Bush tax cuts for top earners should expire - says someone smarter than all of us!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Case in point: There is absolutely nothing preventing any individual taxpayer from writing a check to the IRS in an amount larger than their tax bill due.
-snip-

Correct, and I'll go you one better - 'gifts' to the federal government are tax deductible as a charitable contribution.

Funny how people like Buffet think it's better to give their money to private charities than the fed gov. Obviously they don't trust the fed gov to spend it wisely, or in a worthwhile manner.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
More and more I'm starting to think Warren Buffet is F.o.S.

He benefits by the special 'loophole' for fund managers ('carried interest').

The carrried interest rule wasn't put into effect by the Bush tax cuts. Him calling for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would still leave him his 'loophole'.

I.e., he's calling for higher tax rates for OTHER rich people, not himself. He must be a Democrat.

Fern

Actually Buffet has strongly and repeatedly called for higher taxes on himself. He has called for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts as part of his larger belief that the rich are not taxed nearly highly enough.

It's been interesting watching you drift further and further to the right over time. I remember when you used to try to get people to be more reasonable, and now it's turned into 'he's trying to tax other people, he must be a Democrat.'
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Correct, and I'll go you one better - 'gifts' to the federal government are tax deductible as a charitable contribution.

Funny how people like Buffet think it's better to give their money to private charities than the fed gov. Obviously they don't trust the fed gov to spend it wisely, or in a worthwhile manner.

Fern

No, it's that money given to charities can be concentrated easily and highly directed by the individual making the contribution. The argument that he should cut a check to the government if he believes in higher taxes is so stupid that a child could figure it out. Don't act like you don't know better.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Case in point: There is absolutely nothing preventing any individual taxpayer from writing a check to the IRS in an amount larger than their tax bill due. I'm pretty sure that if you aggregate all of the high-earners in the country who are clamoring for higher tax rates (Buffet, Gates, Obama, et al) and examine their tax returns their will be a grand total of zero who have voluntarily overpaid taxes at a level they consider reasonable.

Their protestations ring as hollow as NFL and NBA owners who protest high player salaries; nobody is holding a gun to Dan Snyder's head and forcing him to give Donovan McNabb an $88 million contract. Nobody is holding a gun to Buffet's head and forcing him to only pay an average rate of 1%. If he thinks taxes are too low then by god just put your money where your mouth is and voluntarily pay more.

Any person who says they earn $250,000+ and would be happy to pay more needs to make their tax returns public showing that they already are paying more or they just need to shut up for being two-faced.

It's a mystery why people who presumably are able to tie their shoelaces cannot tell the difference between having an opinion on tax rates and donating their money.

If you advocate a 1% increase in taxes, it has an effect of many billions of dollars. If you pay 1% more taxes yourself and no one else does, it has no effect.

Hypocrisy would be if you advocated the 1% increase for everyone except yourself, and that is not the case. Your point is so imbecilic, it's a mystery why some make it.

Why don't we make all taxes voluntary, following your logic, and then ANYONE who supports ANY mandatory taxes can be shut up with 'if you want that, you pay them.'

And then when the system completely plummets into Mad Max, you can declare victory.

Give me these civic-minded people who understand something about the practical distribution of taxation over morons who support the above, any day.

I await your answer as to why making all taxes optional and telling anyone who wants any mandatory taxes the only answer is 'pay it yourself' is not your stated logic.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
It's a mystery why people who presumably are able to tie their shoelaces cannot tell the difference between having an opinion on tax rates and donating their money.

If you advocate a 1% increase in taxes, it has an effect of many billions of dollars. If you pay 1% more taxes yourself and no one else does, it has no effect.

Hypocrisy would be if you advocated the 1% increase for everyone except yourself, and that is not the case. Your point is so imbecilic, it's a mystery why some make it.

Why don't we make all taxes voluntary, following your logic, and then ANYONE who supports ANY mandatory taxes can be shut up with 'if you want that, you pay them.'

And then when the system completely plummets into Mad Max, you can declare victory.

Give me these civic-minded people who understand something about the practical distribution of taxation over morons who support the above, any day.

I await your answer as to why making all taxes optional and telling anyone who wants any mandatory taxes the only answer is 'pay it yourself' is not your stated logic.

Wow, what an incorrect leap of logic you make it's absolutely amazing.

Warren Buffet's position on the matter is that people making a galactic pantsload of money need to pay more in taxes. By his own definition he makes a galactic pantsload of money. Yet despite his claim that he would willingly pay more in taxes he willingly pays the minimum necessary and does not willingly pay more in taxes.

My post's point, which you either didn't get or ignored, isn't on the mandate of taxes. My point clearly was that despite Buffet's claims to the contrary he is completely unwilling to pay more in taxes. That fact can be verified by the fact that he does not pay more in taxes than the minimum required by the IRS.

His public statements carry the same hypocrisy as someone who felt all citizens should have mandatory military service but never served himself. It's very gracious of him to volunteer an entire class of people for an obligation he himself is unwilling to make.

Statements to the effect of "I would gladly do more than the minimum or amount required by law but since you aren't forcing me to I won't" have absolutely no sincerity to them.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
No, it's that money given to charities can be concentrated easily and highly directed by the individual making the contribution. The argument that he should cut a check to the government if he believes in higher taxes is so stupid that a child could figure it out. Don't act like you don't know better.

The argument for why he should cut a check to the federal gov is so obvious a child could figure it out:

It's called 'leading by example'. (Or putting your money where your mouth is.)

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
The argument for why he should cut a check to the federal gov is so obvious a child could figure it out:

It's called 'leading by example'. (Or putting your money where your mouth is.)

Fern

If you think the US should have invaded Iraq you should have gone, grabbed a rifle, and invaded the country yourself. Don't wait for the rest of the country to act with you.

It's called leading by example, or putting your money where your mouth is.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Actually Buffet has strongly and repeatedly called for higher taxes on himself. He has called for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts as part of his larger belief that the rich are not taxed nearly highly enough.
-snip-

Well how much does buffet think is enough?

Execs making salary (not options) are now paying near (in some case over) 50%.

Buffet proposes the (other) rich people don't get the Bush tax cuts extended to them. Know what Buffet would pay without it?

He'd pay just 20% to the federal gov without the Bush cuts.

Pardon me if I can't take him seriously.
---------------------

Buffet doesn't know jack sh!t about taxes, or he hides it d@mn well if he does, or he's flat-out disengenuous. It looks a lot like the latter, or at least a combination of the 1st and 3rd.

Look, if you wanna tax the truly wealthy, recinding the Bush tax cuts ain't the way.

Really wealthy people, like Buffet, don't take their income in the form of wages taxed as ordinary income. They take it as LT cap gain. You want to get to them, above a certain amount ($1 million, $5 million, whatever) you tax it as ordinary income subject to SS etc.

Buffet doesn't propose any thing of the sort, what he proposes is taxing the h@ll out of upper middle class.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
If you think the US should have invaded Iraq you should have gone, grabbed a rifle, and invaded the country yourself. Don't wait for the rest of the country to act with you.

It's called leading by example, or putting your money where your mouth is.

You won't find a post by me calling for that. Don't bother to look, check my join date, it was after the war already started.

In any case it's moot, I'm (or was) too old, they wouldn't take me.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Well how much does buffet think is enough?

Execs making salary (not options) are now paying near (in some case over) 50%.

Buffet proposes the (other) rich people don't get the Bush tax cuts extended to them. Know what Buffet would pay without it?

He'd pay just 20% to the federal gov without the Bush cuts.

Pardon me if I can't take him seriously.
---------------------

Buffet doesn't know jack sh!t about taxes, or he hides it d@mn well if he does, or he's flat-out disengenuous. It looks a lot like the latter, or at least a combination of the 1st and 3rd.

Look, if you wanna tax the truly wealthy, recinding the Bush tax cuts ain't the way.

Really wealthy people, like Buffet, don't take their income in the form of wages taxed as ordinary income. They take it as LT cap gain. You want to get to them, above a certain amount ($1 million, $5 million, whatever) you tax it as ordinary income subject to SS etc.

Buffet doesn't propose any thing of the sort, what he proposes is taxing the h@ll out of upper middle class.

Fern

Only on this message board are people making 500% of the median income in this country, the top 2% of incomes, the 'upper middle class'. (not to mention that to be seriously bit by this you would need to make quite a bit more than $250,000)

Never ceases to amaze.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
You won't find a post by me calling for that. Don't bother to look, check my join date, it was after the war already started.

In any case it's moot, I'm (or was) too old, they wouldn't take me.

Fern

It was an argument through example, to illustrate the principle of collective action, and the complete absurdity of what you were suggesting.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Only on this message board are people making 500% of the median income in this country, the top 2% of incomes, the 'upper middle class'. (not to mention that to be seriously bit by this you would need to make quite a bit more than $250,000)

Never ceases to amaze.

Serously, you're going to completely ignore that recinding the Bush tax cuts won't really affect the uber wealthy?

Amazing.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Wow, what an incorrect leap of logic you make it's absolutely amazing.

Warren Buffet's position on the matter is that people making a galactic pantsload of money need to pay more in taxes. By his own definition he makes a galactic pantsload of money. Yet despite his claim that he would willingly pay more in taxes he willingly pays the minimum necessary and does not willingly pay more in taxes.

You only confirm everything I said.

He pays the minimum because he understands the difference between *the tax rate for people who make pantsloads*, and his personally making a larger payment.

The policy he advocates WOULD cost him more money - and it would raise a substantial amount of money. He alone donating that same amount would not.

It's not that complicated.

My post's point, which you either didn't get or ignored, isn't on the mandate of taxes. My point clearly was that despite Buffet's claims to the contrary he is completely unwilling to pay more in taxes. That fact can be verified by the fact that he does not pay more in taxes than the minimum required by the IRS.

He IS willing to pay more taxes, as he would if the policy he advocates is passed. Tax rate, not his personal donation, to repeat the point for you.

His public statements carry the same hypocrisy as someone who felt all citizens should have mandatory military service but never served himself. It's very gracious of him to volunteer an entire class of people for an obligation he himself is unwilling to make.

No, they don't; he lacks hypocrisy just as someone who (wrongly IMO) advocates mandatory military service for everyone and WOULD serve under that policy.

You again disprove your own position.

Now, you don't have to be affected by a policy you advocate to have every right to advocate it. You can be for the estate tax, and be one of the 99.8% of people who don't pay it under the current proposal. You can support the country going to war even if you are not going to be participating. You can support a policy on our education system even if you have no kids in it. And so on. Now, whether your motives are more or less selfish is a separate issue.

Buffet's are remarkably altruistic - he's offering to pay more himself as one of his class doing so because he's concerned about society doing well.

Statements to the effect of "I would gladly do more than the minimum or amount required by law but since you aren't forcing me to I won't" have absolutely no sincerity to them.

Yes, they do. If the rat is raised, it raises a lot of money. If he pays the same amount himself and no one else does, it's not.

And to repeat:

I await your answer as to why making all taxes optional and telling anyone who wants any mandatory taxes the only answer is 'pay it yourself' is not your stated logic.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Only on this message board are people making 500% of the median income in this country, the top 2% of incomes, the 'upper middle class'. (not to mention that to be seriously bit by this you would need to make quite a bit more than $250,000)

Never ceases to amaze.

What about the rest of his points?

Never ceases to amaze that people will pick the least significant part of a statement and base their entire retort on that single part.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Serously, you're going to completely ignore that recinding the Bush tax cuts won't really affect the uber wealthy?

Amazing.

Fern

Where did you ever get the impression that I would ignore that? We should most certainly affect the super wealthy as well, but that's no reason not to tax those who are merely extraordinarily wealthy.

Oh sorry, I meant the 'upper middle class'. hahaha.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
(Buffet) He IS willing to pay more taxes, as he would if the policy he advocates is passed. Tax rate, not his personal donation, to repeat the point for you.

Yet amazingly he's managed to structure his business so he can take advantage of the fund manager loophole.

Poor guy, paying all the tax lawyers and accountants huge fees so they can defeat him in his goal of paying more taxes.

Fern
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
What about the rest of his points?

Never ceases to amaze that people will pick the least significant part of a statement and base their entire retort on that single part.

The rest of his points were irrelevant because it presented a false dichotomy. Raising the taxes on the extremely rich is not mutually exclusive of raising the taxes on the ultra extremely rich too.

I've seen it repeatedly claimed here that the richest 2% of income earners are merely 'upper middle class', and it's important to dispense with that outrageous distortion.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Wow, Buffet has now apparently reached the status reserved for such liber demi-gods as Al Gore. Now matter how hypocritical he must be defend at all costs.

If the guy were campaigning to repeal or correct the fund manager loophole, I would be onboard with him. But seeing how recinding the Bush tax cuts wouldn't do that, I cannot respect him here.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You only confirm everything I said.

He pays the minimum because he understands the difference between *the tax rate for people who make pantsloads*, and his personally making a larger payment.

The policy he advocates WOULD cost him more money - and it would raise a substantial amount of money. He alone donating that same amount would not.

It's not that complicated.



He IS willing to pay more taxes, as he would if the policy he advocates is passed. Tax rate, not his personal donation, to repeat the point for you.

I am no tax professional nor do I have the desire to learn anymore of our fucked up tax code than is required but Fern made some pretty good points that, if true, mean Buffet would NOT pay anymore or less in taxes from the Bush tax cuts expiring. From what I understand of Ferns post you could raise the top tax bracket 90% and he wouldn't be affected.

Shrug, as I have repeatedly said, this is all a diversion. If they really wanted to tax the rich they would add a new bracket for the uberrich bastards and get 95% of the revenue and then argue about the other 5%. If they did that you lose most of the arguments against 95% of the tax increases and gain the revenue while you argue about the rest.

Funny how they haven't done that yet isn't it?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Where did you ever get the impression that I would ignore that? We should most certainly affect the super wealthy as well, but that's no reason not to tax those who are merely extraordinarily wealthy.

Oh sorry, I meant the 'upper middle class'. hahaha.

Maybe you missed it, but Buffets income is almost all considered Long Term Capital Gains, not income. Raising the income tax will not raise his taxes. Last I heard, he has an income of $100,000 a year. He is advocating a tax increase that will not affect him.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The rest of his points were irrelevant because it presented a false dichotomy. Raising the taxes on the extremely rich is not mutually exclusive of raising the taxes on the ultra extremely rich too.

I've seen it repeatedly claimed here that the richest 2% of income earners are merely 'upper middle class', and it's important to dispense with that outrageous distortion.

Top 2% includes people making even a bit less $250K.

$250K ain't rich, it's upper middle class.

You've got get to the top .1% before you get to people with income of $1 million or more.(And top .01% before you get to $5M in income.)

So, yeah he wants to raise the tax burden on upper middle class (while simultaneously letting the uber wealthy, like himself, skate away).

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Maybe you missed it, but Buffets income is almost all considered Long Term Capital Gains, not income. Raising the income tax will not raise his taxes. Last I heard, he has an income of $100,000 a year. He is advocating a tax increase that will not affect him.

I didn't at all. He argues for increasing his own taxes AND for increasing the taxes on $250,000 and up as in this case. As I said before, these two are not mutually exclusive.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Only on this message board are people making 500% of the median income in this country, the top 2% of incomes, the 'upper middle class'. (not to mention that to be seriously bit by this you would need to make quite a bit more than $250,000)

Never ceases to amaze.

Can you not understand that a married couple of software engineer YUPPYs making $250k combined is not even on the same planet as douchebag Buffett?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The rest of his points were irrelevant because it presented a false dichotomy. Raising the taxes on the extremely rich is not mutually exclusive of raising the taxes on the ultra extremely rich too.

I've seen it repeatedly claimed here that the richest 2% of income earners are merely 'upper middle class', and it's important to dispense with that outrageous distortion.

Earned income alone does not make you rich. I know plenty of families that make between $150K - $300K and I only consider one of them rich. The rest have a crapton of debt. A few of them actually have liabilities (debt) that exceeds the value of their assets which means they are basically bankrupt (and will be actually bankrupt if they lose one of their jobs).

Sorry but I must disagree with you. Assets make you rich, income allows you to aquire those assets but it doesn't automatically make you rich. I would bet real money that if all of the households that make $250K a year got rid of all their life insurance and similar products that their estate wouldn't qualify for the death tax when they die. Hell, a lot of em would owe more money then their estate is worth. That just isn't rich in my book but you can call it whatever you personally want, its rather irrelevant to the actual meat of the issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Top 2% includes people making even a bit less $250K.

$250K ain't rich, it's upper middle class.

You've got get to the top .1% before you get to people with income of $1 million or more.(And top .01% before you get to $5M in income.)

So, yeah he wants to raise the tax burden on upper middle class (while simultaneously letting the uber wealthy, like himself, skate away).

Fern

I can't think of a single solitary issue where an individual in the top 2% of something would have his position referred to as being in the 'upper middle'.

Are students whose GPA's are in the top 2% of their graduating class called the 'upper middle'? No, actually as a general rule they would graduate summa cum laude, or 'with highest honors'. Maybe we should rename it the 'upper middle honor'.

Perhaps a chart would help you better:
marzano2001afig11.gif