[Polopolop]

I believe he means that he should be forced to pay more in taxes. Not sure if he's paying more or he isn't.

[lionsiy]

You obviously know what he means, so stop being silly .

And how do you know he hasn't paid extra?

[TriamiCaw]

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
"There wasn't anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don't have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do," he said. Setting aside the fact that I'm generally on his side here, Mr. Buffett could "fix" this situation by paying himself what his receptionist currently makes, and paying her what he currently makes...

-Arrian

[Fluivelip]

Originally posted by Arrian
Setting aside the fact that I'm generally on his side here, Mr. Buffett could "fix" this situation by paying himself what his receptionist currently makes, and paying her what he currently makes... Or he could just avoid taking deductions? That'd shoot what he pays right up there.

[feqlmwtuqx]

Which is silly, because Buffet is saying they should be obligated to pay more tax.

[blenIgnigeSef]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Which is silly, because Buffet is saying they should be obligated to pay more tax. My response to Imran which you seem to have missed: That's not what he said though. He's saying that he should pay more tax and I'm saying that optionis available to him right now and he seems to avoid taking it.

[Cuccuccaltefe]

This is not a rebuttal of his point. Actually it is. Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people if the rich basically own the government. The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait until Buffet gets his way.

I agree. Most rich people are not going to be so philanthropic in attitude as Buffet is. Actually, most rich people give significant amounts of money to charities.

[agiopwer]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Actually it is. Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people when the rich basically own the government. The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait once Buffet gets his way.



Actually, most rich people give significant amounts of money to charities. Politicians care about who donates money to them, not to who pays tax.

[adesseridopaw]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Sure, if you want, this thread can certainly be about quibbling over Buffet's words. Well it is what I have to go on. I prefer to avoid reading minds when ever possible.

If you mean me personally, and no one else, no...because that would be unfair. This wouldn't be forced. Just something you could willingly do. Would you do it?

[Avoireeideree]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Actually it is. Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people if the rich basically own the government. The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait until Buffet gets his way.

That's incredibly amusing. NO, we shouldn't raise the tax rates on the rich because then the government wouldn't care about the poor. So, for the poor, we are taxing the rich less than we should!

As stated, politicians care about special interests who give them contributions. I'm doubting that having to pay more in taxes, the rich are going to drastically increase their campaign contributions as well (except, perhaps, to organizations that fight tax increases ).

[flowersnewacq]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Actually it is.

No, it's not. Buffet made an assertion (presumably true) about what percent of his income went to the government, saying it was too low, and the CoC responded with what proportion of all taxes came from the rich. Given the shape of the income distribution, that's 1) not terribly surprising and 2) not an indication that the rich shouldn't pay more.

Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people if the rich basically own the government. The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait until Buffet gets his way.

1) The rich already do own the government.

2) The poor already don't participate that much through taxation.

3) This wouldn't necessarily decrease their level of taxation.

[leadmoffer]

Kuci (in this thread )

-Arrian

[pepBarihepe]

if the rich are the sole contributor to government revenue (I am going extreme here, more fun that way) they are the government, and what obligation/compasion should they feel for the common man



So you don't think the rich are basically the government already? Oh yeah, I see all sorts of poor folk in the power positions. And yes, a lot of them don't feel the obligation or compassion for the common man, but I'd hope that morality would compel them, regardless of their personal tax levels.

[Fdmnrnba]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well it is what I have to go on. I prefer to avoid reading minds when ever possible. You must really hate metaphors.

[Wetekemieluth]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Actually it is. Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people if the rich basically own the government. The rich do own the government. Look at the nature (and average economic standing) of those elected, the costs of campaigns, the primary selection process (at all levels of governmet) to determine who gets to run in the general election, and the pervasive access of lobbyists plus the control exerted by party apparatus of both parties.

The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. They get to pay in all sorts of ways beyond income tax - sales taxes, excise taxes, gas taxes, social security. They pay, but that doesn't mean they have access, let alone control.

If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait until Buffet gets his way. The poor are cared about to the extent that they are more useful than dangerous.

Actually, most rich people give significant amounts of money to charities. (a) they have it to give, it's a little different than if you're raiding trashcans for recyclable items and living off hamburger helper.

(b) it makes them feel good, whether they're limousine liberals or have some other compunction to feel like they're "doing their part." How many rich people are donating to the extent that it really crimps their lifestyles or wealth building? (Not saying whether they should or not, just asking what percent you think do?)

[Pateeffelty]

Very bad things would happen to the rights of poor people if the rich basically own the government. The participation of the poor in the government through taxation is very important, it is basically their stake. If you think the rich don't care about the poor now (what they think actually), just wait until Buffet gets his way.





You realize how completely absurd your argument is, right? Just think about it. For a few seconds. An end member case of the tax burden would be that the poor are taxed at 100% and the rich at 0%. Your argument would imply that the politicians would create some kind of workers' paradise in such a tax regime.

Buffet pays half the federal rate (note that it would be even more regressive if state taxes were included) as his secretary because capital gains are taxed at just over half the rate as the highest income tax bracket. And since the very rich (like Buffet) get the vast majority of their income from investments, while everyone else gets most of their income from labor, this skews the tax burden. Because of that, you assert that the gov't is not beholden to the very rich? Utterly, utterly ridiculous.

[Redys]

I'm not arguing that he should live like a hermit. I don't begrudge anyone thier money. I'm just saying that if he wants to pay more in taxes, he should do so.

[Trientoriciom]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not arguing that he should live like a hermit. I don't begrudge anyone thier money. I'm just saying that if he wants to pay more in taxes, he should do so. For gods sake. There are two sides to the issue.

He's also saying that the poorer people are FORCED to pay TOO MUCH tax.

They can't just opt to pay less tax, and they are the ones who could really, really benefit from paying less tax in real quality of life terms.

[mArVHDO6]

You realize how completely absurd your argument is, right? Just think about it. For a few seconds. An end member case of the tax burden would be that the poor are taxed at 100% and the rich at 0%. Your argument would imply that the politicians would create some kind of workers' paradise in such a tax regime. Why don't you think about what I actually said vice what you irrationally extrapolate from it

Or to put it simply Ramo, did I actually advocate any particular ratio/percentage/regressive/progressive tax scheme?

In any case my only comment is that the tax burden should never be foisted entirely onto the rich (which lets face it, is the secret wet dream of many a liberal) and even stated I was arbitrarily talking about that scenario for the fun of argument.

Your argument would imply that the politicians would create some kind of workers' paradise in such a tax regime. Not my argument, but a fun line to run with. I believe what I actually said was the opposite, but in either instance if the poor are paying 100% or 0% we are basically talking about making them slaves or proles. I don't see how you get a workers paradise in either scenario.

Because of that, you assert that the gov't is not beholden to the very rich? Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Please, with quotations, show where I said that. And before you go off an another adventure in misinterpretation, please note the difference between being beholden and actually owned.

It's not contradictory to believe that you can use some of your money more judiciously to better society than the government, and that the government can in turn do so better than aggregate charity in certain circumstances. The difference, Ramo, is that taxes are mandatory. If you think the government is a good charity feel free to send them a check, they will not turn it down. Good luck getting them to spend it on the cause you want, but you're sending them checks of your own free will so I guess your reconciled with that fact.

[Lhtfajba]

Patty, your claim is that placing the tax burden on the rich somehow makes the government beholden to the rich and that "very bad things" would happen to the poor. The generalization here would be that taxing a class more means that the government is more beholden to it. I was applying a simple logical extension to that absurd belief (end member cases are useful in considering the validity of a claim). It's pretty easy to understand.

The difference, Ramo, is that taxes are mandatory. If you think the government is a good charity feel free to send them a check, they will not turn it down. Good luck getting them to spend it on the cause you want, but you're sending them checks of your own free will so I guess your reconciled with that fact.

I have no idea why you quoted my post here, because that in absolutely no way has anything to do with the point that I was making.