What is Warren Buffet's motivation? YouTube - Warren Buffett's Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLD0p1QpcI8&feature=fvw
I've said it before & I'll say it again - tax rates should be INCREMENTALLY higher as you climb up the income latter. This creates upward mobility which may be the single most important factor in any economy. It also reduces government welfare costs. Incrementally is the key word. Whether you make $1M/year or $20k/yr, you pay the same amount of taxes on the first $20k. I also absolutely believe in income taxes (and believe ALL income should be included - stocks, etc included), versus some "flat consumption tax". That said, I'm still not for high taxes on anyone. But taxes must be appropriate to government spending. I'd much rather spending decrease in some key areas.
I didn't respond earlier because I didn't have time, and when I did, I got caught up in the immigration thing. But I promised to respond to your point, so here it is. If you watched the videos MLUTiger was kind enough to post, I would think it's clear, if somehow it wasn't before, that Warren Buffet is aware of things like capital gains and dividends when he makes his claim. Why might he do that? First, that 35% rate is mostly bull****. What matters is not the "book" rate, but the effective rate that corporations actually pay on profits. Below is a graph of effective corporate tax rates (i.e. corporate income tax receipts/corporate income): Note: At the end of 2006 the rate was 22.2% with a 5yr avg of 25%. In my quick search, I couldn't find later data, so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't even lower today. If you were to dig deeper, you would find out that about 30% of the firms, who account for more than 30% of the profits, pay 10% or less, including a significant number that pay 0%. These are firms with positive profits, not losses. So tax rates are not 35%, but you would say so what? It's still double taxation. But is it really double taxation, or is it the price shareholders pay for a major, major benefit? I can understand from the perspective of a small business owner, especially one that works in the business, that he perceives the business and himself as one. It certainly feels that way since he pays all the bills. But the corporation and the owner, or shareholder, are not the same. The corporation is a separate legal entity. If it wasn't, then the owner/shareholder would be subject to unlimited liability. If the corporation fails or commits fraud in their name, creditors can't come after personal assets of the owner/shareholders. If the small business owner doesn't want to pay corporate taxes, all he has to do is not incorporate the business. In other words, it's his choice. If it wasn't worth it, he wouldn't do it. See, it's just another free market "Free To Choose" principle at work. BTW, if there are legal obstacles to not incorporating and you want to do it, then you should be lobbying to remove those so you can experience the glory of unlimited liability in exchange for lower taxes. If you're a shareholder in a major corporation and you want the lower taxes, start lobbing for a different class of stock with unlimited liability (good luck with that). While I don't blame you for wanting to freeload and get something for nothing, you don't, or shouldn't, get the lavish benefit of limited liability for nothing. Since a corporation is a separate entity and since many wish to bestow it with constitutional rights, and since you believe every person/entity should pay taxes, I would think you would be outraged by these freeloading bastards who don't contribute to our government. They consume government services in much greater amounts than any individual. But of course, I bet you are not outraged. Recently there was, and still is, a debate on whether or not conservatives have achieved "epistemic closure." There's been a ton written on it, and I think this commentary by Bruce Bartlett, a former Bush 41 official and I believe a self described libertarian conservative, does a pretty good job of explaining it I hold this view and for the most part, I think engaging the current mainstream conservative mindset on any issue is a waste of time. Obviously there are exceptions, but they are generally rare. I believe I have reached the limits of what I can say here. Feel free to respond with liberal "epistemic closure" as justification.
You are correct in that a certain sector of core conservatives and a corresponding sector of core liberals have always been guilty of uniting themselves by accepting only one version of a story. Any idea that comes from outside of the core must be derided as the work of the "enemy". It's a prime example of the black-and-white thinking that exists at both conservative and liberal extremes. It perceives no shades of gray, contemplates no compromises, and recognizes no moderate positions. It's a disaster for national unity because it pits ideological left and right against each other as enemies instead of finding common ground and facing our real enemies outside. The only good thing about epistemic communities is that they usually shrink and become less and less relevant to the practical needs of the vast number of us who hold more moderate views and even views on both sides of the fence. The republican right-wing core is rapidly withdrawing into a smaller nandad smaller circle of people within which no challenges are heard, indeed no dissent is tolerated. They are intentionally shedding moderate republicans for being insufficiently conservative. Some republicans have been heard to say "We thought Fox was going to be working for us, now we are working for FOX". I wonder how long the party can guard against a secession of either its moderates or its radicals. Either way they seem to be consciously marginalizing themselves. The radical liberals have had to bite their lips in the Democratic party because of the dominance of center-leaning progressives. No leader among them has replaced Kennedy. They were marginalized under Clinton and apparently remain so under Obama. They don't like it a bit but have not circled the wagons quite like the radical right. They do not actively plot against the more moderate liberals and seem to recognize that the political center is where more votes lie, so they are cooperating grudgingly with the progressives.
So I am suppose to believe some graph on some internet website that I know nothing about. Probably owned or run by someone with a bias. I don't trust American sites or news sources unless I am familiar with them! If you don't like corporations maybe you should lobby to make them illegal? It is really very simple, are taxes paid twice or aren't they? IF that money is taxed twice and you feel the rates STILL aren't enough then that is another story! If you feel they aren't taxed twice you should do something about it. Exactly and the same works in the case of Warren Buffet. No one held a gun to his head and made him incorporate. He didn't have to receive such lavish benefits. If he wanted to pay more taxes he could have had a different type of business but since he didn't he could always "Give" money away to the government, buy bonds, find a way to pay more taxes. INSTEAD he chose to run his mouth about how he doesn't pay as much taxes as his secretary AFTER MAKING MILLIONS! How convenient, I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THIS! HYPOCRITE So you see, I am outraged that one would take advantage of the system, make millions and then complain about it! Everyone should be against these kind of people taking advantage of the system, then after making their millions they want to close the bank so NO ONE ELSE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME! Exclusive club here! Well if this whole freeloading thing is like you would claim. It seems to me that the liberal democrats would NEVER let this stand, after all they are suppose to be for the common man? Well according to a poll I took I am a libertarian conservative although I truly am not sure what title other than AMERICAN I would call myself. I think you could say the same kind of thing about Liberals and others who are mislead by news media who masquerade as objective journalism. But since you are a liberal you are going to call out the other side. Yes, I tried to play it nice but I do consider "some" liberals a waste of time. I think anyone who is in that 41% Obama approval rating is collateral damage or whatever his approval rating is. It is right around the same percentage that owes Zero taxes. Time and time again you have hinted how I would respond. I find it humorous, If there is any problem like you claim I have no problems with adjustments to the economic systems as long as everyone contributes. I have a feeling you are only telling one side of the story and there are always 2 sides to every story. I also think if it was ONLY how you described the Dems would not have let that go for this long. Blame your own damn party otherwise!
Are taxes paid twice? Depends on how you look at it. Investors must pay tax on the sale of their stocks or dividends, which are derived from income which was already taxed. So what? There is a transfer of wealth, which is a new transaction and results in a tax just like everything else. Every tax in America is repetitive. I get a paycheck, which is taxed, and then pay the mortgage/house taxes and buy things, where I incur sales tax. Then the people I paid (with taxed dollars), spend the money, which taxed... blah, blah, blah. Whether taxes are paid twice really makes no difference. Buffet didn't create the rules - he merely played the game. He didn't "take advantage" of the system, the rules were written by (mostly Republican) politicians soley for people like him. And he has also committed to donating 90% of his wealth to charity so you could pick much better people to hate. Republicans are worse, but the Dems aren't innocent. They take bribes (aka "donations") just as often.
I was talking about paying taxes on the same money, check, income twice but you may be correct. I guess it would matter more at what percentage that person had been taxed. Again blame the democrats for this and I don't think that I can make things any clearer than I already HAVE! You may not have a problem with someone making millions, playing by the rules and then wanting the rules changed during the game but I do. Why don't we let any team other than ours do this in football? Again, No one held a gun to Warren Buffet's head and told him he had to incorporate. He has no reason to complain about taxes, it was HIS choice! Depends on what charity, he probably did that for tax breaks!:lol: I don't include the Dems and Obama charity either! He hasn't left any for his kids! real nice guy, Yep! I think it is debatable about who is worse but I don't really care. Its funny how those on the left that I have argued with will attack corporations, private sector and Republicans and act like government and the left are somewhat innocent. People have warped minds because many things are reported out of perspective.
I have a tax increase proposal that · Will raise substantial amounts of money. · Is extremely simple to implement · Will apply to corporations and individuals · Will not inflict a burden on anyone who does not want to pay it · Will be non partisan – it will hit Democrats and Republicans equally · Has absolutely no chance of ever being discussed and certainly not passed. Lawmakers will never share the burden - either party. Remove the tax deduction for political contributions including lobbying Think about the amount of money that is given to local, state, and federal officials. Its gargantuan – you never get to use that word enough. For the record with respect to my my political affiliation - cause I'm new to Tiger Forums . I'm certainly not a Donkey; and I'm absolutely not an Elephant. I find them equally worthless.
