You are making up percentages, where did I say pay 50% to someone else's 13%? With all the loop holes in the tax code now, and the lowering of the capital gains to record lows, it has allowed the rich to pay far less in percentage than most would realize. Why should rich people pay less because they can hire better tax accountants or lawyers? Consumption tax, or flat rate is fine by me. DD
You do know that nobody is saying you can't pay more in taxes if you want to right? Also, if you want to help people achieve, I'm not sure giving your money to the federal government is the best way. There are plenty of other ways to help people and you can even choose where your money goes!
Progressive taxation is the way the american tax system is setup. I would not have an issue per say with a flat/consumption tax, but that's really not germaine to either candidate.
This is a problem that I agree with. The complexity of the tax code does favor the rich. It's another reason why a simpler flat and/or consumption tax would be a much better option, IMO.
I don't undertand your $10,000 example as it relates to taxes. For example, the person with a taxable income of $1,000,000 pays about $$329,000 in taxes (around 33%), the person making $100,000 pays about $22,100 in taxes (around 22%), and the person making $40,000 pays about $6400 in taxes (around 16%).
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent." 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. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. link
I was making a general comment, but even in yours you are only using income tax....most people (myself included) get a fair amount of income from capital gains, which is below 15% now...... So if you only make $100,000 a year in income but another $1,000,000 in capital gains you are not really paying your fair share, IMO. DD
He wasn't taxed at 18% without avoiding higher taxes. He may have avoided them in legal ways (as we've talked about with the complexity of the system) but he was trying to avoid paying a higher rate if he paid only 18%.
You are right, but as someone that always puts my family first...way way way ahead of my country.....that money is going to them. I am just as greedy as the next guy, I just think that it should be more fair. DD
Again, I believe he made a large percentage in LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS...which are taxed at around 15%..... I think that is a problem, most people do not think about that factor, the rich make a large percentage of their money on capital gains. Not on working for the man and drawing a paycheck. Which leads to the disparity. DD
Very true. That being said, I'd wager only the super rich make a large proportion of their money on capital gains.
Two problems here. The person making $1 million doesn't pay SS taxes on most of that, while the person making $100k does. That's another 6.9% to the lower rates - or 13.8% if you want to account for the full burden (half is paid by the employer - that money could otherwise be paid to the employee). Beyond that, relatively few people make $1 million in wages - instead, that money is often partially in the form of capital gains, dividends, etc. So that money could be taxed at a substantially lower tax rate.
Not even close, most people in my neighborhood have investments and pay taxes on them as long term capital gains. And when you retire, there is a loophole which allows you to borrow against your gains to avoid paying taxes on them. How about that? I think the problem is that most Americans don't even think about Capital gains as income.....which is why the system is unbalanced. DD
Yup. And I'm fine with that. (I'd rather any side would cut spending by 50%, lower my taxes, and balance the budget. While I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony...)
Do you think that the capital gains are a large portion of their "income" or would you say that the largest part of their income is still salary? Honest question.
Tough to say, because there are a fair number of business owners here, which would make more in capital gains or in dividends, and there are several that work for the University which would make it paycheck, so as a pure guess, I would say 50/50. But the point is that it allows people like Buffett to pay only 17% on more than $45 million in earnings, and that is wrong. DD
