Bush's Tax on the Wealthy

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Just read that the 2nd or 3rd richest man in the US is being taxed at a lower rate than his $60,000 secretary. WTF? Is this another one of Bush's wonders?
Warren Buffett has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billon, said: "The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years.
The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.
Warren Buffett has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist.
Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billon, said: "The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."
During an interview with NBC television, Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7 percent payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9 percent.
"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said.
Buffett also took a pot shot at hedge fund managers. He said: "Hedge fund operators have spent a record amount lobbying in the last few months - they give money to the political campaigns. Who represents the cleaning lady?"
His intervention comes amid an increasingly rancorous debate on Capitol Hill about tax. Shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush pushed through $2 trillion in temporary tax cuts, including sharp reductions for high-earners. These expire at the end of 2010 and the White House wants to renew them.
The Guardian

[058]

If Mr. Buffet want to pay more taxes the IRS will gladly accept any and all dollars he wishes to pay over and above what his tax rate may be. I love the way liberals spin this BS about "the rich are not paying their fair share" Exactly what is their fair share? Perhaps the government should learn to live within it's means rather than tax the people that [inpart] provide jobs, buy things that poor and middle class can not afford, pay a higher tax rate already [39+% now] buy houses and property at inflated rates that generate more tax dollars than if the property were not sold or sold at a much lower rate. The one thing that stands out with liberals is they do not understand the concept of Creation of Wealth. To Liberals if someone makes a dollar it is because it was taken from someone else. They do NOT know how to create wealth, just take from those that do. :mad:

[bigq]

Something isnt right there if she is paying that much. I don't know about you, but I am nowhere near 39% that is insane. Mine is right at about 18%.
If he feels so bad why not give some of that cash to his secretary, he makes Billions and pays her 60 ? Whats up with that....OLD FART!:rolleyes:
His informal poll I think is a bunch of shit. Here is that tax rate schedule according to the IRS used for estimating your taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html
At a quick glance she is paying about 14% if married without any deductions.

[Boatcop]

He didn't state what amount that 17.7% is applied to. But with his being the "second richest" man in the US, you can bet that's a pretty healthy sum.
Even with a conservative 100 million, that 17.7% would be 17.7 million into the US treasury.
And that 17.9% includes payroll tax of 6.2% (SS) and 1.45% (medicare), which would make his personal and business income tax much higher.
So let's nail the rich with higher taxes. That'll teach them for being successful. Maybe that would let their employees pay lower taxes. Or even no taxes, since higher taxes would force the "wealthy" to cut staff and put those people out of a job.
Every single time a tax cut has been put in place, for the wealthy, middle class or poor, tax revenue into the treasury has increased substantially. And every time a tax increase is applied, revenue declines.
But for some reason, the left cannot grasp this concept, and want to punish those who are successful, to make it "fair" for the lazy.
Why do liberals think the only reason socialism has never worked, anywhere it's been tried, is because THEY weren't in charge?

[Schiada76]

Warren Buffet made his fortune by taking advantage of egregious death taxes.
He's a bloodsucking bottom feeder.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If Mr. Buffet want to pay more taxes the IRS will gladly accept any and all dollars he wishes to pay over and above what his tax rate may be. I love the way liberals spin this BS about "the rich are not paying their fair share" Exactly what is their fair share? Perhaps the government should learn to live within it's means rather than tax the people that [inpart] provide jobs, buy things that poor and middle class can not afford, pay a higher tax rate already [39+% now] buy houses and property at inflated rates that generate more tax dollars than if the property were not sold or sold at a much lower rate. The one thing that stands out with liberals is they do not understand the concept of Creation of Wealth. To Liberals if someone makes a dollar it is because it was taken from someone else. They do NOT know how to create wealth, just take from those that do. :mad:
My post was not attempted to be a spin. I thought that you folks might find it interesting. If someone who is worth 50 plus billion dollars, is paying income tax at a lower rate than I am, there is something f'n wrong. What does this have to do with be being liberal or conservative. It's f.n wrong.
If this is the case, the system is even more broken than I thought.
He didn't state what amount that 17.7% is applied to. But with his being the "second richest" man in the US, you can bet that's a pretty healthy sum.
Even with a conservative 100 million, that 17.7% would be 17.7 million into the US treasury.
And that 17.9% includes payroll tax of 6.2% (SS) and 1.45% (medicare), which would make his personal and business income tax much higher.
So let's nail the rich with higher taxes. That'll teach them for being successful. Maybe that would let their employees pay lower taxes. Or even no taxes, since higher taxes would force the "wealthy" to cut staff and put those people out of a job.
Every single time a tax cut has been put in place, for the wealthy, middle class or poor, tax revenue into the treasury has increased substantially. And every time a tax increase is applied, revenue declines.
But for some reason, the left cannot grasp this concept, and want to punish those who are successful, to make it "fair" for the lazy.
Why do liberals think the only reason socialism has never worked, anywhere it's been tried, is because THEY weren't in charge?
How about taxing folks like this at the same rate as you or I. Not at a higher rate, the same. You seem to be defending taxing the ultra rich at a lower rate than the middle class.
Something isnt right there if she is paying that much. I don't know about you, but I am nowhere near 39% that is insane. Mine is right at about 18%.
If he feels so bad why not give some of that cash to his secretary, he makes Billions and pays her 60 ? Whats up with that....OLD FART!:rolleyes:
His informal poll I think is a bunch of shit. Here is that tax rate schedule according to the IRS used for estimating your taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html
At a quick glance she is paying about 14% if married without any deductions.
I agree that 39% is off.
Do you agree with the ultra rich should be taxed a lower rate than middle class. BC seems to think that the rich paying an equal % is in some way socialist and liberal.

[bigq]

My post was not attempted to be a spin. I thought that you folks might find it interesting. If someone who is worth 50 plus billion dollars, is paying income tax at a lower rate than I am, there is something f'n wrong. What does this have to do with be being liberal or conservative. It's f.n wrong.
If this is the case, the system is even more broken than I thought.
How about taxing folks like this at the same rate as you or I. Not at a higher rate, the same. You seem to be defending taxing the ultra rich at a lower rate than the middle class.
I think conservative or liberal they both want our money:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think conservative or liberal they both want our money:D
I agree.
Please help me here. Is it the Conservative way to tax the ultra rich at a lower % rate than the middle class?

[Boatcop]

My post was not attempted to be a spin. I thought that you folks might find it interesting. If someone who is worth 50 plus billion dollars, is paying income tax at a lower rate than I am, there is something f'n wrong. What does this have to do with be being liberal or conservative. It's f.n wrong.
If this is the case, the system is even more broken than I thought.
How about taxing folks like this at the same rate as you or I. Not at a higher rate, the same. You seem to be defending taxing the ultra rich at a lower rate than the middle class.
Those figures are "fuzzy math". Here's the tax rate for Income Taxes in the US. (Adjusted Gross Income)
Single
0 - $7,550 10% of the amount over $0
$7,550 - $30,650 $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650 - $74,200 $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
$74,200 - $154,800 $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
$154,800 - $336,550 $37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
$336,550 - no limit $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Married/Joint
$0 - $15,100 10% of the amount over $0
$15,100 - $61,300 $1,510.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,100
$61,300 - $123,700 $8,440.00 plus 25% of the amount over 61,300
$123,700 - $188,450 $24,040.00 plus 28% of the amount over 123,700
$188,450 - $336,550 $42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450
$336,550 - no limit $91,043.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Show me where the ultra wealthy have a lower tax rate than the middle class?
I don't advocate the wealthy paying a lower tax rate, and the tables above show that they don't.
On Buffet's hypothetical 100 Mil income, his income tax is around 35%. His secretary at $60,000 is closer to 24%. And those figures are without any deductions. That secretary with typical deductions would probably lower the tax rate to around 12-15%, while deductions for Buffet wouldn't lower his 35% rate any.
People throw up figures and no body questions them. A few minutes with a calculator would show that Buffet's statements and figures are misleading and definitely not correct.

[bigq]

I agree.
Please help me here. Is it the Conservative way to tax the ultra rich at a lower % rate than the middle class?
I would be in favor of a flat tax rate across the board or some kind of a national sales tax so you only pay on use.
I disagree with taxing the rich more or less than someone with average income for several reason.

[bigq]

Those figures are "fuzzy math". Here's the tax rate for Income Taxes in the US. (Adjusted Gross Income)
Single
0 - $7,550 10% of the amount over $0
$7,550 - $30,650 $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650 - $74,200 $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
$74,200 - $154,800 $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
$154,800 - $336,550 $37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
$336,550 - no limit $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Married/Joint
$0 - $15,100 10% of the amount over $0
$15,100 - $61,300 $1,510.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,100
$61,300 - $123,700 $8,440.00 plus 25% of the amount over 61,300
$123,700 - $188,450 $24,040.00 plus 28% of the amount over 123,700
$188,450 - $336,550 $42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450
$336,550 - no limit $91,043.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Show me where the ultra wealthy have a lower tax rate than the middle class?
I don't advocate the wealthy paying a lower tax rate, and the tables above show that they don't.
On Buffet's hypothetical 100 Mil income, his income tax is around 35%. His secretary at $60,000 is closer to 24%. And those figures are without any deductions. That secretary with typical deductions would probably lower the tax rate to around 12-15%, while deductions for Buffet wouldn't lower his 35% rate any.
People throw up figures and no body questions them. A few minutes with a calculator would show that Buffet's statements and figures are misleading and definitely not correct.
YUP!;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Those figures are "fuzzy math". Here's the tax rate for Income Taxes in the US. (Adjusted Gross Income)
Single
0 - $7,550 10% of the amount over $0
$7,550 - $30,650 $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650 - $74,200 $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
$74,200 - $154,800 $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
$154,800 - $336,550 $37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
$336,550 - no limit $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Married/Joint
$0 - $15,100 10% of the amount over $0
$15,100 - $61,300 $1,510.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,100
$61,300 - $123,700 $8,440.00 plus 25% of the amount over 61,300
$123,700 - $188,450 $24,040.00 plus 28% of the amount over 123,700
$188,450 - $336,550 $42,170.00 plus 33% of the amount over 188,450
$336,550 - no limit $91,043.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Show me where the ultra wealthy have a lower tax rate than the middle class?
I don't advocate the wealthy paying a lower tax rate, and the tables above show that they don't.
On Buffet's hypothetical 100 Mil income, his income tax is around 35%. His secretary at $60,000 is closer to 24%. And those figures are without any deductions. That secretary with typical deductions would probably lower the tax rate to around 12-15%, while deductions for Buffet wouldn't lower his 35% rate any.
People throw up figures and no body questions them. A few minutes with a calculator would show that Buffet's statements and figures are misleading and definitely not correct.
So you are saying that Buffett is lying about how much he paid in taxes?
That's why I posted the article. I know what the basic tax rates are.
This response seems a little different than your first. Thanks for clarifying
I would be in favor of a flat tax rate across the board or some kind of a national sales tax so you only pay on use.
I disagree with taxing the rich more or less than someone with average income for several reason.
We agree about this issue.

