DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on June 27, 2007, 02:09:44 PM
-
Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities
Speech Raises at Least $1 Million for Clinton Campaign
By Tomoeh Murakami Tse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page D03
NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
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.
Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.
A populist tone permeated the 70-minute talk with the billionaire investor and philanthropist in Manhattan on Tuesday night. The talk, given to about 600 Wall Street bankers and money managers, raised at least $1 million for Clinton's presidential campaign, the Associated Press reported.
The event comes as public frustration has grown over executive compensation and disparity in pay. It also comes as Congress debates changes to the tax code that would decrease take-home pay for managers of private-equity firms and hedge funds, pools of money for wealthy families and institutional investors. The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.
Buffett said that he and other privileged Americans must do more to help the less fortunate.
"We have the chance in 2008 to repair a lot of damage," Buffett said.
"We have a wonderful economy. . . . Our problem is how we conduct ourselves in the world." Buffett, the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway in Omaha, has not endorsed Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But he has already donated the maximum $4,600 allowed by an individual to Clinton's presidential campaign. Buffett called Clinton "the person to run the country." He has not donated to any other candidate, according to public records, although he has said he would also support Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a similar event.
Buffett is on the board of directors of The Washington Post Co.
Clinton acted as moderator. Topics included Buffett's views on the impact of the real estate slump on the economy (he doesn't see it spilling over to the broader market) and how to get started in investing (you are more likely to find diamonds in the rough among small companies).
Clinton finished by asking Buffett, "Why are you a Democrat?"
Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.
-
Since he feels he wasn't taxed enough, I assume that he voluntarily paid extra taxes to make up for it.
Any word on how much extra he threw into the kitty?
-
if I remember right for some strange reason people cannot pay extra on taxes
something about the system is not setup to do such things.
I thing somebody went to jail for it.
about 4 years ago maybe.
-
if I remember right for some strange reason people cannot pay extra on taxes
You remember incorrectly.
There is even an office setup to handle it. You can direct your extra payment to go to debt reduction only, if you'd like.
Worst case, check the box the "include overpayment as a payment on next year's taxes" then don't include that payment amount the following year.
-
This standard "faux hypocrite" refrain we hear in so many different settings is equally absurd here. Ami would set up an artificial barrier for Buffet, for example, to see things his (Ami's) way or forfeit his right to speak. Such a position, of course, is patently absurd, as is its offshoot: that your credibility is somehow fatally damaged by simply managing your affairs the way you wish. Further, especially in the trillion-dollar-plus enterprise that is our fiscal policy, a drop-in-the-bucket potential receipt (say, Buffet's entire net worth) is not worth anything infinetismally close to a major, structural change in tax law and policy, which, by the way, Buffet would pay, gladly. It's time that these specious, clever-boy arguments be banished altogether.
-
Ami would set up an artificial barrier for Buffet, for example, to see things his (Ami's) way or forfeit his right to speak.
Never said any such thing.
Buffet said that he did not pay enough in taxes. I just wanted to know the amount of "extra" taxes that he thought he owed, and if he sent it in.
-
Actually, domer's faux complaints fail to address the point Ami was making. And IIRC, (in referencing Kimba's query), I believe it was Representative Nadler, or some other Northeastern Lib, who actually have a section on their state income tax form, where they can chose to be taxed at a higher rate than the state requires. He chose the lesser, surprise surprise.
Again, it's always fascinating how the left is so quick to want others taxed higher, knowing how best they can spend other people's money, but when it comes down to it, especially those leftists with a substantial financial portfolio, the left has no wish to voluntarily increase their amount of "assistance", regardless if there's this supposed big nasty tax disparity
-
A variation on a theme and still "clever-boy." God forbid we should address the merits of his ideas.
-
sounds like buffet is proposing a flat tax
-
I'd hope he was proposing a progessive tax rather than a regressive tax.
The richer you are, the more taxes you pay. What a concept.
-
A variation on a theme and still "clever-boy." God forbid we should address the merits of his ideas.
I think the idea of "I think I should pay more, therefore lets force everyone else to pay more" is specious, at best.
-
The richer you are, the more taxes you pay. What a concept.
Which is what happens with a flat tax.
-
By the way, Ami, the last comment I made in this thread is "faux indignant."
-
By the way, Ami, the last comment I made in this thread is "faux indignant."
Consider me "faux impressed."
-
The richer you are, the more taxes you pay. What a concept.
Which is what happens with a flat tax.
Precisely. Though last time I checked, that's currently the situation we have presently. Personally though, I've jumped the flat tax bandwagon, and now believe the fairest is a National Sales Tax. Again, Lanya's concerns of "the rich" needing to pay more is dealt with, as they purchase higher priced items, and more of them, paying higher taxes on all those items. Wouldn't you agree, Lanya?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ami, you continue with non-material comments to the point Buffet is making.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Link to Warren Buffett's SEC filing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000095013407005612/a28306ddef14a.htm (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, we should try to help the poorer members of society to survive and to flourish
Why?
