# millionaires



## billc (Nov 19, 2010)

there is a group of millionaires who have written to Obama urging him to end the bush tax cuts.  They apparently want people who make 250,000 dollars a year to pay more in taxes, because as really rich people, these millionaire jerks have all of their money protected from excessive taxation.  If they were serious about giving the government more of their own, hard earned money,  they could simply write one big check to the government, before april 15.  They could give all of their money to the government and just not worry about other peoples money.  But no,  they need to have people think that they are not only rich but that wealth means less to them than it does to you and me.  Of course,  they can either take the hit from higher taxes, because they have so much money it won't effect their actual lifestyle, or they have their money already sheltered from any new tax rates.  What a bunch of losers.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 19, 2010)

It's fine taxing bushes but I'd draw the line at taxing trees.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2010)

Hey, any one of them you hear is giving out cash, lemme know.  I need $75k to launch my studio.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2010)

There is absolutely nothing stopping them from donating however much they'd like to give to the government. I'll bet you not one of them is a conservative, it isn't about taxes, it IS about ideology.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 19, 2010)

billcihak said:


> there is a group of millionaires who have written to Obama urging him to end the bush tax cuts. They apparently want people who make 250,000 dollars a year to pay more in taxes, because as really rich people, these millionaire jerks have all of their money protected from excessive taxation. If they were serious about giving the government more of their own, hard earned money, they could simply write one big check to the government, before april 15. They could give all of their money to the government and just not worry about other peoples money. But no, they need to have people think that they are not only rich but that wealth means less to them than it does to you and me. Of course, they can either take the hit from higher taxes, because they have so much money it won't effect their actual lifestyle, or they have their money already sheltered from any new tax rates. What a bunch of losers.


 
Let me get this straight. They say that they're willing to pay more-they don't want to raise _*your*_ taxes, or the _corporate_ income tax (where the real *$$$$* are)-and you'e calling them losers why, exactly?

Oh, I know:




Big Don said:


> There is absolutely nothing stopping them from donating however much they'd like to give to the government. I'll bet you not one of them is a conservative, *it isn't about taxes, it IS about ideology*.


 
Irony, thy name is Big Don....:lfao:


----------



## billc (Nov 20, 2010)

They are losers because they are wealthy enough to either avoid paying any new taxes or they are wealthy enough to not have an increase in taxes effect their lifestyle, and yet, enjoying great wealth, they are not content to spend their own money and live their own lives.  They look over at the other guy, the hardworking stiff trying to get where they are, and they say, you know what, we don't think that other guy is paying enough of his hard earned money to the government.  They then advocate for the government, with the implied threat of force, to take that guys money.  As has been pointed out, they could easily take their own money and give it all to the government, they won't do that.  They have to tell other people what to do.  That is why they are losers.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . *They look over at the other guy, the hardworking stiff trying to get where they are, and they say, you know what, we don't think that other guy is paying enough of his hard earned money to the government*. .


 
Actually, the only people they're asking it for is themselves-as in those who earn *$1,000,000 or more a year*.Of course, that section of the code also applies to those whose _household_ income is $250k or more, but that's still less than 2% of the populace-*including* sole proprietors of small businesses.I think they're trying to do some kind of survey-I'm fairly sure that most in that tax bracket are more than willing to pay more, as long as taxes don't get anywhere near the level they were when Nixon was president, or -_gulp!_ Eisenhower.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 20, 2010)

Big Don said:


> There is absolutely nothing stopping them from donating however much they'd like to give to the government. I'll bet you not one of them is a conservative, it isn't about taxes, it IS about ideology.



So what, really , if it is. Honestly its nice. They dont need all that money for themselves, why not do something nice with it. even giving it to the government would pay for roads, housing, etc.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 20, 2010)

Two points.


Taxes in the USA will go up. There is little choice. The budget deficits and debts are just too great to be beaten down by cuts to spending. 
I like the idea of a flat tax, no matter how much you make you pay X amount. 10%, 20%? Whatever. I know that not everyone has the opportunities, but somehow I disagree that you should be taxing those people a greater rate who create and run successful small businesses, those who work tonnes of hours at work and those who get an education and become professionals in some way shape of form. Its almost like youre punishing people for being successful in their lives.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 21, 2010)

The idea of flat tax has been refuted several times.
The major issue is that if you tax everyone the same, then either
a) the poor to middle class people will not have anything left to live from, or
b) the government is going to have to seriously cut its budgets. That includes the DOD budget which is already out of control.

Before we can discuss which tax system is best from an ideological pov, you should consider whether it would actually work or not. If not, then debating the ideological merits is pointless.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 21, 2010)

Let me get this straight... a bunch of rich people said ok, repeal Bush's tax breaks on us, let the middle class/poor keep theirs... and some of you are COMPLAINING about this why?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 21, 2010)

bluewaveschool said:


> Let me get this straight... a bunch of rich people said ok, repeal Bush's tax breaks on us, let the middle class/poor keep theirs... and some of you are COMPLAINING about this why?



Ideology, dogma, and blind faith in the republican party.


----------



## crushing (Nov 21, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> The idea of flat tax has been refuted several times.


 
By whom?


----------



## billc (Nov 21, 2010)

The problem is that they are not really saying, "Tax Us" they are really saying "hey, raise the tax rates, which won't effect us because we are really rich, but really soak that guy who is just starting out, hiring people and creating new jobs.  Do this because one, we like telling other people how to spend their money, two, it doesn't effect us so much, three, it hurts people who are trying to compete with us and our businesses.  So that is where the problem is with these losers.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 21, 2010)

crushing said:


> By whom?



I am too lazy to look up the relevant studies, so let's see where we get with common sense.
Currently, the rich are paying much more than the poor and middle class, right?
The US budget is more or less fixed and cannot be be cut significantly, right? Wars to fight and all of that.
And it is also not a secret that with the economic crisis, the US has a significant amount of poor and middle class people struggling to get by.

So...
What happens if suddenly the rich are no longer paying the majority of the taxes, and the (already struggling) poor and middle class have to take up the slack?

Let me put it differently:
Flat tax IS realistic IF first the budget is cut to an amount that can be sustained under a flat tax system without the poor and middle class ending up with a significant tax increase.
If that happen, then I totally agree that flat tax can work if it is set up properly. But with the current US budget, the poor and middle class simply cannot foot the bill.


----------



## crushing (Nov 21, 2010)

With all the loopholes, deductions, and ways out of paying taxes in the current system, especially for those with the resources to have lawyers and accountants at their beck and call, I wouldn't be surprised to find that many "rich" are actually paying less tax than people in the middle class.

A lower flat tax rate may actually increase revenues and gets the government out of using social engineering in an attempt to influence behaviors.

I don't know how good of a comparison it is because we have different habits and governments, but some countries, such as Russia, have gone flat tax and have experienced increased revenues.  Maybe it won't work?  But I think it's worthy of further investigation along with budget cuts.


----------



## billc (Nov 21, 2010)

You find that when taxes are lowered the government will take in more money.  The problem is that they will spend everything they get and then spend even more, and then say that you cannot afford to cut taxes.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2010)

Drop income tax, switch to flat sales tax of 15% on everything except raw foods, medical, and drug.


----------



## Ray (Nov 21, 2010)

billcihak said:


> They are losers because they are wealthy enough to either avoid paying any new taxes or they are wealthy enough to not have an increase in taxes effect their lifestyle, and yet, enjoying great wealth, they are not content to spend their own money and live their own lives.  They look over at the other guy, the hardworking stiff trying to get where they are, and they say, you know what, we don't think that other guy is paying enough of his hard earned money to the government.  They then advocate for the government, with the implied threat of force, to take that guys money.  As has been pointed out, they could easily take their own money and give it all to the government, they won't do that.  They have to tell other people what to do.  That is why they are losers.


Don't confuse wealth with income.  Property is taxed, so if you have property it can be taxed regardless of income.  If you have wealth without having taxable property and without (current) income then you don't pay income tax.  If you a mortgage, then that's property that can be taxed however you can generally write off your interest from your income tax.

