• 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!

Would the rich miss 5%?

Not really. Insurance companies take profits and invest them in shell companies or securities which keeps those profits off their net income line making it look like they aren't making as much as they really are. Granted, many industries do this as well. If you restate their net incomes by removing a big chunk of those investments from their balance sheet, they are making a sizable chunk of change.

My problem with insurance isn't its profits. It's that they make money by denying service that customers have legally paid for.

A whole lot of health insurance companies have gone under. A whole lot of HMO's have bit the dust. This is because they were too good to be true, and the profits weren't there.

I haven't had any denials fortunately and I use my insurance a lot. Universal healthcare will have to deny, also. There's no way any system can pay for everything. At some point, the rich will probably still get the better care,

Ever watch Benny Hill? You'll see a long line of people waiting to get medical care, and this lady will walk up with a fur coat and jewels, and go to the head of the line. That's how it goes with everything. Those that have it, get it.
 
Only if you change your argument from 5% to an exact amount.

5% is 5% is 5%.

Besides, the rich have jobs to create and employees to pay. Hurting them is hurting yourself.

HAHAHA, yeah, making the uber rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us will hurt us. They're going to take it out by making their businesses less efficient and cut into their profit margins. Besides, it's not like we can't replace them. It's America, just because someone can do a job doesn't mean that there aren't others who can't do the same job.

Plus, how much of my money goes to them? Just this last bailout, how much of our money was funneled to the rich. They're already hurting us. They get to act as irresponsibly as possible, take as much of our money as possible, and when they break the system the government will take our money and give it to them. Do they even have a down side? Hurting us....HA, already being done. Being assraped without the lube by the new aristocracy. No, the rich can pay the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us.
 
Are you under the delusion that those costs aren't already paid by us? 10x over?

10x over? Hardly. You ignore how much of the design and land study is done by state workers who's compensation isn't anywhere near the necessary profit margins private firms require. Furthermore, road maintenance is done by state workers as well. Again, no 5% ROI required. The only real profit being generated is during actual construction by private firms. And because private firms know that they aren't responsible for maintenance or anything else long term that has levels of uncertainty, they can easily project what it will actually cost them and determine their profit margin. So no, we aren't paying these costs 10x over. And have you seen toll rates? No way that even covers basic costs at least in America. Japan is another story though.

Now, if private firms were responsible for everything, there's a great amount of uncertainty in long term projections. When they have to maintain, repair and rebuild everything, the costs quickly explode. And unlike a state operation, they actually have to make money. So where it would cost us X amount in taxes to build and maintain, the private firm has to make X + 5% ROI annually. So tell me, how could we EVER pay 10x the costs when private firms have a 5% ROI that has to be met every year over state operations?

You clearly have not thought this through. Mathematically your argument is impossible.
 
A whole lot of health insurance companies have gone under. A whole lot of HMO's have bit the dust. This is because they were too good to be true, and the profits weren't there.

No one said every insurance firm was profitable. Furthermore, I'll bet a great many made bad investment decisions that ripped chunks of investment income they were depending on out of their incomes. Note that has nothing to do with their actual insurance business.

But a simple look at the balance sheets will show sizable amounts of investments that are in no way related. That's where many of the profits are going. That and cookie jars. Know why Microsoft had something like $35 billion in "warranties?" Earning manipulation. Their stated profits are not true. When you study this stuff, you realize just how much you're being lied to by the corporate world.

I haven't had any denials fortunately and I use my insurance a lot. Universal healthcare will have to deny, also. There's no way any system can pay for everything. At some point, the rich will probably still get the better care

That's absolutely true. But denies do happen to many people.
 
And when Buffett pays the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us, I'll begin to entertain your arguments.

Buffet is a rare case because he didn't make his money on any kind of career, but rather through investing; thus there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code he can take advantage of.

But most rich people aren't in that situation (especially if you define everyone in the top 1% as "rich").
 
Buffet is a rare case because he didn't make his money on any kind of career, but rather through investing; thus there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code he can take advantage of.

But most rich people aren't in that situation (especially if you define everyone in the top 1% as "rich").

Because their tax planning sucks. There are plenty of ways to reduce a $250,000 AGI down to very low tax brackets. Takes a little more work for $1 million, and a fair amount for over $10 million. There's not much someone making $50+ million in earned income can do though legally and without extensive work. Especially since the IRS is all pissy about partnerships. That used to be a great way of tax reduction.
 
Buffet is a rare case because he didn't make his money on any kind of career, but rather through investing; thus there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code he can take advantage of.

But most rich people aren't in that situation (especially if you define everyone in the top 1% as "rich").

The top 1% pay a lower marginal tax rate than the rest of us, without even trying. The tax codes are specifically set up to avoid heavy taxes on them. The lower-upper class; those guys pay tons of tax. The top, they don't pay ****. Buffett isn't the only one in the top 1% who pays lower tax rates than everyone else; they all pay lower tax rates. And by exploiting tax loop-holes; they're probably paying less than Buffett.
 
The top 1% pay a lower marginal tax rate than the rest of us, without even trying. The tax codes are specifically set up to avoid heavy taxes on them. The lower-upper class; those guys pay tons of tax. The top, they don't pay ****. Buffett isn't the only one in the top 1% who pays lower tax rates than everyone else; they all pay lower tax rates. And by exploiting tax loop-holes; they're probably paying less than Buffett.

I'm assuming you have proof of this?


BTW my parents are in the top 1% and do not pay a lower marginal tax rate than everyone else....
 
I'm assuming you have proof of this?


BTW my parents are in the top 1% and do not pay a lower marginal tax rate than everyone else....

Buffett said it himself. There's a link in the thread. These people are the one's that make most of their money through capital gains. 17% of the people think they're in the top 1%, 18% beyond that think they'll be in the top 1%. Yet over half the people don't have enough money to live a "comfortable" life. Money always flows uphill and those at the top are also the ones setting the rules. As I said, when the uber rich start paying the same marginal tax rate; we'll talk.
 
Last edited:
HAHAHA, yeah, making the uber rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us will hurt us. They're going to take it out by making their businesses less efficient and cut into their profit margins. Besides, it's not like we can't replace them. It's America, just because someone can do a job doesn't mean that there aren't others who can't do the same job.

The law is not targeting specific individuals.

It is targeting any and everyone who steps into that position, to include anyone who replaces the current wealthy.

Plus, how much of my money goes to them? Just this last bailout, how much of our money was funneled to the rich. They're already hurting us.

Uh, who's fault is that? Both Bush and Obama forced the rich to take those bailouts.

They get to act as irresponsibly as possible, take as much of our money as possible, and when they break the system the government will take our money and give it to them.

They can't have the money if the government doesn't take it from you.

This is why no one was supposed to vote for Obama. McCain was easier to control.

Do they even have a down side? Hurting us....HA, already being done. Being assraped without the lube by the new aristocracy. No, the rich can pay the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us.

I wonder if you realize that forcing the rich to pay the same tax % as everyone else is to drastically reduce the tax burden they pay now.

Increasing their taxes by 5% is the exact opposite of "the rich can pay the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us".
 
I'm assuming you have proof of this?


BTW my parents are in the top 1% and do not pay a lower marginal tax rate than everyone else....

So you live in a mansion?! I thought you said your dad worked for the CIA? He must be corrupt.....
 
It really depends if I loose 5 %. On a 50 $ vs a 5$ stock that is a big cash difference.
 
I wonder if you realize that forcing the rich to pay the same tax % as everyone else is to drastically reduce the tax burden they pay now.

Increasing their taxes by 5% is the exact opposite of "the rich can pay the same marginal tax rate as the rest of us".

Except that the extremely rich are paying around 17% with no problem, wherein everyone else is well higher than that. So your analysis is a little off.
 
