3 ms·

In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income w

by webXL 16y ago

In order to make millions on my investments, I would have had to risked millions more of already taxed income to do so. The fact that others' after-tax income was transferred to me along the way in exchange for shares is irrelevant to the question why a positive or negative return on investment should involve the government for a second, third, fourth... time. It's called double-taxation, and it prevents people from buying and selling more than they actually would with the money the government lets them keep. I don't think they were squeezed, but the bush tax cuts were a step back after decades of tax increases, when the wealthy were paying a larger share. Sure the top bracket wasn't the 90% pre-Kennedy rate, but the group of 38-42%'ers were paying a larger a share of GDP that they ever did before. There is a point of diminishing returns on tax increases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve How else did the government fund itself when Kennedy cut taxes? Someone at the time must have thought the rich were being squeezed.

jshen 16y ago
My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?
- webXL 16y ago
  Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
  - jshen 16y ago
    because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.
    - webXL 16y ago
      News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!
      - jshen 16y ago
        I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent. Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to av
        webXL 16y ago
        If Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of his income in '06, then other top-1%'ers pay a lot more than 31.2%! (see CBO Effect Tax Rates 2006: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effecti...) Warren Buffet uses tax loopholes (perfectly legal) to keep more of his money, which he plans to give away to various charities by the time he dies. The solution is to close loopholes and encourage more charity among the super rich, so that the government doesn't need to do as much charity when it can't afford to, and the wealthy are still able to create jobs by not having an effective tax rate much higher than 31%.
        jshen 16y ago
        They do pay less than us, and it's that way because they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate far lower than the taxes we pay on income. The forbes 400 pays a significantly lower tax rate than I do as programmer. That's not debatable, it's a simple fact. I think they should pay at least the same rate as I do, don't you? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html

by webXL 16y ago

jshen 16y ago

My pay comes from people who bought a service with after tax income. Why should you pay a lower percentage than me?

webXL 16y ago
Your pay most likely comes from sales of goods and services, buyers of which are taxed at a lower rate. They are using after tax income, so it is double taxation there, too. But value was created in those instances, so one can say that the government helped create that value to justify it. I supposed the value of the stock can also be viewed in that manner, but why should it be taxed as much as income, when goods and services aren't?
- jshen 16y ago
  because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.
  - webXL 16y ago
    News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!
    - jshen 16y ago
      I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent. Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to av
      - webXL 16y ago
        If Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of his income in '06, then other top-1%'ers pay a lot more than 31.2%! (see CBO Effect Tax Rates 2006: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effecti...) Warren Buffet uses tax loopholes (perfectly legal) to keep more of his money, which he plans to give away to various charities by the time he dies. The solution is to close loopholes and encourage more charity among the super rich, so that the government doesn't need to do as much charity when it can't afford to, and the wealthy are still able to create jobs by not having an effective tax rate much higher than 31%.
        jshen 16y ago
        They do pay less than us, and it's that way because they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate far lower than the taxes we pay on income. The forbes 400 pays a significantly lower tax rate than I do as programmer. That's not debatable, it's a simple fact. I think they should pay at least the same rate as I do, don't you? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html