-
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*
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
How dare I consider Prince's sacred cow for the meating packing plant!
What sacred cow? You mean human rights?
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.
Nonsense. There is nothing fair about taxing (forcibly and/or coercively taking money from) people to create social programs. Making social programs central to a fair tax system is therefore not possible.
Yet what astounds me about Prince is his readiness to impute motives (the "satisfaction" of envy impulses through punitive taxation, he says)
I have yet to see a proposal for a government program to help the poor that does not include some form of an argument about making the wealthy "pay their fair share".
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.
Thank you for proving my point. The wealthy are greedy and therefore deserving of higher taxation as moral punishment. Taxation as punishment. Which, of course, is presented here as moral, when, in point of fact, it is not. Many people who consider taxing the rich at higher rates a moral thing to do like to think of it as some sort of Robin Hood action, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What those people forget is that Robin Hood stole from the rich, the landowners and peers who were essentially the form of government that existed, because the taxes were too high, because the wealthy peerage were making their money by forcibly taking what rightfully belonged to others. The government taking more money is not the solution. The government leaving people alone and letting the people keep their money is the solution.
No, I do not bristle at the notion that some rich people are greedy. I know they are. Some folks major concern is how to keep making money because whatever they have is never enough. But no, that is not a legitimate target, incidental or otherwise, in the matter of taxes.
And frankly, if you're going to bring greed into this discussion, few things seem more greedy to me than to demand that other people be forced to pay more money to a program that you demand other people operate so that you don't have to do it. Lots of people talk about the greedy rich as having an "I've got mine so screw you" attitude. Demanding government tax the wealthy to take care of the poor is just as much of an "I've got mine so screw you" attitude. It says to me, "I'm not going to give up what I have to help the poor." It says to me, "make those other people do the work and support it because I'm not going to do it." That is greedy. That is selfish. That is a legitimate target in discussing the issue. That is the sacred cow we ought to be taking to the meat packing plant.
-
So it's not about the poor?
-
A little sophistication and common sense would go a long way in a discussion like this. Humans act while possessing multivariate, complex and sometimes conflicting thoughts and emotions. If we're responsible, vigilant and diligent, our reasons for choosing a certain course should be prioritized along the lines of fundamental principles, first, civic virtue, second, and efficacy, third, with our personal interests coinciding with those concerns but not dictating them. Now, of course, there are instances where straight interest-politics is played, and perhaps it is most of the time. But always not only should the effort be made to derive principle from interest, but in arguing the matter in the public forum, principle should predominate, if only because it's usually better (more effective) politics. Thus, the bare statement, "I want a tax break," for example, is more effective stated as, "I need relief so my kids can continue in college," drawing in a societal benefit in the sense that an educated populace, in the aggregate, makes for a strong citizenry.
Matching principle to interest is not the hard part. So often, the dispute lies with choosing (prioritizing) the principles themselves, as in this instance where we all seem to agree that poverty and true economic want (how do you define the latter?) should be ameliorated. Prince puts the highest premium, however, not on alleviating want but on maximizing freedom. I, on the other hand, am inclined to sacrifice some of the prerogatives of liberty for an effective program (which I won't define or describe) of aid and remediation. This latter statement presupposes efficacy, and extends beyond government-run programs to private programs into a coherent whole that can actually get the job done. How to do all this is a separate discussion or a stage of this discussion not yet reached -- at which time I'll defer to Michael or JS because that is not my forte.
-
Prince puts the highest premium, however, not on alleviating want but on maximizing freedom.
What you're missing is that I believe maximizing freedom will, in part, result in a better alleviation of want. You seem to think I've made some sort of separation between helping people and protecting liberty. This is not the case. Helping people is the premium, maximizing liberty is merely an aspect of that, as is giving aid to people in need. I don't see alleviating want and personal liberty as mutually exclusive. I see them as two of many interwoven parts of helping humans survive, succeed and flourish. And somewhere along the way, I've lost much of my patience for dealing with the, imo, myopic and immature notion that one must always be sacrificed for the other. Probably because too often someone insists I must be valuing the one over the other because that is all their limited perspective allows them to consider.
-
So it's not about the poor?
So what is not about the poor?
-
So what is not about the poor?
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.
-
So it's not about the poor?
