Stop coddling the super rich

[AZGrizFan]

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... (and hey - looks like they're getting their wish...)

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...

The reduced capital gains and dividend rates and the carried interest exemption are 100% the result of big money influence. The lobbying to extend the carried interest exemption for hedge fund managers was despicable in 2010.

Not sure why you felt the need to take an unwarranted shot at me....I've said many times I'd bend on increasing revenue for a mere 3/1 ratio...I'd be tickled pink at a 10/1 ratio. And I'm also not sure why you claim Defense is the sacred cow. DEFENSE is one of the few areas that actually got cut during the lastest debt ceiling debate debacle. None of the entitlement programs sheherded by the donks got touched, did they?

[BDKJMU]

Let me rephrase that for 54: We don't have a REVENUE problem. Now, how we go about COLLECTING that revenue and the formulas used is a joke...but they have ENOUGH revenue....

I understood that. I think we have both. We need to cut spending and increase revenue. We have been unable to do either over the last 12+ years. We've increased spending and decreased revenue.

But IMO, it needs to be a balancing act - meeting our reductions in spending with our increases in revenue which at some point will meet in the middle. That's how we get out of this mess.

So you're saying that the fed govt is bringing in less revenue (adjusted for inflation) that 12 years ago?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

The reduced capital gains and dividend rates and the carried interest exemption are 100% the result of big money influence. The lobbying to extend the carried interest exemption for hedge fund managers was despicable in 2010.

Not sure why you felt the need to take an unwarranted shot at me....I've said many times I'd bend on increasing revenue for a mere 3/1 ratio...I'd be tickled pink at a 10/1 ratio. And I'm also not sure why you claim Defense is the sacred cow. DEFENSE is one of the few areas that actually got cut during the lastest debt ceiling debate debacle. None of the entitlement programs sheherded by the donks got touched, did they?

my swipe at you was just pre-emptive on the raising revenue on the top 2% - every time I bring it up you retort with the "well gee, getting 98% to tax 2% is hardly surprising"... that's all that was - heading that off at the pass.

[BDKJMU]

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...

Because most of that wouldn't be REAL CUTS, but slowdowns in the rate of growth. A slowdown in the rate of growth isn't a cut.

Also because Reagan went for a 3 in cuts for every one in tax increases. And Reagan ended up getting ZERO in cuts. Actually got spending increases.

[BDKJMU]

The reduced capital gains and dividend rates and the carried interest exemption are 100% the result of big money influence. The lobbying to extend the carried interest exemption for hedge fund managers was despicable in 2010.

Not sure why you felt the need to take an unwarranted shot at me....I've said many times I'd bend on increasing revenue for a mere 3/1 ratio...I'd be tickled pink at a 10/1 ratio. And I'm also not sure why you claim Defense is the sacred cow. DEFENSE is one of the few areas that actually got cut during the lastest debt ceiling debate debacle. None of the entitlement programs sheherded by the donks got touched, did they?

Agree with you AZ but I would add on that a 3 to one agreement would likely yield no real cuts (like what happened to Reagan in the 80s).

I'd bend on increasing revenue to go along with a balanced budget amendment except in time of war. No matter what agreement ratio, 3 to 1, 10 to 1, a BBA its the ONLY way the spending whores in Congress will ever control their spending.

That's the only thing that will force them to tackle entitlement reform, eliminate a lot of duplicate govt programs, end most foreign aid, close a majority of overseas bases, etc, etc, etc. Tell the Europeans they couldn't ride on the US's defense tit anymore and they could pay for their own damn security.

[danefan]

I understood that. I think we have both. We need to cut spending and increase revenue. We have been unable to do either over the last 12+ years. We've increased spending and decreased revenue.

But IMO, it needs to be a balancing act - meeting our reductions in spending with our increases in revenue which at some point will meet in the middle. That's how we get out of this mess.

So you're saying that the fed govt is bringing in less revenue (adjusted for inflation) that 12 years ago?

When viewed as a percentage of income - yes. The effective tax rates on high income earners ($1m or more) has decreased from 30.8% in 2000 to 27.1% in 2008 and I'd venture to say its even lower today (IRS stats stop at 2008 http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... 70,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

In terms of dollars that has left roughly $50 billion off the table in 2008 alone. I don't have time to go back and figure out how much we've left off the table in the prior years. That to me is a decrease in revenue.

And yes - our spending has increased in a much worse proportion to our taxing. I agree with you there. I'm not saying we need dollar for dollar on increased revenue and decreased spending. I don't claim to know what the ratio should be, but its something more than 0-to-1.

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we need to have preferential treatment for capital gains, dividends and carried interest?

EDIT - I corrected the amount off the table.

[BDKJMU]

So you're saying that the fed govt is bringing in less revenue (adjusted for inflation) that 12 years ago?

When viewed as a percentage of income - yes. The effective tax rates on high income earners ($1m or more) has decreased from 30.8% in 2000 to 27.1% in 2008 and I'd venture to say its even lower today (IRS stats stop at 2008 http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats ... 70,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

In terms of dollars that has left roughly $300 billion off the table in 2008 alone. I don't have time to go back and figure out how much we've left off the table in the prior years. That to me is a decrease in revenue.

And yes - our spending has increased in a much worse proportion to our taxing. I agree with you there. I'm not saying we need dollar for dollar on increased revenue and decreased spending. I don't claim to know what the ratio should be, but its something more than 0-to-1.

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we need to have preferential treatment for capital gains, dividends and carried interest?

You're talking about potential revenue, different animal than inflation adjusted revenue or revenue as % of GDP. Decrease in potential revenue doesn't = a decrease in revenue. Well maybe that is unless you work for the govt. Like calling a slowdown in the rate of growth a cut...

You are correct though according to this website
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That over the last doz years (actually make that the last 11 years 99'-10' since prior to 99' they didn't break it down annually) the fed govt has had a slight decrease in inflation adjusted total revenue. From 99'-08' revenues increased faster than inflation, but have since fallen for 09' & 10'.

99': 1.827 trillion
00': 2.025 trillion
01': 1.991 trillion
02' 1.853 trillion
03': 1.782 trillion
04': 1.880 trillion
05': 2.153 trillion
06': 2.406 trillion
07': 2.568 trillion
08': 2.524 trillion
09': 2.105 trillion
10': 2.162 trillion (projected)

Using the BLS.gov inflation cpi from 99'-10' shows 31% inflation, which means the 1.827 trillion would = about 2.39 trillion in today's dollars, about 10% above todays revenue levels. But if it weren't for the recession would probably have fed govt revenue around 3 trillion. So its not because of Bush's tax cuts, but rather the recession & now stagnation that revenues have fallen.

Also true that govt revenue has fallen as a % of GDP due to the recession, not Bush's tax cuts.

[kalm]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

[bulldog10jw]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

I'm sure in your mind, they are.

Class warfare sells....to some

[AZGrizFan]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

Really? TTBF made a couple statements, neither of which were/are true, and DF is backpedaling like a mofo...

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

[bulldog10jw]

He's raising one simple question:

Why should certain types of income (capital gains, dividends and carried interest) be subject to preferential income tax rates?

Can you think of a reason? I can think of only one - to coddle the rich who are the only Americans who really benefit from such provisions.

My question is, why should they be taxed at all?

[danefan]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

I'm sure in your mind, they are.

Class warfare sells....to some

Its not class warfare in the least.

Why should certain types of income, that are only available in material part to the extremely wealthy, get a break when it comes to taxes?

This isn't rich vs. poor. There are very select few that get ridiculous breaks on their taxes for no reason. Or at least no reason I can find and none that anyone else here has been able to explain.

[danefan]

He's raising one simple question:

Why should certain types of income (capital gains, dividends and carried interest) be subject to preferential income tax rates?

Can you think of a reason? I can think of only one - to coddle the rich who are the only Americans who really benefit from such provisions.

My question is, why should they be taxed at all?

That's a different question. My question (and Buffet's) assumes you are going to tax income in the form of a salary. If you assume that, why is one man's income taxed differently than the next?

And - btw I think that applies to rates as well. Poor man should pay the same percentage of their income as the rich man.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm sure in your mind, they are.

Class warfare sells....to some

Its not class warfare in the least.

Why should certain types of income, that are only available in material part to the extremely wealthy, get a break when it comes to taxes?

This isn't rich vs. poor. There are very select few that get ridiculous breaks on their taxes for no reason. Or at least no reason I can find and none that anyone else here has been able to explain.

He's raising one simple question:

Why should certain types of income (capital gains, dividends and carried interest) be subject to preferential income tax rates?

Can you think of a reason? I can think of only one - to coddle the rich who are the only Americans who really benefit from such provisions.

My question is, why should they be taxed at all?

THIS.

[danefan]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

Really? TTBF made a couple statements, neither of which were/are true, and DF is backpedaling like a mofo...

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

How am I backpedaling?

I've been consistent the entire time:

Capital gains, dividends and carried interest should be taxed the same way.

They are currently not taxed the same way because the ultra rich have got the ear of our elected officials and in some cases are the elected officials.

[kalm]

Danefan and TTBF are killing it here.

I'm sure in your mind, they are.

Class warfare sells....to some

Well Buffett did admit his class was winning.

[bulldog10jw]

And - btw I think that applies to rates as well. Poor man should pay the same percentage of their income as the rich man.

THAT I can agree with.

Everyone pays the same %-age, no deductions.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm sure in your mind, they are.

Class warfare sells....to some

Well Buffett did admit his class was winning.

Winning? He paid more in taxes than the bottom 47% of American wage-earners COMBINED.

[AZGrizFan]

Really? TTBF made a couple statements, neither of which were/are true, and DF is backpedaling like a mofo...

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

How am I backpedaling?

I've been consistent the entire time:

Capital gains, dividends and carried interest should be taxed the same way.

They are currently not taxed the same way because the ultra rich have got the ear of our elected officials and in some cases are the elected officials.

You're backpedaling the say way you're "killing it". Get it?

[kalm]

Its not class warfare in the least.

Why should certain types of income, that are only available in material part to the extremely wealthy, get a break when it comes to taxes?

This isn't rich vs. poor. There are very select few that get ridiculous breaks on their taxes for no reason. Or at least no reason I can find and none that anyone else here has been able to explain.

My question is, why should they be taxed at all?

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.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Then we need to lower the national bill.

[bulldog10jw]

Then we need to lower the national bill.

THIS

[AZGrizFan]

This entire article is nothing but pre-election blustering from Buffett. We could tax all those "super rich" at 100% and it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money the government spends/wastes/pisses away on a daily basis.

The issue isn't that we're "coddling" the super-rich. It's that the system is BROKEN. The ENTIRE system is broken...this (Buffett's solution) would be like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

[∞∞∞]

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.

[AZGrizFan]

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?