Warren Buffett and the rich

Originally posted by quackquack
I certainly would be for a flat tax.

I also think it is time that If we keep making it more difficult for those who pay lots of taxes, they won't be able to have profitable ventures and tax revenue will suffer. It seems that many people on the site simply want to punish those who contribute the most. Fortunately, at least in my opinion, Americans as ...[text shortened]... liberals are making and as such this country will elect a much more balanced economic approach.

Great.

Talk us through the negative effects taxing the rich more with the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 hurt jobs, economic growth, and the deficit in the 1990's.

Then talk through the positive effect the Bush tax cuts had.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Great.

Talk us through the negative effects taxing the rich more with the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 hurt jobs, economic growth, and the deficit in the 1990's.

Then talk through the positive effect the Bush tax cuts had.

I don't work for the "request your lecture series" so I feel comfortable ignoring your last request and I already pointed the ridiculousness of your post equating payroll taxes with income tax so its not like one should assume what you say has too much merit, anyway.

We should have free trade and as much money as we can in private systems where real life economics can determine which ideas are sucessful. Instead since Obama came into office government spending has increased by 31%, most people feel the economy stinks and employment is high. The current desire to expand healthcare coverage but only tax those who contribute the most is a recipe to increase unemployment and stifle the economy. It does no seem to work. The US was prosperous when we were not over burdened with government regulation and taxes on everything.

Originally posted by quackquack
I don't work for the "request your lecture series" so I feel comfortable ignoring your last request and I already pointed the ridiculousness of your post equating payroll taxes with income tax so its not like one should assume what you say has too much merit, anyway.

We should have free trade and as much money as we can in private systems where real l ...[text shortened]... prosperous when we were not over burdened with government regulation and taxes on everything.

The US economy was growing very strongly when the top income tax tariff was 91%.

Originally posted by quackquack
I don't work for the "request your lecture series" so I feel comfortable ignoring your last request and I already pointed the ridiculousness of your post equating payroll taxes with income tax so its not like one should assume what you say has too much merit, anyway.

We should have free trade and as much money as we can in private systems where real l ...[text shortened]... prosperous when we were not over burdened with government regulation and taxes on everything.

The point that you deliberately ran away from is that my assertions are backed up by hard evidence and yours are pie in the sky theories.

The fact of the matter is we've had huge economic booms with the top earners paying much higher taxes than they are right now.

The fact of the matter is you can't name one, single country with a high quality of life that doesn't have a graduated tax scale, social services, government safety nets and government regulations on industry.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The point that you deliberately ran away from is that my assertions are backed up by hard evidence and yours are pie in the sky theories.

The fact of the matter is we've had huge economic booms with the top earners paying much higher taxes than they are right now.

The fact of the matter is you can't name one, single country with a hi ...[text shortened]... ed tax scale, social services, government safety nets and government regulations on industry.

You can claim the truth is whatever you want, but the fact is that there are many factors that lead to any prosporous time. It certainly is not due to one piece of legislation. Much of it has to do with the expansion of trade as the worlds borders opened up and the benefits of the Reagan Revolution. The Dow Jones Industrial Average which bottomed out at 776 under Carter went sky rocketing under Reagan and sometime afterwards (to 13 times taht 776 number). We also had the benefits in that time period of Congress preventing many of the presidents dumb ideas (like universal health care) from ever occuring. We have never had fewer deductions, we have never had so much debt, we have never had so much regulation, we have never had such high state and local taxes and so many new taxes. I think we'd be far more prosperous if we got rid of thses burdens and I'd focus on that instead of whining about income distributions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The US economy was growing very strongly when the top income tax tariff was 91%.

It doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely an idiotic economic policy.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That of course depends on your income level. It's just deceptive when someone says, "47% pay no income taxes" because it implies they don't pay taxes at all.

What's more, lower and mid earners pay a much higher percent of their income on other taxes because they actually spend their money.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
...What's more, lower and mid earners pay a much higher percent of their income on other taxes because they actually spend their money.

"They actually spend their money"?

On what? Food? Rich people eat too.

Gas? Rich people drive cars as well. It's even safe to say that the cars they drive are more expensive than the one you drive.

TVs? Rich people not only have TVs, but the TVs they have are better and more expensive than the one you have. Same goes for the appliances and furniture that the rich have.

Won't even go into things like boats.







Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That of course depends on your income level. It's just deceptive when someone says, "47% pay no income taxes" because it implies they don't pay taxes at all...

Your statement implied that the rich don't spend money, which is obviously a ridiculous statement. How would someone like you even know another person is rich unless you saw all of the stuff they have?


If one were to say 47% of people don't pay taxes, THAT would imply that they pay no taxes at all. Saying that 47% pay no income tax is simply a fact.


The reason low-mid earners pay a higher percentage of their income on other taxes is simply because they don't make as much, not because only they spend money. It's a function of what they make not what they spend, since rich people also spend on everything that you would spend your money on (and then some) .

Originally posted by TheBloop
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]...What's more, lower and mid earners pay a much higher percent of their income on other taxes because they actually spend their money.

"They actually spend their money"?

On what? Food? Rich people eat too.

Gas? Rich people drive cars as well. It's even safe to say that the cars they drive ar ...[text shortened]... ople also spend on everything that you would spend your money on (and then some) .[/b]

Holy crap. Look up hyperbole. Obviously wealthy people spend money, but the point is they spend a tiny fraction of their income whereas the poor and middle class spend all or almost all of theirs.

The number driver of any economy is consumer spending.

Originally posted by quackquack
It doesn't mean that it isn't absolutely an idiotic economic policy.

Though it does bring into question the assumption that progressive income taxation is bad for the economy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Though it does bring into question the assumption that progressive income taxation is bad for the economy.

We can do well with bad policy and we can do poorly with good policy. Similarly you can take care of yourself and get sick and you could not take care of yourself and and be healthy.
Too high tax rates discourage certain ventures and likely make it more difficult for lower margin employees to be hired.

Your line of argument also could be used to argue just about anything. For instance we had profitable times before we had income taxes. One could argue that this calls into question whether we need income taxes at all.

Originally posted by quackquack
We can do well with bad policy and we can do poorly with good policy. Similarly you can take care of yourself and get sick and you could not take care of yourself and and be healthy.
Too high tax rates discourage certain ventures and likely make it more difficult for lower margin employees to be hired.

Your line of argument also could be used to ...[text shortened]... ncome taxes. One could argue that this calls into question whether we need income taxes at all.

Looking at real world data (perhaps something you ought to try) of western nations, there is a positive correlation between the progressivity of taxes and how well economies are doing.

Originally posted by quackquack
You can claim the truth is whatever you want, but the fact is that there are many factors that lead to any prosporous time. It certainly is not due to one piece of legislation. Much of it has to do with the expansion of trade as the worlds borders opened up and the benefits of the Reagan Revolution. The Dow Jones Industrial Average which bottomed out at 7 ...[text shortened]... got rid of thses burdens and I'd focus on that instead of whining about income distributions.

So on my side I have data that contradicts what you claim, and on your side you have excuses why I have data the contradicts what you say.

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average which bottomed out at 776 under Carter went sky rocketing under Reagan and sometime afterwards (to 13 times taht 776 number)."

13 x 776 = 10,088

It never got anywhere close to that under Reagan. And why would you pick the lowest point it was EVER under Carter?

When Reagan was inaugurated the Dow was at 950.68

Here's a chart that shows the history of the Dow.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

It also shows long periods of consistent, rapid gains in the Dow even when the top marginal tax rates were in the topping 80-90% !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

Am I saying taxing the rich more helps the economy? No, at least not directly. What I am saying is this crap you get spoon fed about it hurting the economy is complete and total BS.

And your claim that taxes are so high right now? More BS.

I'm even using a link where Politifact gives a Democrat a "Half True" raiting on his claim. Factoring in all taxes we're still at very low rate historically.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/02/mark-critz/critz-touts-democratic-role-low-taxes-job-creation/

The most complete accounting we've seen is a table of tax data assembled by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that measures the average federal income tax rate -- that is, federal income taxes paid divided by income -- for four-person families at three representative levels of income. The data covers the years 1955 to 2009:

At half the median national income and at the median income, the rates for 2008 and 2009 are the lowest on record, and at twice the median income, it is lower than every year since 1967 except for one (2003).

You see? I don't cherry pick data to prove my case. I give ALL the data and ALL the context.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Looking at real world data (perhaps something you ought to try) of western nations, there is a positive correlation between the progressivity of taxes and how well economies are doing.

That does not mean that our tax system caused prosperity. Our huge national debt is as indication that we cannot afford the level of spending that we currently have. Perhaps the real bubble we have the expectation of governmental services.

Originally posted by quackquack
That does not mean that our tax system caused prosperity. Our huge national debt is as indication that we cannot afford the level of spending that we currently have. Perhaps the real bubble we have the expectation of governmental services.

e.g. property crime enforcement

Originally posted by quackquack
That does not mean that our tax system caused prosperity. Our huge national debt is as indication that we cannot afford the level of spending that we currently have. Perhaps the real bubble we have the expectation of governmental services.

When the 400 richest men in the country own more wealth than over half the country combined, it just makes practical sense to tax upper incomes at a greater rate.

To keep numbers simple, the revenue from taxing the upper $100 million dollars of one person's income at a marginal rate of 10%..... is equal to the revenue generated by taxing 400 people who make $50K half of their income.

A graduate tax system doesn't affect the quality of life of the wealthy one, single bit and as we've proven it doesn't hurt the economy.