• 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%?

And you're dishonest in claiming the rich pay 'nothing' in taxes when in fact they pay more in a year than you and I could hope to pay in our lifetimes.

I didn't say they pay nothing (it said practically nothing as it was a comparison to other tax bracket tax rates). I say those in charge have set the rules to allow them to unfairly lower their marginal tax rate over what the rest of the people have to pay. And it's true. Buffet pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. The same is true with most of the people of that level. Buffet has a million dollar challenge for people in the top 1% if they pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. No one has taken him up on it. The rules are set this way.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say they pay nothing. I say those in charge have set the rules to allow them to unfairly lower their marginal tax rate over what the rest of the people have to pay. And it's true. Buffet pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. The same is true with most of the people of that level. Buffet has a million dollar challenge for people in the top 1% if they pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. No one has taken him up on it. The rules are set this way.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online
He's still paying a ****load more than his secretary. More than she will ever even earn, most likely.

Should be a flat tax for everyone, or even better... no income taxes at all. People should not be taxed for being successful.
 
If you wanna tax everyone the same based on a percentage, fine. That's fair. But to say that they owe 90% in taxes just because they are successful while I owe only 20%...just because???

Exactly, the top 1% don't do that. It's 30% for the middle class, ~17% for the top 1% without even trying. I'm sure there are plenty of rules and loopholes in place that would allow them to lower it beyond that. The lower-upper class pay a ridiculous amount of taxes. Even some base percentage of money isn't 100% fair as it's regressive. 30% of someone's income who is poor is huge compared to someone who has more money. And the poor tend to be using well less public services as well. There's a lot of problems with our current tax structure, and I think mostly across the board taxes are well too high. We can cut a lot (it would take way more than ending some needle exchange program which isn't even a blip on the budget scene) of bureaucracy and government agencies to lower taxes along with repealing laws and other mechanics which create huge costs.
 
He's still paying a ****load more than his secretary. More than she will ever even earn, most likely.

Should be a flat tax for everyone, or even better... no income taxes at all. People should not be taxed for being successful.

People shouldn't taxed period.

But we have chosen a system that taxes people, and we have chosen separate tax rates. So even if Warren buffet made 46 million and was taxed 17.7 percent. That is wrong regardless if he is still paying more in taxes than what his secretary is. The tax rate should be opposite. Warren pays 30 percent and his secretary 17.7. Or it shouldn't be that way because she is a secretary and secretaries and that sort are all scum?
 
He's still paying a ****load more than his secretary. More than she will ever even earn, most likely.

Should be a flat tax for everyone, or even better... no income taxes at all. People should not be taxed for being successful.

Not marginally they aren't. And flat tax is a regressive tax. We have to have some form of tax somewhere for the government to run. I just don't think we should purposefully set the situation so that the top 1% don't have to pay as much as everyone else and allow rules and regulation which stifle mobility.
 
What do you think, would people earning over $250K a year miss 5%?

Yes. Not only would they miss it, but their employees would miss that raise that becomes possible when their employer can keep that money. Or, the businesses that that person spends that 5% on normally will miss that money. Or the charity that is a benefactor of that 5% will miss it.
 
Yes. Not only would they miss it, but their employees would miss that raise that becomes possible when their employer can keep that money. Or, the businesses that that person spends that 5% on normally will miss that money. Or the charity that is a benefactor of that 5% will miss it.

Or the offshore banks which hide the money from the federal government and protect it from taxation.

But the people making the 250,000 a year aren't the problem. They aren't usually rich enough to avoid heavy tax rates.
 
People shouldn't taxed period.

But we have chosen a system that taxes people, and we have chosen separate tax rates. So even if Warren buffet made 46 million and was taxed 17.7 percent. That is wrong regardless if he is still paying more in taxes than what his secretary is. The tax rate should be opposite. Warren pays 30 percent and his secretary 17.7. Or it shouldn't be that way because she is a secretary and secretaries and that sort are all scum?
No, the tax shouldn't be opposite. Should be a flat rate, or no income tax at all (the latter being preferable)

Not marginally they aren't. And flat tax is a regressive tax. We have to have some form of tax somewhere for the government to run. I just don't think we should purposefully set the situation so that the top 1% don't have to pay as much as everyone else and allow rules and regulation which stifle mobility.
Income tax isn't necessary. Consumption taxes would be much more fair. Income tax only taxes people for being successful.
 
I'm not a fan of most forms of taxation, but we need something so the government can operate. But I'm probably not going to agree with regressive taxation schemes. Of course, we could just do it all through inflation.
 
I'm not a fan of most forms of taxation, but we need something so the government can operate. But I'm probably not going to agree with regressive taxation schemes. Of course, we could just do it all through inflation.

Which has the same effect as taxation. Citizens end up with less.
 
Which has the same effect as taxation. Citizens end up with less.

Aye, it does have the same effect. I made no claim to the contrary.
 
I'm not a fan of most forms of taxation, but we need something so the government can operate. But I'm probably not going to agree with regressive taxation schemes. Of course, we could just do it all through inflation.

The biggest problem is that the government spends too much. If they spent less, then they wont need so much of our money to operate.
 
LMFAO I'd HAPPILY pay only $5 a year, but you know what? When I worked in DC, and even when I worked in WV, I had to pay $10 a DAY in TOLLS to get to work and back. So don't give me this toll road bull**** when we already have that issue. I would MUCH rather pay the $10 (or more) in tolls if less was taken from me in taxes. But as it is now, they steal money from me via taxes and THEN make me pay tolls on top of that!!!

As for education... if you can't afford to educate your child, then that's a good reason NOT to have one.



First of all....tolls would be much higher if building roads were based solely on tolls.
Basically what you would have is a system where only the wealthy would be able to drive.

As far as education....are you really advocating for a system where only the wealthy can afford to educate their children? I don't even have kids and gladly pay property taxes to support education because education benefits all of us.
 
First of all....tolls would be much higher if building roads were based solely on tolls.
Basically what you would have is a system where only the wealthy would be able to drive.

As far as education....are you really advocating for a system where only the wealthy can afford to educate their children? I don't even have kids and gladly pay property taxes to support education because education benefits all of us.

I doubt the tolls would be as high as the 10's of thousands I send to the government every year.

And you know what? I bet the roads would be better taken care of too. :lol:

As for education... what I am advocating is that people who cannot afford to have children, should not have children. If one wasn't paying thousands upon thousands to the government for a failing public school system, one could afford to spend thousands on a more highly functional private school for their child.
 
Last edited:
Right. But they are still left with an even bigger amount to spend in one year than you and I could ever hope for.

Doesn't matter. It's their money, no matter how they made it, or if it was given to them, and regardless of whether you, I, or anyone else approves of the way they made it.
 
I doubt the tolls would be as high as the 10's of thousands I send to the government every year.

Think a little larger.

Imagine every road in America was a toll road. Now, imagine that every shipping company who used those roads tacked on the cost of tolls to goods. Now, imagine the cost in time from having to go through toll lanes. All this adds up to extremely inefficient and uncompetitive American firms. If everything was a user fee system, the costs of doing business in America would be astronomical.

While I dislike corporate welfare, the millions in taxation at the federal and state level that goes into building capital improvements for corporations does allow them to compete on the international market and provide jobs for Americans.
 
I'm all for cutting services.

We can start with these junkie needle exchange programs here in california. And the junkie nurses to give junkies their shots "safely" programs. And then we can stop paying for all these spontaneous parades here. I mean, do we really need a mexican day every single month?

That's just a start.

We are at odds here man. NEP's are one of the most effective ways of combating HIV among the most risky demographic: intravenous drug users.
 
Think a little larger.

Imagine every road in America was a toll road. Now, imagine that every shipping company who used those roads tacked on the cost of tolls to goods. Now, imagine the cost in time from having to go through toll lanes. All this adds up to extremely inefficient and uncompetitive American firms. If everything was a user fee system, the costs of doing business in America would be astronomical.

While I dislike corporate welfare, the millions in taxation at the federal and state level that goes into building capital improvements for corporations does allow them to compete on the international market and provide jobs for Americans.


No one likes paying taxes but everyone loves the conveniences that we have.

What they don't realize is that they don't get these things for free.
 
No one likes paying taxes but everyone loves the conveniences that we have.

.

What convenience? To drive on roads with assholes? I'll just buy my own road if you don't tax me.

/sarcasm
 
Little Clarence cant get a new rolex this year waaaaaaaaaaaa:boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:
 
Because their comes a point where they have earned it to the point where they are just sitting around not doing anything to earn it. Like Warren Buffet.

first of all there is a difference between a Buffet and somebody living off a investment portfolio so you once again FAIL

on every tax form there is the ability to pay more than is owed under the tax code. Ergo Buffet is a hypocite. So is every phony proposing higher taxes while not paying in more than they have to. If people are so intent on others paying more in taxes, the first thing they need to do is PAY MORE IN TAXES than is required, otherwise you FAIL

I didn't say they pay nothing (it said practically nothing as it was a comparison to other tax bracket tax rates). I say those in charge have set the rules to allow them to unfairly lower their marginal tax rate over what the rest of the people have to pay. And it's true. Buffet pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. The same is true with most of the people of that level. Buffet has a million dollar challenge for people in the top 1% if they pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries. No one has taken him up on it. The rules are set this way.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

He is free to pay more than he is required to. if he preaches for higher taxes without voluntarily doing it in the meantime means he is just an uberdouche who does not want anybody else to do in the future, what he was able to do in the past/present.

**** hypocrites of this magnitude. if he was so upset by this he could have paid his secretaries taxes and volunteered to pay more himself

why doesnt he pay that extra 5% before it is legislated
 
Think a little larger.

Imagine every road in America was a toll road. Now, imagine that every shipping company who used those roads tacked on the cost of tolls to goods.
I'm perfectly fine with that. I know they already tack on an extra cost due to the amount of taxes they have to pay to use those same roads. I don't see any difference.

Now, imagine the cost in time from having to go through toll lanes.
Two words: Speed Passes.
 
I am having trouble seeing how income from investments is "earned" income.
Especially if the super rich play a role in the manipulation of stock value.

It was legal to do so before the great depression. Reporters were paid, by check, to tout stocks at the requests of the rich....

Surely there are unethical practices involved today?
 
We are a civilized nation, not a bunch of selfish gits who don't care about our fellow countrymen, aren't we?

Well I see a large difference between caring about my fellow man and being asked to help someone that chooses not to help themselves.

Ive never been against helping someone that genuinely cannot help themselves. What I am agaisnt is expecting people who make the right choices pick up the slack for those that made the wrong choices and do not want to live with the consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom