BoatShoes;923006 wrote:Well I'm sorry I write so much but I do so because I guess I believe it might help me sway your hearts and minds. As to your points;

1. I've never seen Buffet's tax returns but based on that data there's a good chance it's true, especially the better he pays her

AND

2. Obama is not lying when he says that there are indeed people who earn $1 million per year and pay less than the secretary. He has never claimed as Writer's thread title purports, that as a general rule the rich don't pay more. He then goes on to claim that they don't pay their fair share and that is not a factual question.

He's claimed several times over the past month flat out that the middle class pays more in taxes than the rich. No "as a rule," no "in certain cases." He's stated it as fact repeatedly. Where the hell have you been?

Warren has clearly claimed several times that his secretary, who he clearly states he pays about 40K (why you people fail to rage on this point is beyond me) pays a 35% tax rate. Those are his exact numbers. They've been proven impossible by several sources, including your little table above...which clearly shows the even including payroll taxes, it's virtually impossible to reach a 35% average tax rate in the 40-50K bracket.

By the way what state has a regressive tax? Boatshoes have you ever held a job in your life?

Manhattan Buckeye;923113 wrote:By the way what state has a regressive tax? Boatshoes have you ever held a job in your life?

The IrS runs a progressive tax for most Americans and a regressive tax for the ultra wealthy....that's the whole point of Buffet's op-ed. Can't you read and comprehend? Buffet didn't use any big words either. As for Boat Shoes...he is in the same profession as Fan from Texas.

fish82;922103 wrote:Because they don't pay 20% less tax, as the numbers above clearly state. If you want to argue the income gap, that's a separate issue. The tax percentages speak for themselves, and both you and your boy Warren are quite incorrect.

Yes they do pay 20% less. Either you didn't read the article, did read the article and cannot understand simple math equations, or you don't believe his stated numbers as being accurate. If it's the latter, then let me know. The internet is loaded with tax info that validates Buffet's numbers.

Writerbuckeye;922547 wrote:

Abe Vigoda;922527 wrote:Interesting article on just who and how much taxes are paid. The upper income class draws much of their income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than income from wages. The middle class pay a larger share on income taxes then the rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/tax-reality-check/?hpid=z3[/QUOTE

Yes, but the top 10 percent end up paying more than 70 percent of all income taxes -- while the bottom 50 percent don't pay at all.

The tax structure needs a good enema.

We are talking about percentages here...not aggregate dollars. Good God.

Footwedge;923228 wrote:The IrS runs a progressive tax for most Americans and a regressive tax for the ultra wealthy....that's the whole point of Buffet's op-ed. Can't you read and comprehend? Buffet didn't use any big words either. As for Boat Shoes...he is in the same profession as Fan from Texas.

The IRS has nothing to do with state taxes, and the states I have lived in HAVE PROGRESSIVE TAXES.

Virginia:

http://www.tax-rates.org/Virginia/income-tax

New York (this is misleading as some cities, like NYC have additional taxes):

http://www.tax-rates.org/New_York/income-tax


Truth and reality, apparently foreign concepts to some.

BTW here is the tax rate for all states as of '10.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/state_individualincome_rates-20100327.pdf

Not a single state has a regressive tax.

gut;917154 wrote:Precisely. I'd give more weight to Buffet's words if he made like a $14M donation to the federal govt each year. Nothing is stopping him from paying more taxes. It would seem he doesn't think paying more than other millionaires is fair...

.

This argument is for losers....and you see it written all the time. But reading deeper into it, it is a concession from you pro-aristocracy clan that the tax system is in fact regressive at the top....and that fixing it is wrong...but individually one can become a government philanthropist to "aid the cause".

Buffet makes it adamently clear...he's in favor of abolishing the regressive tax as it presently stands.

So I ask again, do you think iit's OK to have a progressive tax up to a certain point....but then revert to a regressive tax structure once one becomes an income earner in the top .3 percentile?

Manhattan Buckeye;923255 wrote:The IRS has nothing to do with state taxes, and the states I have lived in HAVE PROGRESSIVE TAXES.

Virginia:

http://www.tax-rates.org/Virginia/income-tax

New York (this is misleading as some cities, like NYC have additional taxes):

http://www.tax-rates.org/New_York/income-tax


Truth and reality, apparently foreign concepts to some.

You bring up state taxes out of nowhere? Why? The subject at hand is federal tax. No one ever claimed that state taxes are regressive. Buffet sure didn't. It's also not foreign to most that the federal tax far exceeds any state income tax...doesn't matter what state one lives in.

Let me get this straight.

I earn $100,000 of income, let's say I pay 15% tax on that, leaving me with $85,000.

That $85,000 is post-tax money.

Assume I invest $5,000 of my post-tax money in Apple and realize a gain of $500 after two years. That gain is still out of post-tax money. How is any tax on that regressive? It is an additional tax on taxed money.

