• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:


  • Total voters
    133
why does Buffett structure his compensation so he only has a salary of 100 grand?

If he structured his salary consistent with other people running similar organizations he would have several million being taxed at 35%

he pays a higher tax on his earned income than his ad staff and the same or higher rates on other forms of income

those who lap up his BS are gullilble

He didn't even try to avoid paying higher taxes and only had to pay 17.7 percent of his taxes. This is further backed up by the study mbig referenced and the ever widening income gap shown by the statistics:

"The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest is bigger than at any time since the 1920s — just before the Depression. According to an analysis this year by Edward Wolff of New York University, the top 20% of wealthy individuals own about 85% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% own very near 0%.
Many in that bottom 40% not only have No assets, they have Negative net wealth.
"
Spreading the wealth - Los Angeles Times

The American people have been gullible, I will agree with you there, gullible for standing for it. However, pain has a way of sharpening ones senses. And as 1 out 7 people are now below the poverty line, more and more people are willing to stand up and defend themselves in the class war that officially began under Reagan when he slashed the tax rates for the top income brackets.
 
And focusing on his income tax as it seems he and other do is missing the mark.

He isn't just earning multi-millions every year - that's income, there. He's WORTH Billions and that WORTH is amassed in everything from personal property, stocks and bonds, assests - and so on.

Focusing on just his pay-cut is a narrow scope to be looking through.
1. How did he accumulate his Billions Auntie?

Hint: He merely bought companies and and parts of companies and rode them up. All the while paying Less taxes that those that work for a living.
And he knows it's unfair that investing for a living (creating Nothing) and getting taxed less because of it.
He's Still doing the same thing.

2. He's hardly alone in any case! Take this working Wharton professor who Repeated his experiment and tells us of Buffett's Challenge to EVERY Forbes 400 CEO.
And this guy is no zillionaire.

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share
By JUSTIN WOLFERS
Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com

...So that got me to thinking about how fair the tax system really is. Do the well-off pay their fair share, or do they also deserve a tax break?

Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7% tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30% tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
"I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet
.

What about those of us who are merely among the well-off, and not in the Buffett-stratosphere?

Now, I’m no Warren Buffett (believe me!), but I’ve just finished figuring out my federal taxes for the year. I live comfortably (one of the virtues of teaching in a business school), but was dismayed to learn that my federal taxes for 2007 amount to only 16% of my income.

This strikes me as astonishingly low. And it’s not like I have a fancy approach to tax minimization; I just write off a bunch of business-related expenses, and benefit enormously from deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Obviously city and state taxes drive my total tax bill up a bit further, as do payroll taxes, although I plan on getting some of that back as social security in my old age.

But the point remains: I had never quite realized that the Warren Buffett problem extends far enough down the income distribution that even folks like myself aren’t paying their fair share.

So I repeated Warren Buffett’s experiment here at Wharton. And it appears that I’m paying lower taxes than the administrative staff in my department. And if it is true here, I suspect the same goes equally for most folks in the top 10% of income earners.

So Auntie.. watcha say now?
 
Last edited:
I don't like the idea of a national sales tax... I am kind of shocked that so many conservatives actually support a tax inflating prices in the free market, and that's exactly why I oppose it. I think a flat income tax would make more sense than a flat sales tax. Holy crap... if the government isn't collecting enough dough, they'd just raise taxes on everything, and the free market would be volatile. I foresee black markets popping up in that situation. In fact, I'd support black markets myself because I like being creative and thinking how to get out of taxes... purchase things in a foreign country and sneak it back, bartering.. lol. The government would try to figure out how to tax bartering.
 
Last edited:
He didn't even try to avoid paying higher taxes and only had to pay 17.7 percent of his taxes. This is further backed up by the study mbig referenced and the ever widening income gap shown by the statistics:

"The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest is bigger than at any time since the 1920s — just before the Depression. According to an analysis this year by Edward Wolff of New York University, the top 20% of wealthy individuals own about 85% of the wealth, while the bottom 40% own very near 0%.
Many in that bottom 40% not only have No assets, they have Negative net wealth.
"
Spreading the wealth - Los Angeles Times

The American people have been gullible, I will agree with you there, gullible for standing for it. However, pain has a way of sharpening ones senses. And as 1 out 7 people are now below the poverty line, more and more people are willing to stand up and defend themselves in the class war that officially began under Reagan when he slashed the tax rates for the top income brackets.

why is there a gap? its not that we tax the rich too little-its that those at the bottom aren't engaging in activities that make them more valuable

spawning like rabbits, dropping out of HS and doing drugs is the major causes of poverty

nothing to blame the rich for
 
1. How did he accumulate his Billions Auntie?

Hint: He merely bought companies and and parts of companies and rode them up. All the while paying Less taxes that those that work for a living.
And he knows it's unfair that investing for a living (creating Nothing) and getting taxed less because of it.
He's Still doing the same thing.

