BUFFETT: TAX THE RICH

President Mittens said:
And how is that?
Click to expand...

Who do you think is pushing these alternate taxes? Certainly not those who already don't pay.

Just look at who is pushing it here, for a clue.


A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich. Not taxing investment income would eliminate the current "double taxation" faced by investors who pay taxes on their income, and then again when that income generates profits. That, too, would benefit the rich more than the poor. (A retired billionaire living solely off interest income, for instance, would pay no taxes at all.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm
 
Last edited:
Return of Dune said:
You are all drinking the koolaid.

Any flat or fair tax will be even more regressive than the present system and have the net effect of further lowering the taxes of the very wealthy.
Click to expand...

The fair tax is regressive. I agree.

The flat tax is not provided you install a standard deduction. Please don't tell me that, like Mott, you are incapable of reading and understanding the example I laid out of how it would indeed work..... at the same time it would RAISE the effective tax rate of the wealthy.
 
Return of Dune said:
Who do you think is pushing these alternate taxes? Certainly not those who already don't pay.

Just look at who is pushing it here, for a clue.


A pure flat tax is inherently regressive, because the poor pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rich. Not taxing investment income would eliminate the current "double taxation" faced by investors who pay taxes on their income, and then again when that income generates profits. That, too, would benefit the rich more than the poor. (A retired billionaire living solely off interest income, for instance, would pay no taxes at all.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/tax.htm
Click to expand...

1) No one here is suggesting a 'PURE' flat tax.... as stated, it is a flat tax with a hefty standard deduction
2) No one here is suggesting that the tax only be on earned income, to the contrary.... I was very clear that the tax would be on ALL sources of income. This would RAISE the taxes that people pay on long term capital gains and 'qualified' dividends.
 
Superfreak said:
1) No one here is suggesting a 'PURE' flat tax.... as stated, it is a flat tax with a hefty standard deduction
2) No one here is suggesting that the tax only be on earned income, to the contrary.... I was very clear that the tax would be on ALL sources of income. This would RAISE the taxes that people pay on long term capital gains and 'qualified' dividends.
Click to expand...

Please remember all your bullet points when Congress asks you how the new tax should be arranged.
 
Superfreak said:
1) No one here is suggesting a 'PURE' flat tax.... as stated, it is a flat tax with a hefty standard deduction
2) No one here is suggesting that the tax only be on earned income, to the contrary.... I was very clear that the tax would be on ALL sources of income. This would RAISE the taxes that people pay on long term capital gains and 'qualified' dividends.
Click to expand...


Why do I doubt the millionaires of congress are going to vote to pay MORE taxes?
 
Return of Dune said:
Why do I doubt the millionaires of congress are going to vote to pay MORE taxes?
Click to expand...

No question this HAS to be done via a mass populace movement. It won't be done by simply having a few people email it to Congress. Which is why I share it so frequently here on this board. While the amount of the standard deduction and the two tax rates are but examples, the framework and simplicity is what I want to drive home to the idiots in DC.

That said, to be clear... you are 100% correct to think they wouldn't vote for such a plan as things stand now.... the only way they will do so is if they feel their jobs depend upon it.
 
Return of Dune said:
You are all drinking the koolaid.

Any flat or fair tax will be even more regressive than the present system and have the net effect of further lowering the taxes of the very wealthy.
Click to expand...

Yea it would be. Hell why fix what aint broke. I think our current system is a pretty fair one. I think that due to current revenue shortages and budget deficit a modest progressive tax increase back to the levels of the Clinton era would be justified. These guys are in lala land about the Fair tax proposal. You notice they didn't address a single one of the valid criticism I made. I mean I can't believe they call them selves conservatives when what they are advocating is creating the worlds largest government entitlement program in history. They just simply aren't thinking this through.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea it would be. Hell why fix what aint broke. I think our current system is a pretty fair one. I think that due to current revenue shortages and budget deficit a modest progressive tax increase back to the levels of the Clinton era would be justified. These guys are in lala land about the Fair tax proposal. You notice they didn't address a single one of the valid criticism I made. I mean I can't believe they call them selves conservatives when what they are advocating is creating the worlds largest government entitlement program in history. They just simply aren't thinking this through.
Click to expand...

Our tax code is some 70k pages. That does not scream out to you something needs to be fixed?
 
cawacko said:
Our tax code is some 70k pages. That does not scream out to you something needs to be fixed?
Click to expand...
Oh no, I wouldn't argue about the need for reform. I think there's plenty of room for reform in improving and simplifying our tax code. I just said that I thought our current system was pretty fair. I didn't say it couldn't be improved.

This so called "Fair Tax" proposal, on the other hand, is just a very, very bad idea for the reasons I stated.
 
Mott, get your non-Ohio educated wife to read this for you, since you are clearly unable. Maybe have her draw pictures to go with it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax

What Is a Flat Tax?
Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the "equal justice under law" principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation's wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top