Stop coddling the super rich...

Cobster

New member
Apr 29, 2002
10,420
0
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&hp


OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.”
But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting.
They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.
Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.
Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.


These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — 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.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine.
But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.


To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes.
The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.
It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack.
According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. 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.
People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.
And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income.
In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income.
In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people.
They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them.
Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy.
Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances.
They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion.
It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that.
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. That feeling can create its own reality.


Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill.
Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues.
I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains.

And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
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.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
2
0
In the laboratory.
For shame. Warren Buffett is obviously out-of-touch with the hardships endured by the average poor billionaire.

jwm
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.


The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.
Now by contrast in Canada the rates are currently:

•15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +
•26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +
•29% of taxable income over $128,800.

and in Ontario Provincial Taxes
5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $37,776, +
11.16% on the amount over $75,550


Technically payroll taxes are not taxes but rather insurance premiums. The 15 percent rate assumes that you are earning no money in wages.
 

Cobster

New member
Apr 29, 2002
10,420
0
0

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I would suggest:

Gift to the US Government

If you believe the above but don't write a check you don't really believe it..... in other words, put your money where your mouth is....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Now by contrast in Canada the rates are currently:

•15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +
•26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +
•29% of taxable income over $128,800.

and in Ontario Provincial Taxes
5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $37,776, +
11.16% on the amount over $75,550


Technically payroll taxes are not taxes but rather insurance premiums. The 15 percent rate assumes that you are earning no money in wages.
Don't Capital Gains (which is what we're talking about here) get a 50% deduction to the above rates in Canada?

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,090
6,182
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
For shame. Warren Buffett is obviously out-of-touch with the hardships endured by the average poor billionaire.
Indeed!
And surely out fuzzy numbers expert bottie will expand on the hardships they endure daily and why the rich and super-rich are 'entitled' to their tax breaks!.....:rolleyes:
 

good to go

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
2,397
4
38
toronto
Most bank execs buy bank shares and dont pay tax on them plus get a bonus at the end of the year for more than they are paid over the year.
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
They set the high tax bracket too low, that is one problem. Buffett has a point that there should be a tax bracket for earners of 1,000,000 to 9,999,999, and then a top bracket for earners of over 10,000,000 per year.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
They set the high tax bracket too low, that is one problem. Buffett has a point that there should be a tax bracket for earners of 1,000,000 to 9,999,999, and then a top bracket for earners of over 10,000,000 per year.
And who except seemingly Warren Buffet who was in that sort of tax bracket would not employ Tax Lawyers and Tax Accountants to use every legal angle possible to reduce their taxes?

The real answer is to reduce the tax rates to very much lower than they are now, and eliminate most deductions, or go to the Fair Tax.
 

Possum Trot

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,093
1
0
Now by contrast in Canada the rates are currently:

•15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +
•22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +
•26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +
•29% of taxable income over $128,800.

and in Ontario Provincial Taxes
5.05% on the first $37,774 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $37,776, +
11.16% on the amount over $75,550


Technically payroll taxes are not taxes but rather insurance premiums. The 15 percent rate assumes that you are earning no money in wages.
Thanks for the facts there Aardvark. people like cobster are quite content to blame someone else for not paying their way. It would be a shame if no one did it for them, then they would have to look in the mirror.

I would be quite happy to pay more tax if the the number of votes you got was proportional to the tax you paid.
 

Hangman

The Ideal Terbite
Aug 6, 2003
5,593
1
0
www.fark.com
And who except seemingly Warren Buffet who was in that sort of tax bracket would not employ Tax Lawyers and Tax Accountants to use every legal angle possible to reduce their taxes?

The real answer is to reduce the tax rates to very much lower than they are now, and eliminate most deductions, or go to the Fair Tax.
Oh, I'm sur Buffett used tax attorneys and accountants too. He's willing to pay more, but not if the government doesn't make him do it is the sense I got out of the article. He's patriotic, but not stupid.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
2
0
In the laboratory.
...The real answer is to reduce the tax rates to very much lower than they are now, and eliminate most deductions, or go to the Fair Tax.
Yes, there must be some sort of painless tax approach for the poor american billionaires. For the little people, it's blood, sweat, unemployment, and tears.

jwm
 

Scarey

Well-known member
How about stop coddling the Super Fat?

Read this

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html


Suppose every American said "I'm going to take the 1000$ to 2000$ a year i spend making myself fat and put it towards the deficit?"rough calculations the deficit would be gone in 10-15 years.That's not counting the healthcare savings.Never happen but still....
 

kratz

Registered User
Aug 14, 2009
851
0
0
Indeed!
And surely out fuzzy numbers expert bottie will expand on the hardships they endure daily and why the rich and super-rich are 'entitled' to their tax breaks!.....:rolleyes:
because it is our money. Not Yours. Go get your own.
 

kratz

Registered User
Aug 14, 2009
851
0
0
Oh, I'm sur Buffett used tax attorneys and accountants too. He's willing to pay more, but not if the government doesn't make him do it is the sense I got out of the article. He's patriotic, but not stupid.
why do he and gates run a foundation, where they control where their (oops it is their's) money goes? dont they think the government in its infinite wisdom could do better with it than the Foundation can? why not just give it all to government?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,090
6,182
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
I would be quite happy to pay more tax if the the number of votes you got was proportional to the tax you paid.
Take it to the CON SCOTUS!
The way those whacked out Plutocracy leaning CON SC Justices are thinking, they may go for that next....:Eek:
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
2
0
In the laboratory.
because it is our money. Not Yours. Go get your own.
"Our money", meaning your money, would say something on it like 'in Kratz we trust'. You just have to take your printing press and found a society where it'll be accepted. Good luck!

jwm
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,090
6,182
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
LMAO!!!

Krazy kratz could create his own colony and perhaps call it kratztown...:Eek:

Could even serve kool-aid there.....
 
Toronto Escorts