The Buffet Rule is that anyone who has income of $1 million a year should pay 30% income tax. What's wrong with that?
I haven't made a final decision on the BR yet. I'm still reading about it.
What's wrong with that is the money is taxed twice. If you own stock in a company, you are in essence an owner of the company. Dividends are paid from the profit "your" company makes, which has already been taxed. The other problem with it is that every time capital gains taxes have gone up in the US, tax revenue goes down. It turns out that rich people aren't stupid, and if you punish them financially they find other places to put their money. So raising taxes on the rich actually results in the government having LESS money to spend on the poor whom they purport to care about. I think the only real concern they have for the poor is who they vote for.
Nooooo? You think the libs care only for who the poor are voting for? That's crazy talk.
I do remember reading that federal revenue actually INCREASED after the 2003 tax cuts. As well, 8 million new jobs were created over the next four years.
Let's see, what were those cuts to? Oh right, dividends and capital gains.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/fe … l-revenue/
When Guliani was mayor of New York he reduced the hotel tax significantly. The effect was that New York became more competitive. 20,000 hotel jobs were created, and people started building new hotels - which had not happened for over a decade.
Reducing a tax can increase total tax revenue.
Is it right, thoough, that rich p-eople pay proportionately less tax, and sometimes absolutely less tax, than middle income and poor people?
Even if one accepts it whole-heartedly, it still leaves us with the question of what to do with the OTHER 97% of the deficit (the most liberal estimate I've seen for Buffet Rule revenue is 3.2% of what we're overspending).
Sometimes I feel like all the well-meaning-sounding talk of taxing the rich is just hand-waving to distract people from talking about budget cuts, which ultimately need to happen, with or without new taxes.
Eric, you are quite right.
Attention to the spending side is also importasnt. I cannot comment on detail on the USA spend, but we in the European Union pay agricultural producers ridiculous amounts of money, and even pay them not to grow anything! We have storage costs for a wine lake and a beef mountain. And sometimes we wreck the economies of other countries by dumping food.
It was calculated a while ago that tax evasion is larger than our National Health Service.
I saw a piece about your cruise misslies some years ago where the guidance systems could not cope with snow - a bit of a problem when your opponent is Russia! How did that programme get started!
I think it could just as easily be a bone thrown to the left to shut us up about income equality long enough to not have another autumn of #occupy leading up to the election.
Whether it will work or not remains to be seen - I imagine most occupiers have noticed by now that the US middle class had the best standard of living during a time when the 1% were being taxed anywhere from 70-92%, not 30%.
I think you might need to read up on the difference between marginal tax rate and average tax rate.
And yes, nothing encourages prosperity quite like punishing prosperity.
Ah, yes, good ol' 1936. The glory days. That 79% marginal tax rate sure made a difference, didn't it?
Actually, the prosperity we enjoyed in, say, the fifties was due in large part to the efforts of one visionary and charismatic leader.
Unfortunately, that leader was Hitler.
Nothing boosts the ol' GNP like getting everyone employed either as a soldier or building tanks, and nothing encourages frugal living like rationing. Best shot in the butt an economy can get, really.
People who care about building a good business (and thereby improving the economy) aren't usually the ones taking salaries 400 times higher than their average employee. They usually take reasonable salaries and put most of the profits back into growing the business (which in some cases makes these expenses tax deductible).
People who just want to make themselves filthy rich without giving anything back to society at large are free to leave the US if they don't like our tax policies, and good riddance, frankly.
I'm not saying such people shouldn't be allowed to exist, just saying that the US government shouldn't be rewarding them for activities that enrich themselves at the expense of the US economy and the American people.
Whats wrong with that?
30% tax????? Bloody cheap if you ask Australians as we pay;
$54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 <<<---- this is our highest individual earnings tax bracket.
Yes, but what do your rich guys actally pay?
The super rich pay 10 per cent on average in the UK. They have a habit of migrating if you charge them anything reasonable.
That is one of many the powers of capital.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news … ds-newsxml
Yes, and you can't very well stop them migrating unless you impose some extremely draconian laws.
The economics of one country doesn't take place in a bubble - it's dependent on what happens in other countries, and on whether the parties concerned have freedom to go elsewhere.
One of the big problems with it is that Buffet is talking about folks other than himself. You will note that he said "income tax" not "capital gains tax". Most people with income above a million a year have a lot of that income coming off investments, etc. To get at it with the 30% tax, one would have to raise the capital gains tax which will severely undermine the investment of capital into the production and business base of the country. Warren Buffet needs to stick to what he knows best and shut up. When the flimsy example of his assistant's tax rate being higher than his, that should have been your signal to realize that Buffet gets most of his income from capital gains. WB
Not arguing with what you say - it makes complete sense - but what is Buffet hoping to gain by touting the idea of increased income tax?
Buffet is on record as saying he fears the rise of an entrenched plutocracy in the US.
He wants higher inheritance taxes and a higher taxes generally for the rich.
In other words. the poor old fool thinks people should earn their money. And that the people who have money (and the power that goes with it) should have have some kind of merit.
That's a bit like Fred Goodwin saying he's against bankers' bonuses.
He has also said that he doesn't understand why his obscure talents in a particular area of the financial markets net him billions whilst people like nurses and teachers who make just as an important a contribution to the world, earn a pittance.
He plans on donating most of his money to good causes.
Bill Gates is of a like mind.
It allows him to appear as if he "cares for the poor" while he himself shelters his money in tax exempt foundations. I don't remember the exact word for what he's doing but it rhymes with 'hypocrisy."
I have no issue with 30% capital gains tax.
One issue with Buffet is that his companies generally hold assets for a very long time, and do not generally pay dividends. I think it reasonable to apply the 30% tax to income and capital gains whether realised or not,
14-minute video called "Warren Buffet Paradigm Puppet".
Interesting, especially about five minutes in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJYLmDbI … mp;list=UL
by Nick Lucas5 years ago
I don’t understand this concept that Obama and many liberals keep clinging to…..So allow me to make it simple. If everyone is taxed at say 10% people who make more do pay more as 10% of a greater amount is...
by Stacie L5 years ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.A White House official said...
by warden765 years ago
So, Mitt's taxes came out today...paying 13.9% this year. Oddly, he ended up paying more to the Mormon Church than he paid in taxes. Does it seem odd that somebody who has not paid into Social Security for years can...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Wow. 500,000 households making more than $100K per year and 7,000 millionaires paid no income tax in 2011.Do they consider themselves "victims" do we suppose?Are they lost causes who will never...
by ptosis7 hours ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
by GA Anderson19 months ago
You work hard to build a fortune that you can pass on to your kids, or otherwise distribute however you desire on your passing. It is your money. Shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want with it, within our legal...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.