|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Aug 17, 2011 16:15:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 17, 2011 19:36:34 GMT -5
Interesting piece. Especially the way he mixes types of income and goes back and forth between individual and household incomes.
Interesting bit here: "In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion "
Hmmm....OK, let's make it simple. Tax the top 400 at 100%. What does that bring in for the federal coffers? And let's round up some - call it $100,000,000,000. So 100,000,000,000/14,000,000,000,000 (hmmm...carry the..and the decimal goes....) WOW! That comes to about 0.7%!!!!
Or the other number that he threw in for us, about 237,000 households (not individuals) with incomes over $1,000,000/year (he didn't say where that number comes from, but let's take it as fact). Now, most of those, I think it safe to assume, will be a lot closer to the $1,000,000 than to $10,000,000 - near as I can make from the tables I've found about 85 to 90% fall in that range, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you care to check things yourself. What percentage of the debt can we really expect to cover if we were to tax everything over $1,000,000 at, oh, 90%? 2%? 3%? Still sounds a whole lot more like a spending problem than a revenue problem to me.
Funny how all those rich leftists shout that we need to 'tax the rich' but none of them seem to be willing to cash in their chips and send a big check to the feds. Not that it would do much good - if we were to totally strip all the wealth from the top 10 in the US, the feds would get 300 billion (roughly). Stripping the top three - all whom are very left leaning - would bring in about 125 billion.
Nor do we see the left wing politicians, with the cry of 'tax the rich' on their lips, willingly cashing in their chips and giving to the feds or state. Kerry docking his huge yacht out of state so he doesn't have to pay taxes on it - heck, not even selling his huge yacht and giving that money to the feds. We don't see DiFi selling her roughly $100,000,000 in assets and giving that to the government.
And Pelosi: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities." Don't see her stripping herself of her wealth.
Buffett's piece is a nice bit of class warfare propaganda. You did well putting it in the "Worst" section, as it is one of the most polemic, divisive pieces I have seen outside of Kos.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Aug 17, 2011 20:02:16 GMT -5
Good for you to crunch numbers. To a more basic level I liked his point that the SUPER rich get the bigger breaks while the little guy pays more. He is willing to pay more and sees the imbalance of it all, for that I appreciate the article. Congress is so screwed up, they are wasting time bickering and bitching amongst themselves rather than coming together to solve the issues at hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 17, 2011 20:42:53 GMT -5
Good for you to crunch numbers. To a more basic level I liked his point that the SUPER rich get the bigger breaks while the little guy pays more. He is willing to pay more and sees the imbalance of it all, for that I appreciate the article. Congress is so screwed up, they are wasting time bickering and bitching amongst themselves rather than coming together to solve the issues at hand. He may be willing, but is he cutting a check for what he considers his fair share and sending it to the feds? I would agree that his numbers claiming that he paid about 15% while the drones working for him at 10 bucks an hour were paying a quarter to a third (odd..for all his philanthropy, why isn't he paying all his people 250,000/per annum or more?), but I would like to see how that works out. Back when I had a job, before Obama, with Fed, State, and Social Security combined I was paying about 28%. I agree that the tax code needs a serious reworking: |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 11, 2011 0:23:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 5, 2011 16:03:54 GMT -5
Last week, Bill O'Reilly interviewed two men who felt that the rich should pay more in taxes. Bill confronted them with the fact that both of them could be considered as "rich" and challenged them to pay more in taxes. Both men answered that they would pay more if everybody else would pay more, too. So, I guess they don't really feel that strongly about it if they are not willing to set an example for their fellow "rich."
Both men also claimed that they took the difference between their tax obligation under the Bush and Obama tax cuts, and the Clinton tax rates and donated that amount to charity. But, wait! If they donate more money to charity, that goes on their Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, which further reduces their taxable income and, hence, their tax obligation.
I think that most people who argue that tax rates should go up are convinced that their tax rates won't go up. Silly fools!
|
|
