Warren Buffett and the rich

Originally posted by quackquack
I am not sure how one would measure this, but it certainly does not seem that way to me.

I think it could be done in a scientific manner, but doubt anyone has tried.

Unscientically, I read the crime reports section of the local paper. There is nothing ever from the richer parts of town. All the crime reports are where cars are parked on the street, or the houses are close together, the poor sections, especially the trailer parks, and senior citizens housing units.

Originally posted by quackquack
I understand that a homeless person can't pay more than they earn (but we could give some a partial waiver and have virtually the same system) -- to me that's just a mechanical adjustment.

I believe that it is ridiculous for some to pay many multiples more than others for the same service (a service the government decide we should all pay for not the ...[text shortened]... son government expands in areas like healthcare is to redistribue income and I object to this.

Actually, once the waivers start, we end up with a discriminatory system much like the current income tax.

If income taxes must remain, I favor a flat rate tax, with no exemptions or deductions. Preferable to that would be a sales tax, but only after the permanent repeal of any and all income taxes, and of course the 16th amendment.

Collection of income taxes is probably the most difficult for both the collector and the tax payer. The savings in record keeping, and compliance advice would be awesome if the income tax could ever be totally repealed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Measure it like this.

How much wealth does the person have such that if stolen it would result in a police report?

The poor have little wealth to protect, what wealth they have they can carry with them or keep in their home if they have one, are accustomed to protecting it themselves, and generally avoid the police.

On the other hand, they do tend to steal stuff more...

Most of the city of Detroit is poor. But there are more police reports per capita than any of the more wealthy suburbs.

I don't know what poor you're talking about. The poor here have flat screen TVs, and surround sound, digital cameras, smart phones, etc. all of which can be fenced. Most have multiple cars which pretty regularly get stolen, and which require police reports.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
You obviously don't because that made absolutely no sense.

I am pretty certain I'm wasting my time, but when bumping up against the next marginal rate, with a 90% tax rate, and no additional deductions, why would any sane person not just slow down or suspend operations for that fiscal year?

There is nothing to gain.

Originally posted by normbenign
I am pretty certain I'm wasting my time, but when bumping up against the next marginal rate, with a 90% tax rate, and no additional deductions, why would any sane person not just slow down or suspend operations for that fiscal year?

There is nothing to gain.

Unreal. For the third time the 90% top marginal rate ONLY applies to personal income. Your "slowing down - suspending operations" implies we're talking about the top corporate marginal rate.

Also, the only time there is NOTHING to gain is if the tax rate is 100%.

And even IF we were talking about corporate taxes, even at 100% any owner would be stupid to suspend operations. You still want to keep your customers happy. Maintaining high volume gives you greater purchasing power. And you can always invest the additional profit back into the company by hiring new people, increasing pay, purchasing new equipment, marketing, etc. thus keeping profits below the top marginal tax rate.

Originally posted by normbenign
I am pretty certain I'm wasting my time, but when bumping up against the next marginal rate, with a 90% tax rate, and no additional deductions, why would any sane person not just slow down or suspend operations for that fiscal year?

There is nothing to gain.

Yes there is, the 10%. We're talking about income here, depending on where you start this 90% tariff (I would go for a 70% top tariff myself, like the US had under the die-hard socialist Nixon) you're looking mostly at CEO's and the like who are simply grabbing whatever they can.

Originally posted by normbenign
That is total Tauroscatology. Take fire and police, probably a local basic mainstay. Usually the wealthy live in cloistered communities with their own private patrols, have expensive fire alarms and deterent systems. They are far less likely to use these services, than poor folks living in fire traps heated with kerosene space heaters.

Who owns the fire traps the poor live in? Who loses money if it burns down?