[OutCole'd]

How about a flat tax? No more write offs....?

[boatsnblondes]

I would say that 17% of his income on a yearly basis is more money than any of us will ever see in our lifetime.....just becuase his rate is lower, does not mean he isn't already paying a vast sum to prop up the dems plan to add as much pork into every spending bill as they possibly can, while shortening thier work week, and giving themselves yet another raise, all this time treading water at a disgusting 11% approval rate...they are so bad, even Bush is telling them to get off thier collective fat asses and do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to earn thier keep....:mad:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

How about a flat tax? No more write offs....?
I agree.

[Boatcop]

So you are saying that Buffett is lying about how much he paid in taxes?
I'm not saying he lied. Just that he included payroll taxes he paid on behalf of his employees into his percentage to come up with the 17.7%.
Payroll taxes are paid by EVERY employer, including my parents who are FAR from "wealthy" running a Mom & Pop Office Supply store, barely keeping afloat.
Take out the Payroll Taxes and his income tax rate is around 45%.
Don't you think that there's something wrong with the Government taking nearly half of the earnings from the people who are providing jobs, goods and services for others? If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
Don't think for a minute that the "wealthy" are paying those higher taxes. They are passed on to us, in the form of higher prices on goods and services. Or their manufacturing and/or support being outsourced to other countries, thereby removing jobs from the US workforce.
Higher taxes on the wealthy are higher taxes on EVERYBODY. We just don't pay our share directly to the Govt. We pay them in the form of higher prices.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'm not saying he lied. Just that he included payroll taxes he paid on behalf of his employees into his percentage to come up with the 17.7%.
Payroll taxes are paid by EVERY employer, including my parents who are FAR from "wealthy" running a Mom & Pop Office Supply store, barely keeping afloat.
Take out the Payroll Taxes and his income tax rate is around 45%.
Don't you think that there's something wrong with the Government taking nearly half of the earnings from the people who are providing jobs, goods and services for others? If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
Don't think for a minute that the "wealthy" are paying those higher taxes. They are passed on to us, in the form of higher prices on goods and services. Or their manufacturing and/or support being outsourced to other countries, thereby removing jobs from the US workforce.
Higher taxes on the wealthy are higher taxes on EVERYBODY. We just don't pay our share directly to the Govt. We pay them in the form of higher prices.
IMO, if he only paid 17% he did alot more than include payroll taxes.
If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
This is a good concept if it worked. What makes you think that these folks don't put as much as they possibly can in thier pockets? We don't agree as I view many of these types as drivin by greed.

[bigq]

IMO, if he only paid 17% he did alot more than include payroll taxes.
This is a good concept if worked. What makes you think that these folks don't put as much as they possibly can in thier pockets? We don't agree as I view many of these types as drivin by greed.
Sorry Ultra, but that is not a logical view. How do you think small business grow into huge corporations and hire all these people? If they take all the profits for "greed" how can one possible grow. Huge corporations don't just hatch one day into a mult imillon or billion dollar business most take years with a lot of efforts from many people.
most of the sories I read of very successful people don't start a business to become of a millionaire, but are very passionate about what they do and realize they need more people to make it happen. The money comes in time, but not the main drive as you think.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Sorry Ultra, but that is not a logical view. How do you think small business grow into huge corporations and hire all these people? If they take all the profits for "greed" how can one possible grow. Huge corporations don't just hatch one day into a mult imillon or billion dollar business most take years with a lot of efforts from many people.
most of the sories I read of very successful people don't start a business to become of a millionaire, but are very passionate about what they do and realize they need more people to make it happen. The money comes in time, but not the main drive as you think.
I wasn't referring to small business or growing a business.
I think you are being naive if you don't believe that much of this Country's wealth is greed driven.
BC's comment and my response were about the wealthy.