Footwedge;923274 wrote:You bring up state taxes out of nowhere? Why? The subject at hand is federal tax. No one ever claimed that state taxes are regressive. Buffet sure didn't. It's also not foreign to most that the federal tax far exceeds any state income tax...doesn't matter what state one lives in.

This gem from Boatshoes' post #97 on the thread:

"10% of people who earn only $10,000 a year pay 12.4% of their income in taxes (not even including state and local taxes which are regressive)."

which I debunked.

Footwedge;923268 wrote:This argument is for losers....and you see it written all the time. But reading deeper into it, it is a concession from you pro-aristocracy clan that the tax system is in fact regressive at the top....and that fixing it is wrong...but individually one can become a government philanthropist to "aid the cause".

Buffet makes it adamently clear...he's in favor of abolishing the regressive tax as it presently stands.

So I ask again, do you think iit's OK to have a progressive tax up to a certain point....but then revert to a regressive tax structure once one becomes an income earner in the top .3 percentile?

The tax is NOT regressive...Let me break it down for you....Tax rates are a combination of progressive (income), "regressive" (if you take into account the phase out of SS), and flat (capital gains). Nothing about the rates rich pay is "regressive", it's that their distribution of income shift more toward the FLAT capital gains tax.

And, sorry, it's a fact that the majority of capital gains tax are actually taxed at more like 37% or more, due to double taxation with corporate and then dividends or gains. Any other argument is just ignorant claiming the rest of us are "losers", because you neither understand the issue nor can you present a cogent argument (to be fair, there is none).

Article in the WSJ today about the elimination of the Bush tax cuts, plus some new taxes on the table....Small business owners will see their total rates go from 40% to 50%+. Yeah, that will be good for the economy.

Or how about Robert Johnson's response? [FYI, Robert Johnson is the found of BET television, among other things]...First, he says if Buffet has a problem with how much his secretary pays, then why doesn't he pay her more than $40k? Can you not see the inherent hypocrisy there? And Johnson's other classic comment: "I've tried poor, and I like rich better"

fish82;923044 wrote:He's claimed several times over the past month flat out that the middle class pays more in taxes than the rich. No "as a rule," no "in certain cases." He's stated it as fact repeatedly. Where the hell have you been?

Warren has clearly claimed several times that his secretary, who he clearly states he pays about 40K (why you people fail to rage on this point is beyond me) pays a 35% tax rate. Those are his exact numbers. They've been proven impossible by several sources, including your little table above...which clearly shows the even including payroll taxes, it's virtually impossible to reach a 35% average tax rate in the 40-50K bracket.

Fish....post like yours above are as annoying as it gets. I'm sorry. Get your quotes straight from Buffet...or else STFU....from the article I linked that you apparently were too lazy to read...

"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."

Where in the fukk is he peddling your bullshlt that the middle class is paying more than him? You pro aristacracy clan are quite the hoot and entertain the boards quite nicely. But if you're gonna misquote someone, use an asterisk so that the rest of us know to take your nonsense with a grain of salt.

So the "protesters" or whatever you want to call these disillusioned college grads without a job....Posted in the windows of the CBOT in response - "We ARE the 1%"

Footwedge;923289 wrote: Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

I don't doubt that as I would guess many people in his office are making low 6-figures. The middle class, or upper-middle class, are always the loser in these class warfare arguments.

But the fact is, a single person making $40k a year doesn't pay 33% in taxes, even counting the employer FICA match (which is really sort of fuzzy math), unless her husband makes a good living putting them in a much higher tax bracket. So it would be an intellectually dishonest argument at best.

gut;923287 wrote:The tax is NOT regressive...Let me break it down for you....Tax rates are a combination of progressive (income), "regressive" (if you take into account the phase out of SS), and flat (capital gains). Nothing about the rates rich pay is "regressive", it's that their distribution of income shift more toward the FLAT capital gains tax.

And, sorry, it's a fact that the majority of capital gains tax are actually taxed at more like 37% or more, due to double taxation with corporate and then dividends or gains. Any other argument is just ignorant claiming the rest of us are "losers", because you neither understand the issue nor can you present a cogent argument (to be fair, there is none).

Article in the WSJ today about the elimination of the Bush tax cuts, plus some new taxes on the table....Small business owners will see their total rates go from 40% to 50%+. Yeah, that will be good for the economy.

Or how about Robert Johnson's response? [FYI, Robert Johnson is the found of BET television, among other things]...First, he says if Buffet has a problem with how much his secretary pays, then why doesn't he pay her more than $40k? Can you not see the inherent hypocrisy there? And Johnson's other classic comment: "I've tried poor, and I like rich better"

You are simply wrong...plain and simple. And I find it astounding that you, a pretty intelligent guy when it comes to this type of subject, can be so much in the wrong. People pay federal tax on both personal income and capital gains. They are both classified as income tax. As such, the federal tax structure is clearly regressive for the ultra high enders.

