Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends

[Nicole Dupre]

Oops. Wrong thread, but interesting article.^

[yodajazz]

Oh boy! Get ready to jump into the RDS (recidivist default swaps) market. This could be fun. It's Britain, where they already have all those on line casinos. Just publish all the details on each parolee so folks can lay down their bets on how long they'll be able to stay on the straight & narrow. Then just bundle them together & sell the packages to retirement annuity funds or the PPIIGS. Hey! What could possibly go wrong? The market will handle it. No need for government involvement. The private sector can do everything so much better... Just ask the Randian egoist cult or the Van Misesites. They wouldn't steer you wrong.

This reminds me of another point. Wall Street's credit default swaps, are relatively new instruments having been made legal in '99-2000'. This is yet another way for money (wealth), to make money without creating many jobs. And the novel thing, is that money can be made by betting on failure, giving the the investor a vested interest that an entity fails. Prior to this, money was only made when things suceeded. So all one needs to do is to find a product that is defective, but that people dont know is. This also opens the potential for dishonest tactics. In the past month or so a rumor arose that a major French financial institution was going to default, or something and French financial instruments plummeted. Perhaps there were investors, betting against France, or another who could sweep in and buy French financial instruments cheaply, knowing they would eventually return to thier real value.

So sure the investors may be able to add extra rooms to their houses, and thus hire workers, as was noted here, but I dont see thier profits as substituting for a million lost jobs. Unlike the "trickle down theory", middle class money circulates through a wider part of society. The wealthy still get their share of the profits, by investing in domestic business.

Profitting from failure is ok, if you are making a product to fullfill the need. The product will employ people and start a new productive round of good. But direct profit from failure, such as CDO's, puts profit above the general good. I believe Goldman Sach's $500 million dollar fine, by the SEC indicates that some serious wrong was done. But they paid the fine, under the condition that the SEC could not reveal the reason for the fine. Their abiltity to continue to make profits was put above the general good.

[Silcc69]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/...r-the-wealthy/

Before President Obama outlined his strategy Monday for America's millionaires to shoulder more of the tax burden, The Price of Fame asked show business types at the recent Toronto International Film Festival the burning question:

Should celebrities and other wealthy people pay more in taxes?

Ethan Hawke (pictured, above), actor, author and playwright: "Yes, and I think that rich people who try to get out of it are the most revolting to me." Hawke, who stars as a writer beguiled by a dangerous muse in The Woman in the Fifth, said some of the privileged have forsaken the common good. "Paying taxes is the greatest luxury in my life," he said. "I find it revolting that people would make $100 million and that they should pay the same amount of taxes."

Analeigh Tipton (right), the America's Next Top Model cat-walker who played the babysitter with a crush in Crazy, Stupid Love and now stars in Whit Stillman's Damsels in Distress: "Yes, I do. There's a lot of money that goes around. I know I'm doing something I love and I get paid where I feel guilty. Again, I can't be the only one in Hollywood that doesn't need [stuff], and especially these days."

Ryan O'Nan (right), writer, director and star of the rock 'n' roll road movie The Brooklyn Brothers Beat the Best: "If you have a whole bunch of money, yeah, you should pay a little more because it comes from the community. As a community and fellow human beings, we all enjoy the same country. If you make a product that sells so much that you have so much money, that's because so many people purchased your product. It's all cyclical."

Michael Weston, from the movies Dukes of Hazzard and Garden State, and TV's House, M.D., also took a broader philosophical approach: "I feel like that even our deepest human ambitions are about connecting. The more we forget that and sort of isolate ourselves from that, from each other, the easier it is to close off our community. The more we can include each other and remember that we're all part of the same package, then I think we can solve so many of these problems." We'll take that as a yes.

Arielle Kebbel (right) of Band Camp, John Tucker Must Die and The Grudge 2: "I don't think I as an individual can solve the debt crisis, but I'm a big believer in the energy in which you put intention goes a long way, and I think that will help others find an answer together."

In fact, The Price of Fame couldn't find any stars of the silver screen who didn't approve of paying a bit more of that silver to help balance the U.S. budget.

The above have super-supportive company in super-rich Warren Buffett. He has repeatedly said it's about time he and the rest of the nation's fully loaded assume more of the tax tab, explaining that loopholes allowed him to pay taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. The Oracle of Omaha's declaration led to part of Obama's proposal being labeled "the Buffett Rule."

Of course, the administration's plan to levy $1.5 trillion in additional taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations over the next 10 years isn't a smash hit. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said tax hikes on the rich will choke off employment opportunities. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, described the proposal as "class warfare."

In showbiz, they call that mixed reviews

[onmyknees]

Time for some Fact Checking to get this thread back on track. If it makes you feel good....by all means get ugly on me...I can take it, but if you want to remain factual, your gripe is with Obama , who continues to mislead us, and the AP ( who btw....is more often than not, very Obama friendly)....so save the whining...it's not Heritage!

The entire premise of Obama's plan is faulty. He's talking about income, and Buffet takes his salary in capitol gains....taxed at a lower rate than earned income. If Obama wants a raise in the capitol gains tax, he should say so, but he's playing fast and loose with the facts, and this is about pandering to his progressive base who are unhappy with him. His house of cards is crumbling, but that's an opinion.... Now onto the facts....This is really not that complicated of a read, it's actually pretty basic shit.





Updated Sep 20, 2011 - 3:03 pm

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?



