DEAR RICH FOLKS: Get Ready For A (Tax) Revolution...

by darthfader 88 Replies latest social current

  • SixofNine

    Quote: I just dont agree with the statement that "no one becomes rich alone"...

    Oh please. No one becomes rich alone. It's an incontrovertible fact.

    “The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,” Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in the interview. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

    “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

    Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.


    Warren Buffett is offering a hand if the federal government needs a few extra days to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling.

    If a solution is at hand but misses the Aug. 2 deadline, Buffett said, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the Omaha investment company he heads, would be willing to pay its next quarterly income tax early to help tide over the government.

    Berkshire paid about $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes in 2010, so its quarterly payment would be more than $1 billion.

    Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

    "We're going to have to get more money from somebody. The question is, do we get more money from the person that's going to serve me lunch today, or do we get it from me? I think we should get it from me. I have a lower tax rate, counting payroll taxes, than anybody in my office. And I don't have a tax shelter -- I just take the form and fill out the numbers. I think that's very wrong, and I think that if we're going to get money -- and we're going to need money; we are not taking in enough money at the federal government level ... it shouldn't be the bottom 98%. It should be more from people at the top."

    "If you get $100 billion more of taxes ... from people like me at the top, it means you borrow $100 billion less out of the economy. Somebody has to come up with that $100 billion ... you're taking the money from the economy either way. The only question is whether you take it by borrowing or by taxes. And I see no problem in taxing people at the very high levels significantly more than they're being taxed now. And I might very well cut taxes even further for the people at lower levels."

  • darthfader

    So, what you are saying is that I owe society for my success? That no matter what, I'm not paying my fair share to support the benefits I receive from society?

    If I am paying my fair share to society for the services I receive and to my vendors for their products and to my employees for their labor, then I am doing it alone. If someone works for me for "free" or a reduced rate then I make them a partner in my business by giving them stock or stock options. They are still getting compensated and also accepting some risk for a larger payout later as the company grows or is sold.

    In this sense, I am "economically alone". Since the framework of this discussion is revolving around taxes, I beleive my argument stands.

  • SixofNine

    How do you go from this (statement A): " So, what you are saying is that I owe society for my success?...." (uh, yeah. it's self-evident)

    to this (statement B): " .....That no matter what, I'm not paying my fair share to support the benefits I receive from society?"

    No seriously. How can I have an honest conversation with someone that would go from statement "A" to statement "B" in two connected sentences? Position "B" has not been stated, hinted at, infered, muttered under the breath, or even thought-about-while-eating-vegan-pot-brownies by anyone at anytime, ever, on the planet earth. Until just now. By you.

    I can only surmise that you just like wasting other people's time?

  • darthfader

    If I am paying my fair share of taxes, and paying others for their services, then I owe society nothing. I can be altruistic and render assistance to others in need, but I owe then nothing.

    How do I owe society for my success?

  • Quarterback

    I wish I was rich. Anyone out there tired of living the rich life and wanna change places with me?

  • designs


    Buffett is interesting, he's sees the bigger picture and what it takes to run a Country with 300,000,000 plus population, he's farsighted. In California the Walker Family that owns Farmers and Merchants Bank has privately floated the State of California at least 6 times in the past 100 years, wrote the checks to keep the State afloat.

    We will see High Speed Trains in this country like Europe, Japan and China, it will take Rich private Investors and Government funding (our taxes) but that's the kind of co-op of resources that it takes.

  • SixofNine

    You are just arguing for the sake of arguing dude. You're not even in disagreement. You believe in paying your "fair share of taxes".

    Please stop arguing points that you agree with. It's a time waster.

  • DaCheech

    so let me get this right.......

    If I have a business making me $150,000 grand a year --> I die tomorrow -->

    the next day the lawyer figures that my business on paper is woth $2million.

    you want my kids to pay how much tax on that "hand-down"?

    (don't forget to remember how many farmers are in the same situation)

  • NewChapter

    If I read it right, the first 1.5 million will be tax free. After that amount certain gift credits and tax exclusions can be taken, with would probably exempt the other 500K. If more than one child inherits it, then they will both be below 1.5 mil and not pay taxes.

    There is a table at this link that shows how gift, inheritence, and tax credits are applied. According to the table, using these credits means that the first 3.5 million is not taxed.

    This is how I understand what I read. I'm not a lawyer, and it may be more complex. But you can give it a glance if you're interested.

  • sammielee24

    Cut Spending – But Not My Farm Subsidies!

    Posted by Don Carr March 29, 2011 |

    by Chris Campbell, Amber Hanna and Don Carr

    That some members of Congress are farmers is hardly new. Many of the Founding Fathers worked the land. But as the industrial age transformed America’s agrarian society and technology made it possible for fewer farmers to grow more crops on more land, the number of lawmakers actively engaged in agriculture dropped sharply.

    We don’t have a firm count of how many farmers are serving in the current Congress, but we do know, based on a recent analysis of the Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Database, that23 of them, or their family members, signed up for taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments between 1995 and 2009.

    This would be a good place to point out that just five crops – corn, cotton, rice wheat and soybeans – account for 90 percent of all farm subsidies. Sixty-two percent of American farmers do not receive any direct payments from the federal farm subsidy system, and that group includes most livestock producers and fruit and vegetable growers.

    Among the members of the 112 th Congress who collect payments from USDA are six Democrats and 17 Republicans. The disparity between the parties is even greater in terms of dollar amounts: $489,856 went to Democrats, but more than 10 times as much, $5,334,565, to Republicans.

    One reason for the disproportionate number of Republican lawmakers benefiting from farm subsidy programs is the current scarcity of rural Democrats in Congress – casualties of the Tea Party wave that swept into office in November of 2010. (This was despite the Democrats’ decision to bow to the wishes of the subsidy lobby by passing a status quo 2008 farm bill in a misguided bid to hang on to those seats.)

    Several new members of Congress who won with tea party support have been less than eager to talk about farm subsidies ever since the news broke last year that they, or their families, personally benefit from those very taxpayer dollars.

    EWG doesn’t believe that the payments to lawmakers are improper or illegal. But the fact that so many more Republicans in Congress receive so much more in farm subsidies than their Democratic colleagues does highlight the GOP’s controversial decision to spare those programs from the budget ax – even as it slashes funding for so many others. Consider:

    • In January, David Rogers of Politico, and Phillip Brasher at the Des Moines Register, reported that the Republican Study Committee proposed to eliminate the meager federal funding for an organic food growers’ program without even mentioning the the possibility of cutting spending for entitlements that send checks out to largest producers of corn, cotton and other commodity crops – regardless of need.
    • Then last week (March 21), National Journal reported that the Republican-led House Agriculture Committee is backing cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – previously known as food stamps – in the face of record enrollment levels triggered by high unemployment. But not even minimal reductions were proposed to the excessive payments to wealthy farms.//snipped

Share this