You are making an incredible blunder...a shocking one at that...in separating the two...and then citing them as separate taxes. I've seen some serious spin on these boards, but this one takes the cake...and the turkey too.

"You are making an incredible blunder...a shocking one at that...in separating the two...and then citing them as separate taxes."

Of course they are separate taxes. It isn't a blunder, it is reality.

gut;923298 wrote:I don't doubt that as I would guess many people in his office are making low 6-figures. The middle class, or upper-middle class, are always the loser in these class warfare arguments.

But the fact is, a single person making $40k a year doesn't pay 33% in taxes, even counting the employer FICA match (which is really sort of fuzzy math), unless her husband makes a good living putting them in a much higher tax bracket. So it would be an intellectually dishonest argument at best.

I will concede that his secretaries don't pay the 36% that he has cited. Unless he pays his secretaries 200K per year, are childless, and have no deductions. With that said, I have read many places whereby his overall numbers are in fact correct...that the upper middle class pay 20% higher than those that make 60 million per year. If you want links...ask.

The banksters love you arguing about trivial shit like a few percent in tax rates like that is the solution to the wealth inequality in this country. They will continue to print the money and realize its benefits before the prices increase, and when the poor mother fuckers like us that need to spend that money finally see it prices have gone up.

Footwedge;923304 wrote: You are making an incredible blunder...a shocking one at that...in separating the two...and then citing them as separate taxes. I've seen some serious spin on these boards, but this one takes the cake...and the turkey too.

No, you are very confused. A FLAT tax is not regressive, no matter how desperately you want to spin it. Everyone pays exactly the same capital gains rate, whether they have $5000 in gains or $5M. That's pretty much the definition of flat. There are many small business owners for whom the majority of their income is ordinary income, and will pay 40-50% in total taxes. The system is not regressive - it is a combination of flat and progressive taxes. People who have accumulated wealth have a great portion of their income taxed at the flat rate, but as has been pointed out that money was already taxed once the first time they earned it, and still doubled taxed after the gubmit takes its cut from the corporation.

Footwedge;923234 wrote: The internet is loaded with tax info that validates Buffet's numbers.

Footwedge;923310 wrote:I will concede that his secretaries don't pay the 36% that he has cited.

Once again, I think I can just take a step back and let you destroy your arguments all on your own.

Could I get some links? I for the most part agree with you but seeing numbers and such is always nice.

I Wear Pants;923318 wrote:Could I get some links? I for the most part agree with you but seeing numbers and such is always nice.

LOL who do you agree with?

Gut nailed it above, just let folks that don't know what they are talking about bury themselves. What's the part of arguing?

gut;923316 wrote:No, you are very confused. A FLAT tax is not regressive, no matter how desperately you want to spin it. Everyone pays exactly the same capital gains rate, whether they have $5000 in gains or $5M. That's pretty much the definition of flat. There are many small business owners for whom the majority of their income is ordinary income, and will pay 40-50% in total taxes. The system is not regressive - it is a combination of flat and progressive taxes. People who have accumulated wealth have a great portion of their income taxed at the flat rate, but as has been pointed out that money was already taxed once the first time they earned it, and still doubled taxed after the gubmit takes its cut from the corporation.

Jesus God Almighty. Now where in the fug did I ever say anything about a flat tax being regressive? I never have...and that has never entered into the discussion. You are the one that will not answer my fuggin question....but instead change the subject matter. We are not talking about small business owners either. So leave them the fug out too. We are talking about the extreme high enders who pay a regressive tax....period. And if one wanted to extend the argument further, the high enders (the top .3%) actually defer most of their capital gains tax to an amount much less than 15%....by using inflation to their advantage...and eventually paying their 15% with deflated dollars.

Answer the question...one last time. iT IS A FACT that people who whose income falls in the top .3% pay 20% less percentage wise than those who fall in the category of upper middle class. My question is a really simple one. Try to stay on point...and leave the other off track bullshlt aside....Do you you think that that is a fair tax structure? If so? Why?

If you say yes, well, then you are a proud member of the pro plutocrat..or aristocrat philosophers....as anti democratic as there can ever be.
I repeat....for the fifth time on this thread....whereby you pro aristocrat crowd {the antithesis to a democratic crowd I might add)...is it fair?

gut;923317 wrote:Once again, I think I can just take a step back and let you destroy your arguments all on your own.

I destroyed my own argument? LMAO and Rolling on the floor I might add. You factor in the payroll tax percentages, and Buffet's numbers are almost accurate. Buffet pays 0% (when rounded off to the nearest .001 decimal) on payroll taxes....Sally Sue, his secretary pays 7.65%.

But that's not the real issue here anyway.