Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Rich"

[Maggie]

Jumped the gun - should have known better.

[SB Shock]

Jumped the gun.

If u look at the numbers he posted:

26% decrease in taxes on super-rich resulted in 296% increase rwvenue.

Let me be clear - the Problem is not revenue but spending.

[ShockBand]

Simple question: should someone making more than I do have a lower tax burden than me, in terms of total tax burden as a percentage of income? Perhaps I have incorrect information, but I have seen a lot out there about how the middle class pays a higher percentage of total income in taxes than either the lower OR upper class.

[Maggie]

Jumped the gun.

Let me be clear - the Problem is not revenue but spending.

True, I suspect. And as I wrote I didn't read what rjl posted.

[Maggie]

Simple question: should someone making more than I do have a lower tax burden than me, in terms of total tax burden as a percentage of income? Perhaps I have incorrect information, but I have seen a lot out there about how the middle class pays a higher percentage of total income in taxes than either the lower OR upper class.

Do you want me to answer this "simple" question?

[kcshocker11]

http://news.yahoo.com/america-not-br...162834225.html Interesting article from Forbes 8)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/14/economic-recovery-is-on-the-horizon.html

[ABC]

Buffett is a great business man but a lousy economist.

I did read a bit of his op-ed.

He is making conclusions based on the top 400 taxpayers in the US? Seriously?

There seems to be lots of research and data to indicate that tax rates do, in fact, impact economic activity.

No one is saying that is the tax on the super rich increases to 70% that they will cease doing business, but it will dampen things.

Just small percentages of differences in economic growth and activity can make an enourmous difference over time.

[ShockBand]

Simple question: should someone making more than I do have a lower tax burden than me, in terms of total tax burden as a percentage of income? Perhaps I have incorrect information, but I have seen a lot out there about how the middle class pays a higher percentage of total income in taxes than either the lower OR upper class.

Do you want me to answer this "simple" question?

Please, do, because I know there are probably semantics to how investment taxes are paid that impacts this argument that is getting trotted out. My point would be that if I made $50,000 and paid a grand total of $12,500 (25%) in taxes, and someone making $1,000,000 paid a grand total of $150,000 (15%) in taxes, it shouldn't be hard to see why that would be irksome.

[Maggie]

Simple question: should someone making more than I do have a lower tax burden than me, in terms of total tax burden as a percentage of income? Perhaps I have incorrect information, but I have seen a lot out there about how the middle class pays a higher percentage of total income in taxes than either the lower OR upper class.

Do you want me to answer this "simple" question?

Please, do, because I know there are probably semantics to how investment taxes are paid that impacts this argument that is getting trotted out. My point would be that if I made $50,000 and paid a grand total of $12,500 (25%) in taxes, and someone making $1,000,000 paid a grand total of $150,000 (15%) in taxes, it shouldn't be hard to see why that would be irksome.

Okay, I will, but I can't right now. I just don't have the time to do it justice. Maybe I will ask my wife - I don't mean that as a slight - in fact much of what I know and argue about is, on tax law, distilled through her. She knows the regs. cold - that is her bailiwick.

As an aside, I don't think it will "help" you. That said:

Get very specific with your question - very specific. I don't care how long it is but if you don't put in the effort I can't have your question answered. I am going to keep my key board silent for now. I want to know what Mrs. Maggie thinks (she gets paid for this afterall):

[wsushox1]

If they want to donate more money to pay the debt they can. But gov't shouldn't be forcing them to pay more than they already do. If Warren were as generous as he makes it seem, he'd do just that. Truth is, he doesn't want to part with any more money than he has to and the same go for everybody else in this country no matter how much they make. They've earned their money and should be allowed to keep it.

The best solution for our current situation is to cut gov't. So many useless and/or bloated programs that waste billions of dollars every year. Taxing the wealthy even more is not going to help unemployment.

Personally, I think we need to do more to stop coddling the freeloaders who live off of taxpayers and do nothing for it. That would also go a long way in helping us out of our current situation.

Let's immediately discredit the character of a person just because they don't agree with you.

Not sure what you're saying. Who did I try to discredit? I explained my feelings on it. The gov't does have a place where the super rich can give more money to pay towards the debt. I doubt Warren has ever done such a thing as he doens't want to part with any more money than he has to.

Link me, if you are willing, to information about this. I can't find it and it is probably under some stupid acronym.

[Kung Wu]

If they want to donate more money to pay the debt they can. But gov't shouldn't be forcing them to pay more than they already do. If Warren were as generous as he makes it seem, he'd do just that. Truth is, he doesn't want to part with any more money than he has to and the same go for everybody else in this country no matter how much they make. They've earned their money and should be allowed to keep it.

The best solution for our current situation is to cut gov't. So many useless and/or bloated programs that waste billions of dollars every year. Taxing the wealthy even more is not going to help unemployment.

Personally, I think we need to do more to stop coddling the freeloaders who live off of taxpayers and do nothing for it. That would also go a long way in helping us out of our current situation.

Let's immediately discredit the character of a person just because they don't agree with you.

