Stop coddling the super rich

[∞∞∞]

You know what the irony of this whole thing is? Most red states get more federal money than they send to Washington, and most blue states get less than they send. The conservative states are leeching off the richer liberal states, but the liberals want to crackdown on the rich and the conservatives want to give the rich more power. It's truly a helluva wacky world we live in.

You got a link to that data?

There's a lot of written data if you just Google it. Here's some quick glance visuals though:


compared to how states voted in '08


This one is pretty big so I'm just going to link it:
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-conte ... 11/tax.jpg

[travelinman67]

THIS.

Because we have a really nice country where they can make money by investing but too few other people have the income to pay the national bill.

This forces open the door to access/means. The government has in fact been working FOR the interests of the wealthy and investors...the banking/mortgage/insurance bailout verified this assertion.

So...

...if the wealthy/investors have earned their wealth on the back of our government...

...funded by the working class and private business...

...isn't Buffett's position reasonable?

[AZGrizFan]

You got a link to that data?

There's a lot of written data if you just Google it. Here's some quick glance visuals though:


compared to how states voted in '08


This one is pretty big so I'm just going to link it:
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-conte ... 11/tax.jpg

Those are nice pictures. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the "liberal" states are the ones with the biggest cities, highest cost of living and therefore highest wages? According to taxfoundation.org, per-capita income is one of the biggest factors in the calculation of how much is collected and sent to D.C.

Los Angeles
New York City
Chicago
San Francisco
Seattle
Philadelphia
Newark
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Denver
Boston
Miami

[∞∞∞]

Of course I realize that; it doesn't stop the fact that red states take in more more than they send. So because blue states contain bigger cities and more college educated and higher income citizens, they should get less than their fair share back? To me that doesn't sound very capitalistic, free-marketish, conservative, or whatever else. It sounds like we're distributing the wealth, no?

[AZGrizFan]

Of course I realize that; it doesn't stop the fact that red states are get more than they send. So because liberal states are generally more college educated and receive higher incomes, they should get less than their fair share back? To me that doesn't sound very capitalistic, free-marketish, conservative, or whatever else.

Is that why it costs so much to live in NY, LA, etc? Because they're higher "educated"

[kalm]

Because we have a really nice country where they can make money by investing but too few other people have the income to pay the national bill.

This forces open the door to access/means. The government has in fact been working FOR the interests of the wealthy and investors...the banking/mortgage/insurance bailout verified this assertion.

So...

...if the wealthy/investors have earned their wealth on the back of our government...

...funded by the working class and private business...

...isn't Buffett's position reasonable?

Yes.

[citdog]

Of course I realize that; it doesn't stop the fact that red states take in more more than they send. So because blue states contain bigger cities and more college educated and higher income citizens, they should get less than their fair share back? To me that doesn't sound very capitalistic, free-marketish, conservative, or whatever else. It sounds like we're distributing the wealth, no?

It's called reparations for COMPLETELY destroying our Country and treating us as conquered provinces to be exploited.

[∞∞∞]

I don't know what you're laughing about AZGrizFan. Cities tend to attract larger corporations that require highly educated people to run them. To attract these people, the corporations offer higher pay. With more money flowing through the hands of these employees, the local markets adjust prices so they can make more money as well, thus driving the overall cost of living up. It's basic free-market economics at work...

[AZGrizFan]

I don't know what you're laughing about AZGrizFan. Cities tend to attract larger corporations that require highly educated people to run them. To attract these people, the corporations offer higher pay. With more money flowing through the hands of these employees, the local markets adjust prices so they can make more money as well, thus driving the overall cost of living up. It's basic free-market economics at work...

Right. So, you've just proven that there is no causal relationship between red/blue states and how much or little they take/give from the national coffers. Thank you for making my point.

[∞∞∞]

Expand please. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't get where you're coming from.

[CID1990]

Buffet's point is well made - to a point.

The super-wealthy aren't catered to in the tax code because they are donors, or because many pols are wealthy. Their tax burden is falling because of the GOP's desperate and undying devotion to "starve the beast" policies that they hope will someday force our nation in to a fiscal crisis and then they can use that moment to return us to the 1920's... where they can slash all spending to pre-new deal levels (except of course DoD which should for some reason still be funded at Cold War levels and never questioned)

The blame isn't solely on the Repubs for making their absurdest claims about taxes - Democrats have, for 20 years or more have bailed on fighting on the issue because it's not a good issue to run on. So what we end up with is what we have now...

We learned in MN that you can have electoral success arguing for taxing the top 2% - there is broad support for this (cue Z with his tired mantra of "well of course..." blah)

But the problem is two-fold... one - the Republican Party has become so completely obsessed with NEVER EVER raising revenues in any way, ever... that not one of their presidential candidates would accept a budget with $10 in cuts for every $1 in increases... and the Dems are still too gunshy to use this rampant extremism to bash their heads in...

Come on, TTBF. You know as well as I do that Republicans are not that far-sighted, and neither are Democrats.

True conservative fiscal policy (which none of us have ever seen) would benefit both the middle class AND the rich. Taxing people who make more than $500,000 per year will not even come close to denting our deficit problem, because

1) They just do not make up that sizeable percentage of our population, and
2) Even if it DID significantly increase revenues, WE ALL KNOW what happens when Congress finds a windfall.

A flat tax is a fair tax, and it would increase revenues, period.

This is nothing more than leftist populism, and is NO different from the religious right populism that suggests that allowing homosexuals to marry is somehow going to destroy the country.

[blueballs]

Buffet's point is well made - to a point.

The super-wealthy aren't catered to in the tax code because they are donors, or because many pols are wealthy. Their tax burden is falling because of the GOP's desperate and undying devotion to "starve the beast" policies that they hope will someday force our nation in to a fiscal crisis and then they can use that moment to return us to the 1920's... where they can slash all spending to pre-new deal levels (except of course DoD which should for some reason still be funded at Cold War levels and never questioned)

The blame isn't solely on the Repubs for making their absurdest claims about taxes - Democrats have, for 20 years or more have bailed on fighting on the issue because it's not a good issue to run on. So what we end up with is what we have now...

We learned in MN that you can have electoral success arguing for taxing the top 2% - there is broad support for this (cue Z with his tired mantra of "well of course..." blah)

But the problem is two-fold... one - the Republican Party has become so completely obsessed with NEVER EVER raising revenues in any way, ever... that not one of their presidential candidates would accept a budget with $10 in cuts for every $1 in increases... and the Dems are still too gunshy to use this rampant extremism to bash their heads in...

Right out of the democratic playbook...

Republicans are all for raising revenues to the government, but not by raising marginal tax rates on those who already paying a disproportionate share of the income tax revenue. The way to raise revenue is by incentifying spending by small business owners who will then invest, hire, grow the economy creating more tax payers thus growing revenues.

As for the capital gains tax vs. income tax, that's an economic principal akin to what is written above. Capital gains are profit on investment. Taxing those profits at a lower rate gives those with capital added incentive to invest which creates more opportunity and liquidity in the economy, which spurs growth, creates jobs, and benefits everybody.

Warren Buffet knows better.. why he would spew such drivel is ridiculous. Incentifying and removing excess regulation, compliance and barriers to growing business is the way to jump start the economy, not by more government spending. All government spending is a) either more money borrowed from future generations, or b) money taken from somebody who has rightfully earned it at the point of a gun and given to whoever the politicians deem worthy as it will empower the politician and serve to solidify, retain, and expand their power.

This is sophmore level economics folks...

[∞∞∞]

^^^Only in America would multi-billionares say that they want to be taxed more fairly, and people making 45K tell them that they're wrong.

[travelinman67]

...Republicans are all for raising revenues to the government, but not by raising marginal tax rates on those who already paying a disproportionate share of the income tax revenue. The way to raise revenue is by incentifying spending by small business owners who will then invest, hire, grow the economy creating more tax payers thus growing revenues...

"GROW THE ECONOMY???!!!!!!

WTF you talkin' 'bout, Blueballs??? Everyone knows revenue increases only result from tax hikes!!!









Polar Bear hater!!!

[danefan]

Buffet's point is well made - to a point.

The super-wealthy aren't catered to in the tax code because they are donors, or because many pols are wealthy. Their tax burden is falling because of the GOP's desperate and undying devotion to "starve the beast" policies that they hope will someday force our nation in to a fiscal crisis and then they can use that moment to return us to the 1920's... where they can slash all spending to pre-new deal levels (except of course DoD which should for some reason still be funded at Cold War levels and never questioned)

The blame isn't solely on the Repubs for making their absurdest claims about taxes - Democrats have, for 20 years or more have bailed on fighting on the issue because it's not a good issue to run on. So what we end up with is what we have now...