[Boatcop]

I wasn't referring to small business or growing a business.
I think you are being naive if you don't believe that much of this Country's wealth is greed driven.
BC's comment and my response was about the wealthy.
All large corporations were started as small businesses by poor folks with a vision and a dream. If you classify a desire to improve yourself and your standing as greed, then so be it.
Even those born or married into wealth (Kennedy's, Heinz, Pelosi, etc) got there by their family's starting small and building their empire.
If I make widgets in my garage and go sell them door to door I am a small businessman. If I make good widgets and they sell well, I'll have to hire someone to sell them while I make them. If my demand overwhelms what I can make, I'll have to hire someone to help me build them. As the widgets become more popular, I'll have to move out of my garage and into a factory to build widgets and hire more people. Then I'll have to hire someone to maintain the widget machines, and people for widget support. Then more sales people to sell widgets.
I might open a widget retail store, hiring more people. The widget store grows into a chain of widget stores, and I'll have to diversify and buy other companies and products to compliment the widgets in the widget store.
I'll open up overseas offices to supply widgets to the world. Now I have hundreds, if not thousands of direct employees, not to mention the indirect employees, such as the folks who supply raw materials for my widgets, the delivery/trucking companies who deliver those raw materials and my widgets. The machine companies who make machines to build my widgets, etc. etc. etc.
And so on, and so on. Eventually I'll grow into a multi-national widget corporation, and I'll be worth millions.
Now is that "greed", as opposed to if I just stayed in my garage making widgets and selling them door to door?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

All large corporations were started as small businesses by poor folks with a vision and a dream. If you classify a desire to improve yourself and your standing as greed, then so be it.
Even those born or married into wealth (Kennedy's, Heinz, Pelosi, etc) got there by their family's starting small and building their empire.
If I make widgets in my garage and go sell them door to door I am a small businessman. If I make good widgets and they sell well, I'll have to hire someone to sell them while I make them. If my demand overwhelms what I can make, I'll have to hire someone to help me build them. As the widgets become more popular, I'll have to move out of my garage and into a factory to build widgets and hire more people. Then I'll have to hire someone to maintain the widget machines, and people for widget support. Then more sales people to sell widgets.
I might open a widget retail store, hiring more people. The widget store grows into a chain of widget stores, and I'll have to diversify and buy other companies and products to compliment the widgets in the widget store.
I'll open up overseas offices to supply widgets to the world. Now I have hundreds, if not thousands of direct employees, not to mention the indirect employees, such as the folks who supply raw materials for my widgets, the delivery/trucking companies who deliver those raw materials and my widgets. The machine companies who make machines to build my widgets, etc. etc. etc.
And so on, and so on. Eventually I'll grow into a multi-national widget corporation, and I'll be worth millions.
Now is that "greed", as opposed to if I just stayed in my garage making widgets and selling them door to door?
You're right, as always. Are you ever wrong, Alan? There is no greed in big business or big govt., nope
I have an idea. Why not make big business and the wealthy tax exempt. Even lower prices and more jobs for us little guys to pay the taxes. :2purples:
If you classify a desire to improve yourself and your standing as greed, then so be it.
Did I say this somewhere? Please don't twist my words.
If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
What they could do and what they do aren't necessarily the same.

[Moneypitt]

Well Alan, John could easily see your side of this story IF you were to mention the thousands of Widgets you donated to worthy, liberal backed, causes......Share the wealth with the "waiting for help" cases.....Set up a "minority", or "female", or "lazy do nothing for themselves" in one of your outlets........As soon as they find out how much work it is to operate a business of their own, they will sell to the first Korean to come along. Then hate the Korean because he will be very successful.......Due to PRIDE and HARD work, not greed.........You know, you just can't get American made widgets anymore...........The widget factories have all been TAXED into moving off shore........So who is going to support all the pork barrel spending now?............

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well Alan, John could easily see your side of this story IF you were to mention the thousands of Widgets you donated to worthy, liberal backed, causes......Share the wealth with the "waiting for help" cases.....Set up a "minority", or "female", or "lazy do nothing for themselves" in one of your outlets........As soon as they find out how much work it is to operate a business of their own, they will sell to the first Korean to come along. Then hate the Korean because he will be very successful.......Due to PRIDE and HARD work, not greed.........You know, you just can't get American made widgets anymore...........The widget factories have all been TAXED into moving off shore........So who is going to support all the pork barrel spending now?............
Sorry Ray, you know as well as I do that it's greed and Govt control that have driven businesses away. BS, Liberal, pro consumer laws have made it next to impossible to operate a business in CA.
Gotta love those leaded widgets.
It's not greed.

[Schiada76]

Ultra, WB shelters his money. He pays thousands upon thousands of dollars to accountants and attornys to AVOID paying.

[Moneypitt]

Sorry Ray, you know as well as I do that it's greed and Govt control that have driven businesses away. BS, Liberal, pro consumer laws have made it next to impossible to operate a business in CA.
Gotta love those leaded widgets.
It's not greed.
Yeah, but it is the government greed that is murdering American businesses...Not the businessman's......Oh don't forget the MMGB crap when it comes to running businesses out of the country.......
Also, I think the 17% tax number was a combination of his corporate and HIS income, (salary) not "payroll" taxes paid on behalf of his employees..........

[058]

"Greed is good" [Gordon Gekko] Greed [gred] n. "A desire to aquire more than one needs or deserves" So if you make more than you need to provide for the nessessities of life then that makes you greedy according to the dictionary. Who determines what one deserves? If I work harder than my next door neighbor shouldn't I have more than him or do I need some government bureaucrat deciding how much I need to live on? [They are doing that now] Without greed there is no ambition. The desire to suceed is linked to greed. I see nothing wrong with this. What is so terrible about trying to hang on to money you earn? Is that being greedy? If so....so what.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

"Greed is good" [Gordon Gekko] Greed [gred] n. "A desire to aquire more than one needs or deserves" So if you make more than you need to provide for the nessessities of life then that makes you greedy according to the dictionary. Who determines what one deserves? If I work harder than my next door neighbor shouldn't I have more than him or do I need some government bureaucrat deciding how much I need to live on? [They are doing that now] Without greed there is no ambition. The desire to suceed is linked to greed. I see nothing wrong with this. What is so terrible about trying to hang on to money you earn? Is that being greedy? If so....so what.
The issue of greed was brought into this debate to refute another's comment that lowering taxes on the ultra rich will, result in lower prices and more jobs. I think this comment was absurd and overly simplistic
IMO, lower prices and the provision of more jobs will only be the result of more perceived profits. If pocketing a tax cut itself is viewed as the best way for the ultra rich to increase profit, lower prices and more jobs would not follow.
Considering that most people here are Conservatives, who believe in Capitalist system, I was surprised at the responses my comment drew. Profit, greed, money are what drives this Country. Call it the desire to succeed. Stating that cutting taxes to big business will cause lower prices and more jobs. IMO, is not necessarily the case.
The ultra rich being taxed at a lower rate than you and I, IMO, is improper.

[steelcomp]

If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
This is a good concept if it worked. What makes you think that these folks don't put as much as they possibly can in thier pockets? We don't agree as I view many of these types as drivin by greed.
If you'll look around, you'll see it does work. There's only one reason that the economy is as strong as it is despite the war, despite Katrina, despite 911, and despite the naysayers in the mainstream media, and that is that Bush's tax cuts have put more money in people's pockets. The reason these folks don't keep the extra money in their pockets as you say they do is because they can't help themselves but to go out and buy more useless stuff like big boats and expensive impractical cars. It's not really greed, it's more materialism and narcisism, seeking some kind of fulfillment in material posessions.
Also, it's pretty common knowledge that the "wealthy" in this country pay a much higher portion of the taxes as compared to the middle class and the less wealthy, who are actually more apt to pocket the money from a tax benefit than spend it, which is really the "smart" thing to do, but dosen't help the economy at all.

[steelcomp]

Just a reminder...the only people who "take" money involuntarily from anyone in this country is the government. It's tax laws are confiscatory, and illegal. Anyone who profits in this country (becomes rich, if you will) does so because someone agreed to give them money in exchange for something. Fair or not, it was voluntary.

[steelcomp]

IMO, lower prices and the provision of more jobs will only be the result of more perceived profits. If pocketing a tax cut itself is viewed as the best way for the ultra rich to increase profit, lower prices and more jobs would not follow.
Where do you think these profits come from? Why do you think the government's tax revenue intake is at record highs right now? You think people are being greedy? You increase people's taxes, and they're going to find every way on Sam's hill to not pay them. Give them a break, and they're going to be more willing to pay their fair share. The proof is in the numbers. You call it "simplistic" and it's exactly that. It's very simple. Something dosen't always have to be complicated and complex to be effective.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This is a good concept if it worked. What makes you think that these folks don't put as much as they possibly can in thier pockets? We don't agree as I view many of these types as drivin by greed.
If you'll look around, you'll see it does work. There's only one reason that the economy is as strong as it is despite the war, despite Katrina, despite 911, and despite the naysayers in the mainstream media, and that is that Bush's tax cuts have put more money in people's pockets. The reason these folks don't keep the extra money in their pockets as you say they do is because they can't help themselves but to go out and buy more useless stuff like big boats and expensive impractical cars. It's not really greed, it's more materialism and narcisism, seeking some kind of fulfillment in material posessions.
Also, it's pretty common knowledge that the "wealthy" in this country pay a much higher portion of the taxes as compared to the middle class and the less wealthy, who are actually more apt to pocket the money from a tax benefit than spend it, which is really the "smart" thing to do, but dosen't help the economy at all.
Where have you been?
Haven't you noticed, but the economy isn't doing all that well. While I don't agree, it was a well written post.
Who said anything about increasing taxes. Please go back to post one.

[steelcomp]

Where have you been?
Haven't you noticed, but the economy isn't doing all that well. While I don't agree, it was a well written post.
Who said anything about increasing taxes. Please go back to post one.
You can micro-analyse the economy to come up with the answers you're looking for, but as a whole, the economy is indeed robust, especially considering everything that's gone against it.
I only mentioned raising taxes as an illustration and as a rebuttal to, since it's the opposite of lowering taxes. One causes one thing, the other causes another. ONe posative, one negative. Raising taxes has never worked, and lowering taxes has always rsulted in more economical growth.
Thanks for the compliment.
Also, I'll give you that you're welcome to your opinion on the economy, but that was a very week response to the points and questions I posted.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You can micro-analyse the economy to come up with the answers you're looking for, but as a whole, the economy is indeed robust, especially considering everything that's gone against it.
I only mentioned raising taxes as an illustration and as a rebuttal to, since it's the opposite of lowering taxes. One causes one thing, the other causes another. ONe posative, one negative. Raising taxes has never worked, and lowering taxes has always rsulted in more economical growth.
Thanks for the compliment.
Also, I'll give you that you're welcome to your opinion on the economy, but that was a very week response to the points and questions I posted.
I wasn't responding to, or necessarily disputing many of the points in your posts. Call my response what you would like.
Where do you think these profits come from? Why do you think the government's tax revenue intake is at record highs right now? You think people are being greedy? You increase people's taxes, and they're going to find every way on Sam's hill to not pay them. Give them a break, and they're going to be more willing to pay their fair share. The proof is in the numbers. You call it "simplistic" and it's exactly that. It's very simple. Something dosen't always have to be complicated and complex to be effective.
It's not as simple as lower taxes equate to lower prices, and so on.

[steelcomp]

I wasn't responding to, or necessarily disputing many of the points in your posts. Call my response what you would like. Fair enough
It's not as simple as lower taxes equate to lower prices, and so on.Actually I never said anything about prices going down, but lower taxes does put more money in circulation. Typically with more money in circulation, prices would go up as a function of supply and demand.
This is where more profits are made (along with an increase in sales) thereby creating more growth in manufacturing, hiring, etc., both of which continue to grow. (growth and employment) Money will continue to circulate as long as people are working, and they don't feel like they have to hide their money from the government. When money stops circulating (a-la Jimmy Carter era) it seems as if things come to a screeching halt.
The economics of capitalism is only complicated when the government gets involved.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Actually I never said anything about prices going down, but lower taxes does put more money in circulation. Typically with more money in circulation, prices would go up as a function of supply and demand.
This is where more profits are made (along with an increase in sales) thereby creating more growth in manufacturing, hiring, etc., both of which continue to grow. (growth and employment) Money will continue to circulate as long as people are working, and they don't feel like they have to hide their money from the government. When money stops circulating (a-la Jimmy Carter era) it seems as if things come to a screeching halt.
The economics of capitalism is only complicated when the government gets involved.
Steel, I understand what you are saying. Please go back to the and view what I was originally responding to. This is where is the issue of lower prices came from.
Thanks

[cruser]

I did a little research and found that using the AGI from all tax returns submitted, those with income in the top 10% pay about 70% of the taxes and earn about 45% of the income. How is that fair? How are they not paying their fair share?
Also, I found that to be included in the top 10% the AGI on the return has to be >$103K. Not that much in a 2 income household.

[steelcomp]

I did a little research and found that using the AGI from all tax returns submitted, those with income in the top 10% pay about 70% of the taxes and earn about 45% of the income. How is that fair? How are they not paying their fair share?
Also, I found that to be included in the top 10% the AGI on the return has to be >$103K. Not that much in a 2 income household.Thats basically upper middle class income now days. Far from "wealthy" in this country.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Thats basically upper middle class income now days. Far from "wealthy" in this country.
Steel, you sure got that one right. Not even in the wealthy ballpark.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Just read that the 2nd or 3rd richest man in the US is being taxed at a lower rate than his $60,000 secretary. WTF? Is this another one of Bush's wonders?
Since you steadfastly refuse (a susual) to listen to anyone but yourself, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain reality to you.
You won't "investigate" a damn thing, but you sure will go out on a limb come hell or high water to cling to the spun inequity here.
(sorry, new word for you, "inequity" = "un-fairness")
Incidentally, just where does Warren Buffet KEEP (and likely "earn") all his money at?
(here's a clue, offshore, tax exempted, and invested, tax exempted as well).

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Since you steadfastly refuse (a susual) to listen to anyone but yourself, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain reality to you.
You won't "investigate" a damn thing, but you sure will go out on a limb come hell or high water to cling to the spun inequity here.
(sorry, new word for you, "inequity" = "un-fairness")
Incidentally, just where does Warren Buffet KEEP (and likey "earn") all his money at?
(here's a clue, offshore, tax exempted, and invested, tax exempted as well).
Is this a fact? The 17% claim didn't sound right.
"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said.

[redneckcharlie]

I wasn't referring to small business or growing a business.
I think you are being naive if you don't believe that much of this Country's wealth is greed driven.
BC's comment and my response were about the wealthy.
Don't you work for the insurance industry? That industry has done some of the most heiness xxit in the name of profits I've ever seen or heard about. I'm not trashing you or juding you, that just seems very ironic to me.
And if memory serves me correctly, your in the investigative end. I'll bet you can't even remember how many times you've seen an insurance company look for an out to paying on a policy. I just find it very hypocritical and ironic that your calling big business greedy, at the same time you take a paycheck from them. If I'm wrong on this, then I apoligize up front.

[centerhill condor]

The ultra rich being taxed at a lower rate than you and I, IMO, is improper.
Your opinion is represented in the tax code verbatum and yet you rich folks feel obliged to tell how unfair it is to pay less than us workin' folk. Well thank you very kindly sir. thank you very much.
You've written that you'd be okay with paying more taxes and have you written a check? Come on there diamond jim..fess up how you're helping out the little man by ponying up with the mean green.
Why does the rich being taxed at a lower rate than you or I appear improper?
Everybody knows the poor take more from the system than the rich.
There's nobody anywhere that approves of the existing tax structure. As near as I can tell it doesn't really matter anyway 'cause they can print and borrow all they want. The tax code is just a front ended attempt at "lookin' good" to the voters 'cause we're takin' from the rich to give to the poor.
Ya'll are missin' the sneaky AMT...you'll be payin' much more soon enough as your currency is devalued. $800 gold and $100 oil...Heck, we're all gonna be in the top bracket soon enough. Maybe then I'll b$tch and moan about paying too little...not bloody likely.
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Don't you work for the insurance industry? That industry has done some of the most heiness xxit in the name of profits I've ever seen or heard about. I'm not trashing you or juding you, that just seems very ironic to me.
And if memory serves me correctly, your in the investigative end. I'll bet you can't even remember how many times you've seen an insurance company look for an out to paying on a policy. I just find it very hypocritical and ironic that your calling big business greedy, at the same time you take a paycheck from them. If I'm wrong on this, then I apoligize up front.
My position relates to auto claims management. We pay what we owe and not what we don't. The CA DOI is not shy about massive fines for playing games with coverage. I've personally hosted 5 DOI audits in the past 12 years, without a fine. As I said, we pay what we owe quickly and without question. We don't pay when fraud is involved or whan a loss is not covered. I don't work for an insurance company.
Your opinion is represented in the tax code verbatum and yet you rich folks feel obliged to tell how unfair it is to pay less than us workin' folk. Well thank you very kindly sir. thank you very much.
You've written that you'd be okay with paying more taxes and have you written a check? Come on there diamond jim..fess up how you're helping out the little man by ponying up with the mean green.
Why does the rich being taxed at a lower rate than you or I appear improper?
Everybody knows the poor take more from the system than the rich.
There's nobody anywhere that approves of the existing tax structure. As near as I can tell it doesn't really matter anyway 'cause they can print and borrow all they want. The tax code is just a front ended attempt at "lookin' good" to the voters 'cause we're takin' from the rich to give to the poor.
Ya'll are missin' the sneaky AMT...you'll be payin' much more soon enough as your currency is devalued. $800 gold and $100 oil...Heck, we're all gonna be in the top bracket soon enough. Maybe then I'll b$tch and moan about paying too little...not bloody likely.
CC
I've been nailed by AMT 4 out of the last 5 years. CC it seems we agree about the economy ie $800 gold and $100 oil.

[3 daytona`s]

You're right, as always. Are you ever wrong, Alan? There is no greed in big business or big govt., nope
I have an idea. Why not make big business and the wealthy tax exempt. Even lower prices and more jobs for us little guys to pay the taxes. :2purples:
If you classify a desire to improve yourself and your standing as greed, then so be it.
Did I say this somewhere? Please don't twist my words.
If the "wealthy" could retain more of their earnings, they could provide more jobs, higher salaries for their employees, and lower costs for goods and services. That would increase the economy and the quality of life for all involved.
What they could do and what they do aren't necessarily the same.
On Money Line last week =ULTRA, much of his money/income/profit is on paper and along with wages for Berkshire Hathway and all expenses that go with it they explained he is paying the fair legal taxes he is responsable for. That being said they all agreed and so will I if he wants to pay more taxes ? Do it. LOL :rolleyes: You must realize the cost for a share of BH stock is staggering and he made them 70% more this past quarter. I`m going to tell you I heard this years ago in an economics class in college,and thought he was a nut. The fairest tax is SALES TAX and exempt food and basic clothing.The Dem`s do not see it that or this way.:idea:

