The rich WANT to pay more tax
Discussion
According to Buffett http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-cod...
I'm not sure if this is because he is old and doesn't need more money now (not that the super rich ever need more money) but it would be good if others had the same attitude.
I'm not sure if this is because he is old and doesn't need more money now (not that the super rich ever need more money) but it would be good if others had the same attitude.
aceparts said:
Can you define 'rich'
Ahh, you mean SUPER RICH!
Yes exactly. Rich means sterling/dollar/euro millionaire. Rich to a high proportion of the public is anyone earning 80K or more a year!! I can assure you that those of us that do are NOT rich and DO NOT want to pay more tax...! GrrrrrAhh, you mean SUPER RICH!
trouble is super rich earners move there finances to low tax counties. to get away with not paying tax in uk . sorry i don,t no how they do it . think they have to register there company in other counties . we also need to stop immigrants coming to the country and clamping family credits when there kids don,t live here and stop them sending money out the country to support there families in poorer counties . not against immigrants .if they want to work hear they need to bring some thing to the country we need and pay and spend there wages hear.we cant keep bleeding the country like this .
sorry went off the subject a bit lol
sorry went off the subject a bit lol
jezzaaa said:
Yes exactly. Rich means sterling/dollar/euro millionaire. Rich to a high proportion of the public is anyone earning 80K or more a year!! I can assure you that those of us that do are NOT rich and DO NOT want to pay more tax...! Grrrrr
In a fair few parts, sterling/dollar/euro millionaire means 'owns a house'. Many in that position would not class themselves as rich either.jezzaaa said:
Yes exactly. Rich means sterling/dollar/euro millionaire. Rich to a high proportion of the public is anyone earning 80K or more a year!! I can assure you that those of us that do are NOT rich and DO NOT want to pay more tax...! Grrrrr
You didn't read the article did you? He is talking about people earning over $1m a year.Andrew[MG] said:
According to Buffett http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-cod...
I'm not sure if this is because he is old and doesn't need more money now (not that the super rich ever need more money) but it would be good if others had the same attitude.
The reason he pays that is because he has clever accountants.I'm not sure if this is because he is old and doesn't need more money now (not that the super rich ever need more money) but it would be good if others had the same attitude.
That is the reason why others in his office pay more, if he wanted to pay more tax he can do. It doesn't mean everyone should.
The fact is he making waves in preparation for the Committee to look into spending cuts and tax increases that will be out of the control of Obama. If the public get behind the tax increases to sway opinion and force the hand of the committee.
Let's be honest he wont be increasing his tax bill, as he can afford the best accountants who can be creative. Otherwise if the average is 21.5% and he is paying 17.4%.
He can voluntarily give money away to the government, everyone is entitled to. Socialists always like to talk about sharing the wealth, just only when forced to.
DJRC said:
I have alway worked on the notion that Buffet puts his money where his gob is and by and large has been pretty successful at it, therefore, when he opens his mouth to talk its probably wise that someone listens.
Why doesn't he do what he says then? The US Government accept all payments. He can pay as much as he likes.
Have a read of this
http://www.valuewalk.com/warren-buffett-berkshire-...
elster said:
DJRC said:
I have alway worked on the notion that Buffet puts his money where his gob is and by and large has been pretty successful at it, therefore, when he opens his mouth to talk its probably wise that someone listens.
Why doesn't he do what he says then? The US Government accept all payments. He can pay as much as he likes.
Have a read of this
http://www.valuewalk.com/warren-buffett-berkshire-...
He uses the money he saves on tax to fun his charitable donations - this is probably a much more efficient system than paying more into the inefficient US tax system.
Andrew[MG] said:
Buffett employs bean counters to manage his tax and they do their job by following the rules and making sure he pays what he is supposed to. What Buffett is saying is that these rules need to be changed to take out the loopholes and make him pay more. He is not going to just pay more tax then the current rules say he should!
He uses the money he saves on tax to fun his charitable donations - this is probably a much more efficient system than paying more into the inefficient US tax system.
Which way do you agree with then? That he should pay more tax as well as everyone else who pay themselves in a similar manner or that the money is better spent on charity.He uses the money he saves on tax to fun his charitable donations - this is probably a much more efficient system than paying more into the inefficient US tax system.
You can't have it both ways.
The fact is he says that there should be tax rises for the super rich, and that he wants to pay more tax. If he really did want to pay more to the government so it fits in with his ideals the he can. I am sure he will continue to find any loophole he can to pay as little as possible as he does now.
The ethos seems to be I have strong Ideals about paying more tax, but only if someone forces me to.
A pity Geoge Sorros doesn't share his view.
The way tax systems are set up is that they are agressive on earned income and softer on all the other stuff.
In UK some years ago there were tax rates of over 90% on earned, but a small but useful cap gains excemption and a break on divs. Really not logical unless your objective is to prevent anyone bettering themself.
All it did was to encourage anyone with a short window of earnings to buy a one way ticket out.
Generally speaking it is tough to GET rich. Once you are there, things get easier. (So I'm told
)
Once things get easy, paying any bill is not a problem, not just a tax assessment.
So while I do respect Mr Buffet, there are a lot of people in the middle who will dragged along with this. We aren't rich yet, but we are trying to get there. I fall into the class of "it was hellishly hot last month, has the electric bill arrived yet" (the AC was cycling on longer than off
)
So Buffet STFU,
What we really need is a way of defering taxes until we get a new President.
Political tax escrows anyone, that would fly through the house at present.
Might stumble in the Senate
The way tax systems are set up is that they are agressive on earned income and softer on all the other stuff.
In UK some years ago there were tax rates of over 90% on earned, but a small but useful cap gains excemption and a break on divs. Really not logical unless your objective is to prevent anyone bettering themself.
All it did was to encourage anyone with a short window of earnings to buy a one way ticket out.
Generally speaking it is tough to GET rich. Once you are there, things get easier. (So I'm told
)Once things get easy, paying any bill is not a problem, not just a tax assessment.
So while I do respect Mr Buffet, there are a lot of people in the middle who will dragged along with this. We aren't rich yet, but we are trying to get there. I fall into the class of "it was hellishly hot last month, has the electric bill arrived yet" (the AC was cycling on longer than off
)So Buffet STFU,
What we really need is a way of defering taxes until we get a new President.
Political tax escrows anyone, that would fly through the house at present.
Might stumble in the Senate
If I had tens of millions in the bank, I'd probably pay more tax without too much grumbling. The problem is that politicians know that in truth they will rais every little from taxing the super-rich (even when they say they want to pay more tax), so they raise taxes on those who merely earn relatively high salaries - people who will have commitments to match those salaries and will therefore have to cut their spending. A very stupid policy.
Why not a flat tax, then everyone, regardless of their economic status would pay the same proportionately? I will tell you why, because the lawyer lobby makes billions navigating the complex tax code, a flat tax would shrink the tax code from the size of a new York phone book to a couple of pages and put those lawyers out of business.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff