| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2011 04:45:07 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The saddest part of this debate among hobbyist photographers, is how much more substantive it is than the debate in Washington and in the National press. Our democracy is broken. |
Perhaps you could forward a link to your Congressional Representative pointing that out ...
I think it's possible to find a definition of "rich" that the vast majority of us could agree on -- say a million dollars a year? It's possible I'll make that in my lifetime ... |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 04:48:58 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it's possible to find a definition of "rich" that the vast majority of us could agree on -- say a million dollars a year? It's possible I'll make that in my lifetime ... |
It's moot, but I'd object. That means that <1% of our households are "rich". It seems like such a narrow definition. If you make more money than 90% of everybody else, doesn't that make you "rich"? what about more than 80% of everybody else?
I'd call those million dollar people "super rich".
Here's the wiki link for distribution of income in the US in 2003
Message edited by author 2011-07-15 16:51:17. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 05:02:15 PM · #103 |
The area where our tax code is most broken is finding a just level of taxation for people who do not "earn" income to be taxed, but live off of capital gains and other assets which generate income, but can be teased out through various channels to avoid taxation.
It did amuse me to hear school teachers in Minnesota spoken about as being rich a few weeks after the debate over the Bush tax reductions were reinstated in which people who earned 250k were spoken of as "just getting by".
To paraphrase Patrick O'Brian-I have never known a man who would admit to being asleep or rich |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 05:26:48 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think it's possible to find a definition of "rich" that the vast majority of us could agree on -- say a million dollars a year? It's possible I'll make that in my lifetime ... |
It's moot, but I'd object. That means that <1% of our households are "rich". It seems like such a narrow definition. If you make more money than 90% of everybody else, doesn't that make you "rich"? what about more than 80% of everybody else?
I'd call those million dollar people "super rich".
Here's the wiki link for distribution of income in the US in 2003 |
Oh, personally I'd agree to a much smaller number -- I think for a single person $150-250K/year ought to be plenty to support a more than comfortable lifestyle, I was just trying to find a number that more than 95% could agree to ...
What I object to is policies, laws and regulations which continue to further enrich the already-rich at the expense of the working (or would like to be working) poor and "middle"-income majority.
Republicans object to eliminating tax cuts -- a temporary lowering of the statutory rate -- because that would inhibit "job creators" from getting the economy back on track. By definition, that means that that particular inhibition cannot now be in effect (and hasn't been for years), so why aren't the "job creators" taking advantage of their current taxpayer-provided subsidy to create some jobs?
I know if I were their strategist I'd be sending speakers to the boards of the corporations which control the economy, to suggest they to hold off creating a substantial number of jobs for just another few months if they really want to sabotage Obama's re-election.
Why does/should tax law favor unearned income over earned income?
Why does/should tax law favor "gambling" over "investing"? |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 05:31:23 PM · #105 |
| I agree with you both, Paul and Brennan, although I may be the first you've met who will say, "I am rich." I tend to take a global perspective on that which makes me even more rich. I am also willing to say, "I will pay more tax to get us out of this" which seems uncommon. Of course, I would will stewardship and reasonableness with the use of my money and maybe that's where I'm stupid for being willing to pay more tax... :( |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 05:48:30 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you both, Paul and Brennan, although I may be the first you've met who will say, "I am rich." I tend to take a global perspective on that which makes me even more rich. I am also willing to say, "I will pay more tax to get us out of this" which seems uncommon. Of course, I would will stewardship and reasonableness with the use of my money and maybe that's where I'm stupid for being willing to pay more tax... :( |
No, because I think you are willing to pay for value received -- roads without potholes, firehouses which are open and staffed, teachers who can afford to live in the same town they work in, DMV offices which don't have to be closed every third Friday ...
Partly I believe it's because you honestly try to live out your Christian values, which includes a sense of responsibility to not allow the destitute to die of starvation or exposure ... Here's a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
Oh, her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all
Yet she's only as rich as the poorest of the poor
Only as free as a padlocked prison door
Only as strong as our love for this land
Only as tall as we stand
Here's a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
Oh, her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all
-Phil Ochs, Power and Glory (c. 1963) |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 05:58:37 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Partly I believe it's because you honestly try to live out your Christian values, which includes a sense of responsibility to not allow the destitute to die of starvation or exposure |
Aww, Paul, you pay me a great compliment. Thank you.
