Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If you're super rich and want to pay more in taxes like Warren does...or even if you're not super rich and want to pay more in taxes instead of taking the "just make the rich pay for it" approach that is so popular...here is a link for you:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider it my public service for the day. Yes, it is specifically for application of funds to the debt. But if you contribute that means funds that would have been applied to the debt can be used for other things!

This is your chance to create a situation in which YOU pay instead of spending so much effort on trying to force OTHER PEOPLE to pay!

What could be better?

Warren, if you happen to visit FCS forums and see this, you can just contribute your entire fortune! Then you can feel good about yourself. No need to wring your hands over not contributing enough.

So, are you upset that he acknowledges that he should pay more and admits, that when taxes were high in the 1970's, job creation wasn't stifled? People that are wealthy, aren't just going to stop the practices that have made them wealthy.

JohnStOnge wrote:If you're super rich and want to pay more in taxes like Warren does...or even if you're not super rich and want to pay more in taxes instead of taking the "just make the rich pay for it" approach that is so popular...here is a link for you:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider it my public service for the day. Yes, it is specifically for application of funds to the debt. But if you contribute that means funds that would have been applied to the debt can be used for other things!

This is your chance to create a situation in which YOU pay instead of spending so much effort on trying to force OTHER PEOPLE to pay!

What could be better?

Warren, if you happen to visit FCS forums and see this, you can just contribute your entire fortune! Then you can feel good about yourself. No need to wring your hands over not contributing enough.

Maybe it's the lack of a high school diploma, but you just don't get what Buffet is saying. It's really simple & not the 1st time he & countless others have brought it up. The tax bracket people are in grossly doesn't correspond with what they pay & the disparity gets worse the higher you go.

You want to know a good part of the reason there is such a debt crisis in this country - sure we spend way too much & the government is in things & spending billions in areas every year where they shouldn't spend a dime. But, another large contributor is the government doesn't coup the revenues that they should.

First off, almost half the people that should pay taxes pay zero - nothing at all - which is a crock. Then it's a trickle down effect from the top - corporations and the top bracket tax earners have a huge disparity over what they "should" pay versus what the system & the deductions & the loopholes allow them to pay. As you go down the tax brackets the disparity gets narrower & the people that actually pay the most taxes to use a boxing term "pound for pound" is probably the lower middle class.

I actually agree with the GOP in that the tax code needs to be overhauled. If we want to lower tax rates from what they are right now that's fine, as long as whatever those tax rates are will actually be collected. And, if they are collected it will be an increase in $$ amounts than are collected today - which in essence is what Buffet is actually saying.

My work here is done...

I get JSO's point. Instead of showboating, the old Oracle of Omaha and his rich pals should just contribute quietly and be done with it. Maybe they could score a charitable deduction on top of it!

bluehenbillk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:If you're super rich and want to pay more in taxes like Warren does...or even if you're not super rich and want to pay more in taxes instead of taking the "just make the rich pay for it" approach that is so popular...here is a link for you:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider it my public service for the day. Yes, it is specifically for application of funds to the debt. But if you contribute that means funds that would have been applied to the debt can be used for other things!

This is your chance to create a situation in which YOU pay instead of spending so much effort on trying to force OTHER PEOPLE to pay!

What could be better?

Warren, if you happen to visit FCS forums and see this, you can just contribute your entire fortune! Then you can feel good about yourself. No need to wring your hands over not contributing enough.

Maybe it's the lack of a high school diploma, but you just don't get what Buffet is saying. It's really simple & not the 1st time he & countless others have brought it up. The tax bracket people are in grossly doesn't correspond with what they pay & the disparity gets worse the higher you go.

You want to know a good part of the reason there is such a debt crisis in this country - sure we spend way too much & the government is in things & spending billions in areas every year where they shouldn't spend a dime. But, another large contributor is the government doesn't coup the revenues that they should.

First off, almost half the people that should pay taxes pay zero - nothing at all - which is a crock. Then it's a trickle down effect from the top - corporations and the top bracket tax earners have a huge disparity over what they "should" pay versus what the system & the deductions & the loopholes allow them to pay. As you go down the tax brackets the disparity gets narrower & the people that actually pay the most taxes to use a boxing term "pound for pound" is probably the lower middle class.

I actually agree with the GOP in that the tax code needs to be overhauled. If we want to lower tax rates from what they are right now that's fine, as long as whatever those tax rates are will actually be collected. And, if they are collected it will be an increase in $$ amounts than are collected today - which in essence is what Buffet is actually saying.

My work here is done...

Ivytalk wrote:I get JSO's point. Instead of showboating, the old Oracle of Omaha and his rich pals should just contribute quietly and be done with it. Maybe they could score a charitable deduction on top of it!

bluehenbillk wrote:First off, almost half the people that should pay taxes pay zero - nothing at all - which is a crock. Then it's a trickle down effect from the top - corporations and the top bracket tax earners have a huge disparity over what they "should" pay versus what the system & the deductions & the loopholes allow them to pay. As you go down the tax brackets the disparity gets narrower & the people that actually pay the most taxes to use a boxing term "pound for pound" is probably the lower middle class.

Who are you referring to as "lower middle class"? Where are you drawing that line? I'm very fortunate in that my salary/income has gone up about 40% in the past 2 years, but I''ve reached a point where most of the tax deductions available to me at the lower salary have been completely phased out. I paid more in taxes last year (as a percentage of income) than EVER before, yet my income is higher than ever....It's a point of diminishing returns. Now, none of my income is in dividends or capital gains, so it's all taxed at the "income" rate, but there's no deduction or loophole I can take advantage of to lower my tax bill.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Who are you referring to as "lower middle class"? Where are you drawing that line?

Interesting thought. I've wondered about these terms myself. Middle class. Working poor. What does that mean?

I'd say that lower middle class means all the bills are paid, have a job with health insurance, lives in a modest(100K or less) house or rents, drives a decent reliable car, always has food on the table, basic necessities are there.

However, they likely live pay check to paycheck, have very little if any savings, virtually no retirement planning, and are always 1 missed payday away from financial collapse.

OSBF wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Who are you referring to as "lower middle class"? Where are you drawing that line?

Interesting thought. I've wondered about these terms myself. Middle class. Working poor. What does that mean?

I'd say that lower middle class means all the bills are paid, have a job with health insurance, lives in a modest(100K or less) house or rents, drives a decent reliable car, always has food on the table, basic necessities are there.

However, they likely live pay check to paycheck, have very little if any savings, virtually no retirement planning, and are always 1 missed payday away from financial collapse.

that's more or less the definition used when referring to the "lower middle" - however that housing figure you use varies greatly from market to market (150-200k is more realistic in most larger cities)

the "working poor" are people who occasionally cannot make payments on bills as costs of commodities rises. they often have to utilize payday loan scams - and generally have little to no consumer credit.

Ibanez wrote:So, are you upset that he acknowledges that he should pay more and admits, that when taxes were high in the 1970's, job creation wasn't stifled? People that are wealthy, aren't just going to stop the practices that have made them wealthy.

The reason rich people favor higher taxes is they already have their money

JohnStOnge wrote:If you're super rich and want to pay more in taxes like Warren does...or even if you're not super rich and want to pay more in taxes instead of taking the "just make the rich pay for it" approach that is so popular...here is a link for you:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider it my public service for the day. Yes, it is specifically for application of funds to the debt. But if you contribute that means funds that would have been applied to the debt can be used for other things!

This is your chance to create a situation in which YOU pay instead of spending so much effort on trying to force OTHER PEOPLE to pay!

What could be better?

Warren, if you happen to visit FCS forums and see this, you can just contribute your entire fortune! Then you can feel good about yourself. No need to wring your hands over not contributing enough.

So, when will you be posting your reciept?

As you go down the tax brackets the disparity gets narrower & the people that actually pay the most taxes to use a boxing term "pound for pound" is probably the lower middle class.

If by "pound for pound" you mean "as a percentage of their income" that does not appear to be correct. Take a look at the estimates of effective tax rates in the CBO letter at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9884 ... Letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The period covered ends at 2005 but I don't see any reason to think the basic picture with respect to who pays higher percentages of their incomes has changed since 2005 since it did not change substantially during the 27 years represented in the table.

Look at the first table in the document. However you reasonably define the "middle class" or any portion of it, it's clear that they did not pay nearly as high a percentage of their income in federal taxes as "the rich" did. I think it's reasonable to say that "lower middle class" would fall into the second quntile and that group's federal taxes (all taxes, not just income taxes) consisted of 9.9 percent of their income in 2005. Meanwhile, those in the top 1 percent paid about 30% of their income in taxes.

One thing that did change between 1979 and 2005 is that the very tip top group, the top 0.01 percent, went from paying the highest percentage of its income to taxes of any group in 1979 to the second highest percentage; slightly behind the 99.9 - 99.99 group. The letter indicates that's because a larger proportion of their income was from capital gains. But they still paid 31.5 percent of their income in taxes while the "lower" 80 percent of the population paid about 14 percent.

And if you do the math using the letter's tables on total tax liabilities for each group and numbers of households you will find that they paid an average of about $11.8 million per household in federal taxes. So it's pretty ridiculous to imply that they are not already "pitching in" when the overall average per household was about $17.4 thousand. I mean, on average, they "only" paid about 680 times the overall national average per household.

I would be willing to bet that if we got the data we'd find that Warren paid a substantially higher percentage of his income in taxes last year than the secretary he likes to tell stories about did.

So, when will you be posting your reciept?

I am not among those who think I don't pay enough in taxes nor am I among those who think the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes. I won't be using the site.

If I had my way there would be no Federal social programs or social insurance programs. There would be no Department of Education. There would be no DEA, and no ATF. There would be no umemployment insurance. So on and so forth. Also roles of agencies like the EPA would be substantially reduced. Federal expenditures would be something on the order of 1/5tth to 1/3 of what they currently are. So I pretty much wouldn't be looking to increase revenue.

I'm not sure but I think I'm seeing evidence of a belief that the "rich" generally pay lower percentages of their incomes in taxes than those in the "middle class" do. That just isn't true, and it's not even close. However you reasonably define "rich" and "middle class," the "rich" overall pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. For example: If the "middle class" is the middle 60 percent of the population, the "middle class" paid about 15% of its income in total Federal taxes. If the "rich" is the top 20 percent, the "rich" paid about 26%.

I've run into that before. I have talked to highly educated people who actually believe the middle class carries the majority of the tax load and that those in it pay higher percentages of their incomes in taxes than the rich do. That's complete nonsense.

I think it comes from anectdotal stories about individual "rich" people or corporations not paying taxes. A lot of time what they're talking about is a rate on certain portions of income. But there is no question that the "typical" rich person pays a substantially higher percentage of his or her income in taxes than the "typical" middle class person does and also pays WAY more in dollar terms.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
Interesting thought. I've wondered about these terms myself. Middle class. Working poor. What does that mean?

I'd say that lower middle class means all the bills are paid, have a job with health insurance, lives in a modest(100K or less) house or rents, drives a decent reliable car, always has food on the table, basic necessities are there.

However, they likely live pay check to paycheck, have very little if any savings, virtually no retirement planning, and are always 1 missed payday away from financial collapse.

that's more or less the definition used when referring to the "lower middle" - however that housing figure you use varies greatly from market to market (150-200k is more realistic in most larger cities)

the "working poor" are people who occasionally cannot make payments on bills as costs of commodities rises. they often have to utilize payday loan scams - and generally have little to no consumer credit.

I would only add that the working poor don't have access to adequate health care.

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm not sure but I think I'm seeing evidence of a belief that the "rich" generally pay lower percentages of their incomes in taxes than those in the "middle class" do. That just isn't true, and it's not even close. However you reasonably define "rich" and "middle class," the "rich" overall pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. For example: If the "middle class" is the middle 60 percent of the population, the "middle class" paid about 15% of its income in total Federal taxes. If the "rich" is the top 20 percent, the "rich" paid about 26%.

I've run into that before. I have talked to highly educated people who actually believe the middle class carries the majority of the tax load and that those in it pay higher percentages of their incomes in taxes than the rich do. That's complete nonsense.

I think it comes from anectdotal stories about individual "rich" people or corporations not paying taxes. A lot of time what they're talking about is a rate on certain portions of income. But there is no question that the "typical" rich person pays a substantially higher percentage of his or her income in taxes than the "typical" middle class person does and also pays WAY more in dollar terms.

Let's see, I can take your word, or I can take Warren Buffets.

A guy on a message board who thinks he knows everything, or a billionaire who knows how to make money. Hmmm...choices, choices.

JohnStOnge wrote:If you're super rich and want to pay more in taxes like Warren does...or even if you're not super rich and want to pay more in taxes instead of taking the "just make the rich pay for it" approach that is so popular...here is a link for you:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider it my public service for the day. Yes, it is specifically for application of funds to the debt. But if you contribute that means funds that would have been applied to the debt can be used for other things!

This is your chance to create a situation in which YOU pay instead of spending so much effort on trying to force OTHER PEOPLE to pay!

What could be better?

Warren, if you happen to visit FCS forums and see this, you can just contribute your entire fortune! Then you can feel good about yourself. No need to wring your hands over not contributing enough.

So, rather than fix the problem, we'll just let people volunteer to give ther own money. What a great solution.

That way, the people that want to try and makes things better can do so using their own money, and ones who want to take advantage of the system can continue to do so. Everybody wins.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm not sure but I think I'm seeing evidence of a belief that the "rich" generally pay lower percentages of their incomes in taxes than those in the "middle class" do. That just isn't true, and it's not even close. However you reasonably define "rich" and "middle class," the "rich" overall pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. For example: If the "middle class" is the middle 60 percent of the population, the "middle class" paid about 15% of its income in total Federal taxes. If the "rich" is the top 20 percent, the "rich" paid about 26%.

I've run into that before. I have talked to highly educated people who actually believe the middle class carries the majority of the tax load and that those in it pay higher percentages of their incomes in taxes than the rich do. That's complete nonsense.

I think it comes from anectdotal stories about individual "rich" people or corporations not paying taxes. A lot of time what they're talking about is a rate on certain portions of income. But there is no question that the "typical" rich person pays a substantially higher percentage of his or her income in taxes than the "typical" middle class person does and also pays WAY more in dollar terms.

Let's see, I can take your word, or I can take Warren Buffets.

A guy on a message board who thinks he knows everything, or a billionaire who knows how to make money. Hmmm...choices, choices.

I wouldn't necessarily do that:

"Warren Buffett's Fiscal Innumeracy

But Buffett goes beyond guilt-ridden rants in favor of higher taxes. He makes specific assertions that are inaccurate.

"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."

His numbers are flawed in two important ways.

1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.

Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be signficant.

2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).

Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).

If we consider these two factors, Buffett’s effective tax rate almost surely is much higher than the burden on any of the people who work for him................."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/201 ... nnumeracy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;