QuoteOUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill - the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf - was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine - most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It's a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion - a staggering $227.4 million on average - but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn't mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million - there were 236,883 such households in 2009 - I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more - there were 8,274 in 2009 - I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.xml
I posted the entire op/ed because I like what he has to say. Too bad more people aren't as reasonable.
Bravo!
Warren Buffett is da' man!
.
And, of course, other than your trying to find a way to criticize him because he doesn't toe the party line, who is "super rich" is really a matter of perspective, isn't it?
I submit that there are millions of people in the world who, by comparison, would consider you "super rich."
I missed Henry's comment; was he trying to say that Warren Buffet isn't rich? LOL...
:spooked:
I retracted a lengthy response because I breifly forgot, I am no longer responding to politcal threads.......
Old habits... :no:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 15, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
I retracted a lengthy response because I breifly forgot, I am no longer responding to politcal threads.......
Old habits... :no:
That's nice to know. I think you have seen how wrong you have been and you're so pathetic and ashamed to admit it. :grin2:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 15, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
I retracted a lengthy response because I breifly forgot, I am no longer responding to politcal threads.......
Old habits... :no:
I believe that once you post it, you are obligated to defend it.
Otherwise, posting and deleting leaves a lot of legitimate questions unanswered.
I also believe that, unless a post contains defamatory statements, unwarranted accusations, etc., that it is
unethical to delete it.
WB just gained a HUGE amount of admiration from me personally. Imagine that, a billionaire that actually gets it!!!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 15, 2011, 05:02:30 PM
I retracted a lengthy response because I breifly forgot, I am no longer responding to politcal threads.......
Old habits... :no:
Why? I would have liked to have heard what you have to say regarding Buffett's remarks. They seem pretty spot on to me. What about you?
Quote from: Locutus on August 15, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
Why? I would have liked to have heard what you have to say regarding Buffett's remarks. They seem pretty spot on to me. What about you?
The only thing I say is, I don't think anyone has a problem with the Warren Buffetts paying more....it is the $250,000 folks that most economist believe would hurt the economy if taxes were raised now and that is what the dems want to do, raise it on those folks and up.
Also, if Buffett thinks more should be paid then why don't he just send in more, and set an example.
Other than that, I have no problem with Buffett
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 16, 2011, 06:23:59 AM
The only thing I say is, I don't think anyone has a problem with the Warren Buffetts paying more....it is the $250,000 folks that most economist believe would hurt the economy if taxes were raised now and that is what the dems want to do, raise it on those folks and up.
Can you quantify that "most economists" believe that or are you simply pulling that out of your ass to give your statement credibility? That's a rhetorical question, by the way; we already know the answer.
But anyway...I'll play your silly game...if those $250,000.00 folks are only paying a 15-20% marginal rate and I'm paying 39%, why shouldn't they pay more? At what income level would you and your make believe economists be comfortable with raising taxes so they pay the same percentage as the rest of us?
According to the IRS, households making 250,000 dollars a year and up, amount to 2% of the entire population in this country. . . 2%!
By the way, that same policy would apply to billionaires. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on August 16, 2011, 11:42:55 AM
According to the IRS, households making 250,000 dollars a year and up, amount to 2% of the entire population in this country. . . 2%!
By the way, that same policy would apply to billionaires. . .
Hell, let me make $250,000 a year and I would be happy to pay the tax raise and give them 2% more. I think I could live pretty good on the paltry sum. :grin2:
Especially since George W. and the Republicans and the Teabaggers on the national debt debacle has stolen from me $62,000. Their such good people. :knife:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 16, 2011, 07:29:16 AM
Can you quantify that "most economists" believe that or are you simply pulling that out of your ass to give your statement credibility?
a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm)
A majority of a panel means most of the economists on that panel, not most of the economists in the world or even the country. And by the way, the article you're quoting was addressing whether or not to let the current tax cuts expire last year; they didn't.
The majority of the American people believe that taxes on the rich should be increased.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 09:38:15 AM
A majority of a panel means most of the economists on that panel, not most of the economists in the world or even the country. And by the way, the article you're quoting was addressing whether or not to let the current tax cuts expire last year; they didn't.
The majority of the American people believe that taxes on the rich should be increased.
I think if we can define RICH, we may find SOME common ground....and btw, they didn't allow the tax cuts last year for a reason.....it is BAD for the economy to raise them....and that has not change over the last 12 months.....it is STILL bad for the economy.
Correct; it is bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to raise taxes. It is also bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to cut spending so what do you do?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 09:46:27 AM
Correct; it is bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to raise taxes. It is also bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to cut spending so what do you do?
inspire the private sector to create jobs........at least that is the way I see it. Temp cut captial gains tax and possible corp tax IF THAT money is invested here in the United States.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 09:51:17 AM
inspire the private sector to create jobs........at least that is the way I see it. Temp cut captial gains tax and possible corp tax IF THAT money is invested here in the United States.
Cut capital gains taxes, cut capital gain taxes. My god what a Brain Fart. The billionaires are now paying 15% on the billions they make now. Hell let them off of paying any taxes. Would that make you happy and you get to pay 26% taxes on your income. God damn it Henery, these bastards don't create jobs. You poor, poor dumb asshole. :doh: :jester:
Quote from: The Troll on August 17, 2011, 10:14:31 AM
Cut capital gains taxes, cut capital gain taxes. My god what a Brain Fart. The billionaires are now paying 15% on the billions they make now. Hell let them off of paying any taxes. Would that make you happy and you get to pay 26% taxes on your income. God damn it Henery, these bastards don't create jobs. You poor, poor dumb asshole. :doh: :jester:
Troll,.....slow down and READ what I write .... NOT what you think I am saying...
I said IF THAT money is invested HERE in the UNITED STATES, should they receive any cuts!!.....we have to play the game .... the have the ball in THEIR court....we got to QUIT trying to make laws and regulations to FORCE other into doing something....we need to INSPIRE THEM to invest THEIR MONEY........remember, like it or not it is THEIR MONEY!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 10:17:29 AM
I said IF THAT money is invested HERE in the UNITED STATES, should they receive any cuts
If that money is invested here in the U.S., they already don't pay taxes on it.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 10:19:28 AM
If that money is invested here in the U.S., they already don't pay taxes on it.
can you support that statement?
Quote from: Palehorse on August 16, 2011, 11:42:55 AM
According to the IRS, households making 250,000 dollars a year and up, amount to 2% of the entire population in this country. . . 2%!
By the way, that same policy would apply to billionaires. . .
roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires....Buffet needs to quite down a little and just write a bigger check to Uncle sam if THAT is what he thinks is best...and leave the working class Americans alone...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 10:21:25 AM
can you support that statement?
Yes, money that is reinvested into a business is not taxed. For example, when your work computer breaks and your company buys a replacement, the cost of the replacement is either depreciated over the expected life of that piece of equipment or, depending on the size of the purchase, is written off the first year. Either way, that money is deducted from the gross income; the company pays taxes on income net of expenditures. That's how it works for pencils or paper or computers or printers or vehicles or a new building or machinery or...
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 10:57:37 AM
Yes, money that is reinvested into a business is not taxed. For example, when your work computer breaks and your company buys a replacement, the cost of the replacement is either depreciated over the expected life of that piece of equipment or, depending on the size of the purchase, is written off the first year. Either way, that money is deducted from the gross income; the company pays taxes on income net of expenditures. That's how it works for pencils or paper or computers or printers or vehicles or a new building or machinery or...
but does it count when you build a new building and hire new employees or create a new widget? I'm not talking about just reinvesting but perhaps INVESTING...into new business' altogether....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 10:40:12 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion)
This article is such bullshit; here's a perfect example:
"What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."The first problem with this statement is that it is assuming the original investment was made entirely with after-tax dollars. I'm guessing that at least some of it was put into tax-deferred accounts like IRA's or 401K's but anyway...even if the amount invested was taxed, the capital gains tax only covers the increase in the value of those investments. For example, $100.00 is invested and earns a return of 10%. The tax levied is not on the entire $110.00 but on the difference between the amount invested and the value at the end of the period, or $10.00 which is new income that has
not been previously taxed. Does the Wall Street Journal seriously expect their readers to be that gullible?
Are those who want to abolish the capital gains tax willing to forego writing off their losses when the value of their investements decrease as well? I'm betting not so much so...
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 11:54:29 AM
This article is such bullshit; here's a perfect example:
"What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."
