News Wealth Distribution in the US: Challenges and Solutions

[russ_watters]

any one working is paying a 15% SS tax plus any income tax...

This is factually wrong. There is a pretty high percentage of the population that pays no income tax: In 2005, it was just under 33%. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=155

And that doesn't include other people for whom the net balance between taxes paid and government cash subsidies received is zero or negative.

Generally, the SS tax is not included in such discussions as the SS tax is basically forced retirement savings. It is money you get back.

...but a so called investor earning capital gains pays only a flat 15% total tax
and also gets a big break on dividends and can use tax credits and other write offs

Could you please provide an argument rather than just spewing rhetoric? What is wrong with a 15% capital gains tax? Keep in mind that money spent to buy stock has typically already been taxed as income. And most capital gains are paid by ordinary people cashing in 401k's, not the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets' of the world.

I agree that we should try a little harder to get taxes out of the guys who use capital gains as a high fraction of their income, but we should not penalize people for saving for retirement. A blanket raising of the capital gains tax does that.

...few of those at the very top pay progressive tax rates as that is only for EARNED INCOME
W Buffet '' I pay less tax then my office help''

Your claim, your responsibility to substantiate it: what fraction of people are in that situation where they receive much/most of their income via capital gains and thus pay a lower overall rate than, say, someone who makes $50K a year?

Note that I'm sure Warren Buffets secretaries probably make pretty good money and may even be young and unmarried - that segment of society (the affluent, young singles) are pretty heavily taxed.

unEARNED income is where the real money is made and that tax is regressive not progressive

It is difficult to consider a system regressive when the bottom third pays no income tax at all.

the BIG LIE the neo-conned love to tell is the rich are over taxed
BS only a few foolish rich really pay the top rates mostly sports movie or rock stars
who have big earned income that they can't hide
most biz CEO types get options far bigger then their base earned income
and use the many credits deductions and loop holes to avoid much of their taxes
and have the CORPs pay for the jets sky boxes travel costs limos ect that are untaxed to them and a write off to the CORP for double tax avoidance both to their personal taxes
and the CORPs taxes

Once again, lots of rhetoric, no facts. What fraction of the population are you talking about there? How many people actually make the majority of their income on stock options? I suspect it is far below 1% and personally, I'm not real concerned with the fact that a guy like Bill Gates or the Walton family is independently wealthy given the enormous contribution they have provided to the economy.

 

[russ_watters]

I bet anyone making at or close to minimum would disagree that it wouldn't help much.

And that is relevant how? Ask anyone if they would like more money and they will answer yes!

 

[russ_watters]

It makes sense in the context of "If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices" which I was responding to, and you don't have such a broad definition of "rich" as to include with anyone the money or credit to start a company with.

You need to define what you mean by "rich", then. Is it the top 1% of income earners? 5%? 20%?

I'm saying "If you do it both ways, it balances out." In other words, I'd have preferred to not to do either, but I notice one being done more than the other, and hence am looking for balance though proposing the contrary.

So the glass is half full/empty and you think empty is better than full, but you are going to fill it anyway? That makes no sense. If you believe that capitalism should let both fail and right now it only let's half fail, then the only logical course of action to support is making it so both are allowed to fail. Otherwise you are supporting a course of action that goes directly against your stated opinion!

Exactly, I'm in this boat too, though not nearly to the extent Buffet is. Regardless, I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.

It is pretty simple, kyleb - I, like most middle and upper middle class workers am going to be relying on investment income in order to retire. Investment income also played a critical role in enabling me to buy a house.

Perhaps the solution is to make the capital gains tax both progressive and situation dependent.

 

[russ_watters]

I know that we already have this system in place, but I also know their are many here that don't believe we should.

The top rate at times has been much higher than it is now, but if you just want my personal opinion, 35-40% for the top bracket seems fair to me.

At what income level would you place the top bracket?

And collecting taxes from those below the poverty line is somewhat of a meaningless gesture anyways, and seeing as how they are already being milked for all they've got from businesses, I think it would also be fair for them to be excluded from paying income tax.

Rhetoric about businesses milking them aside, as I've already pointed out, the bottom third of the population already doesn't pay any income tax.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, I forgot to respond to this question previously. I'd prefer a strictly flat tax rate with the only break being no taxation of individual income under the poverty line, just whatever anyone earns above it.

Wow, kyleb. That's very surprising and I don't think it would fly with most liberals considering it means that that two thirds of the bottom third of the population that is currently not getting taxed would suddenly get hit with a 25% (give or take) income tax.

Overall, I'm pretty sure your idea would make the system much less progressive than it is now. I'm pretty sure tha the problem are trying to fix (the super-rich not paying as much taxes, percentagewise) is a smaller problem than you think.

 

[WhoWee]

That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an article about it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Are you sure you're not taking his comments out of context? The argument is laughable.

From the list of links I provided.
http://www.answers.com/topic/berkshire-hathaway-inc

Berkshire Hathaway

Hoover's Profile: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
Sponsored Links
Warren Buffett's Stocks

Berkshire Hathaway

Home > Library > Business & Finance > Hoover's Profiles
(NYSE:BRK.A)
Company Financials
Income Statement
Balance Sheet
Cash Flow Statement

Contact Information
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
3555 Farnam St., Ste. 1440
Omaha, NE 68131
NE Tel. 402-346-1400
Fax 402-346-3375

Type: Public
On the web: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com
Employees: 246,000
Employee growth: 5.6%

Berkshire Hathaway is where Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man (behind his good buddy Bill Gates), spreads his risk by investing in a variety of industries, from insurance and utilities to apparel and food, and building materials to jewelry and furniture retailers. Its core insurance subsidiaries include National Indemnity, GEICO Corporation, and reinsurance giant General Re. The company also owns Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Johns Manville, Clayton Homes, Helzberg Diamonds, McLane Company, and MidAmerican Energy Holdings. Known as the Oracle of Omaha, Buffett holds more than a quarter of Berkshire Hathaway, which owns more than 70 firms and has stakes in more than a dozen others.

Key numbers for fiscal year ending December, 2008:
Sales: $107,786.0M
One year growth: (8.8%)
Net income: $4,994.0M
Income growth: (62.2%)

Do you still maintain that Buffet doesn't pay his share of taxes? How much do you think he pays in the form of matching taxes on 246,000 employees alone? http://www.justanswer.com/questions/i382-matching-taxes-taken

Assume the $50,740 median household income level. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

246,000 employees @ $50,740 @ (6.2 + 1.45) = A fair share?

Plus, do you honestly believe he didn't pay income taxes on $4.994 billion in corporate earnings?

At the end of the day, I'd like to see this guy given the option of a 100% re-investment credit for funding start-ups. He clearly knows how to generate tax revenues through investment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's the point Buffet was making. He makes oodles of cash but pays very little in taxes because of all the loopholes available to him

Why does he take advantage of those loopholes then? Do you think that maybe it gives him the ability to pay more to his employees, give better benefits, and create more jobs?
Buffet is the model of what a person who owns a (or multiple) large corporation should be like. He showcases the potential altruism that can be found in capitalism. Unfortunately there are pressures in our modern corporatist establishment that hinder altruism and promote profits over people. "Punishment" of the success of these large corporations increases that pressure rather than promoting altruism. The pressure to continue maximizing profits despite the myriad pressures against being 'too successful' leads to horrible outcomes. A friend of mine was in the mortgage industry. When the industry was riding high as a lowly worker he made almost twice as much as I do, went to a company paid visit to disneyland, and one night he took me to a party his employer was putting on at a mansion with live music and waiters in tuxes. Now he is unemployed and nearly homeless.

I laughed out load (yes LOLed) the first time I heard about 'trickle down economics' but the fact is that there is something to the idea. While the idea may not have been implemented well previously, and it may not be something you can simply have faith in, it would seem undeniable that the more prosperous people are the more likely they are to be benevolent to the disadvantaged.

Exactly, I'm in this boat too, though not nearly to the extent Buffet is. Regardless, I don't see anything fair about working people being required to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than me, and am at a loss as to why so many working people defend it.

Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs? I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated. When I worked at an art supply store (I love art and art knowledge myself) more than half of the new employees disappeared after their first day or two due to the prospect of having to actually learn something about art and the products we sold. And it was a nice company that paid well over minimum wage to start and even gave hour long lunches (such lunches being nearly unheard of in low income jobs). The job was not hard at all. I spent most of my time there socializing with other employees and trying to find projects to occupy my time. In my current job as a security officer I have been absolutely baffled by the things that my coworkers do. I have seen people fired for picking up on underage girls, getting drunk or smoking pot on the job, stealing, sleeping in their cars, and even failure to do the absolute minimal requirements of the job (up to and including actually being at work when they say they are). If you have experienced this and understand this it will go a long way to helping you understand why people in low end jobs don't like the idea of helping out the 'disadvantaged'. Their experience tells them that the 'disadvantaged' are probably mostly lazy bums who don't want to work and they know that any extra expenses levied on their employers means that they are less likely to receive the benefits of their hard work while the 'lazy bums' who can't seem to make more than minimum wage are getting raises (ie, in the case of minimum wage increases).

Ah, I forgot to respond to this question previously. I'd prefer a strictly flat tax rate with the only break being no taxation of individual income under the poverty line, just whatever anyone earns above it. Granted, that is a long term goal rather than anything I'd expect to happen with the snap of some fingers, but I do consider that the best path to adjusting the current distribution of wealth.

I'm happy to see at least one more area where we seem to agree on something. :-)

 

[WhoWee]

By the way, anyone who attempts to make an argument that Buffet is a "fat cat CEO" is an idiot. Buffet is an investor with capital at risk. He's not a hired gun looking for golden parachutes.

Take a hard look at his list of CEO's and profile an example of excess compensation and wasteful spending - (hint) it will be hard to find even one CEO in this category among the 70+ corporate divisions in the portfolio. In the case of Buffet companies - the shareholders monitor CEO pay - they don't need Government intervention.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Are you sure you're not taking his comments out of context? The argument is laughable.

I'm quite sure I didn't take his comments out of context. Do you have any reason or evidence that they're out of context?

I'll bring up more times he has said this exact thing:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems
http://www.prisonplanet.com/buffett-we-need-more-taxes.html

Any more evidence required?

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

[strike]Actually its not that they pay taxes so much but that he pays payroll taxes and such on his employees.[/strike]
Actually, in fact, the more employees he has and pays the more money is collected in taxes (from money that he would have otherwise claimed as profit and been taxed on, though it is certainly a bit more complex than that).

Also, would you not believe that his ability to create more jobs and give his employees better benefits does not stem from his lower taxes and ability to continually reinvest his profits?

 

[rcgldr]

If you raise the tax on the rich and companies, they will just raise their prices

In the case of most consumer products, pricing has little to do with costs. The extreme examples are pharmaceuticals still under patent protection. If you raise the tax on the rich and lower the tax on the "non-rich" the difference in spending habits between those groups results in more consumer oriented purchases, which would benefit a consumer oriented economy such as the USA.

A fair society is one that allows some to steal from others in the society?

Not theft, but one issue with USA type economies is that along with wealth comes control, and that control results an adverse situation for those without wealth or control. The control can be in the form of a monopoly, or collusion between similar businesses.

We have a progressive tax code. Generally, the SS tax is not included in such discussions as the SS tax is basically forced retirement savings. It is money you get back.

Except in the USA there's a cap on FICA, currently around $110,000, this is a negativ tax bracket. FICA (SS) stopped beign forced retirement saving long ago, it's just another tax. Except for people that retired decades ago, you're never going to get that money back. The working generation will be stuck paying for the previous generation, and baby boomers will really increase this cost. Eliminating the cap on FICA would help this situation. Most of the other loopholes should be eliminated. As mentioned before, the USA is a consumer based economy, investing in stocks doesn't help the economy as much as spending money on consumer products so why have such a low rate for capital gains? Most of the money in the market is in the form of 401K's and the capital gains rate will never applied to the gains made in 401K programs, so the special rates mostly benefit the relatively wealthy.

And most capital gains are paid by ordinary people cashing in 401k's, not the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffets' of the world.

Capital gains rate doesn't apply to 401k, all of 401k withdrawals are taxed at the current rate as normal income.

we should try a little harder to get taxes out of the guys who use capital gains as a high fraction of their income, but we should not penalize people for saving for retirement. A blanket raising of the capital gains tax does that.

401K taxes, from Wiki: The character of any gains (including tax favored capital gains) are transformed into "ordinary income" at the time the money is withdrawn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

Any gains on after tax investments made into a Roth IRA won't be taxed (until the government decides to retroactively change the rules), so again an example where capital gains rate doesn't apply to retirement savings.

So many people fail to see the reason that rich continue to get richer is that it is a direct effect of government 'manipulation,' if you will, of the market place and the entire underlying price structure.

As I stated before along with wealth comes control, which is why you see such a huge concentration of wealth in a very small minority of the population. The issue is one of control, control by the private sector versus control of the public sector via regulations and taxes to prevent the problems that constantly occur when a greed based system is allowed to run unchecked.

Greed is continually cited as a cause of our current problems

It is a major problem. The main problem is that people making decisions in corporations often make those decisions based on personal gain, even if it's to the detriment of the corporation and it's shareholders or customers.

As to the issue of wealth redistribution, I think the Soviet Union

Few in the USA would suggest that. Perhaps medicine should become more socialized, but most of the wealth redistribution should be in the form of a progressive tax and a minimum wage. This "balances" the control between the wealthy and the non-wealthy.

The concept of private property and ownership seem to be left out of the debate. Who do the "redistributors" think owns the "big corporations"? The shareholders need to determine compensation levels of executives - not Government.

Again, the shareholders (owners) of the corporation must believe these CEO's have EARNED their compensation packages. Otherwise, they would voice their disapproval or sell their shares.

Again it's an issue of control. Seldom is there a pool of shareholders large enough to have any impact on what the corporations pay their executives or board members.

inheritance tax

My quote here. Even though this favors the wealthy, this is one tax that should either be abolished, or at worst, taxed at the ordinary income rates for the inheritors.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Also, would you not believe that his ability to create more jobs and give his employees better benefits does not stem from his lower taxes and ability to continually reinvest his profits?

On the one hand I have you, telling me that Warren Buffet is an economic genius and should have more control over his money. On the other hand I have Warren Buffet, economic genius telling me he should be taxed at a higher rate. Do you see where this argument falls flat? Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business. Do you have evidence that when super wealthy people get more money, they tend to spend it on employees? And not, say, an extra vacation to Europe?

 

[kyleb]

You need to define what you mean by "rich", then. Is it the top 1% of income earners? 5%? 20%?

I didn't have a percentage in mind when I made the comment, as "rich" was equality ambiguous in the comment I was replying to. Regardless, including anyone with the money or credit to start any company with as "rich" seems absurdly broad to me. To reiterate my point; if the large corporations raised the price of their products, that would open up a window for smaller companies to better undercut them and hence promote start-ups.

So the glass is half full/empty and you think empty is better than full, but you are going to fill it anyway? That makes no sense. If you believe that capitalism should let both fail and right now it only let's half fail, then the only logical course of action to support is making it so both are allowed to fail. Otherwise you are supporting a course of action that goes directly against your stated opinion!

Rather, you assumed a nonsensical opinion on me, and I am at a loss as to make any sense of how you derived it from anything I said.

I, like most middle and upper middle class workers am going to be relying on investment income in order to retire. Investment income also played a critical role in enabling me to buy a house.

I respect your situation wholeheartedly, and figure taxing investments like everything else would bring in far more revenue from those who make far more off investments than you. This would allow us to lower the percentage(s) at which income is taxed, doing little to no harm to your situation and conceivably some good depending on the specifics of your situation, which I will exemplify below. I'm also for downsizing our government to further lower taxes, but I suppose that discussion would be better suited for a separate thread.

Wow, kyleb. That's very surprising and I don't think it would fly with most liberals considering it means that that two thirds of the bottom third of the population that is currently not getting taxed would suddenly get hit with a 25% (give or take) income tax.

Best I can tell, you have confused yourself my imagining me a liberal, or somehow beholden to them. I've tried to explain to you that I'm not an ideologue before, are you still unwilling to accept this?

Overall, I'm pretty sure your idea would make the system much less progressive than it is now. I'm pretty sure tha the problem are trying to fix (the super-rich not paying as much taxes, percentagewise) is a smaller problem than you think.

Here is a simplifcation of how I see the problem, using http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece" which Office Shredder linked to previously:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

So, for the sake of argument, imagine a nation with only 100 people, one in Buffet's position and 99 employees in the position of his secretary. That makes the combined earnings before taxes:

60,000 * 99 + 46,000,000 = 51,940,000

For the rich guy's taxes:

0.177 * 46,000,000 = 8,142,000

For each of the 99 employees' taxes:

0.3 * 60,000 = 18,000

Which gives us a total tax revenue of:

18,000 * 99 + 8,142,000 = 9,924,000

Now, to find the flat rate we need to bring in the same tax revenue we simply solve:

9,924,000 / 51,940,000 = 0.191

And there we have a flat tax rate of 19.1%, which only brings the rich guy's tax rate up 1.4% while lowering the employees' down 10.9% of theirs. Does that not seem more reasonable than our current system to you?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

On the one hand I have you, telling me that Warren Buffet is an economic genius and should have more control over his money. On the other hand I have Warren Buffet, economic genius telling me he should be taxed at a higher rate. Do you see where this argument falls flat? Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business. Do you have evidence that when super wealthy people get more money, they tend to spend it on employees? And not, say, an extra vacation to Europe?

So Mr. Buffet does not take more vacations to Europe than his employees? Mr. Buffet does not employ more people and give them greater benefits because he has so much more money to burn? Does the money he has have a greater effect on the individual level of his employees or do his taxes have a greater effect on the american people in general?

As I said, its not something that you can really take on faith. People won't necessarily be nice and generous just because they have more money. But to some extent it is true. Who are liberals? Do we not have more liberal peers among the wealthy and more educated than the poor, statistically speaking?

People seem to have such a great capacity to divide their ideology from their practical experience.

 

[kyleb]

I just realized I skipped responding to this previously:

Not to make any uninformed judgments about you but have you ever had to live off of earnings from a low earning job? Have you ever had to work with the people in such jobs?

I have, on both counts.

I can say that the vast majority of the people I have worked with in my low income professions have been lazy and unmotivated.

While I'd agree that there are more in low income jobs than elsewhere, I can't rightly say a vast majority are from my experience, and have seen plenty such people with high paying jobs too.

I have seen people fired for picking up on underage girls, getting drunk or smoking pot on the job, stealing, sleeping in their cars, and even failure to do the absolute minimal requirements of the job (up to and including actually being at work when they say they are).

Sure, and I've seen my share people with fat salaries doing all of those things too.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm quite sure I didn't take his comments out of context. Do you have any reason or evidence that they're out of context?

I'll bring up more times he has said this exact thing:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems
http://www.prisonplanet.com/buffett-we-need-more-taxes.html

Any more evidence required?

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

From the article you referenced.

"Buffett shared with lawmakers his “common-sense approach to capitalism,” said one attendee.

He told lawmakers that they should overhaul the nation’s financial system in a way that allows investors to do well but also imposes a sense of responsibility on Wall Street.

Buffett supported President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election but has since criticized some of the president’s policy proposals. Earlier this year he called a cap-and-trade proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions a “regressive” tax.”

Buffett has also urged Democrats to scale back their policy agenda to focus on fixing the economy.

The billionaire investor called the Employee Free Choice Act a “mistake.” The legislation, which would overhaul labor laws, is a priority of unions and many liberal Democrats.

But Buffett and Senate Democrats put aside their policy differences on Thursday to focus on the nation’s sluggish economy.

He gave a pep talk to some lawmakers who are wondering if the nation’s best economic days are past.

“He’s a real optimist and thinks this is a great country and our best days are ahead of us,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

One lawmaker who attended the meeting said that Buffett gave the audience a lesson on the economic history of the world, touting the U.S. system as one that unlocks individual potential, striking a contrast with totalitarian countries that limit economic freedom.

Lawmakers said it was refreshing to hear a positive assessment of the nation’s economic system after listening to months of criticism from the left about capitalist excess and the inability of markets to self-regulate."

Buffet doesn't want cap and trade or forced unionization, or out of control Democrat spending.

His statement that wealthy people could pay a higher percentage (to 25%) is offered as an alternative solution to the other bad ideas. He is clearly not in favor of a 40% to 90% top tax rate either.

 

[WhoWee]

The rest of your post seems to argue that Buffet is wealthy, and therefore pays enough in taxes. Oh, and that other people paying taxes somehow counts as him paying taxes. Not sure what that's about, but I'm pretty sure Buffet knows more about his tax situation than you do

Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company) has paid $14,077,000,000 in income taxes over the past 3 years on income of $44,513,000,000 - about 31.6%. I believe Buffet owns about 35% to 38%. Corporate taxes alone have cost Buffet (35% share of 14.077 billion paid in taxes) nearly $5 billion over the past 3 years.

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=10206&ipage=6447662-323934-330222

 

[kyleb]

From the article you referenced.

"Buffett.. cap-and-trade.. Employee Free Choice Act..

None of what you quoted there addresses anything which was being discussed here. If you are interested in discussing either of the issues mentioned in what you quoted, that would be better suited for separate threads.

Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company)...

Again, not relevant to the subject at hand. Buffet's income, as an individual, and how much of it he has to pay in taxes is the topic Office Shredder brought up. Are you simply unwilling to address that subject?

 

[WhoWee]

None of what you quoted there addresses anything which was being discussed here. If you are interested in discussing either of the issues mentioned in what you quoted, that would be better suited for separate threads.

Again, not relevant to the subject at hand. Buffet's income, as an individual, and how much of it he has to pay in taxes is the topic Office Shredder brought up. Are you simply unwilling to address that subject?

First, I quoted from Office_Shredders posted article. How can an expanded view of his post along with comments on the content not be relevant?

Second, the taxes Buffet is already paying is relevant. You need to look at the bigger picture. Buffet doesn't mind paying a higher percentage of personal income taxes, but does not want cap and trade or forced unionization.

 

[kyleb]

I'd appreciate it if you could come to terms with the fact that no one has made any argument for cap and trade or forced unionization in this thread, as that is exactly what makes that portion of the article irrelevant here.

 

[Jasongreat]

Warren Buffet apparently believes that being taxed at a higher rate on his income will not significantly alter his ability to conduct business.

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company. But those consumers are the ones people are saying benefit from wealth redistribution. So we take from the rich to give to the poor, who then give the money back to the corporations through the products they buy. All in all every one is in the same place they were before, except for now the value of the dollar is less than it was before and that hurts everyone but it hurts the poor most.

 

[Office_Shredder]

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company. But those consumers are the ones people are saying benefit from wealth redistribution. So we take from the rich to give to the poor, who then give the money back to the corporations through the products they buy. All in all every one is in the same place they were before, except for now the value of the dollar is less than it was before and that hurts everyone but it hurts the poor most.

It's interesting that you argue this, since historically when there were higher taxes on wealthier people, there tended to be less of a divide between the wages the top executives of companies were being paid and what their employees were being paid. This seems to indicate that if you put a higher tax rate on higher levels of income, those executives will not simply jack up their wages; rather the opposite effect occurred, and lowering the top tax rates led executives to more aggressively push their compensation upwards (at the expense of the people who buy products from the companies of course, as you yourself say)

 

[rootX]

I think Zimbabwe tried to redistribute wealth/resources from rich white farmers to poor black, and they didn't expect this would collapse the agricultural market.

 

[rootX]

I agree with this as well, but hard working people also deserve a living wage.

Work smart .. not hard. I think everyone knows that. If someone chooses not to change and keep on working in industries that are inefficient then would you continue helping them?

I bet anyone making at or close to minimum would disagree that it wouldn't help much.

Already addressed. Why would you even take people opinion on what should be the minimum?

 

[bleedblue1234]

Zimbabwe is a perfect example of how a government can make an absolute disaster of a once bright looking economy...

 

[WhoWee]

I'd appreciate it if you could come to terms with the fact that no one has made any argument for cap and trade or forced unionization in this thread, as that is exactly what makes that portion of the article irrelevant here.

I would appreciate a different tone. That aside, one of the first things you learn in Economics 101 is that everything financial is inter-related and relevant.
Warren Buffet also commented that he is against cap and trade and forced unionization.

If you stop lecturing me, maybe you will comprehend the relevance of his comments. Buffet is willing to accept a higher personal tax rate, but not cap and trade or unions - think of it as a message to Obama.

 

[ray b]

Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet's holding company) has paid $14,077,000,000 in income taxes over the past 3 years on income of $44,513,000,000 - about 31.6%. I believe Buffet owns about 35% to 38%. Corporate taxes alone have cost Buffet (35% share of 14.077 billion paid in taxes) nearly $5 billion over the past 3 years.

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=10206&ipage=6447662-323934-330222

ok they earned some money and paid taxes on it
but what was the gain in stock price in those three years
as mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%

 

[Galteeth]

He is absolutely right, the consumer pays a company's taxes, not the owner of the company. But those consumers are the ones people are saying benefit from wealth redistribution. So we take from the rich to give to the poor, who then give the money back to the corporations through the products they buy. All in all every one is in the same place they were before, except for now the value of the dollar is less than it was before and that hurts everyone but it hurts the poor most.

You're missing something there. "Through the products they buy." This is the whole point of money, that it can be exchanged for goods and services. They are getting something in exchange for the money.

 

[WhoWee]

ok they earned some money and paid taxes on it
but what was the gain in stock price in those three years
as mr Buffet didNOT get his billions from earned income
his wealth came from gain in the stock price
untaxed unless sold and if sold not subject to progressive taxes
only to capital gains tax at it's lower rate 15% vs 35%

I don't know where to start. Buffet is a long term investor. Berkshire Hathaway does adjust their portfolio though. Buffet knows how to operate companies - not just raid pension funds and strip assets and dump like so many others. This discussio falls under the category of "going concern".

 

[WhoWee]

They paid $14 billion in taxes.