He has squirreled all his money away in a 501(c)(3) corporation which he is complete control of but is now safely tucked away from the IRS like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. After safely tucking that money away from the government it is very bold to say "tax the wealthy", isn't it?

[ShockBand]

Maybe the first and best thing to do would be try and get accurate numbers, and I do not know the best sources to get those numbers. Lets make the comparison as easy as possible:

Person A: $100,000 income from work for an employer

Person B: $100,000 income from investments

What is the actual federal tax burden for both? Once that is established, then we can ask...

If the actual federal tax burden is not the same, regardless of which way, is that fair to both parties? Should one have preferential treatment over the other simply because of the way in which the income was earned?

[wufan]

Maybe the first and best thing to do would be try and get accurate numbers, and I do not know the best sources to get those numbers. Lets make the comparison as easy as possible:

Person A: $100,000 income from work for an employer

Person B: $100,000 income from investments

What is the actual federal tax burden for both? Once that is established, then we can ask...

If the actual federal tax burden is not the same, regardless of which way, is that fair to both parties? Should one have preferential treatment over the other simply because of the way in which the income was earned?

Long term capital gains are taxed up to 15% regardless of income. Short term are the same as your income tax....

Back to the original post, the conservative view isn't that the rich should be exempt, rather it's that the government should be cutting spending. Same with Obama care. It's not that we don't want lower cost health care provided to all, it's that we don't think that the government should be trying to provide this NATIONALLY. The Fed just needs to step back and put more of the burden on the State. This allows for additional involvement from the local residents and leads to an overall more free nation. The less rights the Fed has, the more rights the individual has. What's the price? You might fail! There are safety nets to help the "failed" individual, but the problem is that these fail-safes are increasingly being given to those that didn't try.

Sorry, that was probably an incoherent rant.

[SubGod22]

If they want to donate more money to pay the debt they can. But gov't shouldn't be forcing them to pay more than they already do. If Warren were as generous as he makes it seem, he'd do just that. Truth is, he doesn't want to part with any more money than he has to and the same go for everybody else in this country no matter how much they make. They've earned their money and should be allowed to keep it.

The best solution for our current situation is to cut gov't. So many useless and/or bloated programs that waste billions of dollars every year. Taxing the wealthy even more is not going to help unemployment.

Personally, I think we need to do more to stop coddling the freeloaders who live off of taxpayers and do nothing for it. That would also go a long way in helping us out of our current situation.

Let's immediately discredit the character of a person just because they don't agree with you.

Not sure what you're saying. Who did I try to discredit? I explained my feelings on it. The gov't does have a place where the super rich can give more money to pay towards the debt. I doubt Warren has ever done such a thing as he doens't want to part with any more money than he has to.

Link me, if you are willing, to information about this. I can't find it and it is probably under some stupid acronym.

Here ya go

You can also write a check and mail it in. I linked you to where they could easily do it online with their checking account or credit card.

[kcshocker11]

Maybe the first and best thing to do would be try and get accurate numbers, and I do not know the best sources to get those numbers. Lets make the comparison as easy as possible:

Person A: $100,000 income from work for an employer

Person B: $100,000 income from investments

What is the actual federal tax burden for both? Once that is established, then we can ask...

If the actual federal tax burden is not the same, regardless of which way, is that fair to both parties? Should one have preferential treatment over the other simply because of the way in which the income was earned?

Long term capital gains are taxed up to 15% regardless of income. Short term are the same as your income tax....

All true, but let me give you an example of legal tax avoidance. This can be applied to any number of commodities.

Lets say I wish to shelter 1 mil dollars. I hire a co that takes my mil and buys cattle-say 1st calf heifers. ( I can buy younger or older depending when I want my loses to hit

Next it contracts with ranchers around the globe to run small amounts of these cattle on each of their ranches, thus diversifying risk.

1. Now, I have just started a business and am able to write off available start up costs, others are differed to future years.

2 . I am now able to write off costs associated with running the business. These costs can be mgmt fees, breeding costs, vet costs, shipping,feed etc.

3. I am now able to depreciate over 5yrs each calf. Throwing me well into a loss the first few years.(This lose goes to reduce income from other sources on my tax return, thus saving me more cash)

Dont forget the 179 expenses allowed

4. I place cattle in locations where I love to travel, and as long as I visit my cows my trip becomes a business trip.

5 When my cattle give birth all male calves are castrated an and sold- the money from this pays part of my expenses or the purchase of more calves.

6. The females are kept and are bred in a couple of years. My flock now grows. It grows every year exponentially.

Dispite the growth of my herd, I am still showing a loss as my assets grow.I am also able to borrow against my now larger herd that has many cattle with no cost basis ( can buy more cattle or expand into other areas eg, stud bulls)( This option was done by Pres Reagan, the bulls that is).

7. I sell the cattle off as I can absorb the gains(at the lower LT gain rates) or as I buy more calves and off set gains with depreciation.

8.After a few years I have millions of dollars of assets and have written off up from all loses associated with building my herd.

Cattle is just one example, I can do this with any number of items, grain, race horses, wineries etc. 8)