Not directly, but more so indirectly. You'll note that more and more of "the poor" are paying less & less in income taxes, but continung to have a say (at least from a state level) on voting for programs that continue to require the taxation of "the rich" (ironically having been removed from the burden by having been relegated to paying very little, if any Federal income tax), to pay for the next well intentioned social program. CA is starting to make that a guiding governmental principal it would seem. So, I'm going along with Prince that this is more to do about the guilt many have for the monies they may have, yet feel more inclined for everyone else to "pay their fair share", before they'll voluntarily add more into their taxes payed
-
Taxes are by their nature not fair, just as diseases, earthquakes, volcanos, botulism and fottfungi are unfair. This does not mean that they are avoidable. If we wish to live in communities rather than in isolation, we will have a government and that government will have expenses.
I suppose Sirs would be happiest if we were to impose the government of H.L. Hunt's "Utopia" called Alpaca, in which the more taxes you paid, the more votes you got. Michael Bloomberg could possibly outvote half the state of West Virginia, perhaps.
-
So, I'm going along with Prince that this is more to do about the guilt many have for the monies they may have, yet feel more inclined for everyone else to "pay their fair share", before they'll voluntarily add more into their taxes payed
So the government is in the business of selling indulgences?
Maybe we are a theocracy after all.
-
So, I'm going along with Prince that this is more to do about the guilt many have for the monies they may have, yet feel more inclined for everyone else to "pay their fair share", before they'll voluntarily add more into their taxes payed
So the government is in the business of selling indulgences?
Many, including some in here, are likely very much advocating such, even if not conciously. Especially if it alleviates their guilt
-
Is installing a floor , a level of poverty no one shall be below, more or less the point?
Is installing a ceiling , a level of affluence no one shall rise above ,desireable?
-
I suppose Sirs would be happiest if we were to impose the government of H.L. Hunt's "Utopia" called Alpaca, in which the more taxes you paid, the more votes you got.
Actually I'm happiest, when the tax system is applied fairly as best to EVERYONE. Both a Flat tax and National Sales tax have such a foundation. How you went from taxes to # of votes, I have no clue, but the idea might have some merit. Care to expand on your idea?
-
How you went from taxes to # of votes, I have no clue, but the idea might have some merit. Care to expand on your idea?
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html (http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html)
-
So, Xo would appear to be supporting the notion that if one is taxed substantially higher than someone else, then perhaps as a result they should also have a higher vote count they can apply. Now, if we were to tax folks fairly, where EVERYONE "Pays their fair share", then everyone would have an equal vote.
And Xo supports the former?
-
Many, including some in here, are likely very much advocating such, even if not conciously. Especially if it alleviates their guilt
I am confused about the feeling guilty in the first place.
-
Many, including some in here, are likely very much advocating such, even if not conciously. Especially if it alleviates their guilt
I am confused about the feeling guilty in the first place.
Feelings are a highly fickle thing. Some have an uncontrollable sense of guilt if they're doing well financially, but see so much "suffering" in the world, and will question how they could be so fortunate. Even worse, some will feel angry if others who are deemed to be financially well off, don't feel guilty enough to do something with their own money. So, they'll advocate doing it for them, via tax manipulation
Some don't
-
As I said, the idea of givibng more votes for those who pay more in taxes was not my idea. It was the basis for a book written (probably ghost written) by a crypto-Fascist awlman speculator named H.L. Hunt.
It wasn't really his idea, either. It is based on the way that corporations have elections. The more shares you have, the more votes you get. Normally, you have only two choices: to vote as recommended by the Board of Directors, or to vote against their recommendations.
Basically, I think it sucks. So does the Flat Tax, particularly as proposed by that charismatic boy wonder Steve Forbes. A national sales tax also sucks.
I favor a progressive tax, myself, and I am most in favor of Roth IRA's, which lamentably too few people invest in, because I suspect they are both ignorant and stupid.
I would say that a tax would be fairest if it taxed those who benefitted from the economic system (CEO's, placstic surgeons, sports and recording stars) at a rate reflective of their higher incomes. Perhaps rates should be lower for those who benefit less from the system, but contribute more: (teachers, firemen, nurses).
-
As I said, the idea of givibng more votes for those who pay more in taxes was not my idea. It was the basis for a book written (probably ghost written) by a crypto-Fascist awlman speculator named H.L. Hunt. It wasn't really his idea, either. It is based on the way that corporations have elections. The more shares you have, the more votes you get.
And yet, you're the one that introduced the concept into this thread. I wonder why.
Basically, I think it sucks. So does the Flat Tax, particularly as proposed by that charismatic boy wonder Steve Forbes. A national sales tax also sucks. I favor a progressive tax
So basically you're not into fairness for everyone. That's OK, just be honest then
-
As I said, the idea of givibng more votes for those who pay more in taxes was not my idea. It was the basis for a book written (probably ghost written) by a crypto-Fascist awlman speculator named H.L. Hunt. It wasn't really his idea, either. It is based on the way that corporations have elections. The more shares you have, the more votes you get.
And yet, you're the one that introduced the concept into this thread. I wonder why.
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on Today at 01:59:49 PM
Basically, I think it sucks. So does the Flat Tax, particularly as proposed by that charismatic boy wonder Steve Forbes. A national sales tax also sucks. I favor a progressive tax
So basically you're not into fairness for everyone. That's OK, just be honest then
==========================================================================
Oh, be honest my butt. You8 would not recognize honesty or fairness if they bit you on the tallywhacker.
I introduced it because I thought it would appeal to you. To me, your constant kvetching, pissing and moaning about the hideous unfairness of taxes seems goofy, but unfocused. So I thought I would introduce you to a more focused nutball view of fairness.
There is no concept of fairness that is going to appeal to anything close to a majority of people. I find it amusing and weird that you still have not captured this obvious fact.
As I said, the capitalist system has inequities built into it. So I am in favor of taxing more heavily those individuals whom the inequities favor most . To me, this is the epitome of fairness.
Steve Forbes clever plan, if implemented as Steve Forbes wants, would make it possible for Steveboy to pay himself in options and/or other corporate ploys so as to not pay a dime in taxes. If you didn't know this, you just didn't read his plan or numerous reviews of his plan.
-
Oh, be honest my butt. You8 would not recognize honesty or fairness if they bit you on the tallywhacker.
Yea, I realize that treating everyone the same, is apparently the polar opposite of fair ::)
I introduced it because I thought it would appeal to you.
Why would you think that? As i already referenced if everyone were treated fairly, such as in a Flat tax system, there'd be absoluytely no need to check out the idea you broiught in. But if you're all for this massive progressive taxing of "the rich", then perhaps they do need to be given more vote consideration. But since I'm more for fairness, it has no appeal to me in the least
There is no concept of fairness that is going to appeal to anything close to a majority of people.
Especially when you have so many minions pushing the "greedy" angle, and how unfair it is for "the rich" to have more than "the poor". Class warfar rhetoric is desgned specifically to make sure nothing appeals to a majority of people, when the majority is not "the rich"
Steve Forbes clever plan, if implemented as Steve Forbes wants, would make it possible for Steveboy to pay himself in options and/or other corporate ploys so as to not pay a dime in taxes. If you didn't know this, you just didn't read his plan or numerous reviews of his plan.
Even pretending for a moment that your version of his plan is accurate, who says his specifc plan is our only option? Strangely, I advocate a National sales tax with no loopholes or "options". Just fairness for EVERYONE
-
So the government is in the business of selling indulgences?
That is one way of looking at it. I can't speak for Sirs, but I do believe that people who support government run social programs and higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for it all have good intentions about helping the poor. I don't fault them for saying something should be done to help those in need. I fault them for demanding that other people do the work and that other people pay for it. Nothing about that doesn't come across to me as self-centered thinking. And the notion that support for such programs stems in part from a guilty feeling of obligation to the poor is not so far fetched as Gipper (Domer changed his handle again?) and Xavier try to make it out to be.
-
Steve Forbes clever plan, if implemented as Steve Forbes wants, would make it possible for Steveboy to pay himself in options and/or other corporate ploys so as to not pay a dime in taxes. If you didn't know this, you just didn't read his plan or numerous reviews of his plan.
Actually, it would move the payment of the taxes from him personally to his corporation. The taxes would be paid regardless.
-
I oppose a national sales tax, as well as a state sales tax on internet sales and items purchased used on ebay and craigslist and such. I oppose these because it is one way in which I use my wits to pay less to get by.
I recently bought a like-new Maytag range for $50 at a yard sale. The seller even delivered it in his truck to my door.
If I had bought the cheapest range at $265 from a retail store, I would have had to pay Florida $18.55 as well as $215 more for a decidedly inferior range, and they would have hit me up $20 to deliver it.
I am certain that we will never have either a flat tax or a national sales tax, because this would require a cancellation of the income tax, and I don't ever see that happening.
-
I oppose a national sales tax, as well as a state sales tax on internet sales and items purchased used on ebay and craigslist and such. I oppose these because it is one way in which I use my wits to pay less to get by.
Boy, doesn't that clarify things nicely. So basically, you advocate that "the rich" pay a greater % of taxes, but you chose to pay as little as possible. Pretty much the point ami was making about Buffett. Should I deduce that you don't care about "the poor", that you're not paying "your fair share"?? Why shouldn't I??
I am certain that we will never have either a flat tax or a national sales tax, because this would require a cancellation of the income tax, and I don't ever see that happening.
Being "certain" that the income tax will never be switched with anything else still doesn't negate your obvious distaste for fairness for everyone. As I said, just be honest
-
As the taxes are aranged right now , one must make above a certian threshhold amount to pay any income tax.
How many are below this threshhold?