How Much Do We Really Pay in Taxes?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world�??s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: �??I�??m making $80 million a year �?? God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.�??

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: �??You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?�??

From HH’s link.Just a gentle rebuttal to all of those who disparage the people of more ‘liberal’ bent as being somehow deluded…

Who says that he is not deluded?

He is a genius investor and a piss poor economist.[/quote]

That of course may be true.

But I know whom I choose to believe.

42

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
There will never be a Communist paradise,and likewise,there will never be
a Capitalist utopia.
[/quote]

The desire for a utopia is what causes many to act. We all want our own personal utopia – i.e., a better situation than the current one; however, Utopia is not a destination but rather a journey. It is the unaided, unhampered pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism does not necessarily imply a free market but rather ownership of the means of production. It is possible for the owners of the means of production to also make the rules and control the market – what we refer to as either feudalism or corporatism.

This is not freedom nor does it allow for people to pursue their own interests, unhampered. I agree with you to an extent that capitalism does not provide a utopia but only because I see government as the cause of that which it attempts to prevent.

Government, in the name of public good, taxes citizens to pave the road to hell.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
A. You assume that economic measures like raisng or lowering taxes take effect asap- That is unrealistic.

I assume that deregulations and tax decreases take some time to work, f.E. because there must be enough accumulated savings to make riskier investments.

So, Reagans politics consequences became apparent during Clinton´s term. Clinton reaped what Reagan sow.

B. Inflation is the result of the government inflating the supply of paper money. That is why prices rise, not the other way around. Were the money supply held constant prices would slowly drop, which would be a mild deflation.

While it is true that some things still might raise the price of one particular good (f.e the destruction of refineries in New Orleans) overall inflation is not caused by this because other prices correspondingly drop.

C. True, most monopolies or oligopolies are protected by the government, otherwise they would not exist. That however does not lead to an inflation IF the money supply is held constant.

The FED, another government monopoly makes sure that it doesn´t.

Anyway, protection rackets, big government in cahoots with big business is not really republican and is as despisable as big government in cahoots with big union, like teacher unions.

That such companies are plundering consumers is undoubtedly true, but I think it is obvious that the problem is government intervention and can hardly be more government intervention.

[/quote]

Interesting. Thanks for your take.

44

[quote]Spry wrote:
I do not see value for money. I HAVE TO PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE EXTRA TO RECIEVE AND EDUCATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You are acting as if you have received nothing in return, when in reality you will probably have to work for decades before the amount of tax you have paid is equal to the amount that the government (other taxpayers) has spent on you.
[/quote]

I had to contribute EXTRA tax, more than others who do not receive a university education, which should be funded out of government taxes

45

[quote]Spry wrote:
I do not see value for money. I HAVE TO PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE EXTRA TO RECIEVE AND EDUCATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You are acting as if you have received nothing in return, when in reality you will probably have to work for decades before the amount of tax you have paid is equal to the amount that the government (other taxpayers) has spent on you.
[/quote]

I have to contribute EXTRA tax, more than others who do not receive a university education, which should be funded out of government taxes as a whole.

Do those on welfare have to pay an extra tax? No.

Do those who have surgury in a public hospital pay an extra tax? No.

Do I expect others who use services which I do not, which are for the benefit of the whole nation, to pay an extra tax? No.

46

[quote]Spry wrote:
Spry wrote:
I do not see value for money. I HAVE TO PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE EXTRA TO RECIEVE AND EDUCATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You are acting as if you have received nothing in return, when in reality you will probably have to work for decades before the amount of tax you have paid is equal to the amount that the government (other taxpayers) has spent on you.

I have to contribute EXTRA tax, more than others who do not receive a university education, which should be funded out of government taxes as a whole.

Do those on welfare have to pay an extra tax? No.

Do those who have surgury in a public hospital pay an extra tax? No.

Do I expect others who use services which I do not, which are for the benefit of the whole nation, to pay an extra tax? No.[/quote]

Do you support “free” university education where the government funds the entire cost?

Personally I think that university degrees are currently too easily accessible in Australia. There are already far too many people undertaking Uni degrees who really have no business to be doing so.

If the government funded the entire cost it would simply convince even more useless people to waste taxpayers money by doing unproductive degrees.

47

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Spry wrote:
Spry wrote:
I do not see value for money. I HAVE TO PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE EXTRA TO RECIEVE AND EDUCATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You are acting as if you have received nothing in return, when in reality you will probably have to work for decades before the amount of tax you have paid is equal to the amount that the government (other taxpayers) has spent on you.

I have to contribute EXTRA tax, more than others who do not receive a university education, which should be funded out of government taxes as a whole.

Do those on welfare have to pay an extra tax? No.

Do those who have surgury in a public hospital pay an extra tax? No.

Do I expect others who use services which I do not, which are for the benefit of the whole nation, to pay an extra tax? No.

Do you support “free” university education where the government funds the entire cost?

Personally I think that university degrees are currently too easily accessible in Australia. There are already far too many people undertaking Uni degrees who really have no business to be doing so.

If the government funded the entire cost it would simply convince even more useless people to waste taxpayers money by doing unproductive degrees.

[/quote]

That problem is easily solved by having appropiate academic standards. Fail the same subject twice and you lose your chance at have the degree paid for by the government.

  • No idea why I had 3 duplicate posts.
48

[quote]Spry wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Spry wrote:
Spry wrote:
I do not see value for money. I HAVE TO PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTE EXTRA TO RECIEVE AND EDUCATION FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You are acting as if you have received nothing in return, when in reality you will probably have to work for decades before the amount of tax you have paid is equal to the amount that the government (other taxpayers) has spent on you.

I have to contribute EXTRA tax, more than others who do not receive a university education, which should be funded out of government taxes as a whole.

Do those on welfare have to pay an extra tax? No.

Do those who have surgury in a public hospital pay an extra tax? No.

Do I expect others who use services which I do not, which are for the benefit of the whole nation, to pay an extra tax? No.

Do you support “free” university education where the government funds the entire cost?

Personally I think that university degrees are currently too easily accessible in Australia. There are already far too many people undertaking Uni degrees who really have no business to be doing so.

If the government funded the entire cost it would simply convince even more useless people to waste taxpayers money by doing unproductive degrees.

That problem is easily solved by having appropiate academic standards. Fail the same subject twice and you lose your chance at have the degree paid for by the government.

  • No idea why I had 3 duplicate posts.

[/quote]

What about people who decide to take classes that have no benefit to society (and don’t fail any subjects)? Why should someone working as a welder have his tax money taken so that some douche can enroll in women’s studies?

The biggest advantage of a user pays system (other than the taxpayers money saved) is that when you have to pay for your own degree, you are much less likely to study something that is of no use to anyone.

OP - Sorry for the Thread Hijack

49

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

What about people who decide to take classes that have no benefit to society (and don’t fail any subjects)? Why should someone working as a welder have his tax money taken so that some douche can enroll in women’s studies?

The biggest advantage of a user pays system (other than the taxpayers money saved) is that when you have to pay for your own degree, you are much less likely to study something that is of no use to anyone.

OP - Sorry for the Thread Hijack

[/quote]

Again, simple solution. You only get ONE free undergraduate degree so you choose wisely.

AND BY THE FUCKING WAY, an Arts degree is fucking wonderful for society. Imagine if a welder knew some basic philosophy or history? He’d have learned some critical thinking and research skills and be a better person for it.

He’d also be better at picking up chicks. :slight_smile:

I’m an IT graduate and a law student and both degrees are as commerical as you get but I have great respect for any discipline.

I think thread hijacks are accepted practice :slight_smile:

50

[quote]Spry wrote:

I think thread hijacks are accepted practice :)[/quote]

I like boobies.

51

[quote]BackForMore wrote:
If Mr. Buffett is such a big fan of the inheritance tax why then did he structure his estate such that he will avoid paying any?[/quote]

Because Buffet is a hypocrite of the highest order. I think he is trying to buy his way into heaven.

52

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
BackForMore wrote:
If Mr. Buffett is such a big fan of the inheritance tax why then did he structure his estate such that he will avoid paying any?

Please let me know where I could go see and confirm that he has done this.To my knowledge most of his wealth will be donated to charity when he dies.

Edited to include the link to an interview with him that I found.[/quote]

This donation avoids the inheritance tax.

Why doesn’t he give away most of his money before he dies?

Why didn’t he give half of it away 20 years ago? He has more than enough.

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
BackForMore wrote:
If Mr. Buffett is such a big fan of the inheritance tax why then did he structure his estate such that he will avoid paying any?

Please let me know where I could go see and confirm that he has done this.To my knowledge most of his wealth will be donated to charity when he dies.

Edited to include the link to an interview with him that I found.

This donation avoids the inheritance tax.

Why doesn’t he give away most of his money before he dies?

Why didn’t he give half of it away 20 years ago? He has more than enough.[/quote]

The very fact that he is an enormously successful investor already means he is doing the world a lot of good by providing businesses with capital that have more than average potential.

The fact that he himself does not see this or even feels bad about his success is what is so scandalous, because him giving away money means less investing, less jobs and less quality products.

I do not know what to make of a hypocrite who beliefs in stupid things.

Is it good or bad that he does not act as he preaches?

54

[quote]Spry wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

What about people who decide to take classes that have no benefit to society (and don’t fail any subjects)? Why should someone working as a welder have his tax money taken so that some douche can enroll in women’s studies?

The biggest advantage of a user pays system (other than the taxpayers money saved) is that when you have to pay for your own degree, you are much less likely to study something that is of no use to anyone.

OP - Sorry for the Thread Hijack

Again, simple solution. You only get ONE free undergraduate degree so you choose wisely.

AND BY THE FUCKING WAY, an Arts degree is fucking wonderful for society. Imagine if a welder knew some basic philosophy or history? He’d have learned some critical thinking and research skills and be a better person for it.

He’d also be better at picking up chicks. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Maybe I should have done arts.

55

The Federal Reserve chairman who invented payroll deductions during WWII stated that taxes were actually not needed at all, that funding would actually be better by simply debasing the currency at a fixed rate — simply build inflation into the system. He further stated that taxes should be kept, to control the middle class of people.

I’m between classes but will hunt down a link to this, unless Zap beats me to it. :wink:

56

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BackForMore wrote:
If Mr. Buffett is such a big fan of the inheritance tax why then did he structure his estate such that he will avoid paying any?

Because Buffet is a hypocrite of the highest order. I think he is trying to buy his way into heaven.[/quote]

Also, when you are a billionaire, a high tax rate has very little effect on your standard of living. Even if 90 percent of his money was taken it would have very little effect on his lifestyle.

For someone on 100K on the other hand, having almost 50 percent of your salary redistributed has a very large impact.

57

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
BackForMore wrote:
If Mr. Buffett is such a big fan of the inheritance tax why then did he structure his estate such that he will avoid paying any?

Please let me know where I could go see and confirm that he has done this.To my knowledge most of his wealth will be donated to charity when he dies.

Edited to include the link to an interview with him that I found.

This donation avoids the inheritance tax.

Why doesn’t he give away most of his money before he dies?

Why didn’t he give half of it away 20 years ago? He has more than enough.

The very fact that he is an enormously successful investor already means he is doing the world a lot of good by providing businesses with capital that have more than average potential.

The fact that he himself does not see this or even feels bad about his success is what is so scandalous, because him giving away money means less investing, less jobs and less quality products.

I do not know what to make of a hypocrite who beliefs in stupid things.

Is it good or bad that he does not act as he preaches?

[/quote]

No disagreement here.

58

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
OP - Sorry for the Thread Hijack
[/quote]

No such thing in my book. I believe in open conversation.

Besides, the threat posed by government is the theme of all my posts.

59

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Also, when you are a billionaire, a high tax rate has very little effect on your standard of living. Even if 90 percent of his money was taken it would have very little effect on his lifestyle.

For someone on 100K on the other hand, having almost 50 percent of your salary redistributed has a very large impact.[/quote]

It doesn’t affect Him much, maybe, but it sure affects the people who rely on his ability to invest. As was already stated by Orion, Buffett supplies capital to corporations who who wish to expand their production. This has a huge effect on jobs in the first place and the price of goods in the second. When government taxes billionaires it takes away any potential productivity and job creation.

60

“Wherever an income tax has been in practice for any time the small incomes as well as the large are taxed; and it is the small incomes which yield the largest revenue to the state.”

–Treasury official Worthington C. Ford (U.S. Senate 1894)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-1.html

This is the story of the income tax. Still searching for the dude who intro’d withholding.