You Can't Fix Stupid

[Gipper]

BO says he would rather talk about new programs. Now that is stupid. But it shows the mindset of a socialist.

And this is not something that I am making up. This is not something that Tim Geithner is making up. We’re not out here trying to use this as a means of doing all these really tough political things. I'd rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes -- like new programs or the NFL season getting resolved. Unfortunately, this is what's on our plate. It’s before us right now. And we’ve got to deal with it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president

And, the wealthy need to pay more. They already pay most of the federal income taxes, but BO wants more. I wonder what "fair share" means to a socialist.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the wealthiest must "pay their fair share." In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the wealthiest must "pay their fair share."
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110716/AP/110719658

 

[Lagboltz]

And, the wealthy need to pay more. They already pay most of the federal income taxes, but BO wants more. I wonder what "fair share" means to a socialist.

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.

Do you think this is "fair share"?

 

[Openmind]

BO says he would rather talk about new programs. Now that is stupid. But it shows the mindset of a socialist.



And, the wealthy need to pay more. They already pay most of the federal income taxes, but BO wants more. I wonder what "fair share" means to a socialist.

I like your OP! "You can't fix stupid!"

Except that, in this case. . .it is VERY questionable who is the stupid one!

By the way, in my opinion, "fair share" should not necessarely be based on how much taxes you pay, but how much money is left in your pocket after paying those taxes.

Is it fair for one man to pay $10,000 in tax per year, while another one pays $10 millions in tax per year?

If you look ONLY at the tax numbers. . .it wouldn't seem so.
However, if you know that one will take home $30,000 a year and the other will take home $30 millions that same year. . .

You're right, it's still not fair!
The one taking home $30 millions should pay $15 millions in taxes, and take home "only" $25 millions.

I'm sure he could still afford to keep his yacht! (as a tax shelter, of course!)

 

[PLC1]

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.

Do you think this is "fair share"?

Oh, sure. If the mutibillonaire has to pay as much tax as the $60,000 a year office worker, then that is just socialism.





Disclaimer: Yep, that was sarcasm, sure was.

 

[BigRob]

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.

Do you think this is "fair share"?

Buffett: $8,142,000
Secretary: $18,000

How this secretary got taxed at 30% however is beyond me, as they certainly wouldn't fall in a bracket that taxed at such a rate, and most of their earnings would be at lower rates anyway.

 

[BigRob]

I like your OP! "You can't fix stupid!"

Except that, in this case. . .it is VERY questionable who is the stupid one!

By the way, in my opinion, "fair share" should not necessarely be based on how much taxes you pay, but how much money is left in your pocket after paying those taxes.

Is it fair for one man to pay $10,000 in tax per year, while another one pays $10 millions in tax per year?

If you look ONLY at the tax numbers. . .it wouldn't seem so.
However, if you know that one will take home $30,000 a year and the other will take home $30 millions that same year. . .

You're right, it's still not fair!
The one taking home $30 millions should pay $15 millions in taxes, and take home "only" $25 millions.

What is this based on? Why "should" such a person owe an extra 5 million in taxes? Simply because you think he can afford it?

I'm sure he could still afford to keep his yacht! (as a tax shelter, of course!)

If someone works hard and buys a yacht then they deserve every bit of it. Why would you disparage such a person?

 

[Openmind]

What is this based on? Why "should" such a person owe an extra 5 million in taxes? Simply because you think he can afford it?



If someone works hard and buys a yacht then they deserve every bit of it. Why would you disparage such a person?

The plumber, the nurse, the child care professional, the small businessman. . .EVERYONE works hard.

Why is it totally okay that "some work hard" but shouldn't expect to keep more than just enough to live, because they have to pay tax to cover airport maintenance, and infrastructure, and the subsidies given big oil companies, while some one else (maybe even a CEO in those big oil companies taking those government subsidies and tax loopholes) can keep more money than the first person would make in a life time?

Is it about work? Or is it about luck?
Is it about doing the job that needs doing? Or is it about doing the job that will get you the most financial reward?

Is the nurse's contribution less important to society than the upper level management person at that big oil company?

Is the guy on wall street who convince someone to invest his/her $200.00 a month into a specific stock more valued by society than the nurse? Sure. . .if you look at the pay scale!

His that stock broker actually providing a better service for society. . .does he have more responsibility than the nurse?