No way, only the smart can become rich, and usually at the expense of the rest of us. Most of the time, it works out for all of us, because we need some rich and well off to create the jobs.
Wealth is not infinite, and neither are resources. Every extra dollar that gets printed makes the existing dollars worth less than before. Resources must be replaced as they are used, or eventually, we run out of them. Europeans came to the new world looking for wealth, and part of that wealth was WOOD, because they had pretty much depleted the forests of Europe.

Hehe. Its exactly that kind of thinking, which most people think, and people like you preach to other people, that keeps so many in poverty. If people understood that material things are infinite because we can create infinite from what is apparently nothing, then we could again use that power to make everyone rich. Where do you think all that wood came from? Yes, trees that grow from sunlight and nutrients in the dirt. Where did the nutrients in the dirt come from? Matter in space, ne? Where did that matter in space come from? I would contend thought. Thought caused matter to come into existence, and because we can think, we can cause matter to come into existence, just as we can take existing matter and shape it into something we choose through physical means.
 
You want to force me to pay thousands of dollars for some other person's health-care because they didn't buy their own?

Do you, sir, think for one minute that our working poor can pay one penny toward say $600 per month toward health care??
 
Buffett said it himself. There's a link in the thread.

Did you even read the post that you responded to?

Buffet is a rare case because he didn't make his money on any kind of career, but rather through investing; thus there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code he can take advantage of.

But most rich people aren't in that situation (especially if you define everyone in the top 1% as "rich").

Emphasis added.
 
Last edited:
So you live in a mansion?! I thought you said your dad worked for the CIA? He must be corrupt.....

Common misconception. Not everyone in the top 1% is that rich. I'm really more upper-middle class than anything.
 
Common misconception. Not everyone in the top 1% is that rich. I'm really more upper-middle class than anything.

I know exactly what you are talking about.
 
Did you even read the post that you responded to?



Emphasis added.

The uber rich are in that category, it's not as isolated as you'd like to think. There are plenty of rich people who get nailed on taxes, but the uber rich do not. Once the majority of your income can be derived from capital gains, you're not paying **** in taxes anymore. Steep slope up, but steeper one down.
 
The uber rich are in that category, it's not as isolated as you'd like to think. There are plenty of rich people who get nailed on taxes, but the uber rich do not. Once the majority of your income can be derived from capital gains, you're not paying **** in taxes anymore. Steep slope up, but steeper one down.

Even if this were true (and I'd like to see proof of it before I believe it), the top 1% are not the "uber-rich".
 
Common misconception. Not everyone in the top 1% is that rich. I'm really more upper-middle class than anything.

But do you live in an area with mansions and really nice exotic cars?
 
BTW my parents are in the top 1% and do not pay a lower marginal tax rate than everyone else....

Perhaps they should get better tax planning. Deferring income, donating highly appreciated securities and various partnership arrangements can severely reduce high bracket taxable income to produce low marginal taxes. Ikari isn't wrong in his belief that the tax code is setup to largely reward specific types of income while being harsh on earned income. There are plenty of super rich people who have marginal and effective federals taxes of zero. It's called major investments into municipal bonds.
 
Even if this were true (and I'd like to see proof of it before I believe it), the top 1% are not the "uber-rich".

Well, the effective tax rate on long term dividends and capital gains is currently 15%.

Let's hypothetically say that all of your income is from dividends and capital gains.

Let's say you make $250,000 from those. That's a measly $37,500 since capital gains taxes aren't progressive. That's pretty tiny. Generally you don't get credits at $250,000 due to phase outs, but let's say you have a ranch. You donate a conservation easement which under Bush era tax laws allowed the donators to get 100% of the value. If you have enough land and structure it correctly, you could eliminate your entire AGI thereby deeming your taxes 0 excluding state taxes on capital gains.

Good luck finding anything similar for earned income.
 
Back
Top Bottom