Comments (6) | Print | E-mail

Source: AP Washington Heads
Originally published: Sep 20, 2011 - 3:03 pm



President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Sept. 19, 2011. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
zoom

Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older _ and limited to federal income taxes _ but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, `But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.

(Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

[giovanni_hotel]

Time for some Fact Checking to get this thread back on track. If it makes you feel good....by all means get ugly on me...I can take it, but if you want to remain factual, your gripe is with Obama , who continues to mislead us, and the AP ( who btw....is more often than not, very Obama friendly)....so save the whining...it's not Heritage!

The entire premise of Obama's plan is faulty. He's talking about income, and Buffet takes his salary in capitol gains....taxed at a lower rate than earned income. If Obama wants a raise in the capitol gains tax, he should say so, but he's playing fast and loose with the facts, and this is about pandering to his progressive base who are unhappy with him. His house of cards is crumbling, but that's an opinion.... Now onto the facts....This is really not that complicated of a read, it's actually pretty basic shit.





Updated Sep 20, 2011 - 3:03 pm

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?



Comments (6) | Print | E-mail

Source: AP Washington Heads
Originally published: Sep 20, 2011 - 3:03 pm



President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Sept. 19, 2011. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
zoom

Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older _ and limited to federal income taxes _ but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, `But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.

(Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Paraphrase please in your own words, OMK.

[trish]

If it makes you feel good....by all means get ugly on me...

No need to. If you accord your reader's a modicum of civility, they will likely be civil to you. I notice you kept your ass on in your last post.

The tax rate on the wealthy is lower than it's been in fifty years. It's been that way since the Bush tax cuts. There was no growth in the economy nor was there an increase in jobs during the Bush years. Indeed, the short eight ended with the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. The wealthy do not produce jobs, they are not job creators. Middle class demand creates jobs, laborers produce goods. The wealthy collect dividends. Time the wealthy actually contribute to the economy for a change and give back the hard earned money that laborers paid into Social Security and was given instead by Bush to the super wealthy in tax breaks.

[onmyknees]

Paraphrase please in your own words, OMK.

Nice try GH....when I put it in my own words ....many call it racism, so take your medicine from the AP...it's plainly written. I'll be politie and call Obama a (mis) Leader in Chief. They draw the point quite nicely. He's jerking our chain and gearing up for the 2012 election. Even the Democratically controlled Senate told him..."we'll get to your proposal next month"...This guy is the master at creating straw men.

[onmyknees]

No need to. If you accord your reader's a modicum of civility, they will likely be civil to you. I notice you kept your ass on in your last post.

The tax rate on the wealthy is lower than it's been in fifty years. It's been that way since the Bush tax cuts. There was no growth in the economy nor was there an increase in jobs during the Bush years. Indeed, the short eight ended with the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. The wealthy do not produce jobs, they are not job creators. Middle class demand creates jobs, laborers produce goods. The wealthy collect dividends. Time the wealthy actually contribute to the economy for a change and give back the hard earned money that laborers paid into Social Security and was given instead by Bush to the super wealthy in tax breaks.

You're answering an argument Obama isn't making, although you both are partial to the class warfare thing. Your pretty charts and graphs are not sourced....where they from....Media Matters? LMAO


You simply serve reinforce the notion that progressive haven't a clue about the nuts and bolts of capitalism. You're identical to Obama....you'd be a great professor when you can deal in abstract theory , but you don't know jack about putting folks to work, or what that takes, but you can talk a good game...so do the European Socialists who have put your theories to the test for decades....and unfortunately for you we have 3 years to judge you on, and it ain't pretty. The best you got is Solyndra !! LMFAO. Your statement that the wealthy don't create jobs is frankly fall down funny. Ask the dudes in the BMW factories in Tennessee, or all the trades building new homes in places like Greenwich, Great Neck, South Hampton....if it wasn't for the wealthy....they wouldn't be feeding their families. Stick to Global Warming where your fantasies are at least entertained by 50% of the people, and leave job creation to the capitalists. Your economic Keynesian agenda has been put to the test for the past 3 years...now what's your argument....?

If and when Obama parts ways with the people he tells us he despises ( Wall Street big donars) he'll gain some cred with the folks, but you can't beat the devil up during the day, and dine with him at night!

[trish]

Your unfamiliarity with a well known chart displays the narrow range of your reading. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/op...dle-class.html

Your economic Keynesian agenda has been put to the test for the past 3 years..

Wrong. It hasn't. Oh and you lost your ass again.

[BluegrassCat]

Time for some Fact Checking to get this thread back on track. If it makes you feel good....by all means get ugly on me...I can take it, but if you want to remain factual, your gripe is with Obama , who continues to mislead us, and the AP ( who btw....is more often than not, very Obama friendly)....so save the whining...it's not Heritage!

The entire premise of Obama's plan is faulty. He's talking about income, and Buffet takes his salary in capitol gains....taxed at a lower rate than earned income. If Obama wants a raise in the capitol gains tax, he should say so, but he's playing fast and loose with the facts, and this is about pandering to his progressive base who are unhappy with him. His house of cards is crumbling, but that's an opinion.... Now onto the facts....This is really not that complicated of a read, it's actually pretty basic shit.

What is it you think this shows? Obama says that people making 50k shouldn't pay more of their income than people making 50 mil and the AP article concedes that there are such people. You're playing semantic games with capital gains and income in order to go after the president. Nothing to see here.