I don't think so!

So. . .what is fair?

Do you think the multi millionaire "deserves" to buy and enjoy his yacht a lot more than the nurse deserves to buy a new video game for her son and reveal in his joy?

Do you think it is more "advantageous" for the economy if the multi-millionaire purchases that new yacht from Italy and sails it around the world, or if 10,000 nurses buy a toy for their kids right here in the USA?

 

[Lagboltz]

Buffett: $8,142,000
Secretary: $18,000

How this secretary got taxed at 30% however is beyond me, as they certainly wouldn't fall in a bracket that taxed at such a rate, and most of their earnings would be at lower rates anyway.

FICA is not a large part of Buffett's payroll deduction. It is a very large part of his receptionists.

On top of that she has to pay property tax. Sales tax, state tax, etc. That is probablly a larger percentage of her income than Buffetts, but was not included in his statement.

 

[Openmind]

What is this based on? Why "should" such a person owe an extra 5 million in taxes? Simply because you think he can afford it?



If someone works hard and buys a yacht then they deserve every bit of it. Why would you disparage such a person?

Oh, by the way, I didn't answer about the "extra 5 million in taxes."

Well, I'm not sure you heard, but we have a huge budget deficit. . .a significant part of it came from the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.

Now, we need to resolve it.

But the poor and the middle class have nothing more to give. Oil companies could give up their subsidies. CEO's could give up their jets (or at least their "jet related tax loopholes"). . . or we could cut the social security of people who live on $1000 to $1700 per month.

But. . .if we do cut something out of those 70 millions government checks that go to elerly, disabled, veterans, and government workers. . .that means 70 millions LESS customers for the products that the wealthy would like to sell. . .which means less demands for product, which means less need to produce, which means less hiring, which means less employments, which also means less profit for the wealthy (and more misery for the poor).

Now, increase the tax on people making over $1 million a year (not that much, let's say back to the Clinton era. . .when this country WAS economically booming). And let's say we push it a little higher for people making over $5 millions a year, or $10 millions a year.

This helps reduce the deficit. We can also cut some of the loopholes and subsidies for the wealthy (corporate welfare), and if all that is still not enough (probably wouldn't be), let's ask the little old man, and the disable, and the veterans to curb their cost of living increase for 2 or 3 years, or until our budget is demonstrating a significant improvement.

That approach would probably not find any opponents (at least not in the middle or lower class). But I bet it would find a LOT of oponents in the top 2%!

 

[BigRob]

The plumber, the nurse, the child care professional, the small businessman. . .EVERYONE works hard.

Why is it totally okay that "some work hard" but shouldn't expect to keep more than just enough to live, because they have to pay tax to cover airport maintenance, and infrastructure, and the subsidies given big oil companies, while some one else (maybe even a CEO in those big oil companies taking those government subsidies and tax loopholes) can keep more money than the first person would make in a life time?

You act as if the rich person pays no taxes, that is simply false.

Is it about work? Or is it about luck?
Is it about doing the job that needs doing? Or is it about doing the job that will get you the most financial reward?

It is about market value. The market sets the value of the job you are doing...do we really know better than the market?

Is the nurse's contribution less important to society than the upper level management person at that big oil company?

Less important...probably not, but less valuable according to the market? It appears so.

Is the guy on wall street who convince someone to invest his/her $200.00 a month into a specific stock more valued by society than the nurse? Sure. . .if you look at the pay scale!

Who are we to determine what is more valuable than something else? The market does that. Let is work.

His that stock broker actually providing a better service for society. . .does he have more responsibility than the nurse?

I don't think so!

Perhaps that stock broker is attempting to safely invest someone's hard earned money so they can live the life they want in retirement. I would imagine there is a large value placed on such a service.

When you need a nurse, they are valuable, when you don't they are not. When you need investment advice, the broker is valuable, when you don't, he is not.

So. . .what is fair?

What the market says is fair.

Do you think the multi millionaire "deserves" to buy and enjoy his yacht a lot more than the nurse deserves to buy a new video game for her son and reveal in his joy?

No, but the nurse does not "deserve" to buy a yacht because the rich guy could.

Do you think it is more "advantageous" for the economy if the multi-millionaire purchases that new yacht from Italy and sails it around the world, or if 10,000 nurses buy a toy for their kids right here in the USA?

I think in terms of a long term gain, it is the same (assuming the money spent was the same).

