Billionaire Warren Buffett says stop coddling the super-rich

A flat tax is regressive, and burdens poor people more than rich people. Taking 10% of 25,000 a year has a LOT more impact than taking 10% of 500,000 a year. In the case of the poorer taxpayer you're taking food out of the mouths of his/her children. In the case of the 500K taxpayer, you're taking away a couple of designer handbags or Saville row mens suits. Not the same at all.

 

I posted facts and figures that refute your argument.

 

Please check out the thread on the top ten corporate tax dodgers. And notice that the jobs corporations are making these days are not made in America.

 

Do I really have to start posting definitions. If I said something like you and your prison buddy Petty could suck a dick now that's an insult. But I wouldn't say something like that as it violates the rules. What I said was your statement was dumb
meaning stupid, ignorant, lacking sense or reason which it was. I never said you were a dumb person but that statement was. Saying 250k isn't rich in this country is insane especially in much cheaper states like Texas. 250 there is 500 here and even in over priced NY you're still living amazingly well. You can afford to live in wealthy zip codes and send your kids to ivy league schools and drive top of the line cars like Mercedes and bmw so tell me how an extra 3 percent that people were paying before this isn't new can really hurt those who can afford it.

Let's agree we all have to pay our fair share but instead of attacking those who can make ends meet how about going after those who have it but refuse to give it because they're simply greedy. Then go after all the project babies you want.

 

Hook line and sinker, eh? First off they still pay FICA & Medicare tax. Secondly, they don't make enough money to flipping eat properly, thats why they aren't paying income taxes. Don't take the word of the right or the left. Do some actual research from neutral sources that have the actual figures, not the rhetoric.

 

Some interesting commentary on Buffets NYTimes Op-Ed today, and a counter argument to the idea that rich people are rich because they work harder.

My Super-Rich Brethren Shun Work

Warren Buffett: My Super-Rich Brethren Shun Work
Posted on August 15, 2011 by emptywheel
Warren Buffett is making news this morning with a NYT op-ed that comes close to–but misses–an important shift in rhetoric. Arguing that his taxes–and the taxes of the other super-rich–should be raised, he provides some stats. Among those stats, though, he distinguishes between those who work and those who simply invest.

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.

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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. [my emphasis]

Of course, what Buffett’s getting at is that the work is taxed at a rate of between 10 to 35%, plus FICA taxes of 7.65 to 15.3% (and the rich get another discount here, too). Whereas “making money from money” is taxed at 15%.

But underlying that argument is an argument about work. 88 of the richest 400 Americans don’t work, Buffett admits. They shun work. And many of the other 312 who “labor” as investment managers get a discount for the taxes they pay on their labor are working for the mere 10 minutes they own stock index futures.

Buffett is making an argument about labor being worth more than “making money from money.” It’s an argument that would go a long way to counter the “job creators” myth that the Republicans invented and now Obama has adopted. And with Republicans like Rick Perry now spewing the line that half of Americans don’t pay taxes (meaning, of course, that many Americans make so little they pay only the regressive FICA taxes), we’d do well to talk about all the deadbeats at the top–the deadbeats Republicans want to reward for shunning work.

 

Yet you only attack the bottom. Why is that? Do I need to do the math for you to show the difference. I don't mind at all fam

 

I wouldnt be surprised, those are the super-rich. If you're talking about the people at the bottom, could you source that, please?

 

No one said $250K was "super-rich." We said wealthy. And it is.

Don't try and move the goalpost in the middle of a discussion, it makes your argument look weak.

 

Someone needs a nap. It's ok boo boo I'm sure Petty will braid that hair tonight. Hush now

 

I'm attacking the top. I'm not at the bottom.

The right bleats on about "class warfare" whenever anyone points out how the deck is stacked against everyone but the top. There's already *been* class warfare, and the top 2% won.

BTW, I'm of the opinion that investment income should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income.

 

I surely wish someone would source the stuff they're carrying on about. If the figures back up a poster's facts, post them. I've posted figures from neutral sources. But those get overlooked. I'm trying to figure out why that is.

 

Let me make it as simple as I possibly can. You can't take something from nothing. The people you're arguing about have next to nothing as it is. You think because they might get a few pair of Jordans or drive some huge debt mobile with rims they're balling? You think that compares to people who make hundreds of millions and pay nothing? I know none of this will change your mine. God speed buddy

 

:smt015

 

I'm slowly realizing people like him truly believe sucking up to the rich and fighting their war will earn them a seat at the table. Only thing they don't realize it'll be under the table fight for crumbs with more people like themselves

 

I don't see anywhere in this discussion that someone has referred to those earning $250K/yr. as the "super rich". However, those earning such salaries, if they manage their money well, aren't in the same jeopardy as middle income earnings. They most often can and do survive short term unemployment without problems.

I speak from the ground zero level as well. I know many who are in this category too. I can tell you that even when I earned half that salary, I never worried about short term unemployment. In fact, it happened to me once, and it was hardly a blip on the screen.

When I earned that salary, I never worried about what happened in the economy, in the financial markets, whatever, because I knew that I was relatively better off than others. When the economy improved I was in better steads that others. I paid less tax than most earning significantly less as well. I also always took limos if I needed to go to the airport, and I never flew in other than business class on trips to Europe, which have been numerous.

The biggest issues I had with my partners was that they couldn't understand why I maintained more fair ideas about taxes and liberal politics. I had to remind them that it was because it wasn't all about me. I had a brother and other relatives who weren't as fortunate, and their plight in life was important to me as well.

 

There are a more and more right minded "rich" people, the father of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet among others, who believe that the rich should be taxed more as they currently pay LESS than those in other income tax brackets. I agree as well, and would gladly agree to pay more. It wouldn't hurt me one bit, and it certainly won't hurt them.

You seem to be missing the difference between take home pay and earnings. First, you have to account for the taxes that family of four with $50,000 actually takes home. Then, you have to look at the potential state and city taxes, In Detroit, people pay both. Once you consider food, housing, utilities, all the must haves. Those families have nothing left, and have not been able to save a penny for rainy days or retirement.

Now, contrast that with those making $250,000. You have very generous opportunities to save money off the top, insane amounts for pension contribution if you are self-employed. You have many other deductions that the less fortunate can never utilize. You pay less taxes on investment income, and you get to deduct losses, with carry forward provisions.

There's simply no comparison, you pay a lot less, as a percentage of your income in those tax brackets, with favorable tax laws that allow you to invest and become wealthier.

Those at the top scam legally, because of tax laws that favor them. Those at the bottom scam to make ends meet, and there do it at peril to their freedom.

So, yes, the wealthy, those individuals making $250,000 , couples would have to make twice that amount to be affected by the proposed tax increase, should have to pay more.

 

Do you make $250,000 a year?

If not, STFU

 

TRUTH.

 

When I woke to the news that there were riots in London, I thought it was a revolt against the bankers and politicians and hoped it would spark something in this country. Imagine my disappointment when they were just looters.