2. He's hardly alone in any case! Take this working Wharton professor who Repeated his experiment and tells us of Buffett's Challenge to EVERY Forbes 400 CEO.
And this guy is no zillionaire.

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share
By JUSTIN WOLFERS
Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com



So Auntie.. watcha say now?

Buffett paid LESS TAXES THAN THOSE WHO 'WORK' FOR A LIVING

OMG MORE LIES
 
i WONDER how much extra Buffett and those wealthy dem party suck ups send to the government. when you are as rich as Buffett all that is left is power and its obvious where he thinks he will get more power
 
More Turtle Dude EMPTY Harrassment above.
NEVER any substance in his barrage posting/last-wording.
Just Daily 2-line partisan hackery trying to shout down Substantial opponents and debate.
A great disservice and discredit to this board.

- - - -

Your real tax rate: 40%
2/21/2007
By Scott Burns
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx


Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, 'sin' taxes and the rest add up to a virtual Flat tax nationwide.


We Have a national flat tax, albeit one with bumps and potholes.

The fact that the political parties won't acknowledge this is one reason they are doing a disservice to the voting public.

Instead, both parties have a vested interest in the theatrical possibilities created by the idea of graduated tax rates. Notice that I said "the idea of" graduated tax rates. That should not be confused with reality.
[......]
Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.

Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.

Well, two researchers did it.

In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.

Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.

As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%..."
and of course Eliminating the only part of the Tax System that is progressive, Income Taxes, would result in the Effective rate of the Poor/Middle being even higher than the rich.
 
Last edited:
why is there a gap? its not that we tax the rich too little-its that those at the bottom aren't engaging in activities that make them more valuable

spawning like rabbits, dropping out of HS and doing drugs is the major causes of poverty

nothing to blame the rich for

Yes it is exactly because we are taxing the rich too little. The progressive tax system designed by our forefathers has been gutted with a huge transfer of the taxation for the wealthiest to the middle class. Please explain the voodoo economics that you surely must employ to claim that shifting more of the tax burden from the upper class to the middle class has no effect on the income gap?
 
Last edited:
so what-being a stockholder of both, i paid taxes on what I received from my investment

I guess its just too bad we have a $14 trillion dollar debt that we are barely keeping up with and now 1 out 7 Americans are now below the poverty line. But hey, it sure is nice the wealthy are doing so well, huh? But sure, try to pile even more of the tax burden on the middle class through a flat tax, fuel the class war even more.
 
1. How did he accumulate his Billions Auntie?

Hint: He merely bought companies and and parts of companies and rode them up. All the while paying Less taxes that those that work for a living.
And he knows it's unfair that investing for a living (creating Nothing) and getting taxed less because of it.
He's Still doing the same thing.

2. He's hardly alone in any case! Take this working Wharton professor who Repeated his experiment and tells us of Buffett's Challenge to EVERY Forbes 400 CEO.
And this guy is no zillionaire.

Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share
By JUSTIN WOLFERS
Taxes, Warren Buffett, and Paying My Fair Share - NYTimes.com



So Auntie.. watcha say now?

What you posted doesn't negate my post.
I was simply pointing out that income is only a portion of someone's actual wealth and economic 'standing' in the country. Just like brushing your teeth is only part of your dental hygiene. :shrug:

We could take 100% of his fluid income in taxes and he's still net massive gains in all these other areas- thus - there are property and other taxes, etc etc, not based on fluid income.
 
What you posted doesn't negate my post.
I was simply pointing out that income is only a portion of someone's actual wealth and economic 'standing' in the country. Just like brushing your teeth is only part of your dental hygiene. :shrug:

We could take 100% of his fluid income in taxes and he's still net massive gains in all these other areas- thus - there are property and other taxes, etc etc, not based on fluid income.
I'm afraid it does.
the whole point of the discussion was whether or not he was some Giant Exception (you said because of years of accumulation).
But it turns out That..
1. He even was able to accumulate that money DUE to lower capital gains rates vs Income tax rates.
2. He's NOT an exception, but has made the challenge to the Forbes 400 CEOs. NONE of whom took him up on it.
3. The Wharton professor who wrote artice, not coincidentally, found the same thing in his office/staff.
 
Last edited:
so what-being a stockholder of both, i paid taxes on what I received from my investment

so what? so what! SO WHAT!?!?!?!?

How very typical of the elitist attitude sitting back sucking up to corporations and suckling upon them for enrichment. You could not care less that these billion dollar corporations find ways to cheat the American people and the American government as long as you get what you feel is yours from them. That type of attitude is what is killing America.

And at what rate did you pay these taxes on your investment?
 
More Turtle Dude EMPTY Harrassment above.
NEVER any substance in his barrage posting/last-wording.
Just Daily 2-line partisan hackery trying to shout down Substantial opponents and debate.
A great disservice and discredit to this board.

- - - -

Your real tax rate: 40%
2/21/2007
By Scott Burns
Your real tax rate: 40% - MSN Money


Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, 'sin' taxes and the rest add up to a virtual Flat tax nationwide.



and of course Eliminating the only part of the Tax System that is progressive, Income Taxes, would result in the Effective rate of the Poor/Middle being even higher than the rich.

why do you advocates of taking more money from the rich engage in such DISHONESTY

the issue is the federal tax system which is mainly income taxes (and for the most industrious) the death tax. and the top 1% pay more of the income tax than the bottom 95%

what the states do is not really relevant given you can, as an American citizen-lessen that burden by your lifestyle or where you move.

and what you and your ilk ignore is actual dollars. you engage in that sophistry that taxes should be based on from each according to their ability rather like EVERYTHING ELSE WE PAY FOR-what you GET
 
I guess its just too bad we have a $14 trillion dollar debt that we are barely keeping up with and now 1 out 7 Americans are now below the poverty line. But hey, it sure is nice the wealthy are doing so well, huh? But sure, try to pile even more of the tax burden on the middle class through a flat tax, fuel the class war even more.

so its your position that as long as there is a deficit-caused by a government elected mainly by the middle class-it is the duty of the top 2 percent to pay more and more taxes to take care of all the problems the majority has caused?

get a clue-as long as the masses dont suffer tax increases to deal with the idiotic spending they clamor for, the masses will have no incentive to stop irresponsible spending
 
I'm afraid it does.
the whole point of the discussion was whether or not he was some Giant Exception (you said because of years of accumulation).
But it turns out That..
1. He even was able to accumulate that money DUE to lower capital gains rates vs Income tax rates.
2. He's NOT an exception, but has made the challenge to the Forbes 400 CEOs. NONE of whom took him up on it.
3. The Wharton professor who wrote artice, not coincidentally, found the same thing in his office/staff.

Oh - you're trying to take my post and apply it to the original point of the thread. If I was trying to argue for or against something I would have done so quite bluntly. I was merely adding in what seemed to be missing from some of the arguments presented.

There's more to someone's 'rich' status than their annual income - take away his annual income and he's still a rich bastard :)
 
Last edited:
How very typical of the elitist attitude sitting back sucking up to corporations and suckling upon them for enrichment. You could not care less that these billion dollar corporations find ways to cheat the American people and the American government as long as you get what you feel is yours from them. That type of attitude is what is killing America.

And at what rate did you pay these taxes on your investment?

what idiocy-you dislike those of us who invest

socialist drivel again
 
Yes it is exactly because we are taxing the rich too little. The progressive tax system designed by our forefathers has been gutted with a huge transfer of the taxation for the wealthiest to the middle class. Please explain the voodoo economics that you surely must employ to claim that shifting more of the tax burden from the upper class to the middle class has no effect on the income gap?

spoken like someone consumed with envy

taxing the rich to slake the spite of people like you won't make the middle class more productive or more competitive.

telling the middle class that taxing the rich more will make them better off is why the middle class is not as competitive as it should be
 
Regardless of how much is taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor - the gap between these two brackets of income is growing wider - the poor are just as poor as ever before and the rich get richer.
 
Regardless of how much is taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor - the gap between these two brackets of income is growing wider - the poor are just as poor as ever before and the rich get richer.

that is because the global economy is changing and those who engage in poor choices that prevent them from gaining the information now needed to compete fall behind because being stupid and strong won't get you good wages like it once did


a study was recently posted here and on other forums noting that if someone DOES NOT flunk out of HS and does NOT engage in breeding before marriage, that person has less than a one out of 20 chance of being impoverished.
 
Regardless of how much is taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor - the gap between these two brackets of income is growing wider - the poor are just as poor as ever before and the rich get richer.

the poor in the USA have a far higher standard of living than at any time in history and a far higher standard than those in most nations. so while the tax hike advocates constantly carp about the growing gap, they fail to note the actual living conditions of the poor-
 
the poor in the USA have a far higher standard of living than at any time in history and a far higher standard than those in most nations. so while the tax hike advocates constantly carp about the growing gap, they fail to note the actual living conditions of the poor-

What are the actual living conditions of the poor?
 
What are the actual living conditions of the poor?

most in the USA have tv sets, cars , cell phones running water, air conditioning etc.

ever been to Africa or South America?
 
Back
Top Bottom