| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2011 05:00:05 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, and here's what lack of reality looks like. |
Now, THIS I can agree is scary. Very scary! The sheer ignorance... |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 05:04:54 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The debate is over whether the rich should pay EVEN MORE as a % of their income. |
That's a debate for fools. I keep trying to tell you that income hardly matters. Wealthy individuals have a vast number of options when it comes to avoiding taxes. You mentioned you donate a lot to charity. Well guess what? That's a huge loophole that the wealthy use to avoid high income and capital gains taxes. Corporations have even more options at their disposal. Here's a fun graphic..
Message edited by author 2011-07-28 17:05:22.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2011 05:09:45 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The debate is over whether the rich should pay EVEN MORE as a % of their income. |
That's a debate for fools. I keep trying to tell you that income hardly matters. Wealthy individuals have a vast number of options when it comes to avoiding taxes. You mentioned you donate a lot to charity. Well guess what? That's a huge loophole that the wealthy use to avoid high income and capital gains taxes. Corporations have even more options at their disposal. Here's a fun graphic.. |
That's why I always talk about EFFECTIVE tax rate. You can't loophole yourself out of that. If there are so many loopholes you need a 90% marginal rate to make the EFFECTIVE rate higher, so be it. I care not one whit over the marginal number. I care about how much gets paid at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 05:30:29 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just pointing out that 1) The rich pay more in absolute dollars (never really debated) and 2) The rich pay more as a % of their income (there were implications this was wrong). |
It IS wrong, at least in terms of the super-rich, which is what you were arguing. An IRS publication details the firsthand tax data for the 400 top earners. Page 10 shows the average effective rate below 20% for every year since the Bush tax cuts. It was as low as 16.62% in 2006 (before the financial meltdown) and 18.1% in 2008. Presumably, Buffett would be among this group. By comparison, taxpayers with an AGI between $500,000 and $1 million paid an effective tax rate of 23.4% in 2008, and those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 paid 19.6%. As you say, the numbers are the numbers and these are straight from the IRS. So Dr. Rhetoric, which number is bigger?
Message edited by author 2011-07-28 17:34:48. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 05:56:04 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was just pointing out that 1) The rich pay more in absolute dollars (never really debated) and 2) The rich pay more as a % of their income (there were implications this was wrong). |
It IS wrong, at least in terms of the super-rich, which is what you were arguing. An IRS publication details the firsthand tax data for the 400 top earners. Page 10 shows the average effective rate below 20% for every year since the Bush tax cuts. It was as low as 16.62% in 2006 (before the financial meltdown) and 18.1% in 2008. Presumably, Buffett would be among this group. By comparison, taxpayers with an AGI between $500,000 and $1 million paid an effective tax rate of 23.4% in 2008, and those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 paid 19.6%. As you say, the numbers are the numbers and these are straight from the IRS. So Dr. Rhetoric, which number is bigger? |
Seriously? Who is this?!?
You realize that BOTH stats can be correct right? The table I cited talks about the Top 1% of filers which is 1.3 MILLION returns out of a total 139 MILLION returns (you with me there chief?). I'm trying not to sound insulting (although it's getting increasingly hard), but I deal with statistical papers all the time (in the form of medical journals). A result from an N of 1.3 million is far more robust and important than a result with an N of 400. Your point could be totally valid, but it falls into the "so what?" category. I really don't give a flying f*ck that 400 taxpayers paid 18.1% compared to other VERY RICH people who paid 23.4%. It's still higher than the bottom 50% who paid an effective tax of 4% and, more importantly, the correlation between effective tax rate and income is positive and tight.
This basic education is making my blood pressure rise so I'll probably start bailing here. You can always make the statistics say whatever you want. The smart and intelligent thing to do is compare the quality and robustness of the statistics and you tend to always come up short. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 06:06:02 PM · #181 |
| BTW, I think I finally tracked down that table data from the IRS... |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 06:10:58 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I really don't give a flying f*ck that 400 taxpayers paid 18.1% compared to other VERY RICH people who paid 23.4%. |
Then you shouldn't have jumped into the conversation to dispute Buffett's extremely low effective rate compared to his secretary, and then tried to back that up with the 1% figure. It's perfectly reasonable to think Mr. B is one of the top 400 earners paying an avg of 18.1% according to the IRS AND that the 15 top-level people surrounding that guy, including the executive secretary of Berkshire Hathaway, make hefty salaries without his level of deductions or capital gains. But no, you're going to argue Buffett's own claims as if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about just because you "figured" it wasn't right. Sorry, dude. This isn't a religious or moral rant, and you'd probably agree with me across the board on this topic if you just stuck to the facts. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 06:57:55 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sorry, dude. This isn't a religious or moral rant ... |
I'll pose (again) the moral question -- why should "unearned" income be taxed at one-half the rate of "earned" income? |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 06:59:27 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I really don't give a flying f*ck that 400 taxpayers paid 18.1% compared to other VERY RICH people who paid 23.4%. |
Then you shouldn't have jumped into the conversation to dispute Buffett's extremely low effective rate compared to his secretary, and then tried to back that up with the 1% figure. It's perfectly reasonable to think Mr. B is one of the top 400 earners paying an avg of 18.1% according to the IRS AND that the 15 top-level people surrounding that guy, including the executive secretary of Berkshire Hathaway, make hefty salaries without his level of deductions or capital gains. But no, you're going to argue Buffett's own claims as if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about just because you "figured" it wasn't right. Sorry, dude. This isn't a religious or moral rant, and you'd probably agree with me across the board on this topic if you just stuck to the facts. |
Actually, what I figured was wrong was the secretary's 32% rate, not Buffett's 17% rate. I don't think I ever argued he was wrong there. The 32% is obviously not only Federal Income Tax unless she is VERY BAD at filing a return. That would be 20% above the average filer and 10%+ above the highest brackets. Of course, with an N of 1 nearly anything is possible, but I would be very wary to take away the message that Warren Buffett's secretary pays 32% in Federal Income Tax. I noted that my own effective rate was 6-10% and so 1) Buffett was paying more than me and 2) it seems very odd that the secretary was paying so high a rate.
I know you keep thinking I'm somehow "wrong", but I'm every bit as right as you and I'm far better at interpreting statistics for what they really are and what the spin is.
Message edited by author 2011-07-28 19:03:44. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 07:01:52 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sorry, dude. This isn't a religious or moral rant ... |
I'll pose (again) the moral question -- why should "unearned" income be taxed at one-half the rate of "earned" income? |
I'm not sure who this is directed at, but I'm guessing both Shannon and I would say, "it shouldn't". But I would lose the "one-half rate" phrase, because, again, marginal rates mean nothing. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 07:19:54 PM · #186 |
Wages are taxed at around 30%, capital gains at 15% -- and I suspect that those benefitting from the latter source have more ways to shield their income and further reduce their tax liability.
So, if "it shouldn't" be that way, we should be able to nearly double the amount of tax collected merely by taxing all income -- that of both the rich and the poor -- at the same rate, right? What could be more "fair"? |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 08:19:08 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Wages are taxed at around 30%, capital gains at 15% -- and I suspect that those benefitting from the latter source have more ways to shield their income and further reduce their tax liability.
So, if "it shouldn't" be that way, we should be able to nearly double the amount of tax collected merely by taxing all income -- that of both the rich and the poor -- at the same rate, right? What could be more "fair"? |
I think the argument about capital gains, and I'm only spelling it out (not endorsing it), is that capital gains are almost always made when a business makes money. That money is subject to corporate taxes before it becomes capital gains. It would be fair to add that % of corporate tax (whatever it is EFFECTIVELY) on top of the capital gains tax (whatever it is EFFECTIVELY). So, whatever those numbers are on average (and I have no idea what they are), the EFFECTIVE tax on capital gains is likely north of 15% while we seee the EFFECTIVE rate on wages is 12% (plus whatever EFFECTIVE Payroll taxes are). Maybe they are closer than you think.
