What if Buffet's secretary is a 1%er

She is an example that Buffet is using. They have been talking about tax rates for the last few years. Let's not pretend that we all don't understand that many of the rich are using the capital gains lower tax rate and loopholes in order to pay a lower overall effective tax rate than many in the middle class. What you should be arguing is that she is only one example and disprove this example by looking at a larger pool of numbers such as the tax returns for the entire country broken down by income. I find it funny how those who align themselves with the GOP and like to talk about freedoms don't understand the simple concept that a non elected official is not required to disclose any of their finances to you or anybody else. Especially when we don't even have this requrement for our elected officials.
 
To those who are throwing a fit over one guy's secretary's taxes, why is it so unfair to tax all income at one rate? As conservatives, we used to be for that. Hell, Reagan closed loopholes (expanded the tax base) and then lowered rates, and it worked great for the economy and for government revenue. What's wrong with doing that again??

Whether or not OVERALL taxes should be raised is an entirely different matter. They shouldn't be, and Buffet is clearly wrong to suggest otherwise. However, on the specific issue of how income is made, Is it really unfair to make people who make a living buying and selling assets pay at the same tax rate as those who work a regular job? How in the hell is that unfair?
 
If this USA today report is accurate"WASHINGTON – President Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.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 Link


And this from the Tax Foundation, if true certainly contradicts BO Buffet and many on here
"The average federal tax rate for those reporting at least $343,927 in income has increased from 22.5% in 2007 to 24.0% in 2009
The Tax Foundation's analysis is based on new data from the Internal Revenue Service on individual income taxes, reporting on calendar year 2009. The amount of individual income tax paid steeply declined by $166 billion, twice the decline from 2007 to 2008. Nationally, average effective income tax rates were at their lowest levels since the IRS began tracking them in 1986. The average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.2% in 2008 to 11.1% in 2009.The Link

In each srticle there are exceptions noted so nothing is 100% and maybe in buffett and his sexretary's case she might pay a higher rate. BUt if htese 2 articles are anywhere near accurate then the top earners do pay a hihger tax rate.
 
Amen - you're basically imposing a retroactive tax.

If you can find a way to somehow isolate earnings as a primary source of income from earnings from investments ancilary to income, I'd at least be willing to entertain the idea (not saying I'm for it, but it's at least more reasonable than raising the whole thing.)

Again, this gets back to the fact that the only way to "fix" the current code is to continue to write more codes, more laws, more patches to the system after which we only make it even more cumbersome. We need to start over.
 
Prod
Except if the reports on IRS data are accurate the 1% ARE paying taxes at a higher rate than the middle class. see the 2 links in my post above
if you take away the inaccurate theme that the rich aren't paying as high a rate as the middle class what arguement does that leave them?

and we know they are paying an extreme disproportionate amount of fed taxes.
 
If , as has been reported the evil rich do in fact pay a HIGHER tax rate than the middle class what will e the cry then?
That the evil rich don't pay a rate that is enough higher?

When will it be considered "fair"?
 
No it hasn't. You claimed that because she's a private citizen (which is frankly debatable) and is off limits.

According to you, we can now just make up hypothetical cases with no evidence or proof that they're accurate, demagogue them, write laws about them, all with absolutely no proof that this is even an ISOLATED incident, let alone indicative of the situation as a whole.

We do too much legislation to address 5 percent of the issue while ignoring the 70-80 percent that is actually representative. I have yet to see one indication that this is a rampant or even common problem. But since Warren Buffet says it, we have to accept it at face value.

Buffet's a profiteer and a shark, but since he agrees with Obama, now all of a sudden we should actually LISTEN to someone from the top 1 percent.
 
Well said, Prodigal. Agree completely.

They pulled the exact same **** during the Obamacare "debate."

It makes me want to pull my hair out when a liberal accuses conservatives of ignoring - or being afraid of - the "facts."
brickwall.gif
 
Prodigal I would point you to my posts #6 and #7 on this thread. That sums up my stance on this issue. It isn't really hard to fathom that she and many others making middle class wages are paying a higher tax % than those who make their money primarily due to capital gains which are taxed at a lower %. And then they have tax advisors to help them take advantage as many loopholes as they can b/c know they are numerous.

Nobody is writing legilsation based on this one example. This is just an example of the problem that currently exists. This is why many of the early GOP/tea party candidates were wanting major tax reform and candidates like Cain were calling for the 9-9-9 plan.
 
We have got to get away from blaming the rich for the fault of our Government spending habits. Our Governemnt is currently spending 75% of the total revenue of all Americans income. So to pay for our Government spending habits, everyone would have to pay for 75% of their income to keep up. They are irresponsible and have deflected our problem toward the rich. Some here are so blinded by our Government that they don't see the real problem. Loopholes and what the rich pay in taxes is not the real problem.

We should not bring down the rich to our level but make it possible for everyone to have the opportunity to make it to their level. If our Government would not get in our way it would be possible. Most even with opportunity will not become rich but it's nobody elses fault but their own. Telling someone they don't deserve to earn as much money as they can is like telling Michael Jordan he's scoring too many points so he can only play with one arm. This is all insane.
 
Prod, good discussion. Economic growth has always driven revenue far more than tax rates do. That's why revenue was dramatically higher in the '80s than it was in the '70s, even though tax rates were much lower. If we raise taxes at the expense of our economy, it will most likely have an adverse impact on revenue.

That's what happened in 1990. Bush agreed to the tax increase the Democrats wanted, the economy slowed down, revenue growth slowed down, spending continued to grow dramatically (of course), and the deficit exploded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top