http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1
QuoteStop Coddling the Super-Rich
Our leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
I hope somebody listens to him, have a lot more respect for the man after this. Hope it doesn't disappear.
BUT ZOMG IF YOU RAISE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES YOU'LL HURT THE ECONOMY!!!11
It's funny, because I've used about 3-4 of the arguments he makes in this opinion almost verbatim in recent weeks. He should hire me.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.teenormous.com%2Fitems%2Fih0.redbubble.net%2F130%2Fwork.7284575.4.fc-550x550-white.v3.jpg&hash=70dc95381973c71a3292877cfbed61fd46724fd8)
How can anyone not respect Warren Buffet?
Raise some taxes already, really. Christ.
I am just curious - can someone donate money to the US treasury? :unsure:
Quote from: Monoriu on August 15, 2011, 12:46:26 AM
I am just curious - can someone donate money to the US treasury? :unsure:
I believe so.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 12:23:39 AM
How can anyone not respect Warren Buffet?
Indeed. He may be a drunkard but at least he owns up to it, and doesn't try to pass the blame on to some dame. :)
If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.
Quote from: Slargos on August 15, 2011, 01:07:35 AM
If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.
I think pretty much any entity can create more wealth with the money of Wall Street casinos than those casinos can. If you don't destroy any, you're already ahead.
Buffett owns six insurance companies that sell life insurance to billionaires in order to reduce their tax exposure. He has a vested interest in higher taxes on his potential customers. Just sayin.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:51:45 AM
Buffett owns six insurance companies that sell life insurance to billionaires in order to reduce their tax exposure. He has a vested interest in higher taxes on his potential customers. Just sayin.
As a citizen of the United States so do I.
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
:hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 12:23:39 AM
How can anyone not respect Warren Buffet?
Raise some taxes already, really. Christ.
Sadly, neither Jesus nor Warren have control over US taxes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:51:45 AM
Buffett owns six insurance companies that sell life insurance to billionaires in order to reduce their tax exposure. He has a vested interest in higher taxes on his potential customers. Just sayin.
Hmmm.............he has a vested interest in the USA as well, which might be more important for him.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
When did you live in Sweden?
I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.
Quote from: Slargos on August 15, 2011, 01:07:35 AM
If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.
This argument keeps being brought up but it is ultimately idiotic. Governments are not businesses or corporations - they are not in the business of "creating wealth". Wars, promotion of high art and culture, universal access to facilities - all these things and more that governments are in the business of doing are ultimately less profitable than selling fizzy drinks to people.
If governments of old didn't have an access to tons of spare cash they could spend on non-profitable things, there would be no Pyramids, no Sistine Chapel and no Mozart music.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:47:27 AM
I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.
Uhm, have you tried going on unemployment or use the socialized medicine for anything more than routine checks? Unless the state of affairs in Hungary is incredibly better than in Poland, I suspect all this "welfare state" is a malfunctioning fig leaf which fails to provide the services it is supposed to do. Only because you pay "high" taxes on your meagre income does not mean you live in a welfare state.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
Did you actually read the piece? His argument is that his tax rate is much lower than that of normal income earners.
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 03:36:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 15, 2011, 01:07:35 AM
If you believe the gubermint will create more wealth with his money than he can, then sure, raise the tax.
This argument keeps being brought up but it is ultimately idiotic. Governments are not businesses or corporations - they are not in the business of "creating wealth". Wars, promotion of high art and culture, universal access to facilities - all these things and more that governments are in the business of doing are ultimately less profitable than selling fizzy drinks to people.
If governments of old didn't have an access to tons of spare cash they could spend on non-profitable things, there would be no Pyramids, no Sistine Chapel and no Mozart music.
Of course governments are not in the business of making money. But there are certainly limits as to what they can do. A lot of things are better left for the private sector to pursue. So society needs to divide its resources between the public and private sectors. How do you make this decision then? Will I create more value by putting this additional dollar into the public or the private sector? I think this is a fair question to ask. Here, "value" doesn't mean the bottom line, but rather utility for the community.
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 03:43:16 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:47:27 AM
I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.
Uhm, have you tried going on unemployment or use the socialized medicine for anything more than routine checks? Unless the state of affairs in Hungary is incredibly better than in Poland, I suspect all this "welfare state" is a malfunctioning fig leaf which fails to provide the services it is supposed to do. Only because you pay "high" taxes on your meagre income does not mean you live in a welfare state.
by semi-working welfare state I meant Sweden. :P
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AMIf he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally.
But they don't, you fucking Adidas track suit-wearing monkey.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2011, 04:12:19 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AMIf he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally.
But they don't, you fucking Adidas track suit-wearing monkey.
well then they should. Jesus, what is wrong with you people. :sleep:
Besides, Tamas, I don't think that your argument s particularly valid in Europe, because you not only pay income tax, but there's all kinds of taxes on consumption, chiefly sales or value added tax, fuel tax maybe, alcohol tax, tobacco tax etc.
People with lower income spend a larger part of their income on consumption - if we had a flat income tax, these people would also pay a larger part of their income in taxes; unless you make income tax the only tax there is.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:47:27 AM
I have been living in Hungary. That's almost the same except for a semi-working welfare state.
I think that's really why your ideology doesn't apply to the rest of us. We don't live in dysfunctional, corrupt states with an overly strong single party that ignores the rule of law.
Quote from: Syt on August 15, 2011, 05:03:51 AM
Besides, Tamas, I don't think that your argument s particularly valid in Europe, because you not only pay income tax, but there's all kinds of taxes on consumption, chiefly sales or value added tax, fuel tax maybe, alcohol tax, tobacco tax etc.
People with lower income spend a larger part of their income on consumption - if we had a flat income tax, these people would also pay a larger part of their income in taxes; unless you make income tax the only tax there is.
My opposition to a non-flat income tax is purely ideological. It sends the wrong message, and -in case of the much more prevailent "the more you earn, the more % you have to pay" version- it highly encourages tax evasion, punishes success, and in general helps keeping up the socialist mindset.
Sure, VAT changes the picture, but then again, in Europe we have income tax plus VAT -supposedly- to maintain welfare states, of which -supposedly- the poor is to receive benefits of, so the whole thing -supposedly- should even out.
If that is not working, well, the welfare state is dying anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 05:58:13 AMMy opposition to a non-flat income tax is purely ideological. It sends the wrong message, and -in case of the much more prevailent "the more you earn, the more % you have to pay" version- it highly encourages tax evasion, punishes success, and in general helps keeping up the socialist mindset.
With that argumentation, you shouldn't argue for a flat rate, but rather a flat absolute amount. A flat rate is just as unfair as a progressive rate and has no real advantages in the field of tax evasion, punishing success or keeping the socialist mindset.
QuoteSure, VAT changes the picture, but then again, in Europe we have income tax plus VAT -supposedly- to maintain welfare states, of which -supposedly- the poor is to receive benefits of, so the whole thing -supposedly- should even out.
The problem is that the middle class, the ones that actually matter for a healthy society, are the ones being shafted. Both by the poor that they need to subsidize and by the rich that freeride.
QuoteIf that is not working, well, the welfare state is dying anyway.
Which would be a loss as poverty is the greatest scourge of man.
Yes, do not coddle the super rich Warren Buffet. Make sure he never gets his will and keep taxes on the super rich low!!!!!!1111111o1neoneoeneon
As a somewhat side note, I've never seen a convincing argument that The Rich are really chased off by tax increases. Of course, when taxation is truly punishing, then perhaps it may be self evident. But to slice off 40% of the portion of income over $1,000,000; by that point, the kids' school fees are paid, the property is bought off completely, as is the holiday home. One is living a rather pleasant life regardless, and so surely what matters then in the environment in which one lives: the quality of one's neighbours, the intangibles of a particular location, the shopping, the night life, the schools, the proximity to business hubs.
If Almaty sets marginal tax rates to 0%, would anyone really want to live there? After all, arts and culture and other millionaires still live in New York and London and Paris, even if you do have to fork over more of your cash. (Assuming of course you can't evade it all)
The British government regularly trots out the line that we will chase away all our entrepreneurs and talent if we keep high tax rates, so this question is an important one right now. Of course, the government has a rather odd idea of what makes an entrepreneur, it being "someone with a lot of money". This probably explains why most Brits with the idea succeed in the USA, rather than the UK.
Well, that's an argumentum ad absurdum - no one wants to live in Almaty but if a choice between London and Paris yielded a 5% tax difference I suppose it could play a role.
From my experience with rich clients, however, what matters more than the tax rate on the face value is the possibility of tax planning (or as some would say the existence of tax loopholes). Rich people who live in London do not pay the same tax rates as you, Arky, because they can afford sophisticated tax advice.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
His point is that poor people pay 40%.
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 08:03:35 AM
Well, that's an argumentum ad absurdum - no one wants to live in Almaty but if a choice between London and Paris yielded a 5% tax difference I suppose it could play a role.
Sure, but no one ever factors in the analysis whether the city's language or quality of life or one of the other millions reasons the rest of us will consider.
I'm not denying that tax regimes can have a role, but rather no one has really ever really put forth a persuasive argument
QuoteFrom my experience with rich clients, however, what matters more than the tax rate on the face value is the possibility of tax planning (or as some would say the existence of tax loopholes). Rich people who live in London do not pay the same tax rates as you, Arky, because they can afford sophisticated tax advice.
Sure, but my experience with rich peers is that they choose to stay in London because it's where Boujis and Whisky Mist are, and Wimbledon and the Arsenal, and you're bloody close to Paris, Berlin and Barecelona. and because Singapore's a sterile hole in the ground (albeit a pretty one). Plus they can send their kids off to Winchester or Eton and still be conveniently nearby to become reaquainted with them twice a year.
Of course, the point you raise is sound. Now that would be an interesting political sell: we cannot close tax loopholes because it will chase all the rich away.
Quote from: Zanza on August 15, 2011, 07:47:55 AM
With that argumentation, you shouldn't argue for a flat rate, but rather a flat absolute amount. A flat rate is just as unfair as a progressive rate and has no real advantages in the field of tax evasion, punishing success or keeping the socialist mindset.
a flat absolute amount punishes poverty. It is only a flat rate which is fair.
QuoteThe problem is that the middle class, the ones that actually matter for a healthy society, are the ones being shafted. Both by the poor that they need to subsidize and by the rich that freeride.
Not only you will not see me disagree there, but I tend to think that wraps up the welfare state quite conviniently. Because, in a way, it is about the rich taxing the middle class to keep the poor content. Why? The REALLY rich can go by. They can hire Marty to find tax loopholes, get government grants from pals in offices etc. The poor gets stabilized on a level where they are dependant on the rich keeping them subsidized, and those of them who wish to climb out regardless, encounter the same barriers the middle class do: sure, you can make it, but you have to endure the state which is making you subsidize the poor, and protects the "aristocrats" from competition.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 08:07:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
His point is that poor people pay 40%.
Cry me a river, I see less than 50% of what I cost my employer.
:rolleyes: The point was that the rich paid 15%, while the middle class paid 40%. That's not flat, that's regressive. Buffet wasn't doing it to compare against Hungary.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 08:07:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
His point is that poor people pay 40%.
They don't, though.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/
It's a much more complicated question than you or Buffett want it to seem. The fact of the matter is that you can make voluntary additional donations to the US government, if you're a taxpayer. Yet I've never heard of the super-rich like Buffett volunteering their money. Nothing stops the super-rich from doing this. Except, of course, their own self-interest.
Buffett's employees who pay top marginal tax rates on their income are by no means poor. By the numbers Buffett quotes, the total amount paid at the lower rate in 2008 by the super-rich exceeded their amount earned in 1992. In 1992, the super-rich paid 4.9 billion in taxes on their income. In 2008, they paid over 18 billion in taxes on their income. That's a four-fold increase in capital gains tax receipts on the top 400 incomes in the country, on a five-fold increase in income. If the tax rate had remained higher, that would have been an additional 8 billion dollars in 2008 in taxes. That would have paid for a few hours of the federal government's operation over the year. Huzzah, what a solution.
There's nothing in there about means testing social security or Medicare, which Buffett and the 400 richest American's don't fucking need. Nor is there anything about shifting the payroll tax burden higher, by exempting the first $25k paid in wages from payroll tax. That would help employers hire more entry-level workers, and help wage earners retain more of their earnings. The fact of the matter is that a 100% tax on the income of the rich would not solve the problem. Taxes have to go up for everyone; the tax burden needs to be shifted upwards; but we can't assume that taxing the rich more heavily is by itself going to do a whole lot of good.
Of course, taxing them more will take the spotlight off of them. Maybe that's what Buffett really wants.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 08:39:06 AM
:rolleyes: The point was that the rich paid 15%, while the middle class paid 40%. That's not flat, that's regressive. Buffet wasn't doing it to compare against Hungary.
That's the price you pay for allowing income tax deductions. The wealthy will always be able to take better advantage, due to their ability to afford tax lawyers and their ability to move their money in such a way as to present a more limited profile for taxation. Do you think Buffett didn't take full advantage of any deduction that he could?
Buffet has already made his money and is giving the rest away. His kids are not getting inheritances, they are getting seed capital for a medium sized business.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 08:39:06 AM
:rolleyes: The point was that the rich paid 15%, while the middle class paid 40%. That's not flat, that's regressive. Buffet wasn't doing it to compare against Hungary.
That's the price you pay for allowing income tax deductions. The wealthy will always be able to take better advantage, due to their ability to afford tax lawyers and their ability to move their money in such a way as to present a more limited profile for taxation. Do you think Buffett didn't take full advantage of any deduction that he could?
That's not a result of deductions. That's a result of some obscene interpretation of the tax law that allows people who make money from money get taxes at capital gains rate of 15%, rather than get taxed like people who actually do work, at up to twice that rate. It's also a result of highly regressive nature of payroll tax, which cuts out completely after about $100K of income (forget the exact figure for 2011).
Quote from: Scipio on August 15, 2011, 08:42:52 AM
It's a much more complicated question than you or Buffett want it to seem. The fact of the matter is that you can make voluntary additional donations to the US government, if you're a taxpayer. Yet I've never heard of the super-rich like Buffett volunteering their money. Nothing stops the super-rich from doing this. Except, of course, their own self-interest.
I don't get your point here. Isn't this a bit like saying "Bachmann can't criticize government spending, because her family's benefited from it?"
That whole "you can't advocate higher taxation if you haven't voluntarily paid more in taxes" line is dumb beyond belief.
You know what else is dumb?
The whole "We cannot solve the problem of debt by just taxing the rich, so lets not raise any taxes at all..."
It is almost as dumb as the "We can solve our debt problem if only we taxed people with private jets more!"
Quotethe first $25k paid in wages from payroll tax.
Oh goodie! We had that for almost a decade! Minimum wage was income tax free. Boy, did we become the land of the minimum wage or what! ALMOST EVERYONE, save for the employees of the companies too big to cook the books, have been working on nominal minimal wages and payed the rest of the worker's salary to their pocket.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quotethe first $25k paid in wages from payroll tax.
Oh goodie! We had that for almost a decade! Minimum wage was income tax free. Boy, did we become the land of the minimum wage or what! ALMOST EVERYONE, save for the employees of the companies too big to cook the books, have been working on nominal minimal wages and payed the rest of the worker's salary to their pocket.
You know, the rest of the world is not like Hungary. We do have rule of law here, and rampant cheating of that kind just doesn't exist here. That rule of law in fact is probably the biggest contributor to the relative wealth of US. You're evaluating suggested changes to US policy through Hungarian point of view, and that's just illogical.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
You know, the rest of the world is not like Hungary. We do have rule of law here, and rampant cheating of that kind just doesn't exist here.
unless you're in wall street :P
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 09:50:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
You know, the rest of the world is not like Hungary. We do have rule of law here, and rampant cheating of that kind just doesn't exist here.
unless you're in wall street :P
I think that went without saying. Wall Street is not the whole US economy, though, it's just a small part of the economy that saps wealth from the rest of it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quotethe first $25k paid in wages from payroll tax.
Oh goodie! We had that for almost a decade! Minimum wage was income tax free. Boy, did we become the land of the minimum wage or what! ALMOST EVERYONE, save for the employees of the companies too big to cook the books, have been working on nominal minimal wages and payed the rest of the worker's salary to their pocket.
You know, the rest of the world is not like Hungary. We do have rule of law here, and rampant cheating of that kind just doesn't exist here. That rule of law in fact is probably the biggest contributor to the relative wealth of US. You're evaluating suggested changes to US policy through Hungarian point of view, and that's just illogical.
oh don't give me that crap. You are not rampantly cheating taxes because the risk-reward ratio is way off, not because you are a supreme race of people. After all, Wall Street isn't exactly in Zimbabwe, neither was it the government of Chad which presented false WMD evidences to the UN. So just cut it.
The higher taxes with the more complex tax laws, the more tax evasion you have. I am fine and well with citing Hungary as an example, because it is an extreme end of spectrum, and you can be sure that if you advocate of moving your country toward that end, I'll tell you how it may end.
You don't mess with the IRS. They took down the mob, and as a more damning example they even go after hollywood. Hollywood dammit, actors get away with everything, drugs, assault, you name it, but not tax evasion :lol:
*edit* mob, not mod :D
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
oh don't give me that crap. You are not rampantly cheating taxes because the risk-reward ratio is way off, not because you are a supreme race of people. After all, Wall Street isn't exactly in Zimbabwe, neither was it the government of Chad which presented false WMD evidences to the UN. So just cut it.
The higher taxes with the more complex tax laws, the more tax evasion you have. I am fine and well with citing Hungary as an example, because it is an extreme end of spectrum, and you can be sure that if you advocate of moving your country toward that end, I'll tell you how it may end.
There are a couple of reasons why there is not rampant cheating. The major reason is that because most people generally don't cheat (too much anyway). That's not tautological, that's just a cultural trait. No police in the world can get people to comply with laws, if most people didn't have it in their mind to obey the laws in the first place.
You are right about risk-reward ratio being different as well, but you seem to go straight to assuming that it's lack of reward that's an issue, when in fact the risk is what's driving it. IRS is pretty good at cross-checking sums, and it's fearsome once they catch on to someone. That is also a piece of governance that takes many decades to develop.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
oh don't give me that crap. You are not rampantly cheating taxes because the risk-reward ratio is way off, not because you are a supreme race of people. After all, Wall Street isn't exactly in Zimbabwe, neither was it the government of Chad which presented false WMD evidences to the UN. So just cut it.
The higher taxes with the more complex tax laws, the more tax evasion you have. I am fine and well with citing Hungary as an example, because it is an extreme end of spectrum, and you can be sure that if you advocate of moving your country toward that end, I'll tell you how it may end.
There are a couple of reasons why there is not rampant cheating. The major reason is that because most people generally don't cheat (too much anyway). That's not tautological, that's just a cultural trait. No police in the world can get people to comply with laws, if most people didn't have it in their mind to obey the laws in the first place.
You are right about risk-reward ratio being different as well, but you seem to go straight to assuming that it's lack of reward that's an issue, when in fact the risk is what's driving it. IRS is pretty good at cross-checking sums, and it's fearsome once they catch on to someone. That is also a piece of governance that takes many decades to develop.
No. I didn't single out the lack of reward, altough there is certainly that. Still, you must realize it comes through quite arrogant to state that you have less tax crimes (altough I'd like to see statistics on that) because you are Americans, and you don't have it in your culture to steal from the state.
Or, rather, go ahead and make that argument, but then make sure to side with me on the "are gypos thieves by culture?" topics, or with Slargos on basically everything.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:19:03 AM
No. I didn't single out the lack of reward, altough there is certainly that. Still, you must realize it comes through quite arrogant to state that you have less tax crimes (altough I'd like to see statistics on that) because you are Americans, and you don't have it in your culture to steal from the state.
Or, rather, go ahead and make that argument, but then make sure to side with me on the "are gypos thieves by culture?" topics, or with Slargos on basically everything.
Arrogant or not, that's the case. I wasn't singling out gypsies either, most of the world outside of the West has that problem.
The biggest asset Western economies have is rule of law, and high quality of governance coming from that. Unfortunatley, it's often a vicious circle: you can't have a compliant citizenry without good governance, and you can't have good governance without compliant citizenry.
I'm not sure compliant is the best word here. Maybe cooperative? It's important that the citizenry follows the rules, but it's also important that it keep a wary eye on the government to follow its own rules.
Compliant with the laws, that's the sense I intended.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:19:03 AM
No. I didn't single out the lack of reward, altough there is certainly that. Still, you must realize it comes through quite arrogant to state that you have less tax crimes (altough I'd like to see statistics on that) because you are Americans, and you don't have it in your culture to steal from the state.
Or, rather, go ahead and make that argument, but then make sure to side with me on the "are gypos thieves by culture?" topics, or with Slargos on basically everything.
Arrogant or not, that's the case. I wasn't singling out gypsies either, most of the world outside of the West has that problem.
