Posted on 08/06/2007 6:14:14 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
I think it would, too: which is why it will never happen. The Federal tax code is invaluable as a means of social control and political horse trading. It's a lousy way to fund government operations, but that's beside the point. The purpose of the tax code is to dole out favors, rewards and punishments, and its demise would remove a vast amount of power and influence from Congress and return it to the people. And we certainly can't have that, now can we?
“So-called “progressives” would like nothing better than to see estates taxed away year-by-year”
Disagree - people like, well, most Senators and Congresscritters have their wealth all bundled up away from the income tax and at the same time bemoan that “the rich don’t pay their fair share”. They have the best of both worlds.
They aren’t going to let their actual wealth get taxed.
That’s true, but I was referring more to the “man-in-the-street” type progressives, some of whom are referred to as “journalists”.
I have never heard anyone ask a politician to put a dollar/percentage amount on the "Fair Share"
If you include Social Security and Medicare tax withholding to the effective tax rate on $60K, you’ll get to 30%. One of the reasons Buffett’s effective “tax rate” is relatively low is because only part of it is taken as salary. He invests heavily in municipal bonds (state and federal tax-free), maximizes his qualified retirement plans, exercises stock options at favorable rates, and uses annuities to defer taxes on non-qualified income. Anyone making $60K can do many of these things, too.
To get to 30%, he must be including both the employer and employee contribution to Social Security and Medicare (15+%) as well as state income tax.
I've run the numbers at it would be 25%. But you are right, that is probably what he meant. And you are right, Buffett knows how to invest his money -- which is all the difference.
I suspect that the secretary is married and has a greater household income than $60K. But irrespective, a family making $60K is considered in the top 40%. So by Dem standards, that’s wealthy.
Mr. Buffet is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH about his secretary. If her total income for 2006 was $60,000, her top MARGINAL rate was 25%, not 30%. And that is on TAXABLE income, after deductions and exemptions for a SINGLE taxpayer.
2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules
Note: These tax rate schedules are provided so that you can compute your federal estimated income tax for 2006.
Schedule X — Single If taxable income:
is over-But not over— The tax is:
$00.00__$ 7,550______ 10% of the amount over $0
$7,550__$30,650______ $755.00 plus 15% over 7,550
$30,650_$74,200______ $4,220 plus 25% over 30,650
So even if the secretary were to have ZERO exemptions and ZERO deductions - completely impossible for earned income - she would owe only 19.26% of $60,000.
Buffet is a highly typical over-rich liberal, suffering from the typical guilt that seems to come from this accumulation, and infected with the typical god-complex mindset that makes him want to order everyone else’s life.
Beside the fact that Blumner is an asinine liberal, HOW MANY JOBS DID the Secretary create.....As did Buffet coincidental to making all those bucks?
AND! She works at a paper(SpTimes?) "sheltered" from taxes by The Poynter Foundation.....a diversity factory turning out libs each year to spread the virus.....
Possibly he was considering her husband’s income too, or maybe her state income tax.
I agree with Buffett that her tax is too high, and that Buffett pays too little. But the lib answer to this problem is to increase taxes on families who earn up to $200,000, and I don’t see why someone earning $200,000 a year should pay the same tax rate as Buffett does either. What they should do is increase taxes on Buffett and his fellow billionaires, and leave the rest of us alone.
yes, unfortunately it would bankrupt our current government.
In reality, he is nothing more than a very rich liberal hypocrite.
I remember Buffett using his secretary as an example back when the debate on reducing taxes on dividends was going on. And he was opposed to lowering it for the same reasons. Oh, my rate is less than my secretarys, bla bla bla.
If memory serves me right, Berkshire Hathaway does not pay dividends.
He's also a cheapskate. What a P.O.S. this guy is.
Anything other than what we have now would solve it. Of course the friggin rat treasonous bastards that are in office will NEVER give up their power to tax and destroy us.
So you think the tax rate on billionaires is too low? You think our tax rate needs another bracket or two at the top with higher rates?
Move the current income tax brackets applied to the lower income ranges (up to say $300T or $400T) up to Buffett’s income level.
It’s absurd that these libs constantly talk about how billionaires are not paying their fair share, and then use that argument to tax us poor folk. Even Buffett himself is not trying to increase just his own taxes. He’s trying to sock it to folks earning in excess of $100,000. Why should someone earning $150,000 pay the same or greater tax than Buffett does?
>>unless every tax payer were to pay the exact percentage as any other tax payer<<
Actually same amount. Why is it “fair” for you to pay more than me even if you make more than I do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.