Warm fuzzies all around! |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 07:27:17 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll have to take my word I'm not doing anything dodgy or gray. Basically my biggest advantages are having a mortgage and giving a fair amount of money to charity. Either his receptionist 1) makes a lot of money, 2) doesn't do a good job on her taxes, or 3) he is including other taxes like payroll tax, sales tax, etc. Maybe a more likely 4th option is she doesn't own a house. Maybe we should talk about the sacred cow of the mortgage interest deduction? |
You're focusing on the receptionist and then dwelling on mortgage deductions. As noted, Buffett's survey covered 15 employees, not just his receptionist, and their average tax rate was over 32% compared to 17.7% for WB. Do you really think NONE of those 15 people have mortgages or competent accountants? Unlikely. The simple fact is that the tax structure favors wealth. Social Security tax is capped at $106,800. Beyond that you pay nothing, so right there is a significant difference. Capital gains are another one. What percentage of Buffett's income do you think is taxed at the lower 15% rate vs. his employees? If you insist on talking mortgages, I think it's probably reasonable to surmise that most or all of those employees own a home, however it's also a safe bet that Buffett does NOT have a mortgage on his home and holds hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate specifically to make more money. I can also see some of those employees having paid off their mortgage, yet not having the resources (or compelling reason) to buy another house just to have a mortgage. Buffett probably also has immense deductions well beyond Joe Homeowner simply because vastly more of the latter's income is devoted to living expenses rather than investments (this affects how much you can give to charity, too). Bear in mind that we're only talking about taxes here. The wealthy also enjoy substantial advantages in dividend income compared to the savings accounts and "common" investment vehicles available to other classes, so more of the country's wealth flows in their direction to be taxed at a lower rate and feed the cycle.
In a nutshell, nobody likes to pay taxes. We'd all rather keep whatever we earned, and it's an easy boogeyman to get the public charged up (as we saw Lydia do here earlier) as if we're talking about stealing from those who work to pay for freeloaders. It's a scare tactic used to divert attention away from the actual issue: Buffett's employees work hard for their money, too, so why should they get to keep less of it than he does? It's all fine and dandy to chatter about flat tax or higher rates for the rich, but it doesn't mean much as long as the favorable mechanisms remain to reduce that rate below what everyone else pays. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 07:43:34 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're focusing on the receptionist and then dwelling on mortgage deductions. As noted, Buffett's survey covered 15 employees, not just his receptionist, and their average tax rate was over 32% compared to 17.7% for WB. Do you really think NONE of those 15 people have mortgages or competent accountants? Unlikely. |
I agree, but I took away that the receptionist was the lowest paid of the group ("from the receptionist on...") and that her tax rate was higher than 17.7% ("there wasn't anybody in the office that paid a lower rate"). I look at my own taxes and note I paid between 6 and 10% in the last three years and asked myself, wow, I'm even paying less than the receptionist on a % basis. Why is that? Assuming I make more money than her and knowing I don't enjoy and tax shelters, off shore income, capital gains breaks, etc, the answer MUST be my deductions and my three biggest are 1) my mortgage interest, 2) my charitable giving, and 3) my kids.
I totally agree with your simple fact that the tax structure favors the wealthy. 100% agree. I'm just lowering that bar of who qualifies as "wealthy" and pointing out that we don't need exotic tax loopholes to realize that favor. All I need apparently is a house and a penchant for giving. Sure we need to close these massive loopholes for the ultra-rich. But I may be the bearer of bad news to say the mundanely rich will need to kick in as well and that likely includes you and me. |
|
|
|
07/15/2011 09:22:41 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I took away that the receptionist was the lowest paid of the group ("from the receptionist on...") |
Maybe so, maybe not. I suspect the janitor makes less, but we have no information on that. We also don't know how the effective tax rate was calculated in order for you to make a valid comparison. The discrepancy between you and the receptionist is almost certainly the result of looking at different numbers. What matters is that EVERYONE in the comparison group pays a higher rate than the billionaire.
I agree on the "mundanely rich," but that wouldn't include me at the moment. In years past it might, but not now, and certainly not from living beyond my means as people around here like to assume. I don't drink or smoke, very rarely eat out, don't own a smart phone or flat screen TV, don't pay for extra cable channels, do my own yard work, drive a 10 year old Toyota and can't even remember that last time I went to a movie that cost more than $2. I do have a mortgage at a low rate, kids, charitable giving, and my wife holds dual Master's degrees in finance and accounting. Nevertheless, I'd wager that I pay a higher tax rate than Buffett. |
|
|
|
07/16/2011 12:28:46 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I took away that the receptionist was the lowest paid of the group ("from the receptionist on...") |
Maybe so, maybe not. I suspect the janitor makes less, but we have no information on that. We also don't know how the effective tax rate was calculated in order for you to make a valid comparison. The discrepancy between you and the receptionist is almost certainly the result of looking at different numbers. What matters is that EVERYONE in the comparison group pays a higher rate than the billionaire.
I agree on the "mundanely rich," but that wouldn't include me at the moment. In years past it might, but not now, and certainly not from living beyond my means as people around here like to assume. I don't drink or smoke, very rarely eat out, don't own a smart phone or flat screen TV, don't pay for extra cable channels, do my own yard work, drive a 10 year old Toyota and can't even remember that last time I went to a movie that cost more than $2. I do have a mortgage at a low rate, kids, charitable giving, and my wife holds dual Master's degrees in finance and accounting. Nevertheless, I'd wager that I pay a higher tax rate than Buffett. |
Well, I don't know your situation at all, but I drive a 14 year old Toyota, don't have cable at all, And do my yard work too. I still consider myself to be safely rich even if it doesn't look like it to those on the outside. But calculating your effective tax rate is as easy a pulling up last year's 1040. Taxes paid divided by AGI..BAM! See if you beat Buffett or not assuming that's the tax rate he's talking about... |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 02:24:53 PM · #112 |
| Man, what do we have, a week to go? This is getting pretty scary. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 02:27:35 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, what do we have, a week to go? This is getting pretty scary. |
You haven't made your travel plans yet? :P
|
|
|
|
07/26/2011 03:08:51 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, what do we have, a week to go? This is getting pretty scary. |
No kidding. As someone on social security/medicare, if nothing goes through I won't get paid at all. If something does go through, I'll probably still be taking a big hit in the pocketbook. I can't afford either option. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 03:28:55 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
As someone on social security/medicare, if nothing goes through I won't get paid at all. If something does go through, I'll probably still be taking a big hit in the pocketbook. I can't afford either option. |
Then your (and most of our) effective taxes are about to go up. Fortunately the loopholes, subsidies and *cough*temporary stimulus*cough* tax cuts for the extremely rich will remain safe so those folks can continue to invest their money in the economy and jobs. How reassuring. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 03:40:57 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Kelli:
As someone on social security/medicare, if nothing goes through I won't get paid at all. If something does go through, I'll probably still be taking a big hit in the pocketbook. I can't afford either option. |
Then your (and most of our) effective taxes are about to go up. Fortunately the loopholes, subsidies and *cough*temporary stimulus*cough* tax cuts for the extremely rich will remain safe so those folks can continue to invest their money in the economy and jobs. How reassuring. |
Can't a guy buy a boat without people judging? geez. T-rex bone is impressive! bang a gong! |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 03:43:29 PM · #117 |
One of "those guys" said yesterday there are some aprx. 3,300 "loopholes".
Can someone name just 33 of them?
Kelly, you aren't going to miss even 1 check. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:30:24 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, what do we have, a week to go? This is getting pretty scary. |
You haven't made your travel plans yet? :P |
You know, it actually gets me thinking. This is different from a government shutdown right? I'm headed to Yellowstone on the 12th. There's no risk it will close, right? |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:39:20 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, what do we have, a week to go? This is getting pretty scary. |
You haven't made your travel plans yet? :P |
You know, it actually gets me thinking. This is different from a government shutdown right? I'm headed to Yellowstone on the 12th. There's no risk it will close, right? |
It is very likely that they will close if they can't pay the park employees. I don't think that national park workers are higher up the priority list than military personnel. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:53:42 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It is very likely that they will close if they can't pay the park employees. I don't think that national park workers are higher up the priority list than military personnel. |
The bear's union is already on the rampage killing two people in the last month. Hmm, I'd better keep my eye on this. Curse you government for toying with my family vacation! Now this is serious. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:55:12 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It is very likely that they will close if they can't pay the park employees. I don't think that national park workers are higher up the priority list than military personnel. |
The bear's union is already on the rampage killing two people in the last month. Hmm, I'd better keep my eye on this. Curse you government for toying with my family vacation! Now this is serious. |
I have a union? Then how come I'm not better off?
R. |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 04:57:24 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It is very likely that they will close if they can't pay the park employees. I don't think that national park workers are higher up the priority list than military personnel. |
The bear's union is already on the rampage killing two people in the last month. Hmm, I'd better keep my eye on this. Curse you government for toying with my family vacation! Now this is serious. |
This is what happens when you vote Republican. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 05:14:50 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
It is very likely that they will close if they can't pay the park employees. I don't think that national park workers are higher up the priority list than military personnel. |
The bear's union is already on the rampage killing two people in the last month. Hmm, I'd better keep my eye on this. Curse you government for toying with my family vacation! Now this is serious. |
This is what happens when you vote Republican. ;-) |
Don't look at me... :P |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 05:24:19 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
One of "those guys" said yesterday there are some aprx. 3,300 "loopholes".
Can someone name just 33 of them?
Kelly, you aren't going to miss even 1 check. |
I know I can't, but I would bet a shitload of money that my accountant can.
Seriously David, do you honestly believe that the average schmuck actually knows anything about "tax loopholes"...that is a game reserved for people with money.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/26/2011 06:07:54 PM · #125 |
Isn't a "loophole" just another word for a specific deduction? I think that's the way it gets used, especially when talking about "3,300 loopholes". Thus the mortgage interest deduction is a loophole. The child tax credit is a loophole. The charity deduction is a loophole. Farm subsidies are a loophole (if they are tax based). Oil subsidies are a loophole. Etc.
I think the proper way to use the word is to indicate something that is being taken advantage of that wasn't meant by the original language. I tend to doubt that this is the way politicians are using the word.
A more cynical use, of course, would be that every deduction you do not agree with (e.g. SUV for business) is a "loophole" while deductions you do agree with (eg. child tax credit) is a "deduction". |
|