The biggest asset Western economies have is rule of law, and high quality of governance coming from that. Unfortunatley, it's often a vicious circle: you can't have a compliant citizenry without good governance, and you can't have good governance without compliant citizenry.
Good point, except of course for the boring and old magyars=gypos shtick reference :P
Yet, humans are humans. High taxes and bigger government redistribution gives birth to inefficiency, corruption, and dependancy on welfare. On the western-cultured long-term effect of the latter, I route you toward the recent British riots.
And like it or not, singling out income stratas, jduging how much more that whole is supposed to contribute than the rest is a small step toward that. I am not saying you should keep letting your rich get more lenient tax laws than your average Joe's, but it brakes my heart to read (not just from you lot) ideas which would start the US down a European-style governance road, a governance which has quite clearly failed.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 10:26:31 AMArrogant or not, that's the case. I wasn't singling out gypsies either, most of the world outside of the West has that problem.
The biggest asset Western economies have is rule of law, and high quality of governance coming from that. Unfortunatley, it's often a vicious circle: you can't have a compliant citizenry without good governance, and you can't have good governance without compliant citizenry.
I concur. You only notice that when you go to countries that don't have good governance. Before that you make jokes about how bureaucratic everything is at home, but when you notice corruption and outright non-governance in other countries, you start to understand that it all has a sense at home.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:42:45 AMAnd like it or not, singling out income stratas, jduging how much more that whole is supposed to contribute than the rest is a small step toward that. I am not saying you should keep letting your rich get more lenient tax laws than your average Joe's, but it brakes my heart to read (not just from you lot) ideas which would start the US down a European-style governance road, a governance which has quite clearly failed.
In which aspect does the US differ from Europe really? They have progressive taxes, an extensive welfare state etc.
And quite clearly failed? Please. Life is still really good here compared to virtually all of the rest of the world.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 15, 2011, 01:51:45 AM
Buffett owns six insurance companies that sell life insurance to billionaires in order to reduce their tax exposure. He has a vested interest in higher taxes on his potential customers. Just sayin.
true.
But for a multi-billionaire, would he really increase his insurance coverage if his taxes were higher by 3-4%?
They are likely to be already covered by as much as they can.
In any case, let's assume there is a direct link (it's more complicated than that, but let's go for the math thing).
My taxes raise by 3%, I increase my insurance coverage by 3%.
My insurance company will increase its profits as it sells more insurance.
It will be taxed more, and it will distribute more wealth to its shareholders, wich in turn will be taxed on it (some of them are foreigners though, so they won't pay taxes in the US).
So, as the government you just multiplied you tax income, because that 3% (if multi-billionaire are all increasing their insurance by 3%), is going to affect a lot of people who are becoming wealthier and hence pay more taxes.
As a result, the insurance coverage decision should not be factored in this case, as it has no adverse effect on anyone.
And all multi-billionaires are likely to own a stake in some insurance company somewhere, so they would all benefit from this.
And stock traders would too, as the insurance cies make more money, their share price will likely increase.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
No, poor people pay more, because of the wages tax. Those with gazillion dollars of income likely get their money from dividends and capital gains wich is taxed less overall than wage.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 08:07:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
His point is that poor people pay 40%.
You are wrong. His point is that the middle class pays 40%, not the poor. Which is worse.
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 15, 2011, 08:07:20 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 02:17:05 AM
You are a bunch of envious socialists.
If he has a gazillion dollars of income, it means he pays 15% of gazillion as tax. While poor people pay 15% of their meager income. Everyone participates equally. I know the "rich has more to spare", but that's the road on which you can eventually arrive to the "omg he is not poor! the bastard! where did he get it?!!!!!" society, which is NOT fun to live in, trust me.
His point is that poor people pay 40%.
You are wrong. His point is that the middle class pays 40%, not the poor. Which is worse.
Middle pays 40, poor pay 25, and rich pay 15. it's a weird scale :D
What's teh history of capital gains tax? I know canada changes the rate once in a while. what's the theory of paying a lower rate on it? to try to lesson "double taxing" (ie you paid income tax on the original amount received, and then invested that money), or jsut rich peopel making the rules?
I know with my 35% rate, I take a swim in my money bin very day.
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 12:23:39 AM
Raise some taxes already, really. Christ.
If you read the article, you realize that the real culprit isn't that the tax rates need to be raised, but that there are too many tax breaks available to the super-rich. Actually, there are probably too many tax breaks available to those who aren't super-rich, too "cough" morgage deduction "cough". You don't have to go to a flat tax to solve a lot of these problems--you can keep progressive tax rates but simply do away with most deductions and exemptions--ideally, I'd like to see them do away with all deductions and exemptions except each taxpayer's personal exemption. And while I think that captial gains should be handled seperately from ordinary income, I think that the rules should be tightened up so that only actual investments in real businesses count as capital gains. I don't know how much tax revenue could be raised by the kinds of reforms I'm talking about, but if the very wealthy are only paying around 15% of their income in income taxes, and the top tax rate is 35% (not sure if that's right, but it's in that neighborhood, IIRC), then eliminating all those tax breaks would logically result in an increase in revenue at least equal to raising the top rate from 35% to 55%. And without the kinds of reforms I'm suggesting, it's not clear that raising the top rate to 99% would bring in much additional revenue, if the wealthy can simply shift more of their income into exempt sources and vairous tax breaks.
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 11:55:57 AM
What's teh history of capital gains tax? I know canada changes the rate once in a while. what's the theory of paying a lower rate on it? to try to lesson "double taxing" (ie you paid income tax on the original amount received, and then invested that money), or jsut rich peopel making the rules?
Don't know about the history of it, but the theory is that taxing captial gains at a lower rate encourages investment. I'm not sure that I buy it, but I'm willing to accept the theory, if the tax law were written so that it encourages actual investments--f.e., building a new factory or expanding an existing one, rather than just buying and selling paper.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 15, 2011, 12:23:39 AM
Raise some taxes already, really. Christ.
If you read the article, you realize that the real culprit isn't that the tax rates need to be raised, but that there are too many tax breaks available to the super-rich. Actually, there are probably too many tax breaks available to those who aren't super-rich, too "cough" morgage deduction "cough". You don't have to go to a flat tax to solve a lot of these problems--you can keep progressive tax rates but simply do away with most deductions and exemptions--ideally, I'd like to see them do away with all deductions and exemptions except each taxpayer's personal exemption. And while I think that captial gains should be handled seperately from ordinary income, I think that the rules should be tightened up so that only actual investments in real businesses count as capital gains. I don't know how much tax revenue could be raised by the kinds of reforms I'm talking about, but if the very wealthy are only paying around 15% of their income in income taxes, and the top tax rate is 35% (not sure if that's right, but it's in that neighborhood, IIRC), then eliminating all those tax breaks would logically result in an increase in revenue at least equal to raising the top rate from 35% to 55%. And without the kinds of reforms I'm suggesting, it's not clear that raising the top rate to 99% would bring in much additional revenue, if the wealthy can simply shift more of their income into exempt sources and vairous tax breaks.
Honestly, I don't care if they go about raising rates, or simply eliminating deductions, or whatever.
But tax revenues need to increase across the board. I certainly favor reform rather than rate increases, as I think we are long overdue for a overhaul of the taxation system in general, but there is no doubt that right now the system grossly favors the wealthy. And not just the tax system, but the economic system in general is out of whack and needs to be addressed, as far as getting the economic gains more equitably distributed across income stratas.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 11:55:57 AM
What's teh history of capital gains tax? I know canada changes the rate once in a while. what's the theory of paying a lower rate on it? to try to lesson "double taxing" (ie you paid income tax on the original amount received, and then invested that money), or jsut rich peopel making the rules?
Don't know about the history of it, but the theory is that taxing captial gains at a lower rate encourages investment. I'm not sure that I buy it, but I'm willing to accept the theory, if the tax law were written so that it encourages actual investments--f.e., building a new factory or expanding an existing one, rather than just buying and selling paper.
i can see that for small investors. eases the risk (save it an keep it, or risk it and lose it) but if that's the case there should really be a cap.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 09:40:17 AM
That whole "you can't advocate higher taxation if you haven't voluntarily paid more in taxes" line is dumb beyond belief.
I'm not saying he can't. I'm asking why he hasn't.
Quote from: Scipio on August 15, 2011, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 09:40:17 AM
That whole "you can't advocate higher taxation if you haven't voluntarily paid more in taxes" line is dumb beyond belief.
I'm not saying he can't. I'm asking why he hasn't.
The underlying fallacy is the same.
I wish people would coddle me.
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:19:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 15, 2011, 10:01:57 AM
oh don't give me that crap. You are not rampantly cheating taxes because the risk-reward ratio is way off, not because you are a supreme race of people. After all, Wall Street isn't exactly in Zimbabwe, neither was it the government of Chad which presented false WMD evidences to the UN. So just cut it.
The higher taxes with the more complex tax laws, the more tax evasion you have. I am fine and well with citing Hungary as an example, because it is an extreme end of spectrum, and you can be sure that if you advocate of moving your country toward that end, I'll tell you how it may end.
There are a couple of reasons why there is not rampant cheating. The major reason is that because most people generally don't cheat (too much anyway). That's not tautological, that's just a cultural trait. No police in the world can get people to comply with laws, if most people didn't have it in their mind to obey the laws in the first place.
You are right about risk-reward ratio being different as well, but you seem to go straight to assuming that it's lack of reward that's an issue, when in fact the risk is what's driving it. IRS is pretty good at cross-checking sums, and it's fearsome once they catch on to someone. That is also a piece of governance that takes many decades to develop.
No. I didn't single out the lack of reward, altough there is certainly that. Still, you must realize it comes through quite arrogant to state that you have less tax crimes (altough I'd like to see statistics on that) because you are Americans, and you don't have it in your culture to steal from the state.
Or, rather, go ahead and make that argument, but then make sure to side with me on the "are gypos thieves by culture?" topics, or with Slargos on basically everything.
The fuck are you dragging me into this? :P
Well you are a thief.
Technically speaking, no I'm not. :hmm:
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 11:55:57 AM
What's teh history of capital gains tax? I know canada changes the rate once in a while. what's the theory of paying a lower rate on it? to try to lesson "double taxing" (ie you paid income tax on the original amount received, and then invested that money), or jsut rich peopel making the rules?
Don't know about the history of it, but the theory is that taxing captial gains at a lower rate encourages investment. I'm not sure that I buy it, but I'm willing to accept the theory, if the tax law were written so that it encourages actual investments--f.e., building a new factory or expanding an existing one, rather than just buying and selling paper.
i can see that for small investors. eases the risk (save it an keep it, or risk it and lose it) but if that's the case there should really be a cap.
