Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/18/2011 10:18:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

I don’t understand what all the brouhaha is all about. There is absolutely nothing stopping these ultrarich self indulgent and preachy gazillionaires from sending in an extra check to the government if they feel they are not paying enough.


2 posted on 08/18/2011 10:22:03 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

I remember reading an article a while ago that said that Buffet paid a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. Typical lib, make other pay!


3 posted on 08/18/2011 10:24:05 AM PDT by ABQHispConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Can we just please get on with raising Warren Buffett’s taxes to 95%?

That should be the GOPs first order of business when they return. Pass a bill raising Warren Buffett’s taxes to 95%.

Go ahead and put a 100% property tax on him as well.


4 posted on 08/18/2011 10:26:42 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

“while lowering the tax burden for wealthy people who make money through investments rather than labor. That was the source of Buffett’s complaint.”

First of all, investment is a form of “labor,” that is if labor is what one does to earn money, short of someone else handing it over. Work smart, not hard.

More importantly, it was a stupid complaint. Everyone and his mother knows that such “unearned” income is double taxed. It is absolutely inane to measure Buffet relative to his secretary by taking into account the tax rate on one side while ignoring the other.

Most importantly of all, I don’t believe all this revenue talk is about closing loopholes and otherwise making things more fair. It’s about our central government controlling more of the national wealth. Targeting the wealthy is merely a convenience.


7 posted on 08/18/2011 10:36:27 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Well, then, we know it must be one of the most miserable, under-handed, pro-rich, anti-poor positions on the face of the Earth since we know from the LAT that Reagan was Satan incarnate.


9 posted on 08/18/2011 10:38:13 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Dear LA Times,

According to the IRS those paying taxes on income $1 million or over last year was 235,000. Suppose you tax at 100% all income over the magic $250,000 mark President 0 is always gassing on about. How much do you get? Let's round up and be as generous as possible.

You get about $300 billion. That is just about enough to run the Fed Govt for a single month.

You cannot tax your way out of this fiscal mess "Progressives".

11 posted on 08/18/2011 10:44:19 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving politicians more tax money is like giving addicts free drugs to cure their addiction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Barf alert???


12 posted on 08/18/2011 10:44:57 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (This message carfully checkd to misteakes by powerful softwhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
BS. Two big differences:
- Reagan combined closing loopholes with major cuts in tax rates, which was stiulative. Buffet doesn't advocate tax-rate reduction - big, big difference.
- Reagan didn't have an ulterior selfish motive while Buffet has insurance companies that stand to lose a lot of money if taxes aren't increased.
13 posted on 08/18/2011 10:46:17 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
BS. Two big differences:
- Reagan combined closing loopholes with major cuts in tax rates, which was stimulative. Buffet doesn't advocate tax-rate reduction - big, big difference.
- Reagan didn't have an ulterior selfish motive while Buffet has insurance companies that stand to lose a lot of money if taxes aren't increased.
14 posted on 08/18/2011 10:46:32 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Buffet is prevaricator. I listened to his 2007 interview with Tom Brokaw. He stated that his secretary paid 15% payroll taxes. It just shows how little he knows about taxes.

Half of the tax is paid by the employer. His secretary pays no more than 7.5% payroll taxes. According to other sources his secretary earned $60,000. With one exemption, and the standard deduction she pays approximately $8000 which is around 13%. Not even close to more than 30% rate.

Buffet is ignoring the fact that Berkshire Hathaway as a C corporation pays corporate taxes. This years proxy shows that they paid at least 29%. Any capital gains distributed to Buffet would be taxed at 15%. So his rate is actually 44%. This does not even include his $175,000 wages and salary as reported by the company.

Buffet wants higher death taxes, because his insurance companies benefit from estate tax planning and sale of life insurance to pay the tax.

He advocated a tax code in this interview, based on consumption(not sales tax). Everyone has all their money in an unlimited IRA. It is only taxed when withdrawn from the IRA. Any one doubt that such an arrangement would benefit his business?

His comments are self serving and obviously less than a true picture of what he claims. I say prove what you are saying - show me all the tax returns.

16 posted on 08/18/2011 10:48:29 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was signed by President Reagan, the number of tax brackets was reduced, loopholes were closed, the top tax rate was lowered and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

And in return for the this compromise, the democrats promised to overhaul spending, including entitlement reform. All these years later, the democrats have continually thumbed their noses at any attempts to hold them to their end of the bargain. Meanwhile, those "loopholes" (some of them deductions taken primarily by the middle class) remained closed and the lower rates were gradually increased several times. Capital gains SHOULD be taxed at a lower rate if at all. Also, capital gains should be indexed for inflation; they are not.

The idea that Buffet's proposals for increasing capital gains taxes, or for increasing payroll taxes on higher wage incomes, or any of his other "tax-the-hell-out-of-the-upper-middle-class-so-they-can-never-approach-my-level-of-obscene-wealth" proposals are even remotely like Reagan's tax philosophy is completely ridiculous and idiotic. Reagan compromised with the democrats and signed THEIR tax reform law; it was NOT his proposal and had he known the rats would reneg on their end of the bargain he would have vetoed it.

17 posted on 08/18/2011 10:50:43 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
"The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," Buffett wrote. "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."

I thought that the mega-rich have tons of tax lawyers and accountants to ensure that they pay minimal taxes. The mega-rich also donate many dollars to candidates that support their quest to avoid taxes.

Perhaps big boy Buffett can write an extra check or two, or report taxable income that falls on the tax side of the ledger.

Perhaps he can point out the loopholes that the mega-rich pay for and use, and help to close them.

18 posted on 08/18/2011 10:51:35 AM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Yeah, Reagan was ALL about raising top-bracket rates and LOVED the fact that the 1986 compromise DIDN’T tax capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income. EXACTLY in agreement with Buffett’s op-ed.

/sarc

Freaking liars. They take two bits of a 1,000-part compromise — parts that Reagan opposed, taken individually — and say that they were “Reagan’s IDEAS” because Reagan agreed to the package as a whole.


23 posted on 08/18/2011 10:57:58 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

There is no solution to today’s economic problems nor any basis for a future economy that reasonably includes a tax increase on the people who make jobs. If one wants to increase taxes, do so on the 50% who presently pay no federal tax so they can have some skin in the game. Call it an educational program so these wastrels can understand what the rest of us already know; the cost of government is largely a waste.


37 posted on 08/18/2011 12:55:04 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing an idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson