Who Are The "Rich", and How Much Taxation Is "Fair"?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MARIS61 said:
Oregon property taxes can only increase 3% yearly and never above the market value UNLESS APPROVED BY 50% of the voters.

If market value drops below amount assessed for taxes, the property is taxed at the lesser value.
Click to expand...

Well, my daughter's house and my boss's house have each dropped 35% in value and their taxes have gone up every year for the last 7 years. So go figure.
 
Those silly rich people.

[video=youtube;qwirWWnzJKM]
 
So, for the flat tax advocates: Would you be in favor of a flat tax if it turned out that you personally had to pay more tax than you do under the current system?

barfo
 
barfo said:
So, for the flat tax advocates: Would you be in favor of a flat tax if it turned out that you personally had to pay more tax than you do under the current system?

barfo
Click to expand...

I would. It appears to me to be a fair system. If I suffer in that fairness, then so be it.
 
barfo said:
So, for the flat tax advocates: Would you be in favor of a flat tax if it turned out that you personally had to pay more tax than you do under the current system?

barfo
Click to expand...

A flat tax means the burden would be shared equally.

It's a different concept than "each according to his needs."
 
The IRS doesn't run on charity.

It costs money to file taxes and have this stupid tax code. Hence a flat tax.
 
huevonkiller said:
The IRS doesn't run on charity.

It costs money to file taxes and have this stupid tax code. Hence a flat tax.
Click to expand...

This point I agree with entirely (that the complexity of the current tax code costs money).

Of course you'll put all the tax preparation people out of work in addition to the IRS agents.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
A flat tax means the burden would be shared equally.

It's a different concept than "each according to his needs."
Click to expand...

Good job avoiding the question, I guess.

barfo
 
barfo said:
So, for the flat tax advocates: Would you be in favor of a flat tax if it turned out that you personally had to pay more tax than you do under the current system?

barfo
Click to expand...


absolutely.
 
barfo said:
This point I agree with entirely (that the complexity of the current tax code costs money).

Of course you'll put all the tax preparation people out of work in addition to the IRS agents.

barfo
Click to expand...

Of course there will be less unemployment overall.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I completely disagree. Like Denny said, someone like me who makes a decent living at over 100k a year can live somewhat comfortably in Houston, but my same salary in San Diego wouldn't buy a house big enough for my family. Might not even rent one big enough
Click to expand...

I was responding to the "who are the rich" part of the question. And no matter where you live, if you are in the top 2% of all earners in the country, I personally would consider you rich.

As for as taxation goes, because I am nor below the 30k or over 100k, a flat tax sounds very reasonable to me. The fact that half of all earners do not pay any taxes really upsets me, a flat tax and a complete overhaul of current tax credits/deductions is certainly needed.
 
barfo said:
So, for the flat tax advocates: Would you be in favor of a flat tax if it turned out that you personally had to pay more tax than you do under the current system?

barfo
Click to expand...

In all honesty, yes I would. To my way of thinking the current system of taxation is so patently unfair and is so easily taken advantage of it has become clear we must have serious tax reform.
 
barfo said:
Of course you'll put all the tax preparation people out of work in addition to the IRS agents. barfo
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Some can be used for ferreting out fraud, some to bolster investigations for business taxes and international taxes. Some can be reassigned to other jobs (like investigating the massive amounts of medicare and SS fraud...), some can take early retirement, and there will be other natural attrition. And some may be laid off.

How do you feel about Obamacare potentially seeing the elimination of over 3 million jobs in insurance? Point being is that whenever there is change it is unfortunate that some will be negatively affected. Whenever a company gets bought out, or a union strikes or technology changes... some jobs are eliminated. The hope is that in so doing other jobs are created. It's the way of the world.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
Not necessarily. Some can be used for ferreting out fraud, some to bolster investigations for business taxes and international taxes. Some can be reassigned to other jobs (like investigating the massive amounts of medicare and SS fraud...), some can take early retirement, and there will be other natural attrition. And some may be laid off.

How do you feel about Obamacare potentially seeing the elimination of over 3 million jobs in insurance?
Click to expand...