We learned in MN that you can have electoral success arguing for taxing the top 2% - there is broad support for this (cue Z with his tired mantra of "well of course..." blah)

But the problem is two-fold... one - the Republican Party has become so completely obsessed with NEVER EVER raising revenues in any way, ever... that not one of their presidential candidates would accept a budget with $10 in cuts for every $1 in increases... and the Dems are still too gunshy to use this rampant extremism to bash their heads in...

Right out of the democratic playbook...

Republicans are all for raising revenues to the government, but not by raising marginal tax rates on those who already paying a disproportionate share of the income tax revenue. The way to raise revenue is by incentifying spending by small business owners who will then invest, hire, grow the economy creating more tax payers thus growing revenues.

As for the capital gains tax vs. income tax, that's an economic principal akin to what is written above. Capital gains are profit on investment. Taxing those profits at a lower rate gives those with capital added incentive to invest which creates more opportunity and liquidity in the economy, which spurs growth, creates jobs, and benefits everybody.

Warren Buffet knows better.. why he would spew such drivel is ridiculous. Incentifying and removing excess regulation, compliance and barriers to growing business is the way to jump start the economy, not by more government spending. All government spending is a) either more money borrowed from future generations, or b) money taken from somebody who has rightfully earned it at the point of a gun and given to whoever the politicians deem worthy as it will empower the politician and serve to solidify, retain, and expand their power.

This is sophmore level economics folks...

I completely disagree. It may be an economic prniciple found in a text book, but it certainy doesn't apply in the real world. Especially not in the world of big business.

1. As Buffet says, Investment will occur whether the after-tax profit is 85 cents on the dollar or 65 cents on the dollar.

2. The vast majority of capital gains generated by the high income individuals is the purchase and sale of equities. It mayincrease liquidity but it does very little to spur growth or create jobs in the US. There are numerous studies to support this. Take a look at the huge increase in the on-shore liquidity and capital generated by the 2004 repatriation holiday. Try finding any evidence of increased investment in jobs. It's the same concept when you talk about any other incentive that is intended to increase liquidity.

Care to offer any explanation of why we need to have preferential rates on dividends and carried interest?

[kalm]

Right out of the democratic playbook...

Republicans are all for raising revenues to the government, but not by raising marginal tax rates on those who already paying a disproportionate share of the income tax revenue. The way to raise revenue is by incentifying spending by small business owners who will then invest, hire, grow the economy creating more tax payers thus growing revenues.

As for the capital gains tax vs. income tax, that's an economic principal akin to what is written above. Capital gains are profit on investment. Taxing those profits at a lower rate gives those with capital added incentive to invest which creates more opportunity and liquidity in the economy, which spurs growth, creates jobs, and benefits everybody.

Warren Buffet knows better.. why he would spew such drivel is ridiculous. Incentifying and removing excess regulation, compliance and barriers to growing business is the way to jump start the economy, not by more government spending. All government spending is a) either more money borrowed from future generations, or b) money taken from somebody who has rightfully earned it at the point of a gun and given to whoever the politicians deem worthy as it will empower the politician and serve to solidify, retain, and expand their power.

This is sophmore level economics folks...

I completely disagree. It may be an economic prniciple found in a text book, but it certainy doesn't apply in the real world. Especially not in the world of big business.

1. As Buffet says, Investment will occur whether the after-tax profit is 85 cents on the dollar or 65 cents on the dollar.

2. The vast majority of capital gains generated by the high income individuals is the purchase and sale of equities. It mayincrease liquidity but it does very little to spur growth or create jobs in the US. There are numerous studies to support this. Take a look at the huge increase in the on-shore liquidity and capital generated by the 2004 repatriation holiday. Try finding any evidence of increased investment in jobs. It's the same concept when you talk about any other incentive that is intended to increase liquidity.

Care to offer any explanation of why we need to have preferential rates on dividends and carried interest?

Believing you're entitled to make a certain profit at a certain tax rate...

If you don't like paying for government and the perks of existing off a very generous and successful economic system then kindly step aside. There are others willing to work or own or provide capital for less.

The same goes for employment. If you can pay someone less than the revenue that job creates, you will hire them. And you will base that decision not on their overpriced wage or your tax rate, you will do so based on demand for the product they help produce.

The same thing goes for taxation of small business owners. They will expand only if demand increases for their product. They may bitch about the tax rates, hell I do, but if that extra employee makes you money it would be pretty stupid to take your ball and go home out of spite and some hang up over economic/political philosophy.

[AZGrizFan]

Expand please. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't get where you're coming from.

I'm saying that the states that are red states happen to be the rural states with less income per-capita, thus they pay less in taxes than the state may take in....it's not a causal relationship that BECAUSE they're red they take in more than they pay. It's more a function of income/cost of living, which is obviously higher in the urban areas which are concentrated in the blue states.

[Ivytalk]

Right out of the democratic playbook...

Republicans are all for raising revenues to the government, but not by raising marginal tax rates on those who already paying a disproportionate share of the income tax revenue. The way to raise revenue is by incentifying spending by small business owners who will then invest, hire, grow the economy creating more tax payers thus growing revenues.

As for the capital gains tax vs. income tax, that's an economic principal akin to what is written above. Capital gains are profit on investment. Taxing those profits at a lower rate gives those with capital added incentive to invest which creates more opportunity and liquidity in the economy, which spurs growth, creates jobs, and benefits everybody.

Warren Buffet knows better.. why he would spew such drivel is ridiculous. Incentifying and removing excess regulation, compliance and barriers to growing business is the way to jump start the economy, not by more government spending. All government spending is a) either more money borrowed from future generations, or b) money taken from somebody who has rightfully earned it at the point of a gun and given to whoever the politicians deem worthy as it will empower the politician and serve to solidify, retain, and expand their power.

This is sophmore level economics folks...

I completely disagree. It may be an economic prniciple found in a text book, but it certainy doesn't apply in the real world. Especially not in the world of big business.

1. As Buffet says, Investment will occur whether the after-tax profit is 85 cents on the dollar or 65 cents on the dollar.

2. The vast majority of capital gains generated by the high income individuals is the purchase and sale of equities. It mayincrease liquidity but it does very little to spur growth or create jobs in the US. There are numerous studies to support this. Take a look at the huge increase in the on-shore liquidity and capital generated by the 2004 repatriation holiday. Try finding any evidence of increased investment in jobs. It's the same concept when you talk about any other incentive that is intended to increase liquidity.

Care to offer any explanation of why we need to have preferential rates on dividends and carried interest?

As to dividends, it's because the money has already been subject to tax at the corporate level. By the time it gets to the stockholder, it's taxed again.

[danefan]

I completely disagree. It may be an economic prniciple found in a text book, but it certainy doesn't apply in the real world. Especially not in the world of big business.

1. As Buffet says, Investment will occur whether the after-tax profit is 85 cents on the dollar or 65 cents on the dollar.

2. The vast majority of capital gains generated by the high income individuals is the purchase and sale of equities. It mayincrease liquidity but it does very little to spur growth or create jobs in the US. There are numerous studies to support this. Take a look at the huge increase in the on-shore liquidity and capital generated by the 2004 repatriation holiday. Try finding any evidence of increased investment in jobs. It's the same concept when you talk about any other incentive that is intended to increase liquidity.

Care to offer any explanation of why we need to have preferential rates on dividends and carried interest?

As to dividends, it's because the money has already been subject to tax at the corporate level. By the time it gets to the stockholder, it's taxed again.

The two levels of corporate tax are a feature of our tax code. There are dividend received deductions in the Code to avoid overly egregious cases of this and for the most part, the invention of the flow-through LLC and entity classification regulations (the "check-the-box" election) have solved that issue for the everyday business owner.

I personally think it should be taxed twice though for large companies without 80% or greater owners. For example, dividend income earned by individuals that owned publicly traded companies is income in my mind just like interest income on loans.

[AZGrizFan]

As to dividends, it's because the money has already been subject to tax at the corporate level. By the time it gets to the stockholder, it's taxed again.

The two levels of corporate tax are a feature of our tax code. There are dividend received deductions in the Code to avoid overly egregious cases of this and for the most part, the invention of the flow-through LLC and entity classification regulations (the "check-the-box" election) have solved that issue for the everyday business owner.

I personally think it should be taxed twice though for large companies without 80% or greater owners. For example, dividend income earned by individuals that owned publicly traded companies is income in my mind just like interest income on loans.

Now you're for double taxation?

[danefan]

The two levels of corporate tax are a feature of our tax code. There are dividend received deductions in the Code to avoid overly egregious cases of this and for the most part, the invention of the flow-through LLC and entity classification regulations (the "check-the-box" election) have solved that issue for the everyday business owner.

I personally think it should be taxed twice though for large companies without 80% or greater owners. For example, dividend income earned by individuals that owned publicly traded companies is income in my mind just like interest income on loans.

Now you're for double taxation?

I don't necessarily always consider it double taxation. That's kind of my point. I think the circumstances in which it really is double taxation are the circumstances where you have a C corp that is 100% owned by one shareholder. In that case the shareholder would get the benefit of the 100% dividends received deduction and avoid the double taxation.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, when you have millions of shareholders that own one company I really do not see the income tax paid by the corporation and the tax paid by the shareholder who receives a dividend as the same income being taxed twice. I'm drawing a distinction between earnings and income. Income is subject to tax.

Look at it the same as a loan. Do you have a problem with the debtor being taxed on his earnings and then the creditor being taxed on the interest the debtor pays, which is actually paid with the same earnings that were already taxed?

[AZGrizFan]

Now you're for double taxation?

I don't necessarily always consider it double taxation. That's kind of my point. I think the circumstances in which it really is double taxation are the circumstances where you have a C corp that is 100% owned by one shareholder. In that case the shareholder would get the benefit of the 100% dividends received deduction and avoid the double taxation.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, when you have millions of shareholders that own one company I really do not see the income tax paid by the corporation and the tax paid by the shareholder who receives a dividend as the same income being taxed twice. I'm drawing a distinction between earnings and income. Income is subject to tax.

Look at it the same as a loan. Do you have a problem with the debtor being taxed on his earnings and then the creditor being taxed on the interest the debtor pays, which is actually paid with the same earnings that were already taxed?

Dividends are paid from EARNINGS. Or what earnings remain after taxes on earnings have been paid. That money has already been taxed, regardless of whose "pocket" it's in. And your corrolary to a loan payment is weak at best.

[danefan]

I don't necessarily always consider it double taxation. That's kind of my point. I think the circumstances in which it really is double taxation are the circumstances where you have a C corp that is 100% owned by one shareholder. In that case the shareholder would get the benefit of the 100% dividends received deduction and avoid the double taxation.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, when you have millions of shareholders that own one company I really do not see the income tax paid by the corporation and the tax paid by the shareholder who receives a dividend as the same income being taxed twice. I'm drawing a distinction between earnings and income. Income is subject to tax.

Look at it the same as a loan. Do you have a problem with the debtor being taxed on his earnings and then the creditor being taxed on the interest the debtor pays, which is actually paid with the same earnings that were already taxed?

Dividends are paid from EARNINGS. Or what earnings remain after taxes on earnings have been paid. That money has already been taxed, regardless of whose "pocket" it's in. And your corrolary to a loan payment is weak at best.

Why is it weak?

Interest is paid with earnings that have already been taxed.

[AZGrizFan]

Dividends are paid from EARNINGS. Or what earnings remain after taxes on earnings have been paid. That money has already been taxed, regardless of whose "pocket" it's in. And your corrolary to a loan payment is weak at best.

Why is it weak?

Interest is paid with earnings that have already been taxed.

Because my earnings pay interest on a loan, which then becomes earnings to the holder of the note. We are two separate entities. In a business's case, the earnings are earned by the shareholders and declared by the BOD and split after taxes are paid (on those earnings). Dividends are what is left AFTER taxes on those earnings have already been paid. True, there's usually a middle man (or group) making the dividends declaration decision, but the earnings belong to the shareholders, as owners, and have already been taxed once.

[GannonFan]

Dividends are paid from EARNINGS. Or what earnings remain after taxes on earnings have been paid. That money has already been taxed, regardless of whose "pocket" it's in. And your corrolary to a loan payment is weak at best.

Why is it weak?

Interest is paid with earnings that have already been taxed.

I do kinda agree with AZ on this one - I'm a fan of good analogies and that just wasn't a good one. I can understand his argument with the taxing of dividends. If you use a family as an analogy for that one, it would be like taxing me for my income I bring in, then taxing my wife on the same income when I put the income in a shared bank account. Heck, you could even tax my kids then, each in turn, since they would have access to the income as well.

Your analogy kinda implies that all money is taxed several times over, indefinitely, which is true. But that's a silly point - I get taxed on my income, and then I get taxed when I spend that income on a good or service I purchase (sales tax), and then that money is taxed again when the place I bought from pays it's employees, and so on. But that's just obvious and not the same as taxing each person down the line for sharing the profit from a singular event.