New Rule: Don't Fear Socialized Medicine and Mexican Immigrants.

Parent Cafe
21

<p>

</p>

<p>The reason we can’t have a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the wealthy. It has everything to do with the home interest deduction, which benefits, primarily the middle class. Also, we can’t have a flat tax bcos it would impact the middle class in high income tax states. And finally, it won’t work bcos it would eliminate the charitable deduction. The last serious flat tax proposal was Reagan 1 (three rates, 0%, 15%, 25%), which was pilloried by whom???</p>

<p>Yes, the rich (and Warren Buffett rich) have homes, but as a % of income…</p>

<p>btw: an easy way to lower the tax bite on Warren’s secretary is to eliminate FICA, or alternatively, Warren should campaign that it be applied to 100% of income (no cap).</p>

22

<p>Bluebayou some of the stuff you wrote I agree with but some I don’t.</p>

<p>“The reason we can’t have a flat tax has absolutely nothing to do with the wealthy.”</p>

<p>I disagree with this. The wealthy who make their money in capital gains, would have their tax rates go up under a flat tax that includes taxing all income including capital gains.</p>

<p>Not going to happen.</p>

<p>“btw: an easy way to lower the tax bite on Warren’s secretary is to eliminate FICA, or alternatively, Warren should campaign that it be applied to 100% of income (no cap).”</p>

<p>If we take away the cap, Warren Buffet’s tax rates would barely budge because he makes his money in capital gains. Capital gains are not subject to the social security tax as you know.</p>

<p>FICA is not going to be eliminated either.</p>

<p>Under Reagan (with help from Bill Bradley) we had the flattest tax rates of our time.</p>

<p>“Under President Reagan, the capital-gains tax rate was cut again in 1981 to a maximum of 20 percent, then increased in 1986 to 28 percent, with a small additional increase in the early 1990s to 29.19 percent.”</p>

<p>When Reagan raised the capital gains tax rates from 20 to 28 percent, that helped kill the flat tax idea.</p>

23

<p>dstark:</p>

<p>There ain’t that many rich people. If the middle class is willing to forego the home interest deduction and the state income tax deduction and the medical expense deduction, amoung others, they could EASILY outvote the rich – greatest numbers rule.</p>

<p>Unless you have seen Warren’s tax return, I’m not sure we can conclude how much of his income are dividends. He makes $100k salary from BH, which does not pay a dividend. He also makes big bucks by serving on Boards, but that is fully taxable income. Of course, those companies prolly also give him stock which may pay dividends. But how much? In any event, dividends are already taxed at the corporate level, so, in essence, its double taxation. I would also guess that Warren has a lot of municipal bonds in his personal holdings, which are untaxed. Are local governments willing to give that up?</p>

<p>Why not eliminate FICA? Its the most regressive tax in teh US.</p>

24

<p>Bluebayou, it doesn’t matter how many rich people there are. It just matters that they set the policies. Which they do.</p>

<p>I would be shocked if Warren Buffett owned lots of munis.</p>

<p>“Why not eliminate FICA? Its the most regressive tax in the US.”</p>

<p>It’s not going to happen so it doesn’t matter what I think about FICA.</p>

25

<p>kluge;</p>

<p>then what is the point of your post #10? If you just accept a fait accompli…</p>

26

<p>I keep hoping for two things. The American people get candidates that really represent their interests. The American people actually vote for these candidates.</p>

<p>I don’t see it happening in the next election. (Bill Maher is right).</p>

<p>We aren’t going to get a flat tax. I didn’t say we were. I was being sarcastic.</p>

<p>Do you really think we are going to get rid of FICA? Which major candidate is suggesting this?</p>

27

<p>sorry, I missed the sarcasm part; there are many who long for a flat tax, adn I thought you might be making a suggestion/recommendation to revisit that topic. The Maher link that came up on the earlier post (when I clicked on it) had nothing to do with politics, so I am at a loss to his comments on the next election.</p>

28

<p>I submitted the first link incorrectly, look at the second link I posted t hat had to do with taxes. I’ll ;post the transcript of the taxes comment also when it becomes available.</p>

29

<p>Here is the excerpt. I asked the mods to put this link up on top that had the video, but I guess this doesn’t fit into their agenda so they didn’t bother. </p>

<p>"And, finally, New Rule: If America’s richest one-percent are now so rich that even a five-star hotel isn’t good enough, it’s time to bring back the guillotine. </p>

<p>Yes, what’s being dubbed America’s first “six-star” hotel has just opened in Miami Beach. How ritzy is it? Well, let’s put it this way. J-Lo can afford to stay here, but her husband can’t. At this hotel, when they ask if you’d like help with your bag, they’re talking about your scrotum. </p>

<p>But, this is America, and we can afford it, along with $2-trillion wars and tax cuts. But, there’s one thing we can’t afford, and that’s health care for sick kids. </p>

<p>So, the question I’m asking is, how did it all ever get so uneven? Warren Buffett asks that question. He’s the third-richest man in the world, and a decent man. He points out how ridiculous it is that he - the third-richest man in the world - is taxed at 17.7%, while his secretary, who makes sixty grand a year, is taxed at 30%. Which brings up a very fundamental economic question: why is Warren Buffett paying his secretary only sixty grand a year? He’s the third-richest man in the world! </p>

<p>But, you know, the days when a shop girl in the big city could support herself working a full 40-hour week, or a family of four could live off a single blue-collar breadwinner, are as bygone a fantasy as malt shops or heterosexual wizards. If you’re living hand-to-mouth, and still buying into the con that the big threats to America are socialized medicine, Mexican immigrants and tax increases, then you’re not being kept down by the rich. You’re being kept down by you. </p>

<p>In America, it’s not the haves and have-nots. It’s the haves and the been-hads. If you, the citizen, deliberately vote for someone who won’t give you health care over someone you will, you need to have your head examined. Except you can’t afford to have your head examined. </p>

<p>Please remember that if you hear the new radio ad from Rudy Giuliani, who says his chances of surviving prostate cancer in America were 82%, whereas, in England, under “socialized medicine,” his chances would have been 44%. Numbers that, like the cancer, were pulled directly out of Rudy’s ass. </p>

<p>Now, I know socialized medicine sounds like Stalin himself is going to come over to your house and perform a forced sterilization. But, really all it is, is universal health care. Which means everybody - not just the rich - gets to see a doctor when their erection lasts longer than 72 hours. </p>

<p>And I just hope that one day, ten or fifteen years from now, one of Rush Limbaugh’s “Ditto Heads” is going to wake up in his cell in debtors’ prison - because that’s where President Giuliani throws you when you can’t pay your Visa bill - and he’ll turn on the Fox Financial Channel, and as he watches some CEO gloat over his $200 million in stock options, he’s going to suddenly realize that he’s been had. And on that day, that man will begin the great middle class uprising of the 21st century. </p>

<p>Oh, no, he’ll probably just switch over to “Pimp My Truck.” "</p>

<p>© 2007 Home Box Office, Inc. All Rights Reserved.</p>

30

<p>“The tax laws have very specific thresholds for subjecting individuals who hire household help to withholding rules.”</p>

<p>So? The people who deliberately violate the rules are criminals. And (speaking as a former corporate lawyer who knows a lot of well-off families with gardeners, nannies, and maids), the number of household employers who withhold is a tiny fraction of the number that employ qualifying workers.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>…and if so, it further supports my assertion that Kluge’s statement about the toilet cleaners paying more taxes than the capital-gains-earning toilet sitters is likely not true.</p>

32

<p>Let’s not get sidetracked the bottom line is that the rich avoid taxes.</p>

33

<p>I think most people avoid taxes as much as they can within the bounds of the law and some avoid it outside the bounds of the law including some people getting paid in cash as other posters have pointed out. Assuming you earn an income (or when you will someday when you’re out of school if you’re a student) I can virtually guarantee you are or will take advantage of any tax avoidance you legally can. If your parents are paying for your college education (if you’re a student) they’re probably taking advantage of tax laws to reduce their burden of paying for college. Unless they’re ‘rich’ that is, in whiich case those deductions don’t apply. Actually it doesn’t take that much income (less than the threshold of ‘rich’ IMO) to not qualify for those deductions.</p>