[Heater]

The issue of greed was brought into this debate to refute another's comment that lowering taxes on the ultra rich will, result in lower prices and more jobs. I think this comment was absurd and overly simplistic
IMO, lower prices and the provision of more jobs will only be the result of more perceived profits. If pocketing a tax cut itself is viewed as the best way for the ultra rich to increase profit, lower prices and more jobs would not follow.
Considering that most people here are Conservatives, who believe in Capitalist system, I was surprised at the responses my comment drew. Profit, greed, money are what drives this Country. Call it the desire to succeed. Stating that cutting taxes to big business will cause lower prices and more jobs. IMO, is not necessarily the case.
The ultra rich being taxed at a lower rate than you and I, IMO, is improper.
So what is your plan Greenspan Jr????? No BS, just a plan that works....cause according to you this country sucks and is on the fast track to being broke...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So what is your plan Greenspan Jr????? No BS, just a plan that works....cause according to you this country sucks and is on the fast track to being broke...
Never said or implied that this Country sucks. I would like to see either a flat tax or a fair tax system, for starters.

[delemorte]

Wow you guys get really defensive in here… let me just chime my two cents in here.
Yes a flat tax for all citizens would be fair... what ever that figure may be you should not pay more or less (percentage) just because of your economical status.
Why do the rich want to pay less? Because their percentage equates to larger dollar figures.In essence they pay more taxes when you look at the bottom line.
Why do the poor or less wealthy want to pay fewer taxes? Because that percentage is harder to live with when you make less. 30 % out of 60,000 is a lot more of a hit to your daily living then even 40% of 2 million annually. (those numbers are just to prove a point and i know they are not accurate)
Will giving a tax break to the rich put more money in the pocket of the poor guy by creating jobs and the like? I don’t know but what I do know is I keep seeing CEO’s quit or getting fired taking 100’s of millions with them as they leave and they aren’t creating new jobs with their new fortunes. Is that fair? I don’t think so. Are they spending it on high end luxuries? maybe? But i dont think you can say they are contributing to the less fortunate by buying such goods. Is there a trickle effect sure but dont act like you are feeding starving children by buying a 10 million dollar mansion.
On the other hand, in the most part they did work hard to get what they have and should not be penalized for doing well and having nice things. Thats why a say a flat percentage seems to me as the best solution.
I don’t think liberal or conservative has any relevance in the tax conversation. I think the only fare way is a flat tax. No reason to be penalized for making more or less.
But when you argue your point remember the other guy’s position as they both have valid points but we always seem to forget the other guys stand point.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Wow you guys get really defensive in here… let me just chime my two cents in here.
Yes a flat tax for all citizens would be fair... what ever that figure may be you should not pay more or less (percentage) just because of your economical status.
Why do the rich want to pay less? Because their percentage equates to larger dollar figures.In essence they pay more taxes when you look at the bottom line.
Why do the poor or less wealthy want to pay fewer taxes? Because that percentage is harder to live with when you make less. 30 % out of 60,000 is a lot more of a hit to your daily living then even 40% of 2 million annually. (those numbers are just to prove a point and i know they are not accurate)
Will giving a tax break to the rich put more money in the pocket of the poor guy by creating jobs and the like? I don’t know but what I do know is I keep seeing CEO’s quit or getting fired taking 100’s of millions with them as they leave and they aren’t creating new jobs with their new fortunes. Is that fair? I don’t think so. Are they spending it on high end luxuries? maybe? But i dont think you can say they are contributing to the less fortunate by buying such goods. Is there a trickle effect sure but dont act like you are feeding starving children by buying a 10 million dollar mansion.
On the other hand, in the most part they did work hard to get what they have and should not be penalized for doing well and having nice things. Thats why a say a flat percentage seems to me as the best solution.
I don’t think liberal or conservative has any relevance in the tax conversation. I think the only fare way is a flat tax. No reason to be penalized for making more or less.
But when you argue your point remember the other guy’s position as they both have valid points but we always seem to forget the other guys stand point.
Good post and I agree with the bulk of your comments. :)

[delemorte]

Good post and I agree with the bulk of your comments. :)
Thank you. i try to take the middle ground.
Im a democrat and a member of the NRA... go figure...

[centerhill condor]

Thank you. i try to take the middle ground.
Im a democrat and a member of the NRA... go figure...
go for the postal employee trifecta!
CC

[lostinboston]

The majority of Warren Buffets income is from capital gains, which is currently takes at 15%. Lowering the capital gains tax is why the economy boomed in the 90's. Rasing it is why it tanked under Carter. I would rather see Buffet reinvest his money and buy houses and other goods further helping the economy and employing more people, then hand it over to the govt. Is 15% fair? Consider that he is investing with money that has already been taxed.
p.s. He is all talk anyways, when Bush propsed increasing the tax on private air travel (airspace fees) to cover costs for air traffic since a radar blip is the same whether it is a commercial airliner or private jet, Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets) was against it.