 

[BigRob]

FICA is not a large part of Buffett's payroll deduction. It is a very large part of his receptionists.

I can agree with that.

On top of that she has to pay property tax. Sales tax, state tax, etc. That is probablly a larger percentage of her income than Buffetts, but was not included in his statement.

Buffett pays no property tax? No sales tax? No state tax?

 

[BigRob]

Oh, by the way, I didn't answer about the "extra 5 million in taxes."

Well, I'm not sure you heard, but we have a huge budget deficit. . .a significant part of it came from the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy.

Now, we need to resolve it.

Even the highest estimates argue that the Bush tax cuts cost $2.5 trillion over a 10 year period, or $250 billion a year.

Are you going to sit here and tell me we are in a budget mess because of $250 billion a year? Or are you going to tell me we can solve our trillion dollar deficit problems by adding $250 billion in revenue back? (obviously I am being very generic here)

But the poor and the middle class have nothing more to give. Oil companies could give up their subsidies.

So could "green" energy companies. If we are going to apply such a practice, let us make sure we make it fair.

CEO's could give up their jets (or at least their "jet related tax loopholes"). or we could cut the social security of people who live on $1000 to $1700 per month.

But. . .if we do cut something out of those 70 millions government checks that go to elerly, disabled, veterans, and government workers. . .that means 70 millions LESS customers for the products that the wealthy would like to sell. . .which means less demands for product, which means less need to produce, which means less hiring, which means less employments, which also means less profit for the wealthy (and more misery for the poor).

It is a false choice to paint the issue as one of a choice between ruining the middle class or making a few CEO's give up their jets.

Any person looking honestly at the issue can easily see such an action will barely scratch the surface of our budget issue.

Now, increase the tax on people making over $1 million a year (not that much, let's say back to the Clinton era. . .when this country WAS economically booming). And let's say we push it a little higher for people making over $5 millions a year, or $10 millions a year.

Again, making it seem that tax rates are directly related to that boom, when they are not.

This helps reduce the deficit. We can also cut some of the loopholes and subsidies for the wealthy (corporate welfare), and if all that is still not enough (probably wouldn't be), let's ask the little old man, and the disable, and the veterans to curb their cost of living increase for 2 or 3 years, or until our budget is demonstrating a significant improvement.

You know what else reduces the deficit? Not spending money we don't have.

The CBO has already admitted that tax rates would need to rise to 90% on the "rich" and it still would not even balance the budget. The idea that "if the rich would just pay more we will be ok" is simply false.

That approach would probably not find any opponents (at least not in the middle or lower class). But I bet it would find a LOT of oponents in the top 2%!

Go figure, the people who want to believe all their problems can be solved by other people support such a plan...it is no surprise that those who actually have to pay for such things would find it unfair that they are being demonized simply for being rich.

 

[Lagboltz]

I can agree with that.



Buffett pays no property tax? No sales tax? No state tax?

Read what I wrote again. I said,
"That is probably a larger percentage of her income than Buffetts, but was not included in his statement."
I said she probably paid a lot more percentage. I DID NOT say Buffett pays no property tax, etc.

 

[Openmind]

I can agree with that.



Buffett pays no property tax? No sales tax? No state tax?

What he said. . .is what I said earlier:

Buffett cannot purchase $2 million of food per year. . .so he doesn't pay sales tax on that amount. . .he probably pays about as much sales tax for his food as his secretary does.

He probably pays property taxes. . .on a house that is over 30 years old where he has lived all that time, a modest house, one that is not that different from where his secretary might live, so he probably pays about the same amount of property tax than she does. . .which is a lot for her, and peanut for him.

Now, obviously, if he lived "UP" to his social standing. . .he would have a half dozen mansions all over the U.S and over the world, and would pay more property taxes. . .then again, he would have a home office in each one, maybe even a staff, and would have LOADS of write offs. . .including the interest write offs on their multi-million dollars mortgages!

 

[BigRob]

Read what I wrote again. I said,
"That is probably a larger percentage of her income than Buffetts, but was not included in his statement."
I said she probably paid a lot more percentage. I DID NOT say Buffett pays no property tax, etc.

In actual dollars, there can be no doubt that Buffett paid more than his secretary. How about we implement a flat tax, and then each Buffett and his Secretary can pay 15% (or whatever) each?