13
   

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

 
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2011 11:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
And if he does realize it, why didn't he make a point to add in his opinion piece that he disagrees with the President's plan to raise taxes on combined incomes of over $250,000 a year?


Because that wasn't his point, Finn.

Someone, I forget who, just mentioned, "A man as smart as him doesn't realize this?"
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2011 11:56 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Quote:
Republicans call out Buffett for views on wealthy taxpayers

...

Republicans responded with a series of tweets questioning Buffett's sincerity.

"For tax raising advocates like Warren Buffett, I am sure Treasury would take a voluntary payment for deficit reduction," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote in a tweet.

"If Warren Buffet (sic) wants to pay more taxes and send more of his money to Washington, why doesn't he just do it?" tweeted Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who has led the push against tax increases to help reduce budget deficits.



And aren't these just the typical, well thought out conservative/Finnian responses. I hope to hear some more.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2011 04:24 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I found it on the previous Buffett/Charity thread - I don't think you'd attributed it at the time, so thanks for the clarification.

Thanks also for the WSJ stuff - I have to say, as a News Ltd editorial I am immediately sceptical about the motivations behind it. My cross to bear. Will read it in when I get a break.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2011 04:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:


What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.


The WSJ is pretty dishonest, in that they don't ever point out that 'less deductions' means that the corporate rate is effectively half the stated 35% rate, and in many cases reduces the tax burden to single digits or even zero. This changes their numbers significantly enough to invalidate their overall point.

Cycloptichorn


Could you please provide us some proof of the astounding allegation (bolded) you putforward here? Or did you just make it up?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2011 04:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:


What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.


The WSJ is pretty dishonest, in that they don't ever point out that 'less deductions' means that the corporate rate is effectively half the stated 35% rate, and in many cases reduces the tax burden to single digits or even zero. This changes their numbers significantly enough to invalidate their overall point.
True, but let's not stop there in pointing out the dishonesty. On this particular issue, the WSJ leads readers to think of only the poor corporations with their imaginary high tax brackets, but what about other investments? After all, the middle class has some access to stocks but what about those investments that you need a little more money to get into? Real estate gains are taxed at the capital gains rate while providing owners with depreciation credits to apply to what is generally an appreciating asset. Trading in futures, hedge funds, currencies, etc all avoid corporate taxes completely but you have to have some serious money to do that for real. Mr Buffet knows that and the WSJ doesn't seem to.
WSJ wrote:
The middle-class bait-and-switch. Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Mr. Obama ought to call them "thousandaires," but that probably doesn't poll as well.

Why would you call millionaires "thousandaires"? If you make >$200,000 in all but the most expensive sections of the country and you have been for a few years, your net is going to be over a million and you will already be reaping significant wealth growth from things other than direct income. Even someone making $100k/yr with prudent spending and savings could easily expect to retire as a millionaire. (For reference, if you start at $60K, get a 4% pay raise per year and invest 10% of your post tax income at 6%, you will have ~$1.4 million depending on tax rate after a forty year career.)
WSJ wrote:
The charity loophole.For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.

This is six of one, half dozen of another. He's proposing to raise taxes on the rich. How you do it doesn't matter. I wouldn't do it by getting rid of charitable deductions because that would only impact some of the super rich instead of hitting all of them uniformly, but this is a silly argument anyway. Those smart rich philanthropists are not giving away three dollars to get one back from the government. In fact, this is another place where the rich can easily get around the rule and get the tax break anyway while the less wealthy are out of luck. Corporate donations are always tax deductible, so the rich just work the system by having a corporation donate the money for them. I'm sure Buffet doesn't care if Berkshire Hathaway's name is on the donation form instead of his. I would favor giving a 15% credit for charitable contributions instead of a deduction so all income brackets benefit equally, but that is another thread.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 04:13 pm
Foxnews weighs in and like day follows night John Stewart weighs in on their weighing in:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives

Anyone accepts anything that Foxnews says at face value is naive at best.

It's a little sad that in the US it's a comedian who has to call 'bullshit'. Not to say we are paragons as our 'bullshit' caller only gets 15 minutes a week on the national broadcaster.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 02:28 pm
The 'Buffett' sickness spreads to France

France's rich keen to pay more tax as PM Fillon announces 'rigour package'
Sixteen wealthy French citizens have signed a petition
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/24/wealthiest-french-citizens-ask-to-pay-more-tax
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 03:07 pm
@hingehead,
If you don't really expect the government to raise taxes on you, how inconsequentional and perhaps cynical is it to call for them to do so?
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 03:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I don't think it's cynical - why draw attention to yourself? Are you talking the French context or the US context?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 04:41 pm
@hingehead,
The signatories of the petition are being hailed as patriots. Some people's definition of patriotism is grabbing as much as you can for yourself.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 06:17 pm
@izzythepush,
I think France is a different context to the US. The French are proud of liberté, égalité, fraternité which was born of the French revolution (against a moneyed and disconnected ruling class).

The US has a different sort of cultural legacy - their's was a fight for independence from a colonial power, no taxation without representation, personal liberty et al. The American dream is that anyone has the potential to 'make it'.

On reflection I don't think Buffett's essay or the French petition are 'cynical' ie offering because they know the offer won't be accepted.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2011 08:27 pm
@hingehead,
I'm not familiar enough with the French mega-rich to comment on their sincerity or lack thereof, but I do think Buffet knows he's not going to see the tax raises for which he's called.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 10:49:13