<p>If you don’t consider yourself ‘rich’, do you think the rich pay less taxes than you? Why do you think they should pay more than you? You use (or will use) the roads, military, social security, police, fire protection, etc. just as much as they do. They’re in effect subsidizing you already so why do you think they should pay even more? Many or most of them (depending on how you define ‘rich’) probably pay more in taxes than you earn in a year. I guess it’s your belief that that’s not enough - they should pay even more. Quantify it - how do you define ‘rich’ and what limit should there be, if any, on the taxation rates? Do you think it should hit 100% at some point so there’s an effective cap on income?</p>

<p>If you are a student and haven’t earned significant income yet you might someday change your mind on some of these points. You’ll see that not only are you paying more taxes than many other people (who’ll be complaining that you’re not paying even more in taxes) but that most people earning more than you pay even more than you in taxes.</p>

34

<p>“Quantify it - how do you define ‘rich’ and what limit should there be, if any, on the taxation rates? Do you think it should hit 100% at some point so there’s an effective cap on income?”</p>

<p>This argument makes no sense.
Who is proposing this? </p>

<p>How did we go from the rich paying taxes at lower rates than the middle class to “Do you think it should hit 100% at some point so there’s an effective cap on income?”</p>

<p>That argument is bizarre and obfuscates the issues.</p>

<p>It is disgusting that the richest country in the world can afford 2 trillion for wars, but not universal health care.</p>

<p>gottaloveucla, thanks for posting the excerpt.</p>

35

<p>I don’t know that anyone’s proposing it and it wasn’t an argument - it was a simple question. This thread has the ideas of individuals so some may think so (that the rate should eventually hit 100%) but rather than bandying about the term ‘rich’ and stating they should pay ‘more’ taxes it’d help the discussion to quantify what the individual considers when using those terms.</p>

36

<p>Nobody thinks people should be taxed at 100%. It’s bs.</p>

<p>These are the issues…</p>

<p>"So, the question I’m asking is, how did it all ever get so uneven? Warren Buffett asks that question. He’s the third-richest man in the world, and a decent man. He points out how ridiculous it is that he - the third-richest man in the world - is taxed at 17.7%, while his secretary, who makes sixty grand a year, is taxed at 30%. Which brings up a very fundamental economic question: why is Warren Buffett paying his secretary only sixty grand a year? He’s the third-richest man in the world! </p>

<p>But, you know, the days when a shop girl in the big city could support herself working a full 40-hour week, or a family of four could live off a single blue-collar breadwinner, are as bygone a fantasy as malt shops or heterosexual wizards. If you’re living hand-to-mouth, and still buying into the con that the big threats to America are socialized medicine, Mexican immigrants and tax increases, then you’re not being kept down by the rich. You’re being kept down by you. </p>

<p>In America, it’s not the haves and have-nots. It’s the haves and the been-hads. If you, the citizen, deliberately vote for someone who won’t give you health care over someone you will, you need to have your head examined. Except you can’t afford to have your head examined."</p>

37

<p>I watched the youtube broadcast in OP, but it didn’t seem to have anything to do with taxes. So I preface by saying that I’m participating in this discussion without a clear understanding of what the original question was. Anyway, the middle class pay taxes on their capital gains at the same rate as the rich. Where is the issue? That Buffet doesn’t pay enough taxes? Was the total amount of his capital gains, income, property and sales taxes paid per year proffered? Was that amount less than his secretary’s tax bill? How many jobs has she created/supported this year compared to him? How about charitable donations, who made more?..</p>

38

<p>

Given that you can’t speak for everyone your statement is likely untrue. I think there are plenty of people who believe that at some point the tax rate should be at or near 100%. But my question wasn’t implying anything about you or other posters - it was a simple question to help discover how the posters would quantify their statements.</p>

<p>Note - In 1954 the tax rate for those earning > $200K was 91%. That’s getting fairly close to 100%.</p>

39

<p>Well here’s a good way to define it. If the person making 60k a year is paying 33 percent, the person making 12 billion should pay the same percentage if not more.</p>

40

<p>^^^Who the heck is going to work for less than 10% take-home pay? Or invest their $$$ with any kind of risk associated with it?</p>