The Buffett Rule

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't warren Buffett's tax rate for his capital gains income and his secretary's tax rate for normal income? The capital gains tax rate is much lower than income tax. That's not apples for apples. The plan is to raise income tax rates on the wealthy, Warren will still be paying less as his income is capital gains. Not a good comparison.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't warren Buffett's tax rate for his capital gains income and his secretary's tax rate for normal income? The capital gains tax rate is much lower than income tax. That's not apples for apples. The plan is to raise income tax rates on the wealthy, Warren will still be paying less as his income is capital gains. Not a good comparison.

Liberals like to preserve their capital while encouraging the reduction of the little people's sum.
 
Liberals like to preserve their capital while encouraging the reduction of the little people's sum.

troll_alert.gif
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't warren Buffett's tax rate for his capital gains income and his secretary's tax rate for normal income? The capital gains tax rate is much lower than income tax. That's not apples for apples. The plan is to raise income tax rates on the wealthy, Warren will still be paying less as his income is capital gains. Not a good comparison.

Without trying to polticise every comment made in the forum (unlike the troll above), unfortunately twas ever thus I'm afraid. There seems to be less will on all sides now to redress the taxation imbalance. The rich and super rich are now wealthier than ever. No it isn't fair, but I don't see anyone with the will to change it.

:thumbsdown:
 
Without trying to polticise every comment made in the forum (unlike the troll above), unfortunately twas ever thus I'm afraid. There seems to be less will on all sides now to redress the taxation imbalance. The rich and super rich are now wealthier than ever. No it isn't fair, but I don't see anyone with the will to change it.

:thumbsdown:

So, taxation isn't political? And Warren Buffett isn't a left wing tool? I think you're too busy gathering up your cute little trolls. Buffett, the Kennedys, Kerry, just go down the line. Liberal billionaires have their fortunes protected, and yet they advocate for the higher taxation of those below them.

As far as "what's fair," the fact is that the more you penalize the productive, the less production you will get. Even those liberal darlings, the Beatles became tax refugees when the rates got confiscatory.

"Let me tell you now how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the Taxman,
Yeah i'm the Taxman."
 
Without trying to polticise every comment made in the forum (unlike the troll above), unfortunately twas ever thus I'm afraid. There seems to be less will on all sides now to redress the taxation imbalance. The rich and super rich are now wealthier than ever. No it isn't fair, but I don't see anyone with the will to change it.

:thumbsdown:

Graham, My question was concerning Obama's use of the "Buffett Rule" where Warren B says with all the money he makes his tax rate is less than his secretary's tax rate. And it is because he is taxed on capital gains and his secretary is taxed on her income from work. It's not apples for apples. Obama is using this comparison to raise the "income" tax rates of those making over $1million yearly. And that is fine with me, but The Buffett rule is misleading. It's used to get the masses angry with the rich.
 
Graham, My question was concerning Obama's use of the "Buffett Rule" where Warren B says with all the money he makes his tax rate is less than his secretary's tax rate. And it is because he is taxed on capital gains and his secretary is taxed on her income from work. It's not apples for apples. Obama is using this comparison to raise the "income" tax rates of those making over $1million yearly. And that is fine with me, but The Buffett rule is misleading. It's used to get the masses angry with the rich.

Agreed Al.

Also, my post about non-politicising every post was meant for LonesomeBob, which he clearly understood, and like a rabid dog, couldn't help but bite...
Of course taxation is political, but we can surely discuss the concept without entering into (yet another) slanging match?
 
Graham, My question was concerning Obama's use of the "Buffett Rule" where Warren B says with all the money he makes his tax rate is less than his secretary's tax rate. And it is because he is taxed on capital gains and his secretary is taxed on her income from work. It's not apples for apples. Obama is using this comparison to raise the "income" tax rates of those making over $1million yearly. And that is fine with me, but The Buffett rule is misleading. It's used to get the masses angry with the rich.

......

Sorry, edited because I originally wrote a response thinking you were saying something else.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Chris,

I'm afraid that the TOOL & the TROLL care very little about the truth. Their handlers have convinced them that what America needs is less tax for the rich and more tax for the middle class and the poor.

They gave Obama and me a big tax break that neither of us wanted or needed.

********

Liberals like to preserve their capital while encouraging the reduction of the little people's sum.(posted by the TROLL)

Mr TROLL, explain how this quote makes any sense?
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
The President's point is that regardless of whether the income is generated via capital gains or ordinary income, having someone of Buffet's wealth taxed at an effective rate equal to or less than a secretary making $50k a year is pretty absurd.

I agree that piling taxes on the income side is not entirely ideal, but the 2-3% increases (or actually, just letting the Bush/Obama cuts expire) we are talking about here should not be crippling.

Buffet makes a fair point. And I do agree with those, primarily on the right, who contend that our tax structure is far too complicated with far too much incentives/disinecentives/social engineering built in. A much simpler graduated progressive system would work a lot better.
 
I saw the words "flat tax" , And have had many discussions on the terminology , and / or implementation of such with people on both sides of the party lines .
The points , which I still can't get totally working in my head , are flat and fair tax .
I don't recall the exact figures , and I don't think any body uses any real figures anyway , but it is something like this ....
A flat tax , lets say 18% would take care of a reasonable sized government , OR support the current government with a balanced budget . So every body paying in 18% of their total income , without any deductions for anything would be fair ?
Seems not ! Because a fair tax should be base on what percentage of GDP you earn . Meaning that if you're in the group that makes 10 % of GDP you should pay 10% tax . Or if you're in the group that makes 80% of GDP you should pay 80% tax .
I can't see how to make everybody happy , especially when more people think government should give them money because they breath and take up space . The budget will never balance with redistribution , and is not what a government was meant to do . Look at the word , the route is govern , not suckle .
So it is my opinion that taxes can't be fixed until they aren't using the tax code to punish certain groups or entities , and protect others . And until the government starts doing what it's supposed to do as set forth in the Constitution . And leaving charity to the neighbors of the people who NEED it !
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't warren Buffett's tax rate for his capital gains income and his secretary's tax rate for normal income? The capital gains tax rate is much lower than income tax. That's not apples for apples. The plan is to raise income tax rates on the wealthy, Warren will still be paying less as his income is capital gains. Not a good comparison.

Al, in a word....no.

Why do you say WB's income is cap gain? It's not. He has active earned income taxed at normal rates that flows through to him from his investments and companies.

Yes, his secretary probably has W-2 wages she reports. She probably also has some cap gain (or loss).

WB admitted publicly that his tax rate is extremely low. It has everything to do with sophisticated tax planning, and nothing to do with him receiving only capital gain income (that's not the case).

Something gotta give. The ultra-rich are paying much less (on average) than the middle class on a percentage basis. We need an "ultra-rich" tax.
 
Cliff
would the " fair " tax work for you then ?
10% tax if you earn in the 10% of GDP range , and 80% tax if you earn in the 80% of GDP
 
Cliff
would the " fair " tax work for you then ?
10% tax if you earn in the 10% of GDP range , and 80% tax if you earn in the 80% of GDP

Hi Frank,

I'm not sure what "fair" tax you're referring to.

I'm also not sure what tax mechanism you're proposing. Huh? GDP is commonly referred to Gross Demestic Product. It's not a personal income measurement, unless it's correlated with population such as this:

World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google Public Data Explorer

And that's an average. Are you proposing some tax rates as bands around GDP per capita?

Sorry I'm not following you. Maybe I'm just being slow this morning.
 
Back
Top