Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy

[piasabird]

You didnt build that.

 

[piasabird]

How about we do away with all business deductions. It is your money and if you spend it too bad.

 

[silverpig]

some arguments are fucking idiotic. Yes company's use roads, phone etc etc. so does EVERY PERSON in teh us. btw we all pay tax's (yes company's get ways out of paying what they should close those).

but to say a business owner didnt make his company because of it is insane. IF i start a business and it fails im the one that takes a major hit in credit, income, money, family etc. nobody else. So why if it succeeds its now everyones success?

Very well, let's go full on libertarian. Spin off each of the departments of the government as a private enterprise. Department of transportation owns all the roads privately, the FAA owns all the airspace, the FCC owns all the EM spectrum licences not already purchased.

How much you think they're gonna charge you to step on the road? If you owned all the roads, how much would YOU charge?

 

[werepossum]

It's a shame that Warren Buffet has to have govt agents threaten him with jail in order for him to give what he wants to give.

Is he really that inadequate? I hope not... maybe I'm missing something.

LOL +1

Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[dank69]

I have yet to see anyone claim that they don't need to pay taxes at all. thats just stupid.

bfdd did when he said get rid of the whole thing. He didn't sign up for this. etc.

they do need to close the loopholes in tax's though. no way should someone making millions have a less tax rate then me.

Aslo you seem to ignore the meat of my post. how is it that if i start a business and it fails it is my failure to deal with. I have to deal with the credit hit, the income hit, the physical (yes it is physical too (witch is one of the reasosn i retired)), emotional etc by myself. its all my issue.

If you set up your company correctly, you don't take a personal credit hit for a failed business. Other than that the other three things are no different than if you lost your job working for the man. The only thing that makes it riskier is any personal resources you invest.

But if it is a success now it's EVERYONES's success? seems to many wan't it both ways but that's not possible.

Besides the fact that you could not have acheive said success without the infrastructure in place?

Look, I don't have time to explain to you why we have a progressive tax system. You can google it up if you really question it.

 

[dank69]

LOL +1

Do as I say, not as I do.

Another one jumping on the fail boat. Maybe if he said "tax everyone else but not me" you might have a valid point.

 

[werepossum]

A minimum tax on the wealthy already exists and it even has a descriptive name: the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Congress should just concern themselves with fixing the AMT so that it gets back to doing what it was originally intended to do and stop it from having non-consensual rectal relations with middle class homeowners.

One would think this would have ended the thread. However, it does miss one key area, which is the ability of the very wealthy to structure their income to receive preferential treatment. John Edwards for instance incorporated his law firm and paid himself dividends and/or stock sales to get a lower rate. I cannot believe John Edwards is in any way unusual in that, especially since Warren Buffet himself does much the same. This is one reason I think the best tax plan would be to tax every dollar above the federal poverty level at one flat rate, with no exemptions.

 

[werepossum]

Another one jumping on the fail boat. Maybe if he said "tax everyone else but not me" you might have a valid point.

When you structure your income as corporate profits and you continually fight to pay less tax on those corporate profits than the government says you owe, you have said "tax everyone else but not me. I'd rather pay lawyers than the government I want everyone else to pay, because I know best how to spend my money - just like I know best how to spend my fellow 1%ers' money."

 

[Fern]

Nice propaganda puff piece. Mitt obviously escapes the AMT, paying <15%, as do many of the uber wealthy.
-snip-

It's "obvious" only to non-tax professionals.

Last week I read an in depth article dissecting Romney's return info. The author concluded Romney was paying AMT, at least in a prior year.

AMT rates on LTCG are also 15%.

Here, read this. It's pretty helpful in understanding LTCG and the AMT:

http://fairmark.com/amt/ltcg.htm

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

It's "obvious" only to non-tax professionals.

Last week I read an in depth article dissecting Romney's return info. The author concluded Romney was paying AMT, at least in a prior year.

AMT rates on LTCG are also 15%.

Here, read this. It's pretty helpful in understanding LTCG and the AMT:

http://fairmark.com/amt/ltcg.htm

Fern

Oh, please. What's the AMT rate on Mitt's income had it been earned income instead of LTCG's?

That was my reference, if a bit unclear.

Basically, what you offer is that even the AMT is rigged towards America's wealthiest, those whose incomes are made from investment.

We haven't even discussed carried interest provisions, where PE & hedge fund managers get to claim what really is earned income as investment income, pay only 15%, regardless of their stake in the firm.

Your linked article applies to Mitt not in the slightest, btw.

 

[Incorruptible]

Oh, please. What's the AMT rate on Mitt's income had it been earned income instead of LTCG's?

That was my reference, if a bit unclear.

Basically, what you offer is that even the AMT is rigged towards America's wealthiest, those whose incomes are made from investment.

We haven't even discussed carried interest provisions, where PE & hedge fund managers get to claim what really is earned income as investment income, pay only 15%, regardless of their stake in the firm.

Your linked article applies to Mitt not in the slightest, btw.

So what did the evil rich do to you, What do you have against them

 

[shira]

You mean like Shira who proclaims to be part of the 1% and wants Obamacare so he can retire early? You know, so the middle class can pick up his health costs while he spends his millions?

Or like Phokus who lives in one of the richest counties in the country and wants everybody else to pay more taxes?

I like where this is going. I will personally deliver the tax bill to both of these if this passes free of charge.

I don't brag about it. I've mentioned being a 1-percenter once, in the context of the Affordable Care Act, to point out how our horrible private-insurance-based health care system can force people into making less-than-optimal work-related decision to ensure that they have good health insurance.

And you've completely mis-characterized what I wrote. I never wrote that I expected the middle class to pay for my health costs. What I wrote was that my financial situation is such that I could easily retire right now, but my inability to obtain decent private insurance because of pre-existing conditions forces me to continue to work for an employer who covers me under their group policy. The risk of self-insuring is simply too great to take.

What sort of country creates a health-care environment where someone with substantial outside income is forced to continue working? And although it doesn't apply to me, what sort of country creates a health-care environment where someone with the passion and creativity to start and run their own successful business cannot do so because they're unable to get private health insurance? Our health care system is insane.

But to return to the original point: I'm perfectly willing to pay a substantial premium for health coverage, which I assume I will under the ACA. How you get from this to your claim that I expect the middle class (or any class) to "pay for my health costs" is mystifying.

And, yes, I completely agree with Buffet that the upper 1% - including myself - pay far too little in taxes. And it's totally non-hypocritical for me to advocate a change in our tax laws that applies to ALL 1-percenters - not just me - without "volunteering" to pretend that those laws are already in place. It's called a level playing field. I'll happily pay my increased taxes when everyone else in my financial situation is also forced to pay them.

 

[dmcowen674]

I don't brag about it.

I've mentioned being a 1-percenter once

So what do you do or what did you do to get in the 1%?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't brag about it. I've mentioned being a 1-percenter once, in the context of the Affordable Care Act, to point out how our horrible private-insurance-based health care system can force people into making less-than-optimal work-related decision to ensure that they have good health insurance.

And you've completely mis-characterized what I wrote. I never wrote that I expected the middle class to pay for my health costs. What I wrote was that my financial situation is such that I could easily retire right now, but my inability to obtain decent private insurance because of pre-existing conditions forces me to continue to work for an employer who covers me under their group policy. The risk of self-insuring is simply too great to take.

What sort of country creates a health-care environment where someone with substantial outside income is forced to continue working? And although it doesn't apply to me, what sort of country creates a health-care environment where someone with the passion and creativity to start and run their own successful business cannot do so because they're unable to get private health insurance? Our health care system is insane.

But to return to the original point: I'm perfectly willing to pay a substantial premium for health coverage, which I assume I will under the ACA. How you get from this to your claim that I expect the middle class (or any class) to "pay for my health costs" is mystifying.

And, yes, I completely agree with Buffet that the upper 1% - including myself - pay far too little in taxes. And it's totally non-hypocritical for me to advocate a change in our tax laws that applies to ALL 1-percenters - not just me - without "volunteering" to pretend that those laws are already in place. It's called a level playing field. I'll happily pay my increased taxes when everyone else in my financial situation is also forced to pay them.

Well said. Thank you.

Sane middle class people would gladly pay big taxes on big money. 30% on $1M/yr? 35% on $10M+? It'd be a dream come true.

 

[piasabird]

At the present AMT does not affect Capital Gains, because they are not considered Income. Feel free to change that. I bet there are a lot of people considering cashing out of some or all of their stock positions just to avoid higher taxes. This could limit the amount of money available for investing going forward.

 

[Matt1970]

Well said. Thank you.

Sane middle class people would gladly pay big taxes on big money. 30% on $1M/yr? 35% on $10M+? It'd be a dream come true.

Everyone looks up at the classes above them with envy and asks what do you have to bitch about? Then they get into a class above them and see what they were bitching about. Most wouldn't bitch if we had an efficient Gov that wasn&#8217;t wasting their hard earned $$$$$

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

11-26-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-calls-minimum-tax-wealthy-143453119--business.html


Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy


Warren Buffett, the legendary investor who changed the debate about U.S. tax reform in 2011 with a call for the rich to pay more, is now calling for minimum tax rates for millionaires.

In a New York Times editorial printed on Monday, Buffett suggested Congress move immediately to implement minimum taxes of 30 percent on incomes of $1 million to $10 million and 35 percent above that.

"A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultra rich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours," Buffett wrote.


"Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy," he added.

Warren Buffet Description: "I'm an old dumbass that knows nothing about the modernized world economy. I grew up on earnings from stocks, now I have peasants to serve me. I have no concepts or clue that people that have half a brain will move their assets outside of the country in order to avoid hiked tax rates".

Old and stubborn. Surprise Surprise! I am in complete shock!




Look I'm not saying everything he believes in is wrong - but hiking taxes on rich and the rich alone is just god damn laughable. Moreover, I still can't understand the concept as to why we don't have a tax amount that is equal all around. Thats why percentage is used so much to equal everything out, regardless of how much you are making. Who the fuck thought tax brackets was a good idea? Derp derp, I got a raise from $83k to $85k, but I didn't actually get anymore money because I got pushed up to the next tax bracket! Brilliant!

 

[dank69]

... Who the fuck thought tax brackets was a good idea? Derp derp, I got a raise from $83k to $85k, but I didn't actually get anymore money because I got pushed up to the next tax bracket! Brilliant!

57 posts to find out you don't know how tax brackets work but don't mind running your mouth about them. Enjoy your stay.

 

[silverpig]

57 posts to find out you don't know how tax brackets work but don't mind running your mouth about them. Enjoy your stay.

Yeah, that was a big fat epic fail. He's arguing against Buffet's macroeconomics when he doesn't even know how to calculate his own taxes.

 

[CitizenKain]

lol @ this. why should I have to leave? All I'm asking for is to not be forced to participate in your Government. You dumbshits keep acting like "society" is anything, it isn't. You're all indoctrinated fools following the latest religion. Government is a cult and please explain how I'm supposed to travel without traveling on sidewalks or roads? I was born in a city, I had no choice in this matter. I'm simply asking to secede from the rest of you dumbshits, but you won't let me. You think I and everyone who thinks like me is your property. You're nothing but wannabe slave owners. *yawn* and I am "leaving" so to speak. I'm preparing to "fall off the map". There's only two ways to avoid Government intervention. Be rich enough that you can buy them off or poor enough they don't bother you. Since I would rather NOT play the game any more, I'm going to the lower end of things. Just because I'm not openly talking about the ways I'm going about hiding my money(getting it out of FRNs), aggregating goods and spending half my time not at work learning various different skills.

All because you cannot fathom other ways of "leaving", you think I need to just pick up and "leave". Still requires me to play along with your "society" fail. Everything you know is based on a logical fallacy.

btw this is the last post I'm making on this forum. Peace to all and to those who weren't tools this whole time good luck in the future. If you're an American or European, we're going to need it.

Good. Another teenage anarchist leaves because he's too much a coward to deal with logic.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

57 posts to find out you don't know how tax brackets work but don't mind running your mouth about them. Enjoy your stay.

Okay okay, I'll accept my defeat and irrational stupidity on that quote after a quick read :| I hang my head in shame.

The way it is described is entirely opposite. My position still stands on Buffet and his old ass concepts of modern world economy vs. his living in a national economy.

 

[dank69]

Okay okay, I'll accept my defeat and irrational stupidity on that quote after a quick read :| I hang my head in shame.

...

Well at least that makes you better than 95% of the conservatards here. :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

snip

And, yes, I completely agree with Buffet that the upper 1% - including myself - pay far too little in taxes. And it's totally non-hypocritical for me to advocate a change in our tax laws that applies to ALL 1-percenters - not just me - without "volunteering" to pretend that those laws are already in place. It's called a level playing field. I'll happily pay my increased taxes when everyone else in my financial situation is also forced to pay them.

What's stopping you from paying now? You're happier to pay higher rates obviously for some reason...one would think that reason is to lessen the yearly budget deficit and/or have lessen the Fed/state/whatever debt. If you view those issues as important enough to raise your taxes now (as that would happen if what Buffett wants could be immediately passed if he so wished), then you obviously are going to write what you owe this upcoming tax season, correct?

Why are you shorting what you feel the Fed/State is owed? No need to wait, send it on, the Fed/State Politicians need it (as you already agree)!

:thumbsup: to you, there's putting your money where you mouth is!

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are you shorting what you feel the Fed/State is owed? No need to wait, send it on, the Fed/State Politicians need it (as you already agree)!

Why? So cheapskate Conservatives can hold out, rather than share in the sacrifice of taxes necessary to run the govt?

"You do it! Not me!" is just another self righteous attempt at freeloading...

 

[Jhhnn]

At the present AMT does not affect Capital Gains, because they are not considered Income. Feel free to change that. I bet there are a lot of people considering cashing out of some or all of their stock positions just to avoid higher taxes. This could limit the amount of money available for investing going forward.

Hogwash. Sellers need buyers. It's a zero sum game. The amount of money actually available for investment doesn't change at all.