That's the argument I've seen anyway. Again, I'm not endorsing it, so don't shoot me over it. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 08:30:12 PM · #188 |
My wife used to work in the options market in a firm that was all privately held partnership money. All of the partner's income was strictly capital gains. If your business does nothing but move money from one place to another, it neither creates nor employs, it is given the most favorable possible tax rate. It is not subject to FICA nor SS nor any other tax that in a normal business is paid by the person hired, nor by income tax because no one is being paid.
Those are the folks I would like to see pay more taxes, those who make their money on their money. They neither create nor employ. They are given a special tax break by moving their money about in the market, making big money in the biggest casino in America. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 09:24:53 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I noted that my own effective rate was 6-10% |
I will pay you to do my taxes next year, Jason. Unless I'm doing the math wrong (amnt of taxes paid/amount of total gross income), I'm paying WAY too much. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 09:24:58 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Wages are taxed at around 30%, capital gains at 15% -- and I suspect that those benefitting from the latter source have more ways to shield their income and further reduce their tax liability.
So, if "it shouldn't" be that way, we should be able to nearly double the amount of tax collected merely by taxing all income -- that of both the rich and the poor -- at the same rate, right? What could be more "fair"? |
I think the argument about capital gains, and I'm only spelling it out (not endorsing it), is that capital gains are almost always made when a business makes money. |
What I'm talking about are the capital gains accrued when an automated trading algorithm buys 100,000 shares of Company X at 1.00/share, and then sells those shares three (milli-)seconds later when the price has risen to 1.01/ netting a cool $1,000.00 yield ... trading companies are paying huge prices to get their servers physically located next to the stock exchange computers so their trades aren't delayed by the time it takes the electrons to travel through the wires all the eay across town.
I don't consider that "investing" but rather gambling, and I think it should be taxed as such.
O thou that dwell on many waters
Rich in treasure, wide in fame
To bow unto a god of gold --
Thy pride of might shall be thy shame
--Hamilton Camp, "Pride of Man" |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 10:00:56 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=GeneralE] Wages are taxed at around 30%, capital gains at 15% -- and I suspect that those benefitting from the latter source have more ways to shield their income and further reduce their tax liability.
So, if "it shouldn't" be that way, we should be able to nearly double the amount of tax collected merely by taxing all income -- that of both the rich and the poor -- at the same rate, right? What could be more "fair"? |
I think the argument about capital gains, and I'm only spelling it out (not endorsing it), is that capital gains are almost always made when a business makes money. |
What I'm talking about are the capital gains accrued when an automated trading algorithm buys 100,000 shares of Company X at 1.00/share, and then sells those shares three (milli-)seconds later when the price has risen to 1.01/ netting a cool $1,000.00 yield ... trading companies are paying huge prices to get their servers physically located next to the stock exchange computers so their trades aren't delayed by the time it takes the electrons to travel through the wires all the eay across town.
I don't consider that "investing" but rather gambling, and I think it should be taxed as such.
Oh yeah, I've read about this and I don't have any reason to consider this "investing" either. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 11:53:34 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh yeah, I've read about this and I don't have any reason to consider this "investing" either. |
Well, who do you think are taking home those multi-million dollar "bonuses" (which I'd like to tax the heck out of) anyway? |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 10:59:42 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
the biggest problem I have with Democrats is their general longstanding failure to call out naked lies and confront misinformation (and not always from the opposition). |
Finally, a start... not to place blame, but to force recognition of a reality which must be addressed. David Stockman, former Republican director of the Office of Management and Budget, gets it. *applause* |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 11:27:58 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oh yeah, I've read about this and I don't have any reason to consider this "investing" either. |
Well, who do you think are taking home those multi-million dollar "bonuses" (which I'd like to tax the heck out of) anyway? |
Linking that with tax rates seems like a bit of a non sequitur to me. High frequency traders make up only a small fraction of all capital gains. |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 11:34:07 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the biggest problem I have with Democrats is their general longstanding failure to call out naked lies and confront misinformation (and not always from the opposition). |
Finally, a start... not to place blame, but to force recognition of a reality which must be addressed. David Stockman, former Republican director of the Office of Management and Budget, gets it. *applause* |
The best quote for the CNN article...
"In the meanwhile, both the Boehner plan and the Reid plan are just big numbers flimflam. Their 10-year discretionary caps can't be enforced and the debt crisis is right now. In the next two years, where it really counts, each would save only $60 billion, or 1%, of the baseline spending of $7.5 trillion. That's a pathetic joke."
A good article. Your best link by a mile.
Message edited by author 2011-07-29 11:37:47. |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 07:05:42 PM · #196 |
LOL. This about sums it up. Funny!
Havoc on the Hill |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 07:41:55 PM · #197 |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 09:48:28 PM · #198 |
| It strikes me as ironic that the group storming through last November's election on promises to protect the Constitution as originally written wouldn't back their own party's bill unless it included an agreement to change the Constitution. They wailed about high tax burdens (even using TEA as a reference to Taxed Enough Already) despite government revenues having fallen to their lowest percentage since before most of them were born. They decried a health reform act and entitlement changes as too expensive, with the goal of its repeal a signature mission, when their own party's Medicare prescription drug plan cost 16% more. They faulted incumbents for not tackling unemployment and insisted that "job creators" must have generous breaks and financial incentives, yet champion a balanced budget amendment that requires chopping 36% off the budget of the country's largest employer. And, they have marched under a banner of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction on an unimaginably irresponsible course that threatens to raise the interest on exiting debt when even a tenth of 1% means an additional $500 billion in deficits. |
|
|
|
07/30/2011 10:10:31 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
What I'm talking about are the capital gains accrued when an automated trading algorithm buys 100,000 shares of Company X at 1.00/share, and then sells those shares three (milli-)seconds later when the price has risen to 1.01/ netting a cool $1,000.00 yield ... trading companies are paying huge prices to get their servers physically located next to the stock exchange computers so their trades aren't delayed by the time it takes the electrons to travel through the wires all the eay across town.
I don't consider that "investing" but rather gambling, and I think it should be taxed as such.
O thou that dwell on many waters
Rich in treasure, wide in fame
To bow unto a god of gold --
Thy pride of might shall be thy shame
--Hamilton Camp, "Pride of Man" |
Any money made in this kind of time span would be "short-term" capital gains, and taxed at the normal income rate.
It tickles me that anyone would believe that a billionaire would give $10M to charity just to avoid paying the income tax, which would amount to what, $1.5M? It's like someone advising me not to pay off my mortgage, because i lose the tax advantage. Well, hell, it's not going to change my taxable income by much, if any, and i'd rather have the interest in my bank account, rather than 18.8% of it (our effective tax rate last year). |
|
|
|
07/30/2011 11:47:34 AM · #200 |
This is just a thought and is not intended to solve anything.
This is what should happen to congress when they can't have a civil debate and pass a bill that is for the good of our country and her people because all of them, from the far-left to the far-right, center, and everywhere in between are playing politics.
Fine each member of congress $X's a day till they pass a bill that solves the problem. I know most are going to say why should "x" congressman be fined when "y" congressmen (or you can convert that into parties) are causing the problem. We'll maybe it will make them sit down and realize that there is not a one-sided answer. And each are going to have to give up something and meet in the middle if they want our congressional process to work properly.
Yes I consider myself a republican however, this country and the well being of it's status and solvency along with her people trumps any political party. When I vote, I vote for both Democrats and Republican because there are good in both parties; along with bad. I'm thinking about changing my VRC to show no party affiliation so I have more flexibility when it comes to voting.
Thanks to all congress democrats and republicans that are really trying to solve this huge problem. For the ones that are playing politics; we will remember in 2012!
My thoughts. |
|
