<p>“Note - In 1954 the tax rate for those earning > $200K was 91%. That’s getting fairly close to 100%.”</p>
<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>
<p>This is what happens. We get the “strawman” argument. Nobody is proposing the above. But now people start talking about the above instead of the real issues. </p>
<p>Garbage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I guess what you are proposing is that the capital gains rates should be the same as the income tax rates and there should be no deductions?</p>
<p>
I just responded to your comment and am stating that it’s not so wild that ‘nobody’ is considering it. But, if the posters here aren’t proposing it then great.</p>
<p>
No one is going to ‘give’ me health care. I can guarantee I’d be paying for it either directly or through increased taxes. There’s no free lunch for most of us.</p>
<p>UCSD, if it is not so wild, tell me one public figure that is proposing to tax income at 90 to 100%…</p>
<p>…vote for someone who won’t give you health care … </p>
<p>“No one is going to ‘give’ me health care. I can guarantee I’d be paying for it either directly or through increased taxes. There’s no free lunch for most of us.”</p>
<p>You will pay for health care. It’s not free.</p>
<p>Yeah, you get a lot of straw men and out-and-out falsehoods when you start to talk about taxes. Who do you suppose promotes these sidetracks?</p>
<p>Here’s a few things to put up front: </p>
<ol>
<li> INCOME TAX IS NOT THE ONLY TAX!!! (Sorry for the caps, but this insidious subtext pervades the discussion.) FICA tax, sales tax, property tax, use taxes - many collected indirectly, instead of the obvious method of filing a return, making out a check and sending it in - take a much larger portion of the poor and middle class’ income than they do of the wealthy.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>2.
Baloney! One simple example: Taxpayer dollars pay a huge bill each year to support air travel: municipally owned airports, the air traffic control system, etc. etc. Who gets more benefit from that? And it’s not just the direct benefit to those who personally travel, but those of us who own stock in American companies receive the benefit that those companies get from not having to pay their own way for all of the infrastructure they need. You can take any governmental budget in America, from the smallest city up the Uncle Sam, and if you know how to read the numbers, you’ll find government subsidizing business at every turn. Who owns business? Not the bagger at your grocery store - he just pays the taxes that government turns around to help his company’s shareholders’ bottom line.</p>
<p>The thing is, the governmental expenditures which enrich the wealthy are not as obvious as a check in the mail, so people ignore/overlook/forget about them. Just like they ignore/overlook/forget about the less obvious taxes. The bottom line is that U-U-Dad, while sincere in his beliefs, is dead wrong in his assumptions about who pays and who benefits. </p>
<p>Dead wrong.</p>
<p>If it were not for all those stores and businesses I’d have a hard time taking care of myself rather than working. Should I be tending my crops, raising my animals, making my furniture from the trees I planted to put in the house I built??? Business allows us to earn money and provides efficient ways to get things we want and need. It is not some other force that does not benefit you too. That is the most preposterous insane ill-conceived argument I have ever seen.</p>
<p>Oh, I just got back from a cross-country plane trip. I’d estimate at least 75% of the people were not business travelers.</p>
<p>the problem with Maher’s rant (altho it had some funny lines) is that the vast majority of people in this country already have health care. Thus, chastising people to vote for someone that will give them what they already have is a non-sequituir. Heck, even the Auto Workers would have less coverage under any nationalized plan.</p>
<p>Kluge: I agree with you on air traffic control. Fees/taxes for private pilots & corporate jets should be increased, astronomically.</p>
<p>Barron’s, as usual you’ve failed to get the point. I’m not saying government subsidy of business is a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. What I’m saying is that it’s dumb to pretend it doesn’t exist. U-U-Dad seems to think that the poor old rich folks are paying through the nose and getting nothing in return. My point is - they’re getting lots in return. It’s just not as obvious as a check in the mail. (Although they get those, too.)</p>
<p>(P.S. - whenever you feel I’ve made a “preposterous insane ill-conceived argument” go back and read it again. You’ve probably substituted your own “argument” in place of what I was actually saying, like you did this time.)</p>
<p>Bluebayou: you probably don’t agree with me. I’m all for subsidizing business and commerce, because it helps the national economy, just like welfare and food stamps do. I just want people to take their blinders off and recognize the extent to which their tax dollars come right home and help them out. And generally speaking, the more you have, the more you get. People just seem to overlook the benefits they get, while waxing sanctimonious about anything anyone else gets; then reverse the process for taxes paid.</p>
<p>If this is not clear as to your intent–maybe you need to rewrite it. It SURE does not sound like you think it’s a good thing. Own up to your dislike of business or quit posting misleading rants. I benefit and YOU benefit from having businesses in this country. If we did not they would be out of business pretty quickly. The fact that they require some profit to continue in business is just fine with me.</p>
<p>"Baloney! One simple example: Taxpayer dollars pay a huge bill each year to support air travel: municipally owned airports, the air traffic control system, etc. etc. Who gets more benefit from that? And it’s not just the direct benefit to those who personally travel, but those of us who own stock in American companies receive the benefit that those companies get from not having to pay their own way for all of the infrastructure they need. You can take any governmental budget in America, from the smallest city up the Uncle Sam, and if you know how to read the numbers, you’ll find government subsidizing business at every turn. Who owns business? Not the bagger at your grocery store - he just pays the taxes that government turns around to help his company’s shareholders’ bottom line.</p>
<p>The thing is, the governmental expenditures which enrich the wealthy are not as obvious as a check in the mail, so people ignore/overlook/forget about them. Just like they ignore/overlook/forget about the less obvious taxes. The bottom line is that U-U-Dad, while sincere in his beliefs, is dead wrong in his assumptions about who pays and who benefits"</p>
<p>Barrons, Kluge was very clear.</p>
<p>Buffett thinks the tax code is out of whack. Does Buffett hate business?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of the employees of the airline industry (including the toilet scrubbers) are probably receiving the most benefit from that.</p>
<p>Bay, a friend of mine is getting a multi-million dollar subsidy from the government because the government wants him to do something. It’s never going to be publicly known.</p>
<p>Toilets are involved. I highly doubt the toilet scrubbers are going to benefit as much. ;)</p>
<p>Bay, we all benefit from government subsidy of air travel. We also all benefit from food stamp payments to poor people, which they use to … buy food with, which help stores, farmers, etc. Do you think that a bagger at Safeway is the primary beneficiary of food stamps issued to a welfare mom? By the same token, do you think the airline industry employees are actually wealthier because of the public subsidization of air travel? They’re getting paid for their labor at their jobs, the same as they would anywhere else.</p>
<p>Don’t deceive yourself as to the primary beneficiary is to most of government’s expenses. The more you’ve got, the more you get. That’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>Buffett is such an outlier that what he thinks or what he pays has nothing to do with the typical taxpayer–even a fairly rich one. He just donated billions to the gates Foundation. I have no idea how he takes that deduction but it might just have a tiny impact on what he pays. It’s the ultimate red herring. The fact is that most of the US Income tax is paid by the top earners, period. I know I pay more than the median family income figure that Mini is always posting. Is it fair–I don’t know. I think I pay at least my fair share and I don’t want to pay any more.</p>
<p>Warren is one of my favorite examples of HYPOCRISY. He (and Bill Gate’s dad) have spread the gospel of maintaining the inheritance tax (“death” taxes to some), all the while he is donating the bulk of his fortune to a non-profit which enables him to AVOID the inheritance tax on that money. </p>
<p>kluge: yes, I don’t agree with subsidizing business, since I dont’ think the government is smart enough to know which businesses to subsidize. If they subsidize them all, what’s the point? </p>
<p>Just one example is a federal law that adopted to protect small airports when the airlines were deregulated back in the dark ages. Essentially, it subsidizes an airline to provide air service to the towns of two of the richest colleges in the country (Ithaca & Hanover), among others. After several decades, can’t folks afford unsubsidized tickets to Cornell?</p>
<p>I don’t get where the anger is coming from. (dstark, I don’t understand what you are trying to convey, but it sounds sinister…)</p>
<p>Of course we all benefit from tax subsidies, no one is denying that. The highest benefit is the creation of jobs. Kluge, are you saying the rich should pay more taxes and get the same benefit as the guy who pays less taxes? Or are you saying the rich pay less taxes now than the poor but get more benefit from government subsidies? If so, that is plain wrong (the paying less part, that is).</p>
<p>Here is an idea that is somewhat off topic. Progressive income tax is illigal. Read the constitution and you will see that taxes are supposed to be the same throughout the land.</p>
<p>Bay, I’m saying that the rich pay more and get more. Simple as that. And I’m saying they should pay more than they do now, at least in part because they get more benefit from government while paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class do. My beef is the people who are blind to the benefits they receive from government while wailing and gnashing their teeth about the injustice of having to pay taxes anytime somebody else gets some benefit they don’t happen to share.</p>
<p>Most people are fiscal myopians: they are unable to perceive the benefits they receive from Government at all levels - it’s like they think those things come from God or are simply their “natural” birthright or something. At the same time, most people are keenly aware of every penny they pay in taxes, while being unable to see all of the various taxes other people are paying. It’s an understandable human trait, but I’m still amazed at the extent to which people can heatedly assert that they’re being victimized by the tax and benefit functions of government, when they are obviously oblivious to everything they’re receiving, and everything that others are paying.</p>
<p>Bay, I’m saying what Kluge is saying.</p>
<p>Those at the top are paying less as a percentage of their income in taxes as those in the middle. I think that is wrong.</p>
<p>Those at the top also complain about the government at the same time they benefit from the government’s largesse. I think that is hypocritical.</p>
<p>The industry Barrons is involved with would collapse without all the government subsidies.</p>
<p>Collapse.</p>
<p>So when I hear complaints from somebody in that industry about the tax structure, I gag. When I hear from people who make their money from capital gains complain about taxes, I puke. OK. Not really. :)</p>
<p>It’s sinister to think that somebody who makes $60,000 shouldn’t pay taxes at a higher rate than somebody who makes millions?</p>
<p>It’s sinister to think that this country should have universal health care?</p>
<p>It’s sinister to think that spending over 2 trillion for a war or two is ridiculous?</p>
<p>It’s sinister to point out when somebody brings up a “strawman” argument and pulls numbers out of his @@@?</p>
<p>Dstark, this is your post that conjured “sinister” to me:</p>
<p>
</p>