. Stop telling lies.

Oh, and Buffet is a piece of shit. A very good, shrewd investor, definitely, but a piece of shit. You'd be shocked to learn all the underhanded ways he manipulates the government and tax policy to gain him even more money. How he's profited from multiple angles off the heinous Death Tax. You'd be shocked to know about the businesses he robbed people of. At least I hope you'd be shocked. And the kicker is, while he screams for higher taxes for other rich people, he's been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying a decade of taxes that he seems to owe. You try getting away with that without Warren Buffet wealth and influence. What a scoundrel. I firmly believe that one day people will look at Buffet in the same way they look at other high-finance white collar criminals, but right now he's convinced many that he's trying to fight for the little guy by punishing at even greater levels other peoples' success. Oh oh oh, and regarding his image of being down to earth, "getting his own coffee" and living modestly, that's an image he peddles to the public. He claims to live very modestly. Camera crews get access to him at a modest office and modest house. They don't get to see the palatial estates he owns, where he lives most of the time. It's fine and good he has palaces, but he doesn't show them off because it would defeat the quaint, humble image he tries to sell of himself.

I don't know anything about Warren Buffett, and I don't care. Income is income, and it should be taxed the same. You either believe in fairness, or you don't. And you don't.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And again, if the rich allegedly don't pay their fair share of the federal income tax burden (when the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes), what about the other half of the country that pays nothing?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Next up: "Poor people need skin in the game." Because if you don't owe on Federal taxes, you obviously don't pay local, state, or sales taxes, either.

I forgot about all the taxes they take out of your paychecks, too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Honestly speaking

Longest. Edit. Evar.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Warren Buffet notes that it's "not right" that he should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, and he seems to be the kind of guy that gets his own coffee.

It's amazing this myth still persists. This stuff is like the old style Soviet Union where the big lie just keeps getting told and told and told and the masses just eat it up because the party bosses keep cramming it down their throats.

Buffet, even taxed on capital gains, doesn't pay a lower rate than his secretary. It's been debunked several times now. All anyone has to do is go get a few freely available IRS forms, fill them in with what Buffet's secretary earns, apply all the standard deductions (let alone itemized if she does that) that she qualifies for- which are quite a few, and then see what her rate is. It's something like 4%.

In order to pay more than Buffet, I think it was estimated that she'd have to be making over $100,000 a year or something.

People that weren't lazy like most of the state-controlled media simply did the actual math back when he first started up with this lie. His lie fails to account for deductions and the real way taxes work and just pulls a shell game based on the tax tables before deductions are applied. ANYONE who does their own taxes or knows how the process actually works knows what a lame trick that is.

Why do people continue to let some rich old billionaire play them like fools over something so easily debunked? Oh right, because just like some old communist party hack he's got his spin down to pretend he's "one of the people" because he spouts some 'tax the rich!' shit that he doesn't even begin to practice for himself.

So freakin' lame.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Warren Buffet notes that it's "not right" that he should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, and he seems to be the kind of guy that gets his own coffee.

F*cking hypocrit. He's the sleaziest of sleazy crony capitalists.
While he laments his low tax rate, he cheats on the IRS with one of his companies.

U.S. COUNTER-SUES BUFFET'S NETJETS OVER UNPAID TAX LIABILITIES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COUNTERCLAIMS FOR MORE THAN $302 MILLION

Friday Humor And Headline Of The Week | ZeroHedge

You really can't make this shit up.

-t

[Big Mac]

That genius Canadian lpk seems to think that Romney got to pay a lower capital gains rate than everyone else who pays capital gains taxes. Hahahaha. Unfortunately there are far too many Socialist ignoramuses just like him in this country who are going to vote in the presidential election.

I just had a very realistic feeling dream that Romney won the election and I was celebrating in relief with my family. . .

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That genius Canadian lpk seems to think that Romney got to pay a lower capital gains rate than everyone else who pays capital gains taxes.

I never said this, or anything close to it. How about you respond to the stuff I did say?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Honestly speaking, I'm somewhat shocked, Glenn. That's the least intelligent post I think I've ever seen you write. If I didn't know better I'd think your account got hacked.

The rich don't get taxed less in income taxes than anyone else. They pay the highest rates on income, and there's even a BS Alternative Minimum Tax that originally was designed to hit 150 ultra-high earners but now impacts millions of Americans and their businesses per year. The way that the rich are said to pay lower rates is on their capital gains - money grown from money previously taxed at income tax rates. The capital gains tax rate is low to encourage investment, and lowering that tax rate has always helped the economy substantially each time it has been lowered, but the effect of a low capital gains tax rate is that the rich pay the same low rate as everyone else. Now if it's part of your tax agenda to tax the capital gains of rich people more-if you think that's good economic policy-there are ways to do that in a narrow, targeted fashion that doesn't considerably undermine the profit incentive of people of means to invest their money for capital gains. The so-called "Buffet Rule" is ridiculous on its face though. The sham "Buffet Rule" is a blunt political weapon prized for its high propaganda value, not its sound tax policy. I'm tired from working all night or I'd explain the rest in detail right now. But I must say I expect a lot more sense from someone as worldly wise as you, Glenn.

Oh, and Buffet is a piece of shit. A very good, shrewd investor, definitely, but a piece of shit. You'd be shocked to learn all the underhanded ways he manipulates the government and tax policy to gain him even more money. How he's profited from multiple angles off the heinous Death Tax. You'd be shocked to know about the businesses he robbed people of. At least I hope you'd be shocked. And the kicker is, while he screams for higher taxes for other rich people, he's been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying a decade of taxes that he seems to owe. You try getting away with that without Warren Buffet wealth and influence. What a scoundrel. I firmly believe that one day people will look at Buffet in the same way they look at other high-finance white collar criminals, but right now he's convinced many that he's trying to fight for the little guy by punishing at even greater levels other peoples' success. Oh oh oh, and regarding his image of being down to earth, "getting his own coffee" and living modestly, that's an image he peddles to the public. He claims to live very modestly. Camera crews get access to him at a modest office and modest house. They don't get to see the palatial estates he owns, where he lives most of the time. It's fine and good he has palaces, but he doesn't show them off because it would defeat the quaint, humble image he tries to sell of himself.

In a practical sense, those with really large incomes are able to shield much of it from taxation, often by doing things they want to do anyway, such as supporting their favorite causes. But how many people in the under $200K income range have substantial enough capital gains income to have that make a difference in their taxation? Not many. So, while the stated tax rates are, as you say, highest for the richest, those high rates are only on EARNED INCOME, and not on capital gains, which is what Mitt Romney made such a large part of his income last year that his effective tax rate was under 15%. Me? I'm finally making a professional income, and I'm paying right around 25% (which is both the stated and effective rate for me). On paper, it looks like someone who receives $2 million in income should pay around $700k in taxes (35%), but very few people with incomes above the low 6 figures have that much in earned income, which is what is taxed at that rate.

Stock options, investment income, etc., are not taxed at 35%, and most such income counts as capital gains one way or another, which are taxed at 15%, no matter how much it is. So let's say I earned $150k last year; I paid taxes on over $130k after deductions and such, and my tax was $27k (under 25% but not by a lot). If my neighbor made all of his income through capital gains, and took in exactly the same amount as me, assuming similar adjustments to income, he would have paid less than $20k, and that difference is substantial. Going into higher income ranges, the difference gets to be much bigger, until you basically run out of people with wages that can compare to capital gains income, typically around the $275k to $300k range. In fact, it is this point that drives much of executive compensation schemes; a high level exec can take home a huge chunk of cash, but only some small part of it is wages, with the rest being either return on "investments" that are handed to him, or even more abstract "options" that count toward portfolio value but aren't even income at all.

My point about coffee was more about management personality than anything else. Who likes to work for a boss that acts like a jerk and treats his employees like servants? That analogy was the point: people who flaunt their wealth and go to pains to avoid taxation on their income, are the group who engenders the "pay your fair share" rants, while people like Buffet at least acknowledge that the tax system is neither "fair" nor in an effective sense progressive for people who earn the highest incomes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand something about "paying the fair share".

The "pay your fair share" tag line comes from those who think about needs in a completely different way than you and I. For example, the haves Obama is talking about already donate the most to the have-nots and do plenty of things within their community for its betterment. To people like Obama, this is not the proper way to address needs. Needs are to be assessed at the Federal level and the money pooled through a centralized authority that will best decide how to distribute the funds in such a way as to line as much bureacracy as possible while perpetuating the ill your tax dollar is supposed to cure. Many are duped by the good intentions inherent in wanting to ease others' symptoms of course, but the problem with paper ideology is that it doesn't play as effectively in reality.

[Chongo]

I use Turbo Tax, (just like Tim Geithner!) The summary says my effective tax rate last year was 6.9%

What gets me is there are people who get everything they paid in federal taxes back, and more through the earned income tax credits.


Enact the Fair Tax and be done with it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "pay your fair share" tag line comes from those who think about needs in a completely different way than you and I. For example, the haves Obama is talking about already donate the most to the have-nots and do plenty of things within their community for its betterment. To people like Obama, this is not the proper way to address needs. Needs are to be assessed at the Federal level and the money pooled through a centralized authority that will best decide how to distribute the funds in such a way as to line as much bureacracy as possible while perpetuating the ill your tax dollar is supposed to cure. Many are duped by the good intentions inherent in wanting to ease others' symptoms of course, but the problem with paper ideology is that it doesn't play as effectively in reality.

I want to thank you all for coming here tonight, but we can't forget the real reason we're here. The Paying for Nation Building in Iraq Foundation can't go on without your donations.

Wait... why is everybody leaving?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I want to thank you all for coming here tonight, but we can't forget the real reason we're here. The Paying for Nation Building in Iraq Foundation can't go on without your donations.

Wait... why is everybody leaving?

Iraq? Hell, we'd been lobbing missiles at Iraq since well before Clinton's regime-change doctrine. Now we're on to much better things like Afghanistan and Libya. 20% on Social Security, 14% on safety-net spending, 21% on Medicaid and (S)Chip, and 6% just in interest on these debts... I can see why the military expenditure is getting to you. Unfortunately, we're all still here subego.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

[citation needed] And not just a link to some right-wing blog. An academic source. We're waiting, get on it.

Don't take his word for it. Consider your own contributions to the poor as exhibit A, cyber-bully. The bastions of conservatism at ABC News ran an exposé on this phenomena and as it turns out, conservatives are exponentially more giving across the board including blood donation. I've mentioned this on a couple of occasions, but your ilk is generally more interested in global warming in those discussions and religion in the global warming discussions.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't take his word for it. Consider your own contributions to the poor as exhibit A, cyber-bully. The bastions of conservatism at ABC News ran an exposé on this phenomena and as it turns out, conservatives are exponentially more giving across the board including blood donation. I've mentioned this on a couple of occasions, but your ilk is generally more interested in global warming in those discussions and religion in the global warming discussions.

Don't put your back out providing a link or anything.