Warren Buffet

[gipper]

I agree with Lanya on the basic principle that "you earn (have) more, you pay more" can be a sound basis for tax policy, as many variables as possible concerning growth and gross tax receipts being favorably controlled. The surpassing wisdom and virtue of such a policy, in rough outline, is curing true want and also installing a floor of material equity upon which the full flowering of human life, now so often stifled, can have a real chance to flourish ... and contribute to the fullest.

[Amianthus]

I agree with Lanya on the basic principle that "you earn (have) more, you pay more" can be a sound basis for tax policy, as many variables as possible concerning growth and gross tax receipts being favorably controlled.

The problem I have with Buffet's comments is that he only claims $100,000 in income for 2006. If you take him at face value - single, claimed no deductions - he would owe about $22,000 in Federal taxes, or roughly 22%. I sincerely doubt his assistant would be paid more, or have fewer deductions than "none". So, he should have paid more than the 17% he claimed, and his assistant should not have paid anywhere near 30%.

All in all, sounds like a load of crap to me. Only a liberal would take his claims at face value.

[gipper]

Ami, you continue with non-material comments to the point Buffet is making.

[Amianthus]

Ami, you continue with non-material comments to the point Buffet is making.

The fact that he's lying about the numbers is "non-material" to his point?

[Universe Prince]

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

I could not tell from the article, is Buffett arguing that he paid too little in taxes or that his receptionist paid too much? Reducing taxes so no one paid more than 17% would be a big step towards correcting the situation, but since Buffett is endorsing Clinton, I doubt he is arguing for reducing taxes. But I don't want to assume anything about his position.

[Amianthus]

Link to Warren Buffett's SEC filing.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000095013407005612/a28306ddef14a.htm

Either he's lying to the SEC, or he's lying to the Clinton followers about his salary.

I tend to believe that he's more likely to lie to the Clinton followers.

[Universe Prince]

I agree with Lanya on the basic principle that "you earn (have) more, you pay more" can be a sound basis for tax policy,

Didn't Amianthus already point out that is what happens with a flat tax? I sometimes wonder if the people who argue we need a "progressive" tax to make the wealthy pay more missed the percentages lessons in school. 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000. 10% of $40,000 is $4000. Now, last time I checked on this sort of thing, 100,000 was more than 4000. I'm pretty sure it still is.

The surpassing wisdom and virtue of such a policy, in rough outline, is curing true want and also installing a floor of material equity upon which the full flowering of human life, now so often stifled, can have a real chance to flourish ... and contribute to the fullest.

Balderdash (to put it politely). I know all that stuff is usually the reason given for justifying "progressive" taxation, but let's be honest. The supposed virtue of the policy is in its punishment of the wealthy for having more than some people think the wealthy ought to have. The supposed virtue of the policy is in its imposing of a moral judgment on other people. The supposed virtue of the policy is in its empowering us to not have to do anything to help those who are in need because the government takes the money and does it all. That way, the individual doesn't have to choose to help the poor. That, seems to me, is ultimately what this policy is about. We assuage our guilt about helping the poor and satisfy our envy of the wealthy all in one policy. It's a cop-out policy that does not morally ennoble our society but rather degrades it.

Yes, we should try to help the poorer members of society to survive and to flourish, but we need to do so in a better manner, a manner that is mature and actually effective and that respects the individual.

[Amianthus]

Yes, we should try to help the poorer members of society to survive and to flourish, but we need to do so in a better manner, a manner that is mature and actually effective and that respects the individual.

Actually, a flat tax could be made progressive easily without changing the basic fairness of the system.

Provide everyone with exemptions of $X plus another $Y for each dependant. (The X would be large, like 30K and Y would be smaller, like 5K.) Add up your income, subtract your exemptions, and multiply the result by Z% and you have your tax.

People making smaller incomes would owe nothing, while people making better money would owe less. The rich would pay close the base % rate because their incomes would quickly swallow the exemption, and you'd be taxing nearly their entire income.

[BT]

Yes, we should try to help the poorer members of society to survive and to flourish

Why?

[sirs]

The supposed virtue of the policy is in its punishment of the wealthy for having more than some people think the wealthy ought to have. The supposed virtue of the policy is in its imposing of a moral judgment on other people. The supposed virtue of the policy is in its empowering us to not have to do anything to help those who are in need because the government takes the money and does it all. That way, the individual doesn't have to choose to help the poor. That, seems to me, is ultimately what this policy is about. We assuage our guilt about helping the poor and satisfy our envy of the wealthy all in one policy. It's a cop-out policy that does not morally ennoble our society but rather degrades it.

Give that man a cigar  !!   *golf clap*

[Universe Prince]

Yes, we should try to help the poorer members of society to survive and to flourish

Why?

Well, for me that leans toward theological ideas. I think we have a responsibility to help others because we should have love for others, and also because we should do for others what we would want other people to do for us when we are in need. My reasons for believing that are based in my theological beliefs. I also believe on a more practical level that we help ourselves when we help others because we strengthen the fabric of the society in which we live.

That said, because I believe we should not force our moral positions on other people, I also think we don't need the government to force everyone to support social programs that supposedly serve the responsibility to help others. I believe people should be free to decide for themselves. If you don't agree with my particular moral beliefs or choices, I do not make you more moral by forcing you to comply. And I certainly haven't made a moral choice myself by deciding to place myself above you.

[gipper]

How dare I consider Prince's sacred cow for the meating packing plant! The ability of the rich to play with their money is an incidental consideration in a fair tax system, while meeting basic needs and providing meaningful opportunity is (or should be) central. In this, I am not wedded to any plan but the one that works best, all things considered, what is known as a pragmatic approach. Yet what astounds me about Prince is his readiness to impute motives (the "satisfaction" of envy impulses through punitive taxation, he says) but bristles like a porcupine at the notion that the rich, some of them at least, are just downright greedy, a fact which is a legitimate INCIDENTAL target of the average Joe's take on the matter.

[sirs]

So basically for Domer, one of that rationales for an even more progressive tax system is to deal with the emotion of Joe Six Average, not having the same fiscal opportunities/options that Joe Greedy has.

Why not outlaw greed?

[BT]

Actually, a flat tax could be made progressive easily without changing the basic fairness of the system.

Provide everyone with exemptions of $X plus another $Y for each dependant. (The X would be large, like 30K and Y would be smaller, like 5K.) Add up your income, subtract your exemptions, and multiply the result by Z% and you have your tax.

People making smaller incomes would owe nothing, while people making better money would owe less. The rich would pay close the base % rate because their incomes would quickly swallow the exemption, and you'd be taxing nearly their entire income.

Why should we do that? Why exemptions and deductions for dependents?

Why is it inherently unfair for everyone to pay their equal share based on a percentage of income?

[sirs]

Why should we do that? Why exemptions and deductions for dependents?  Why is it inherently unfair for everyone to pay their equal share based on a percentage of income?

Because I think too many people "feel" guilty that "the poor" should pay anything even remotely close % wise to what "the rich" pay.  So, as Prince accurately opined, those that have this guilt complex can then relieve some of that by way of manipulating the tax code, so that everyone goes to help "the poor", while they can feel better about keeping as much money for themselves.