Buffett, Gates create indelible UNL moment

Lincoln Journal Star ^ | 10-8-2005 | LJS Editorial

[unlearner]

"Both Buffett and Gates said that they should pay more in taxes. “The rich should bear a somewhat higher proportion than they are now,” Gates said."

" “I’m paying less than half of what I was paying years ago when I was making a lot less,” Buffett said. “There are people fighting in Iraq paying higher rates than mine.” "

These men are both disingenuous and they know it. They do not pay less taxes or a smaller proportion of their TAXABLE income than our troops in Iraq, even if the troops are not in a combat zone and exempt.

Both of these men have worked hard to see how wealthy they could become. They have done it by playing hardball. They have done it by lobbying for the most favorable government policies for their benefit. To try to pass themselves off as uninterested in their own financial gain, and only interested in being fair to the little people makes them both big liars. Anyone who buys into such claims is naive.

[A. Pole]

but the majority of the federal revenue is still paid by the "rich".

But why this fixation on the federal income tax? In this approach the Swedish tax system is the best, since the Swedish federal income tax is ZERO for EVERYONE and Swedes get a lot from their government!

[Final Authority]

I can only spend so much time looking into the tax system for Sweden but I found nothing that describes the system of a zero rate of federal income tax. Can you please link me to a citation that describes the current system of taxation.

So if I understand you correctly, Swedes pay nothing but get a lot from government? Or do they pay a lot to get a lot but it is not income tax as we know it? Or, is the nation so small that they get to live off of the capital gains from Nobel, perhaps? Or, do they really pay a lot but it is so progressive (communistic) that it only seems that nobody really pays?

[A. Pole]

I can only spend so much time looking into the tax system for Sweden but I found nothing that describes the system of a zero rate of federal income tax. Can you please link me to a citation that describes the current system of taxation. So if I understand you correctly, Swedes pay nothing but get a lot from government? Or do they pay a lot to get a lot but it is not income tax as we know it?

Swedes pay a lot of taxes, it happens that their FEDERAL tax is zero because they do not have FEDERAL government.

The Swedish example shows that picking one type of tax can lead to absurdity. You need to add ALL government taxes all together, whether federal, state, local, whether of on wages, profit, dividends, property, sales, inheritance, services, sales etc ... Then you can reason honestly about it.

BTW, the best way is to add all budgets of all governments and compare them with GDP. (when the budget is larger than taxes it tax the future of out children, when it is smaller it is an investment). I did it once a few years ago and I found that Sweden has total tax as a percentage of GDP a little smaller than US (both were above 50%).

[Final Authority]

I thought you were too cute in your original assertion that they pay zero federal income taxes so I did check it out. See this: http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____3927.aspx

They may not call it a federal tax but if one is comparing a "national" income tax to a federal one, they sure do pay one and it is steep. They also have all sorts of broad based taxes that any good capitalistic nation must avoid to remain free. For this reason, I live in NH, a land of few broad based means to tax the earners or consumers, and so do many people who have made money in CT, NY,NY, and MA, who choose to live here.

There overall tax take as a percentage is higher than ours but they do get something for it, a nanny state government, less freedom, and more socialism.

[CodeToad]

When you pay millions in income taxes, estate (death) taxes, and sales taxes, then you can talk to us about how much you pay versus "the eeeeviilll rich".

Bill Gates probably paid more in taxes on his house this year than you do in a lifetime of all taxes you will ever pay.

[CodeToad]

"Sweden's federal tax is ZERO :)"

It is? Then why is their "national income tax" set at 20%-25%?

[A. Pole]

They may not call it a federal tax but if one is comparing a "national" income tax to a federal one, they sure do pay one and it is steep.

But to make such comparison is incorrect and disingenuous. Swedish tax corresponds to US federal tax AND state tax AND other taxes. But this trick is being played on gullible public again and again.

[A. Pole]

They may not call it a federal tax but if one is comparing a "national" income tax to a federal one, they sure do pay one and it is steep.

But to make such comparison is incorrect and disingenuous. Swedish tax corresponds to US federal tax AND state tax AND other taxes. But this trick is being played on gullible public again and again.

[A. Pole]

There overall tax take as a percentage is higher than ours

Is not. Last time I checked "overall tax" was a little lower than in US (something like 51% versus 53% of GDP)

[A. Pole]

"Sweden's federal tax is ZERO :)" It is? Then why is their "national income tax" set at 20%-25%?

You can see it as a state income tax. Sweden is smaller than many American states and consists of only one state :)

[Final Authority]

I just pointed out you are wrong, that you wrote there is no Federal income tax in Sweden, there is. Without knowing all of the facts, I suspect the total percentage of taxes is higher in Sweden that in USA. Check this out: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp

I think it covers sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes levied by all tax collecting entities. USA is way down on the list, Sweden is at the top.

I think before you reply next time, so I don't have to waste my valuable time educating the masses, research your facts first.

[A. Pole]

I think it covers sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, and other taxes levied by all tax collecting entities. USA is way down on the list, Sweden is at the top.

This can be complicated. Much easier is to compare the FINAL result - all government budgets combined (in case of US, federal, state, local etc ) and compare it to GDP.

The US government budget is about 34% of GDP, state and local government budgets are about 17%. It adds up little above 50%. In Sweden the government budget (there is not state/local versus federal) and is little above 50%.

Comparing the government spending in Sweden to the only one layer of US government is misleading to say the least.

[Final Authority]

This is my final reply to educate you, so read it well, and if you decide to reply, at least cite some evidence of your assertions, as they are incorrect and dangerous to you ability to reason and have opinions on the matter of economics.

You should have studied the URL that I cited. It spells it out. Or, read this one: http://www.eurosceptic.com/sources_of_information/articles/EUROPE_ISN'T_WORKING.htm

It spells it out also. As I said, you are plain wrong; the USA is much less taxed than Sweden and much of Europe as well. For that, our GDP is much higher and has done well of late. Sweden proves the rule of high taxation for it has lagged since 1970 compared to USA.

You have me on a ping list and I often read your comments but now I shall read them for the facts that you assert in making conclusions.

If the URL doesn't link you may have to type it in.

[Final Authority]

The percentage of the federal take on the GDP is 19.8% per the federal government, where the GDP is $11.75 trillion and the budget expenditure (including borrowing) is $2.33 trillion. So you are wrong again on your assertions. So if indeed the state government take is 17% or so, the numbers I cited ( by way of web sites) are nearly on the money, so to speak.

[A. Pole]

The percentage of the federal take on the GDP is 19.8% per the federal government, where the GDP is $11.75 trillion and the budget expenditure (including borrowing) is $2.33 trillion. So you are wrong again on your assertions. So if indeed the state government take is 17% or so, the numbers I cited ( by way of web sites) are nearly on the money, so to speak.

You might be right. I looked up the federal budget (real spending will be somehow higher as some items are not included) and it seems that the percentage I have seen applied to combined federal/state spending ("government spending"). If so, I counted state (and local?) spending twice. Sorry.

[lucysmom]

And that those who do not approve it should make voluntary tax contribution but those who like it should keep the advantage?

That's freedom of choice!

[lucysmom]

The only real advantage that 'luck' played in was perhaps that he was born American. Few other country in the world affords you the opportunities you have here.

OBL's father was born poor, was blind in one eye and illiterate, but managed to acquire great wealth in a political/economic system that is rigid and repressive. The founder of IKEA was born in poverty in Sweden (Sweden has zero "death taxes") and managed to become one of the wold's wealthiest - darn those socialists.

The American dream was not that the extraordinary could build great wealth, but that the average guy, with average abilities could, through hard work at average jobs, provide a good life and measure of security for himself and his family. That was what distinguished us from the rest of the world.

[RinaseaofDs]

I believe that's my point exactly - that you can be more average and make your fortune here. No need for being extraordinary to succeed, as is general required elsewhere.