I'm for a flat tax of, say, 10% for everyone across the board coupled with the gov't spending no more than it takes in.  For special projects (like an interstate highway) it could sell bonds to finance and charge a toll to pay the interest...once the interest is paid then the toll needs to vanish.  Along with all this craziness I'm espousing, I think that each bill introduced should be related to one thing without fat being added along the compromise trail.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 22, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Drop income tax, switch to flat sales tax of 15% on everything except raw foods, medical, and drug.



Worthy suggestions, all.
But have you run the numbers? How much money will tha raise in taxes, and what will be dropped from the budget to make it work?

Without that, you are no different to the guy who announced on my forum that he had found the solution, which was to confiscate all inheritances, and take away everything that is > 1 million $. I told him that a) rich people would just put everything in trusts or similar constructions, and b) a quick calculation shows that even if all US based millionaires and billionaires snuff it at once, you only raise enough money to support the federal budget for 1 year. So what do you do the next year?

He kept ignoring my request for numbers and just hammered on the idelogical pov (he was a philosophy major). Without numbers, you become that guy.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2010)

Bruno, I ran the numbers back in 2008. I think I came up with a 10% increase in revenue back then.  It's somewhere in the election archives I think.  The basic jist of it is that half the people in the US don't pay taxes now. This would serve to put them on the tax rolls, everytime they buy a MCD burger or a DVD or a pair of Nike's, they'd add revenue to pay for the social services they use.  Rich people who spend alot more, would pay alot more.  I just 'borrowed' Forbes notes though.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 22, 2010)

But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?
I mean, I remember paying sales tax for my Spyderco. It was listed separately on the bill. Can't remember quite what it was, but IIRC it was about 8%, and I bought it in Utah (I think. Close to the petrified forest)


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?


There is no federal sales tax at this time. Some states have sales taxes and some don't.
Federal tax laws are incredibly complex, and should not be. A national sales tax would simplify collection of taxes.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 22, 2010)

billcihak said:


> The problem is that they are not really saying, "Tax Us" they are really saying "hey, raise the tax rates, which won't effect us because we are really rich, but really soak that guy who is just starting out, hiring people and creating new jobs. Do this because one, we like telling other people how to spend their money, two, it doesn't effect us so much, three, it hurts people who are trying to compete with us and our businesses. So that is where the problem is with these losers.


 

If a new bussiness or small bussiness is doing well enough that the owner's *NET profits* are over $250,000 dollars a year they aren't struggling.  If they have enough profit and growth to employ new people, they are doing very well.   Anyone making a over $250,000 a year is in the top %2 in this country and doing well, so putting thier tax rate back to the Clinton era is really not going to "soak that guy who is just starting  out."

If you actually have a problem with the rich in this country paying more taxes, that's cool.  However, the reasons you give so far don't hold much water.  Sounds more like your ringing a bell for the conservative cause and thier talking points without checking out the valdity of those points.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 22, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> If a new bussiness or small bussiness is doing well enough that the owner's *NET profits* are over $250,000 dollars a year they aren't struggling.  If they have enough profit and growth to employ new people, they are doing very well.   Anyone making a over $250,000 a year is in the top %2 in this country and doing well, so putting thier tax rate back to the Clinton era is really not going to "soak that guy who is just starting  out."



Implicit within your argument is the erroneous idea that net profits flow directly into a business owner's pockets.  They do not.  Small businesses constantly need reinvestment for equipment and other infrastructure costs like insurance, etc.  Not to mention hiring NEW people.

$250,000 sounds like a lot to some, but it ain't much at all.  Frequently, this is actually a critical time in the business' life cycle where prudent reinvestment can make the enterprise really grow and take off.

How about the millionaires who want higher taxes just take out their check books and voluntarily write whatever they want EXTRA to Uncle Sam?  The IRS will happily accept donations.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2010)

How about rather than give the money to Uncle Sam, who will waste it on bloated and ineffectual projects, they use it to start civic improvement projects in their own communities, which are managed as well and as tightly as they did their enterprises?  I'm sure they could have more clinics, better roads and an enhanced infrastructure in short order, at half the cost of comparable government bloat projects.  See, cuz Bill Gates doesn't pay $500 for a hammer....


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 22, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> But there already is a sales tax in the US, no?
> I mean, I remember paying sales tax for my Spyderco. It was listed separately on the bill. Can't remember quite what it was, but IIRC it was about 8%, and I bought it in Utah (I think. Close to the petrified forest)


Sales taxes are currently state & locality based.  For example, here in Virginia, I pay a 5% sales tax on all retail sales, except for some medicine items.  (The definition of medicine items is flaky -- and I miss the days of a simple tax on everything...)  On top of that, I pay a restaurant tax where I live on prepared foods; it's essentially another 5%, as I recall.  

But -- my dad lives in Delaware.  No sales tax.  

A national sales tax would add a fairly small amount to each sale.  How much tax you pay would be largely in your control, unlike the current income tax system where even the IRS can't figure out the rules consistently.  Don't want to pay as much in taxes?  Buy cheaper stuff or avoid buying anything you don't have to.  And I'd be willing to bet that each paycheck would go further... because more than a third of it wouldn't be vanishing...


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Implicit within your argument is the erroneous idea that net profits flow directly into a business owner's pockets. They do not. Small businesses constantly need reinvestment for equipment and other infrastructure costs like insurance, etc. Not to mention hiring NEW people.
> 
> $250,000 sounds like a lot to some, but it ain't much at all. Frequently, this is actually a critical time in the business' life cycle where prudent reinvestment can make the enterprise really grow and take off.


 
Sorry, you are mistaken here.  Money that goes back into the bussiness is a tax write off as a bussiness expense.  So is money spent for insurance.    New hires are also part of the cost of running a bussiness, so that money is not profit.  None of this is counted as profit, if the bussiness's books are being kept very well at all.  

$250,000 a year in net profit puts them in the upper 2% of earners.  By definition, if you are in the top 2%, you are making a lot.  Once again, if you have a problem with the rich paying more, then that's okay.  However, it seems that the reasons a lot of people are giving for thier belief isn't valid, just regurjitation of talking points.


----------



## crushing (Nov 22, 2010)

The current complex system of various rates and deductions is a jobs support program for the most powerful lobbyists in America, lawyers and their accountant friends.  I don't see any real progressive changes that would threaten the accounting industry coming anytime soon.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 22, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Sorry, you are mistaken here.  Money that goes back into the bussiness is a tax write off as a bussiness expense.  So is money spent for insurance.    New hires are also part of the cost of running a bussiness, so that money is not profit.  None of this is counted as profit, if the bussiness's books are being kept very well at all.



Really?  You think all capital acquisitions like buildings, heavy equipment, computer/software systems, etc, all qualify for federal tax deductions and at a 100% rate at that?  Obviously not.  Even if a fraction of it can be 'written off', the majority is not and reflects an opportunity cost for growth to the gain of Uncle Sam.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 22, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Really? You think all capital acquisitions like buildings, heavy equipment, computer/software systems, etc, all qualify for federal tax deductions and at a 100% rate at that? Obviously not. Even if a fraction of it can be 'written off', the majority is not and reflects an opportunity cost for growth to the gain of Uncle Sam.


 
When I ran my own bussiness and the bussiness that my family owns, just about %100 of everything that was put back into the bussiness was almost all a write off.  For sure it was not considered pofit if it was a bussiness expense.  By definition, anything purchased for or by use of the bussiness is a bussiness expense.  Yes, there are limitations, but if you are putting money back into the bussiness it is not considered a profit.  That has been my and my families experience.  Of course I'm not an expert on taxes.  If your personal experience is different then by all means say so.  If you are basing your assumptions on talking points you have heard instead of personal experence or research, then you might want to rethink it.

I will agree that government spending is not smart spending.  There is a lot of waste and corruption that needs to be pruned out of it.  That goes on at every level of government.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 22, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> When I ran my own bussiness and the bussiness that my family owns, just about %100 of everything that was put back into the bussiness was almost all a write off.  For sure it was not considered pofit if it was a bussiness expense.  By definition, anything purchased for or by use of the bussiness is a bussiness expense.  Yes, there are limitations, but if you are putting money back into the bussiness it is not considered a profit.  That has been my and my families experience. * Of course I'm not an expert on taxes.  If your personal experience is different then by all means say so.  If you are basing your assumptions on talking points you have heard instead of personal experence or research, then you might want to rethink it.*



I have no interest in dragging this out longer with you or to compare personal credentials.  You want the Bush tax cuts to expire and you'd to be happy to see additional taxes at income brackets other than yours.  Something along the lines of "as long as it's not me".  

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and your vote.  I am just noting that you've not considered all the dynamics that go into that arbitrary $250,000 threshold, and your understanding of business is rather black and white rather than I daresay a nuanced view.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 22, 2010)

Warren Buffet says TAX THE RICH



> _"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you_," Buffett said. "_But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."_


 
Warren Buffet? What a "loser!" :lfao:

Looks like he agrees with Georgia and me:



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> The only thing that trickles down is _*urine*_


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Warren Buffet says TAX THE RICH


As has been said before, were he serious, he could easily write a friggin check and STFU...
He isn't serious about wanting to be taxed.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 22, 2010)

Big Don said:


> He isn't serious about wanting to be taxed.


 

Well, that's an opinion.

A moments reflection, though, would at least bring you to agreeing that raising his taxes to the extent he's speaking of  wouldn't effect his (unpretentious and frugal) lifestyle in anyway.

So why wouldn't he be serious?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Well, that's an opinion.
> 
> A moments reflection, though, would at least bring you to agreeing that raising his taxes to the extent he's speaking of  wouldn't effect his (unpretentious and frugal) lifestyle in anyway.
> 
> So why wouldn't he be serious?


It is an opinion consistent with  the difference between his self-aggrandizing words (LOOK WHAT A WONDERFUL BILLIONAIRE I AM!!!) and his actions, were he serious about wanting to help the American people, all he would have to do is write a check. Not, do what he is doing, telling anyone who will listen that he wants to be taxed but, the government won't take his money.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 22, 2010)

Actually Warren buffet spends a lot of money on charities, so he does write a lot of checks.  A lot of these millionaires that are proponants of the Bush tax cuts expiring think this because of the total amount of money it would make for the government.  A few millionairs "writing a check" wouldn't really touch that total.

As far as me thinking the tax break should be let to expire on the rich, yes I am for it.  Not because it doesn't effect me, but because it makes sense.  If someone could tell me a reason that it shouldn't be let to expire I might change my mind.  Instead all I'm getting is crap talking points that aren't based on reality.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 22, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Instead all I'm getting is crap talking points that aren't based on reality.



I was trying to be polite. 

<shrugs>  

If stating that you don't know the first thing about how business taxes really work is 'crap talking points', I guess I am guilty as charged.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2010)

Not everything that a business spends it's money on is a tax write off.  The thing is, there are a lot of things that are.  The system is set up for the rich, there can be no denying that, and one need not really show a profit, just an investment.

The cool thing about it, though, is that most people can do it if they have even a minimal financial education, which schools don't teach.  For instance, if I were smart (and was really dedicated to doing so), I could start a property company.  The first thing that I would do with the business, is buy my house, then rent it to myself.  But, in actuallity, I would maybe start two properties, one to own the land that my house sits on, and one to own the actual house itself.

What are the benefits, you ask.

First, I am CEO of an LLC.  As such, say, I need a car.  Rather then buy the car out of my own pocket, the business buys it for me as an expense.  Now, not only am I "not paying for the car", but the car note is a tax write off "for the business" (at the current rate, I can write off up to $75,000 per vehicle).  So what costs you $75,000 would not cost me the same amount.  Secondly, as two businesses, I can write off the same expenses twice.

Next, although you can't do this for the land itself, I can write off depreciation of the building itself, as well as items inside of it, such as dishwashers, washing machines, etc.  I may have to sell the pay back the depreciation when I sell the house, but only if I don't do a 1031 tax exchange on the property.  

If improvements need to be made, I can now write it off as an expense.

So, although not *every *expense is a write-off, there is a lot of things that are.  And by incorporating, business owners save a ton of money on taxes for things that you and I do not.

In short, WC and Dancing, you are both correct, but I think the confusion is that you aren't exactly speaking about the same thing.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 22, 2010)

Perhaps you are right Kenpo.  I am talking of incorporated bussinesses.  In my experience, just about every bussiness is incoporated because it limits possible liabilities and is much better tax wise.  I don't know of a real reason a bussiness wouldn't incorporate, unless lacking the funds to hire a lawyer and file the paperwork.  Of course, if that is the case, I doubt they'd be making over $250,000


----------



## Omar B (Nov 22, 2010)

I always enjoy these conversations about how others should dispense with their money, and how much the government should take.  No invitations from anyone to have the government dig out a bit more from their pockets, but it's fine for the other guys.


----------



## billc (Nov 22, 2010)

From what I heard today Warren Buffet pays most of his taxes through the capital gains tax rate.  THe increase in the income tax would not actually effect him because one, he won't ever pay it, and two, he is wealthy enough that it won't effect him but it will effect his competitors.  That is also why he supports high death taxes.  Death taxes often force families to sell off their family businesses, which alows Buffet to come in with his various ventures and buy them at a discount price.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 22, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . That is also why he supports high death taxes. Death taxes often force families to sell off their family businesses, which alows Buffet to come in with his various ventures and buy them at a discount price.


 
He supports the death tax because-*like a lot of rich people*-he doesn't believe in inherited excessive wealth.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> He supports the death tax because-*like a lot of rich people*-he doesn't believe in inherited excessive wealth.


 
Ok, that's fine.  I still question how that justifies his assertion that the government should take the money (that has already been taxed, btw) that someone else has earned (and has already been taxed).

Unless, of course, he wants the government to conduct some social engineering.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2010)

elder999 said:


> He supports the death tax because-*like a lot of rich people*-he doesn't believe in inherited excessive wealth.


Then why not ignore the fact that he isn't being taxed at a rate he thinks appropriate and WRITE A CHECK for the majority of his wealth?
Oh, because he doesn't really mean it?


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2010)

Let me point out my view with a story.  You are having thanksgiving dinner at your house.  You have 12 guests and you realize you only have 4 slices of bread.  Your nephew Barry volunteers to go to the store before it closes.  You say, "Barry, bread is on sale for 2 loaves for 2 dollars, here is a 20 dollar bill, thanks for going."  An hour later Barry comes back with a big, half eaten bag of candy, and a big, half drunk bottle of pop and no bread.  Barry says, "I ran into some friends on the way to the store.  On the way into the store I wanted to impress them so I made a show of putting your 20 dollars into the Salvation Army Kettle.  Everyone around was really impressed with my generosity.  When we got in the store, I realized I didn't have your 20 dollars anymore so I convinced the Manager to extend a line of credit in your name.  I used that to buy pop and candy for me and my friends.  I was half way home when I realized I forgot to get the bread, but the store was closed by then.  Don't worry, give me the 20 dollars you owe the store and I will pay the store tomorrow."  You point out that not only are you down 40 dollars with nothing to show for it, but now you do not have enough bread for your own guests.  Would you get angry?  Would you give him the money?  Now your uncle Warren, who is also at your house says to your anger, " Hey, he just gave 20 dollars to help the poor and he took care of his friends, stop being selfish.  You have more than enough money to cover that 40 dollars.  Give Barry the other 20 and stop being greedy."  Do you see my point now.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 24, 2010)

All of this talk about "small business" is a red herring.  We are speaking of personal income tax rates here.  Those tax rates have no bearing on business income, profits, reinvestment of anything else until money is taken out of the business *as personal income*.  Tellingly, the corporate tax rate is both lower than most of the personal tax rate brackets and isn't changing anytime soon.

Spare me the talk of the "little guy just starting out."  It betrays a vast ignorance of what we're even talking about.


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2010)

Sorry empty hands, it is about personal income tax rates because a lot of small businesses apparently file taxes as sub-chapter s corporations.  Tax accountants will have to fill in the details I just here about these things on the news and on the radio.  Small businesses who file this way put their business profits under personal income, hence they get socked with the new tax increases.


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2010)

Victor Davis Hanson, over at pajamasmedia.com, weighs in on Warren buffet's dumb idea of asking people to pay higher taxes.  A couple of points, Buffet has always avoided paying higher taxes with his ability to pay at the lower capital gains rate, over regular people who pay the income tax rate.  Also, Buffet has vowed to plow vast sums of his money into the Gates foundation, a TAX-EXEMPT charity, instead of giving it to the government.  Take a look at the whole article.  Victor Davis Hanson is a great writer with a great mind.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 25, 2010)

*Gifts to the United States Government*

*How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?*
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government  may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United  States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as  bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the  United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by  the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These  contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government.  Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the  United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD  20782 ​


----------



## elder999 (Nov 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> *Gifts to the United States Government*
> 
> *How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?*
> Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
> ...


 

And, in fact, there is a space provided for this on tax returns. 

So how do you know that they aren't doing this?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And, in fact, there is a space provided for this on tax returns.
> 
> So how do you know that they aren't doing this?


Because, if they were, they'd be running around telling all and sundry, "Look at the wonderful thing I did, I donated MILLIONS to the government and NO ONE forced me to."
instead of running around complaining they are under taxed.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 25, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Because, if they were, they'd be running around telling all and sundry, "Look at the wonderful thing I did, I donated MILLIONS to the government and NO ONE forced me to."
> instead of running around complaining they are under taxed.


 

I donate all kinds of money and time, and I don't run around telling all and sundry about it. Lots of people do. And tax returns-for most of us-are private matters, as this should be. Again, if they have an opinion about public policy-and an aspect of that policy that only affects them, and not you-why the hostility? 

I mean, we've got a huge deficit-you do know we're going to have to raise income taxes at some point in our lifetimes, right? :lfao:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Also, Buffet has vowed to plow vast sums of his money into the Gates foundation, a TAX-EXEMPT charity, instead of giving it to the government.  Take a look at the whole article.  Victor Davis Hanson is a great writer with a great mind.



Well, tbh, the money is probably better spent there, than being used to finance the Iraqi war. At least now the money is used for saving lives on a large scale, rather than ending them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I donate all kinds of money and time, and I don't run around telling all and sundry about it. Lots of people do.



+1 to what he said.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 25, 2010)

True charity doesn't look for recognition.  Maybe he is donating tons of money and/or time and not giving out press releases every time he does so.  You don't know one way or another.

Buffet is expressing an opinion on US tax policy.  In fact, he is expressing an opinion on HIS tax bracket.  You may not agree with his opinion, but he has the right to express it.  The just shut up and write a check line of thought just doesn't jive with that.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Bruno, that is part of the point, the money would be better spent in a charity or organization that he heads or that other personally concerned people would head.  He is doing this for himself, but he wants the government to take money from other people.  Not him.  That is why at the beginning I called these guys losers.  I also disagree about Iraq but that is for another time.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 28, 2010)

Let's see: should we give the very wealthy tax cuts that amount to nearly twice the typical family's annual income? Or should we put those tax revenues to work cretaing more jobs for the poor, the middle class and the unemployed, to promote the common good?

In the Bush administration, we gave massive tax cuts to the wealthy. It didn't lead to strong growth in investment, employment, or wages, but it did lead to higher income inequality and more McMansions. Unemployment continues ot be at near record highs. On in ten workers is out of work and searching for a job, but for every five hob hunters, there is only one job available. The typical U.S. household makes almost $2000 a year less than it did when the "recession" started-the largest two year decline since we started tracking incomes with the Census, more than 40 years ago. 

Things are even worse for those at the bottom. The percentage of the population living in poverty rose for the third straight year and is now higher than it's ever been for 15 years. In 2009 one out of every five children lived in poverty.

The richest 5% of U.S. households saw their average income actually rise last year by $1800.

So, when the Bush tax cuts expire-as they were meant to-Obama wants to cut taxes for everyone making less than $250,000-that's 98% of the people in the country. Conservatives say no way, unless we cut taxes for the richest 2% as well. It's claimed that it will help small businesses, but only 3% of taxpayers with any business incomes are among those with incomes above $250,000. Of that 3%, most are not what we'd think of as small business owners-they are partners in law firms, hedge fund managers, and owners of some of the biggest companies in the world. Keeping those higher tax cuts in place over the next 10 eyars and paying interest on the added debt would cost us more than $800 billon-more than we spent on the Wall Street bailout. More than 80 percent of the benefit will go to people making at least $1 million a year.; their average tax cut would be more than $100,000.

I say let's have that $800 billion for building things, and making jobs-the "Patriot millionaires" aren't misguided losers-they're fiscally responsible, more so than any so-called fiscally responsible conservative who wants to maintain those tax cuts.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 28, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Let's see: should we give the very wealthy tax cuts that amount to nearly twice the typical family's annual income? Or should we put those tax revenues to work cretaing more jobs for the poor, the middle class and the unemployed, to promote the common good?


 
Maybe the government should stop trying to create jobs and work instead on the things the Constitution actually gives them a responsibility to do.

I know that I'm beating a dead horse here, again, but the only jobs the government ever creates that are in the long term interest of the public (maybe) are... government jobs.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 29, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Maybe the government should stop trying to create jobs and work instead on the things the Constitution actually gives them a responsibility to do.


 
Ok-let's use that $800 billion to pay off some of that debt we've incurred for our grandchildren......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 29, 2010)

I say we let the guys who ran the bills up pay for it themselves. Lets see Obama, Pelosi, Reed, etc open their wallets up.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 29, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Ok-let's use that $800 billion to pay off some of that debt we've incurred for our grandchildren......


 
I'm down with that.  Except for the fact that most of that debt is caused by stuff the government has no Constitutional right doing in the first place.

But we still have to pay it off.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 29, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I say we let the guys who ran the bills up pay for it themselves. Lets see Obama, Pelosi, Reed, etc open their wallets up.


 
I think you forgot a few names on that list.  Let's see, Bush for the wars, tax cuts, Medicare prescription plan, and the bank bailouts, all of which were unfunded.  The Republicans who controlled congress for most of the time since Clinton was in office, you know, when we actually had a balanced budget.  Yeah, the same Republicans that did things like set aside the paygo rules in congress.  For those that don't know, that is a rule that said any legislation brought up in congress would not be voted upon unless it also included the means to pay for said legislation. Which, by the way, have been reinstated since Obama took office.

I get tired of conservatives pointing thier fingers at the Democrats in office, while ignoring the track record of the Republicans who held/hold office.  If fiscal responsibility is truly your concern, then it seems there are many Republicans who should be getting a full dose of your disdain and ire.  However, for many conservative type people, that really isn't the issue.  The issue is there is a Democrat got voted into the office of presidency and Democrats are in charge of the senate.  If things like fiscal responsibility were important, Republican leaders' feet would be held to the fire to quit wasting government time (and money) with thier just-say-no non-governing style of governing and actually start submitting some legilation to control the spending they are so dead set against.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 29, 2010)

elder999 said:


> I mean, we've got a huge deficit-you do know we're going to have to raise income taxes at some point in our lifetimes, right? :lfao:



Not at all, my good man.  The Laffer Curve tells us that as tax rates fall, governmental income increases.  Clearly then, all we need to do is drop our tax rates to zero.  On that blessed day, governmental income will asymptotically approach infinity!  Think of all the government will be able to accomplish!

Simple math based on simple models.


----------



## crushing (Nov 29, 2010)

Actually, conservatives are pointing their fingers at the big spenders in both parties.  Please see any number of reports and articles from the conservative Cato Institute that are very critical of Bush policies, and particularly the spending in increasing federal powers.



> Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.


 
Of course, the Bush administration never did.

Please do not confuse the terms Republican and conservative as they are not often actually synonymous as the Republicans have moved to acceptance of a more liberal serving of big government which requires big spending.  Neo-conservatives are called neo-conservatives because they are not actually conservatives.


----------