Uhm... I feel great about that. If there are actually 3 million people (1% of the US population!) working in medical insurance, then that seems like WAY too many.

Nothing personal, of course.

Point being is that whenever there is change it is unfortunate that some will be negatively affected. Whenever a company gets bought out, or a union strikes or technology changes... some jobs are eliminated. The hope is that in so doing other jobs are created. It's the way of the world.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I wasn't bleeding for either the IRS agents or the H&R Block people.

barfo
 
As someone in the industry, I do have to admit we're bloated with administration and so forth. But in defense, I will say most of it comes from lawsuits, legislation... we've been forced to evolve to what healthcare is today.
 
it's not me you have to worry about in the "pay more in a flat tax" scenario. It's those who don't pay a dime all of a sudden losing 15% (or whatever) of their income. To go from 10 or 13 to 15 isn't a huge stretch.
 
BrianFromWA said:
it's not me you have to worry about in the "pay more in a flat tax" scenario. It's those who don't pay a dime all of a sudden losing 15% (or whatever) of their income. To go from 10 or 13 to 15 isn't a huge stretch.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. For someone who is barely keeping it together, giving up a significant chunk of their income in tax is not going to be easy.

Whereas I expect I'll save a few tens of thousands of dollars every year. Go flat tax, go!

[Will that create jobs? It will create one, eventually - I'll retire sooner, so eventually my job 'trickles down' to someone else].

I suspect there is some middle ground between the current crazy-ass Rube Goldberg scheme and the flat tax. One could easily have a progressive tax which was purely withholding-based, so that people who had income only from wages wouldn't have to file tax returns, and so that the poor (draw the line where you like, but certainly *someone* in this country qualifies as poor) don't have to pay taxes.

barfo
 
Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett

BANGALORE (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year 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," he said.

Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.

"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.

Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.

"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."

(Reporting by Santosh Nadgir; Editing by David Holmes)
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html
 
At 100% tax rate, Buffett is a $billionaire, and the tax revenue funds about 4 seconds of the federal deficit.
 
Warren Buffett would know better than I, but I was under the impression that the economy wasn't that great in 1976-77.

How was he able to reduce his tax burden to 17.4% of his taxable income while the rest of his office workers were taxed at 36%? I was under the impression that the highest tax bracket was 35% right now (because of those infernal Bush/Obama cuts). Is he including state taxes with that? It couldn't be that he's giving buckets of money to charity, right? I'm relatively certain that if his office workers gave to charity, their tax would go down as well.

I think that you'd find people much more receptive to a couple of percentage point increase in highest tax bracket (or capital gains) if you had a concurrent increase in taxes for those 50M people not paying any, and a cut of 1.5T in spending.
 
BrianFromWA said:
How was he able to reduce his tax burden to 17.4% of his taxable income while the rest of his office workers were taxed at 36%?
Click to expand...

I imagine it is because most of his income is capital gains, whereas his office workers have w-2 wages.

barfo
 
blazerboy30 said:
That's great if Buffett wants to pay more tax. But he should do the quick calculation that shows it won't make a noticeable dent in the deficit. Using the numbers he provided, we could double those 400 mega-richs' income tax rate, and generate a whopping $19 billion in revenue. Wow, that will really cut into the $1.6 TRILLION deficit!!
Click to expand...

He's proposing to raise rates on all income over $1 million, affecting 236,883 returns. Not 400.

barfo
 
every frothy lib on my facebook feed has been posting that article. its as if someone told them to.

I've noticed a HUGE spike in anti-republican/tea party talk from my crunchy granola friends in the last 2-3 weeks. like most of us give a fuck.
 
Listening to Obama speak. fuck, he's trying to incite an all out class warfare here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

maxiep
  • Poll Poll
What is level of taxation you're willing to bear?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
B
Taxes- What's "Fair"?
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
blazerboy30
blazerboy30
blazerboy30
Taxes: What is a "fair share"?
Replies
5
Views
447
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Eastoff
Eastoff
MARIS61
Rich Americans are dishonest free-loaders
Replies
11
Views
885
AgentDrazenPetrovic
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top