[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

As far as I know, you will automatically get the deductions, whether you apply for them or not.

You don't get them if they don't exist. So if Buffet wants to "pay his fair share" then instead of agitating for a higher tax rate (which I suspect will somehow allow him to pay even less than he does right now) he should be agitating to end the tax breaks and deductions that he currently benefits from.

For instance: He owns Union Pacific Railroad and he enjoys sizable tax benefits for updating the locomotive fleet to fuel efficient models, he gets tax breaks for letting commuter trains use Union Pacific tracks, he gets tax breaks for employing minorities, he get tax breaks for using minority owned contractors, and etc.

If we just ended the tax breaks he'd pay more.

[Brenda]

Does HE get that, or does his company get those tax breaks?

There's a difference between personal/income taxes and corporate taxes.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Brenda Brenda:

As far as I know, you will automatically get the deductions, whether you apply for them or not.

For instance: He owns Union Pacific Railroad and he enjoys sizable tax benefits for updating the locomotive fleet to fuel efficient models, he gets tax breaks for letting commuter trains use Union Pacific tracks, he gets tax breaks for employing minorities, he get tax breaks for using minority owned contractors, and etc.

No he doesn't, the company that he owns (outright?) does. He's talking about personal taxes, not corporate. And of course if you update equipment you will write that off on taxes. And I'm surprised UP gets a tax break, rather than just a straight fee for letting commuter trains run on their tracks. You're not advocating they allow the govt to do that for free, are you?

[Macguyver]

I think it is fair that if you make $50K you should pay your fair share of taxes, at 30% you’d pay $15K.

Same goes for someone who makes a $1000K a year, pay your 30%.

That is my simple interpretation of the Buffett Tax.

Don't expect to go to the Chinese buffet at lunch and get dinged for another 30% though Bart. That is not what the Buffett Tax is – and it’s not about taxing corporations that buy locomotives either. It is personal income tax that WB is getting at.

Just spelling it our so you don't get it wrong again

[DrCaleb]

I'd be all for a flat rate tax system. It would be interesting to see the people who can afford better accountants than I can having to still pay the same rate towards keeping society running.

Kind like the old joke of flying in an airplane, and how no two people paid the same for their ticket.

[Brenda]

Macguyver Macguyver:

I think it is fair that if you make $50K you should pay your fair share of taxes, at 30% you’d pay $15K.

Same goes for someone who makes a $1000K a year, pay your 30%.

That is my simple interpretation of the Buffett Tax.

Don't expect to go to the Chinese buffet at lunch and get dinged for another 30% though Bart. That is not what the Buffett Tax is – and it’s not about taxing corporations that buy locomotives either. It is personal income tax that WB is getting at.

Just spelling it our so you don't get it wrong again

So Steve Jobs pays 30% of $1. That's a whole 30 cents.
That's what he is on the payroll for, and his "income from stocks and bonds", well, is that going to have a 30% flat rate too?

Why don't we just add a 15% sales tax, on EVERYTHING? If you want to live large, you pay large taxes too. And of course taxes on interest on savings accounts.

Corporations should have taxes added on their investments. Invest a million of profit back into the business, pay $300,000 in taxes. So your net investment would be $700,000.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd be all for a flat rate tax system. It would be interesting to see the people who can afford better accountants than I can having to still pay the same rate towards keeping society running.

Kind like the old joke of flying in an airplane, and how no two people paid the same for their ticket.

The dynamic pricing airlines (and other companies use) is a different beast altogether though. Still, point made...

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

Does HE get that, or does his company get those tax breaks?

Both. He was not just a mere stockholder, he'd held more than 51% of the firm and was legally the owner. There's different tax implications in being an owner as opposed to an investor due to one's control of the corporation.

Brenda Brenda:

There's a difference between personal/income taxes and corporate taxes.

Not always. One of the things Obama and the Democrats have agitated for is they want corporate jet travel taxed as personal income even when it is business related. Gifts that a corporate CEO receives can already be taxed both in corporate filings and in personal filings. And etc.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd be all for a flat rate tax system.

Me, too. I'd probably end up paying more but it would not bother me so much if I knew that everyone else was paying the same percentage with no exemptions and no deductions.

[Brenda]

I don't drive a company car, but back in The Netherlands, your company car is added as taxable income. So why not Jet travel too? Why not tax everything the same?

This little gem kinda made me nauseous. "I earned $6.3 million last year, but after I pay my personnel and rent, I only have about $400,000 left to feed my family from, so not much to tax there". Really??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... lp00000009

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

I don't drive a company car, but back in The Netherlands, your company car is added as taxable income. So why not Jet travel too? Why not tax everything the same?

And to some extent the same principle applies in the USA and Obama and the Democrats want it to be applied even more broadly. But, since they're hypocrites they'll exempt themselves from that policy so Obama doesn't have to pay taxes for travel on HIS private jet...

Brenda Brenda:

This little gem kinda made me nauseous. "I earned $6.3 million last year, but after I pay my personnel and rent, I only have about $400,000 left to feed my family from, so not much to tax there". Really??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/1 ... lp00000009

Think about it a different way: If all you're going to get to keep from $6.3 million is $400,000 then why not just work until you can bank $400k and then stop working?

That was what happened in the West back in the 1950's and 1960's when tax rates of up to 95% (UK) and even 98% (USA) were not uncommon. There was simply no incentive for anyone to bother earning so much money and the result was that productivity (and economic growth) declined and so did tax revenues.

Lisa and I are living that principle. Since we paid off the house we lost the mortgage deduction and if she kept working as she was then she'd essentially be working all year to pay our taxes. My solution? We had her cut down to working one day a week to reduce our incomes to where our tax burden is on par with how hard we want to work. The tax rates for us are a disincentive to work and we're acting accordingly.

So that means Lisa gets to enjoy herself instead of being out working to support the government.

[DanSC]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'd be all for a flat rate tax system.

It sounds like a great idea, but that's what Russia has now.

[Lemmy]

Progressive taxes are absolutely preferred over flat rate taxes. John Stuart Mill wrote, in 1858: "As a government out to make no distinction of persons or classes in the strengths of their claims on it, whatever sacrifices it requires from them should be made to bear as nearly as possible with the same pressure upon all...equality of taxation, therefore, as a maxim of politics, means equality of sacrifice."

[BeaverFever]

Guys...whats missed is Buffet's central point: that income from Captial Gains (i.e. returns from investments) are taxed at a much lower rate than income from payroll (i.e. salaries and wages). A significant portion (most, if not all) of the income earned by millionaires and billionaires are not from a salary but from captial gains.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

John Stuart Mill wrote, in 1858: "As a government out to make no distinction of persons or classes in the strengths of their claims on it, whatever sacrifices it requires from them should be made to bear as nearly as possible with the same pressure upon all...equality of taxation, therefore, as a maxim of politics, means equality of sacrifice."

Same pressure = flat tax rate.