The first problem with this statement is that it is assuming the original investment was made entirely with after-tax dollars. I'm guessing that at least some of it was put into tax-deferred accounts like IRA's or 401K's but anyway...even if the amount invested was taxed, the capital gains tax only covers the increase in the value of those investments. For example, $100.00 is invested and earns a return of 10%. The tax levied is not on the entire $110.00 but on the difference between the amount invested and the value at the end of the period, or $10.00 which is new income that has not been previously taxed. Does the Wall Street Journal seriously expect their readers to be that gullible?
Are those who want to abolish the capital gains tax willing to forego writing off their losses when the value of their investements decrease as well? I'm betting not so much so...
So I should totally disregard a Pulitzer Prize winning source and simply follow the opinion of a BASE Jumper?..... k
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 11:16:23 AM
but does it count when you build a new building and hire new employees or create a new widget? I'm not talking about just reinvesting but perhaps INVESTING...into new business' altogether....
Yes; any money invested in a business lowers the net revenue of that business as long as the investment does not exceed the gross income.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 12:07:40 PM
So I should totally disregard a Pulitzer Prize winning source and simply follow the opinion of a BASE Jumper?..... k
Or you could look it up (novel idea; huh?) and do the math yourself. Do you really think investments are taxed on the investment amount plus the return rather than only the return itself? So what you're saying is that if I invest $100.00 in something and never make anything off of the investment, I will have to pay taxes on that $100.00 year after year until it's gone? Does that make any sense whatsoever? It's called capital
gains tax because it's a tax on the
gains.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 01:38:41 PM
Or you could look it up (novel idea; huh?) and do the math yourself. Do you really think investments are taxed on the investment amount plus the return rather than only the return itself? So what you're saying is that if I invest $100.00 in something and never make anything off of the investment, I will have to pay taxes on that $100.00 year after year until it's gone? Does that make any sense whatsoever? It's called capital gains tax because it's a tax on the gains.
Okay Ex, I have pretty much promised myself to quit interacting with you and I have done the opposite today... :spooked: ...I have a problem!!... :yes:
I got this info from the Cato Institute and they concluded with the following analysis:
a 1995 study examines the historical experience with the capital gains tax in the United States, as well as the findings of more than 50 economic studies on capital gains taxation. We conclude that a capital gains tax cut would
•
substantially raise tax collections and
increase tax payments by the rich;
•
increase the rate of capital formation, economic growth, and job creation through the year 2000;
•
unlock hundreds of billions of dollars of unrealized capital gains, thus promoting more efficient allocation of capital;
•
expand economic opportunities for the most economically disadvantaged workers by bringing jobs and new businesses to capital-starved areas, such as America's inner cities.
also some other facts from another source that provides references to their fact finds are:
- Over the past forty years, capital gains tax revenues have increased every time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, and revenues have fallen every time the rate has increased.[1] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-0)
- President Obama acknowledged during the 2008 campaign that hiking the capital gains tax might stifle investment, but he "would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."[2] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-1)
- The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts sliced the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%. By 2006, capital gains tax revenues had doubled, despite—or, as we argue, because of—the 25 percent rate cut.[3] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-TSA-2)
- Fourteen out of thirty OECD countries, plus China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and others, already enjoy zero capital gains taxes.[3] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-TSA-2)
- The Obama Administration trumpets that a hike in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent would raise federal revenues by $33 billion by 2020. This does not take into account the detrimental effect that this tax hike would have on investment and the overall economy. According to the Heritage Foundation's J.D. Foster, a persistent reduction of just 0.01 percentage point in the GDP growth rate would reduce federal tax receipts from all other sources sufficiently to offset the entire projected gain in capital gains receipts. [4] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-3)
- According to the American Council for Capital Formation, moving to a zero capital gains tax rate would create approximately 1.3 million additional jobs per year.[5] (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/#cite_note-4)
http://www.americansolutions.com/solutionsacademy/wiki/index.php/Abolish_the_Capital_Gains_Tax (http://www.americansolutions.com/solutionsacademy/wiki/index.php/Abolish_the_Capital_Gains_Tax)
Not that I have any interest in refuting the numbers your baised sources use but way to completely change the subject! So now you're saying that people who work should pay taxes but that people who make money with money shouldn't have to?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 03:02:43 PM
Not that I have any interest in refuting the numbers your baised sources use but way to completely change the subject! So now you're saying that people who work should pay taxes but that people who make money with money shouldn't have to?
No, I'm saying we need to stimulate this economy...and this is one way to do so....I'm not saying they should be permanent cuts...but instead of our government spending money on so-called "shovel ready" jobs.......let's let the entreprenuers of this country spend their money.....and they only get these cuts IF it is money spent HERE in the USA.
Yes, some of the sources ARE biased...but that does not mean the are wrong...
"The major impact of a capital gains, as best I can judge, is to impeded entrepreneurial activity and capital
formation...I have argued that the appropriate capital gains tax rate is zero"
--Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
No, I'm saying we need to stimulate this economy...and this is one way to do so....I'm not saying they should be permanent cuts...but instead of our government spending money on so-called "shovel ready" jobs.......let's let the entreprenuers of this country spend their money.....and they only get these cuts IF it is money spent HERE in the USA.
Yes, some of the sources ARE biased...but that does not mean the are wrong...
If they are right, why didn't the capital gains tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 produce the results you claim they will?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 03:23:37 PM
"The major impact of a capital gains, as best I can judge, is to impeded entrepreneurial activity and capital
formation...I have argued that the appropriate capital gains tax rate is zero"
--Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
You should read his quotes about how great mortgage derivatives are...they're a hoot!
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2011, 04:20:39 PM
If they are right, why didn't the capital gains tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 produce the results you claim they will?
I'm not saying that it did, but my observation says that we DID have unemployement between 4% and 6% up until 2007, ...other factor kicked in, such as the housing bubble, banks failing and the auto bailouts...that could have stifled it...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 04:34:02 PM
I'm not saying that it did, but my observation says that we DID have unemployement between 4% and 6% up until 2007, ...other factor kicked in, such as the housing bubble, banks failing and the auto bailouts...that could have stifled it...
The auto bailouts was one of the best thing to come out of George W's depression. You sure don't like your dad and his employment and pension from General Motors. Hell, maybe he beat you everyday. My dad worked for GM for 43 years and still thank him for working so many years for GM and the standard of living that working for General Motors gave all of this family. Thanks Dad. :smitten:
You have to be the most stupid man in America, you don't want to give the American workers and the great automobile companies of America any credit or respect of the contribution to America. :knife:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 17, 2011, 10:40:12 AM
roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires....Buffet needs to quite down a little and just write a bigger check to Uncle sam if THAT is what he thinks is best...and leave the working class Americans alone...
So what you're implying here is that you have a better understanding of money and the economy than Warren Buffet. He made $357 million yesterday; how much did you make?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 27, 2011, 08:45:57 AM
So what you're implying here is that you have a better understanding of money and the economy than Warren Buffet. He made $357 million yesterday; how much did you make?
How much do you think a scab job pays and you have to get on your knees every Friday or every other Friday and kiss your, the owner/boss ass :kissit: and you haven't had a raise in three years. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :rotfl: :rotfl: God I love these Teabaggers :jc: :genius: :knife: = brain death or dead. :smile:
Quote from: The Troll on August 27, 2011, 02:02:56 PM
How much do you think a scab job pays and you have to get on your knees every Friday or every other Friday and kiss your, the owner/boss ass :kissit: and you haven't had a raise in three years. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :rotfl: :rotfl: God I love these Teabaggers :jc: :genius: :knife: = brain death or dead. :smile:
Troll, I have never had to kiss anybody's ass....I just do my job and do it well. I know my boss will reward all of us when times are better......we all know times are tough and we ALL want to be sure we ride this storm out, so we all get along.....I have zero complaints and I am very grateful for my job that I love and feel priviledged to h ave....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 27, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
Troll, I have never had to kiss anybody's ass....I just do my job and do it well. I know my boss will reward all of us when times are better......we all know times are tough and we ALL want to be sure we ride this storm out, so we all get along.....I have zero complaints and I am very grateful for my job that I love and feel priviledged to h ave....
:cube:
Henery
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 27, 2011, 11:17:42 PM
Troll, I have never had to kiss anybody's ass....I just do my job and do it well. I know my boss will reward all of us when times are better......we all know times are tough and we ALL want to be sure we ride this storm out, so we all get along.....I have zero complaints and I am very grateful for my job that I love and feel priviledged to h ave....
:cube: <------ Henery. :yeah: :yeah: :clap: :clap: :pink: :fireworks: :pirate: :salute: