LeviF Posted August 15, 2011 Posted August 15, 2011 I am 42. so barring an inheritance I have a job. But way to stick up for the racist !@#$ on the board. You cover yourself in glory and have made a new friend that you apparently agree with. I hope the two of you are happy together. Are you on a bender again, Booster?
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Are you on a bender again, Booster? Nah, just dishing it out as most do not seem to want to acknowledge basic facts. Not a strawman when you are right.
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 What are we trying to prove now? Because really, I stopped paying attention when you started comparing dissimilar numbers and tried to make a point with it. I have 3rdnlng to shovel happy, happy horseshit; what the !@#$ do I need you for? Every Cliff Clavin needs his Norm.
birdog1960 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Nah, just dishing it out as most do not seem to want to acknowledge basic facts. Not a strawman when you are right. doin just fine. these confounding, ridiculous tactics always come out when they won't concede a point they know to be true but is not aligned with their agenda...it means you're winning. any objective, new reader of this thread would conclude this.
Joe Miner Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Nah, just dishing it out as most do not seem to want to acknowledge basic facts. Not a strawman when you are right. Not a fact when you assume.
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Not a fact when you assume. Prove me wrong. I consider you one of the punk bitches here that parrot the party line, talk a game but cannot prove it with simple math. Edited August 16, 2011 by Booster4324
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 But they're not paying a comparable percentage even if you do factor the payroll taxes in, because 50% of the payroll tax is paid by the employer, while 100% of the payroll tax is paid by sole proprietors (small business owners). The folly of high taxes on capital transactions is that those sales are discretionary, and by raising taxes you will slow down the number of transactions and total revenues will drop. Inverse happened under Clinton. Everyone loves to point out to the balanced budget in his last term, but that happened only because capital gains receipts skyrocketed after he lowered the rates. Amazing how that works. "My side" argues that the most effective taxation is a low marginal federal tax rate on everybody - maybe a progressive split - 12% below $50K and 20% on everybody else. No dedctions. You and that Rob's House idiot are vomiting up political points, not economic reality. S o person making $20,000 a year will kick in 12% of it for federal taxes? Really? That's your solution? How wouldn't have tax receipts have been even higher under Clinton if the rates were kept higher? You would have to argue that the dot.com boom wouldn't have been as attractive to investors with a slightly higher tax rate? That's stupid! And can you show me some proof that increasing the capital gains tax will kill investing in equities?
Dante Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Link I pay a higher percentage than Warren Buffet. Nice. But no big, the uber wealthy pay less than I do percentage wise and the top companies pay nothing or are even owed money. Sweet system. Where is the outcry to lower the taxes on these guys? Oh wait, I see it here every day. NM Even at a smaller percentage he still contributes way more money than you do. Get off your ass and get into his tax bracket. Then you can pay ass much as he does.
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Even at a smaller percentage he still contributes way more money than you do. Get off your ass and get into his tax bracket. Then you can pay ass much as he does. God you are a !@#$ing idiot.
TPS Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) If Buffet addressed total taxation, then I would as well. But since his rant specifically talks about federal income taxes, then it should be addressed in that context. A logical question is how did Buffet pay 6% less than people in his bracket did? I'm guessing that extra $2.5 million in tax savings buys pretty good tax advice. As for the idiotic assertion that the rich pay less, you're smart enough to understand that a tax rate is not the same thing as taxes paid. If your objective is to maximize revenues, you need to either widen the pool of payers or have people generate more income for you to tax. Simply raising tax rates on the rich will not accomplish either one of the above. But it will win you votes (including yours, I imagine) If you read Buffet's actual editorial he says total federal taxes, not just income taxes. He is including payroll taxes. It is funny though that the guy who actually makes billions says tax me (us) more, but the tools still argue against him. He suggests that the top rate be increased on income of $1 million, and a further bump for the really rich bastards over $10 million. Way to go Warren! Edited August 16, 2011 by TPS
Joe Miner Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Prove me wrong. I consider you one of the punk bitches here that parrot the party line, talk a game but cannot prove it with simple math. You're the one making claims based on your assumptions. The burden of proof is on you. Put together a rational argument based on facts and then we'll talk. So far all you have is Warren Buffet paid 17.4% in federal income tax. You paid something like 35%. Therefore ipso facto bada bing hocus pocus open sesame you have a higher total tax burden than Warren. Federal taxes are not an indication of total tax burden, and total tax burden cannot be derived from federal tax rate. Come up with an actual coherent point and the discussion you seem to want to have can begin. Otherwise you're gonna keep setting up strawman arguments and getting your panties in a bunch when people call you on it.
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 You're the one making claims based on your assumptions. The burden of proof is on you. Put together a rational argument based on facts and then we'll talk. So far all you have is Warren Buffet paid 17.4% in federal income tax. You paid something like 35%. Therefore ipso facto bada bing hocus pocus open sesame you have a higher total tax burden than Warren. Federal taxes are not an indication of total tax burden, and total tax burden cannot be derived from federal tax rate. Come up with an actual coherent point and the discussion you seem to want to have can begin. Otherwise you're gonna keep setting up strawman arguments and getting your panties in a bunch when people call you on it. I did prove it. I posted stats that show that it is more like 14% than 50. Plus the rich pay squat comparatively. None of you have posted anything that disproves that.
SDS Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 But it is indicative of the overall taxation. I bet when you add in all other taxation he barely breaks 30%. Probably far less and yet that is still far lower than my taxes and I am not a high earner by any stretch of the imagination. This is incorrect. The reason he gets away with this rhetoric is because 35% of the profit is already being given to the govt. before they cut his check. Add in his 15% and you get a 50% tax rate. So, no - your tax rate isn't higher. You can play stupid number games like this all day. Just tax corp profits at 50% - eliminate cap gains for the individual and what do you get? The govt gets the same amount. Buffet gets the same amount after tax, but his "total federal tax rate" is now like 2%. Yet there isn't a single extra dollar in his pocket. If you read Buffet's actual editorial he says total federal taxes, not just income taxes. He is including payroll taxes. It is funny though that the guy who actually makes billions says tax me (us) more, but the tools still argue against him. He suggests that the top rate be increased on income of $1 million, and a further bump for the really rich bastards over $10 million. Way to go Warren! That's fine, but he is using faulty rhetoric to make a point. If he wants to pay more taxes - he can cut the check. I won't argue.
GG Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 That's fine, but he is using faulty rhetoric to make a point. If he wants to pay more taxes - he can cut the check. I won't argue. Yup, especially since he's obviously paying a lot less than the average multi millionaire pays. Never mind that residing in Omaha, his state tax is significantly less than his fellow limo liberals on the coasts. He can start by contributing the $2.5 million he saved into the Treasury.
Joe Miner Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I did prove it. I posted stats that show that it is more like 14% than 50. Plus the rich pay squat comparatively. None of you have posted anything that disproves that. So what is your point in this thread and how does it relate to Warren Buffet's federal income tax versus your income tax and the average American's total tax burden? Or have we totally switched topics after your first drunken post?
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 So what is your point in this thread and how does it relate to Warren Buffet's federal income tax versus your income tax and the average American's total tax burden? Or have we totally switched topics after your first drunken post? Total taxation you moron. This is incorrect. The reason he gets away with this rhetoric is because 35% of the profit is already being given to the govt. before they cut his check. Add in his 15% and you get a 50% tax rate. So, no - your tax rate isn't higher. You can play stupid number games like this all day. Just tax corp profits at 50% - eliminate cap gains for the individual and what do you get? The govt gets the same amount. Buffet gets the same amount after tax, but his "total federal tax rate" is now like 2%. Yet there isn't a single extra dollar in his pocket. That's fine, but he is using faulty rhetoric to make a point. If he wants to pay more taxes - he can cut the check. I won't argue. Prove it.
Joe Miner Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Total taxation you moron. You're really making an ass of yourself on this topic. You should really quit digging.
SDS Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Prove it. Prove what? That his income is suspiciously close to the 15% capital gains tax rate? Seriously? Where do you think an investment tycoon gets his money - a lemonade stand?
Booster4324 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Prove what? That his income is suspiciously close to the 15% capital gains tax rate? Seriously? Where do you think an investment tycoon gets his money - a lemonade stand? That is my point. Total taxation. C'mon boss man you are smarter than that.
DaveinElma Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 That is my point. Total taxation. C'mon boss man you are smarter than that. Do you think that its moral that the government can take 6 million dollars away from a single person?
Recommended Posts