In Canada the first 500,000 irc was excempt from capital gains tax. Personal residences have always been excempt and were not counted in that figure. The 500,000 exemption was removed sometime in the early 90s as part of the push to put our finiancial house in order. Given that the 90s became a boom period of investment I doubt very much that removing the exemption had any adverse effect. As Buffet said, people will invest if they see a good deal whether or not the money they make from that investment is taxed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:04:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 11:55:57 AM
What's teh history of capital gains tax? I know canada changes the rate once in a while. what's the theory of paying a lower rate on it? to try to lesson "double taxing" (ie you paid income tax on the original amount received, and then invested that money), or jsut rich peopel making the rules?
Don't know about the history of it, but the theory is that taxing captial gains at a lower rate encourages investment. I'm not sure that I buy it, but I'm willing to accept the theory, if the tax law were written so that it encourages actual investments--f.e., building a new factory or expanding an existing one, rather than just buying and selling paper.
i can see that for small investors. eases the risk (save it an keep it, or risk it and lose it) but if that's the case there should really be a cap.
In Canada the first 500,000 irc was excempt from capital gains tax. Personal residences have always been excempt and were not counted in that figure. The 500,000 exemption was removed sometime in the early 90s as part of the push to put our finiancial house in order. Given that the 90s became a boom period of investment I doubt very much that removing the exemption had any adverse effect. As Buffet said, people will invest if they see a good deal whether or not the money they make from that investment is taxed.
I tend to agree. Return on investment is much more important than any tax considerations. But as I said, I'm willing to see capital gains treated differently if they are actually derived from investing in something tangible, not somethen that exists only on paper.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 01:12:11 PM
I tend to agree. Return on investment is much more important than any tax considerations. But as I said, I'm willing to see capital gains treated differently if they are actually derived from investing in something tangible, not somethen that exists only on paper.
Agreed, but there is a cautionary tale here as well. There used to be a special scientific tax credit in Canada available to businesses developing new technologies - part of the government of the day's push to create more innovation within Canadian business.
Problem was a lot of the "businesses" claiming the tax credit were a complete sham. The government eventually realized that the cost of the program in lost tax revenue didnt provide the kind innovative incentive they had hoped. It really just created incentive for some very creative book keeping practices and some outright fraud and the program was ended.
It is hard to think of a solid set of rules to distinguish an investment derived from something "real" vs something that is not since all investments at some point - if you dig down deep enough - are based on something that started out as a tangeable asset. These sorts of rules just create the kind of accounting bonanza that the original policy is trying to avoid.
Imo its better to have a more simple set of rules that are hard to avoid and are easier to enforce. That way you likely create less distortions in the market as well.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
If you read the article, you realize that the real culprit isn't that the tax rates need to be raised, but that there are too many tax breaks available to the super-rich.
I thought it was the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
If you read the article, you realize that the real culprit isn't that the tax rates need to be raised, but that there are too many tax breaks available to the super-rich.
I thought it was the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
More of a question of what can qualify as a taxable gain. I am not sure how parking money for a few minutes can turn it into a taxable gain in your current tax code but that seems to be what Buffet is talking about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 01:47:45 PM
More of a question of what can qualify as a taxable gain. I am not sure how parking money for a few minutes can turn it into a taxable gain in your current tax code but that seems to be what Buffet is talking about.
I think he was using the example of the 60 second position to suggest that whereas there might be a rationale for taxing long term holdings at a lower rate, this very short term position recieves the same benefit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 01:54:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 01:47:45 PM
More of a question of what can qualify as a taxable gain. I am not sure how parking money for a few minutes can turn it into a taxable gain in your current tax code but that seems to be what Buffet is talking about.
I think he was using the example of the 60 second position to suggest that whereas there might be a rationale for taxing long term holdings at a lower rate, this very short term position recieves the same benefit.
I agree. Arent we saying thing - ie the question of what should be considered a taxable gain and obtain preferential tax treatment and what should not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:15:22 PM
I agree. Arent we saying thing - ie the question of what should be considered a taxable gain and obtain preferential tax treatment and what should not.
Sounds like we are. I was thrown off by your phrase taxable gain; I interpreted it to mean the alternative is non-taxable gain, whereas it seems now that to you the alternative is to tax it as income.
I'm familiar with the arguments for encouraging long term ownership of stock by employees of the company--fosters loyalty and producitivity--but less so with the arguments on a macro level. Anyone care to explain them to me? Why do we as a nation care if someone buys and holds stocks for years or turns around and dumps it at a profit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 02:29:26 PM
I'm familiar with the arguments for encouraging long term ownership of stock by employees of the company--fosters loyalty and producitivity--but less so with the arguments on a macro level. Anyone care to explain them to me? Why do we as a nation care if someone buys and holds stocks for years or turns around and dumps it at a profit?
I would imagine that long-term ownership encourages stability, since you can't have flash crashes without excessive short-term trading. Another reason is that maybe we as society don't want to encourage day-trading as a career, since ultimately it's as productive as professional poker playing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 01:09:07 PM
In Canada the first 500,000 irc was excempt from capital gains tax. Personal residences have always been excempt and were not counted in that figure. The 500,000 exemption was removed sometime in the early 90s as part of the push to put our finiancial house in order. Given that the 90s became a boom period of investment I doubt very much that removing the exemption had any adverse effect. As Buffet said, people will invest if they see a good deal whether or not the money they make from that investment is taxed.
It was 100 000$ exemption, and it was from 1985 to 1994.
500 000$ was and still is for SMB's owners (up to 1 000 000$ for farm owner).
The tax rate for capital gains was for 50% of the profits up to 1988. By 1990 we were in recession and it was jacked up to 75%, than lowered to 2/3, than to 50% by '97.
Imho, that has to change too. We have to differentiate legitimate capital gains (from stock transactions) from stock options given as a form of wage. Imho, stock options given from a company to an employee as a bonus should be considered as regular wage and taxed 100%.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 03:12:44 PM
Imho, stock options given from a company to an employee as a bonus should be considered as regular wage and taxed 100%.
Yikes. Even I think that tax rates of over 95% are just unreasonable.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 03:20:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 03:12:44 PM
Imho, stock options given from a company to an employee as a bonus should be considered as regular wage and taxed 100%.
Yikes. Even I think that tax rates of over 95% are just unreasonable.
I've heard that even at 100%, tax revenues are still going to go up as rates go up.
Personally, seeing as how the Laffer Curve has been so conclusively proven incorrect, we should go ahead and go for about 120% or so on those rich pricks.
:lol: you guys are mean. you know what he's saying.
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 03:24:18 PM
:lol: you guys are mean. you know what he's saying.
When has knowing what the other guy meant ever stopped us? :huh:
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 03:24:18 PM
:lol: you guys are mean. you know what he's saying.
Right, stick up for the Canadian. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 03:24:18 PM
:lol: you guys are mean. you know what he's saying.
Right, stick up for the Canadian. :rolleyes:
I don't know if he considers himself canadian. quebecers are tricky that way :P
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2011, 03:24:18 PM
:lol: you guys are mean. you know what he's saying.
When has knowing what the other guy meant ever stopped us? :huh:
grumbler has been rubbing off on you :D
You know Swedish author of children's books Astrid Lindgren?
From Wiki:
QuoteIn 1976, a scandal arose in Sweden when Lindgren's marginal tax rate was publicized to have risen to 102%. This was to be known as the "Pomperipossa effect" from a story she published in Expressen[7] on 3 March 1976. The publication led to a stormy tax debate. In the parliamentary election later in the same year the Social Democrat government was voted out for the first time in 44 years, and the Lindgren tax debate was one of several controversies that may have contributed to this result.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 03:12:44 PM
It was 100 000$ exemption, and it was from 1985 to 1994.
It was 500,000 reduced to 100,000 in 88 and then eliminiated all together in the 90's. There are special rules for agriculture as you pointed out.
Well, for better or worse, Obama heard.
Quote
Obama: Warren Buffett Is Right On Taxes
President Barack Obama just endorsed Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times today calling on higher taxes on the wealthy.
"He said we've got to stop coddling billionaires like me," Obama said at a town hall event in Cannon Falls, MN, a stop on his three-day bus tour. "That's what Warren Buffett said."
"He pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including the secretary," he added. "He figured out that his tax bill, he paid about 17 percent. And the reason is because most of his wealth comes from capital gains."
"You don't get those tax breaks, you're paying more than that," Obama said.
The president also called for the new Super Committee tasked with $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts to embrace Buffett's proposals for more substantial savings.
Buffett defended increasing taxes from claims that doing so would hurt the economy, writing: "I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
Obama will hold another town hall in Decorah, Iowa this afternoon.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-warren-buffett-is-right-on-taxes-2011-8#ixzz1V9OozzEy
Quote from: Alcibiades on August 15, 2011, 08:21:35 PM
"He pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including the secretary," he added. "He figured out that his tax bill, he paid about 17 percent. And the reason is because most of his wealth comes from capital gains."
"You don't get those tax breaks, you're paying more than that," Obama said.
Yes I do. We all do.
Anyway, I'd rather coddle the super-rich than the super-poor. The super-rich usually shower and use expensive perfume, unlike the super-poor. :yucky:
But it's the expensive perfume habit that makes them poor. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:06:05 AM
Anyway, I'd rather coddle the super-rich than the super-poor. The super-rich usually shower and use expensive perfume, unlike the super-poor. :yucky:
Your recent past contradicts this assertion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2011, 10:48:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:06:05 AM
Anyway, I'd rather coddle the super-rich than the super-poor. The super-rich usually shower and use expensive perfume, unlike the super-poor. :yucky:
Your recent past contradicts this assertion.
:lol:
This is pretty damn funny.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives?xrs=share_copy
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2011, 10:48:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:06:05 AM
Anyway, I'd rather coddle the super-rich than the super-poor. The super-rich usually shower and use expensive perfume, unlike the super-poor. :yucky:
Your recent past contradicts this assertion.
I said "usually". It's different when I'm paying for the perfume.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2011, 10:48:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:06:05 AM
Anyway, I'd rather coddle the super-rich than the super-poor. The super-rich usually shower and use expensive perfume, unlike the super-poor. :yucky:
Your recent past contradicts this assertion.
Hiyo.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2011, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 12:00:11 PM
If you read the article, you realize that the real culprit isn't that the tax rates need to be raised, but that there are too many tax breaks available to the super-rich.
I thought it was the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
IIRC its partially that, but Warren is also annoyed by the treatment of carried interest, which basically treats the bulk of hedge fund and private equity fee income as preferential long term cap gains for tax purposes.