millionaires
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
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.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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?
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
Senior Master
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.
Spare me the talk of the "little guy just starting out." It betrays a vast ignorance of what we're even talking about.
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.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Senior Master
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
Senior Master
+1 to what he said.
WC_lun
Senior Master
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok-let's use that $800 billion to pay off some of that debt we've incurred for our grandchildren......
