Wealthiest taxpayers are escaping fair share at the nation's overall expense

beneficent society

Isn't that a term right out of the New Deal socialist underpinnings?

How are property taxes assessed in your state?

Buffet’s low tax rate comes from the byzantine nature of the tax code, not the income tax rate. Even though it would hurt me (since I am retired, have no earned income, and live - comfortably - on assets) I would like to see the “Fair Tax” enacted. Every consumer would pay their fair share, INCLUDING the very poor because of the rebate feature.

Not you, I, nor anyone else ever got a paycheck from a poor person, so the romantic idea of taxing the rich to provide for the poor is just the same old hogwash.

As an adjunct instructor of Managerial Economics in the MBA program for Webster University, I have spent a LOT of time and effort trying to take a realistic look at just how important clear economic thinking actually is - and how very litle of it I hear from the yahoos we elect.

Buffett said, without trying to avoid taxes, he paid 17.7 percent on the $46 million he made in 2006

Really?!? So he filed a 1040EZ on 46 mil and only paid 17.7%, eh? Does he claim every employee in his many companies as children or something?

Anyone with a family owned business who doesn’t incorporate and steer their investments to reduce taxes is a damn fool and deserves whatever the IRS takes them for.

Before anyone jumps on my back, do some research about family limited partnerships.

A statement for all to remember and repeat when challenged by Dem ignoramuses.

I’m a little confused how hedge fund managers can call money made with other people’s money capital gains rather than income. Shouldn’t it have to be your money in the first place to call it capital gains?

You will notice that writers like this NEVER mention the kennedys or rockefellers.

By land value by local governments. It is unconstitutional in Texas for the state to have property taxes.

Pretty much the same argument as above, however, this makes a little more sense than income tax as higher land value usually means a greater mass or area of land. With that, like with sales taxes, I can see higher taxes paid for more land owned (or more items purchased) but not for more income.

A flat tax would be more fair, but I don’t see it happening anytime in the next few decades, not with the trouble we’re going to be in with paying social security and medicare/medicaid benefits for aging Baby Boomers. We’re likely to see income taxes become even more “progressive” before we see a flat tax. The government is going to have to go to extreme lengths to generate enough revenue to make it through the next three and a half decades or so until most of the Baby Boomers die off. It’s not about fairness, it’s about taking the money from those who have the money to take. They’ll end up raising the rate of taxation for income in the higher tax brackets, and maybe even create a few new brackets with even higher taxation rates on top of those we already have. It’s not fair but that’s what’s going to happen. The argument will be as it always is that those who earn the most are benefiting the most from being Americans and thus should bear a higher portion of the burden. I don’t agree with that, but I will say that I am not as offended as many here by the “working poor” paying so little in taxes. They work crappy jobs for very little pay and that benefits us all more than most of us will acknowledge. Without all these folks working for pennies we wouldn’t have so many making really good money, and all these cheap goods and services we’re to buy in this country.

There are a lot of folks out there working jobs you or I wouldn’t work for five times what they make. They’re earning seven, eight, nine dollars an hour knee high in chicken guts or something, in some nasty hot plant somewhere, so we can buy chicken at the grocery store for $.50 a pound or whatever. God bless them for that. I’m not going to whine that they aren’t paying enough taxes. They’re barely earning enough to pay their rent.

The only ones that really tick me off are those that just abuse the system, collecting all the government benefits they can collect without putting back into the system, either in taxes paid or even just in blood and sweat.

I agree that every American who earns an income, regardless of the source, ought to be paying a share of the income taxes collected, but I don’t think that in real life that doing that makes people more responsible with their votes. Those at the lowest end of the earnings scale, probably more than anyone else, feel entitled to great deeds by the government because of the fact that they pay taxes. They can pay $25 a year in taxes and they’ll jump up and down if they aren’t getting everything they expect from the government, because in their minds the government owes them big for all that tax money they’re paying. They’ll do that even if they are getting a refund that is greater than the entire amount that they actually paid in. “Working poor” receiving lots of government benefits don’t tend to be any more responsible with their votes just because they have to pay some taxes. And the poorest folks, those who are working and those who are just mooches (or are legitimately disabled) are much less likely to vote than people earning better incomes anyway. “Welfare queens” may complain a lot about politicians, but they don’t tend to get off their lazy butts and actually go out and register and vote.

Believe it or not, those who actually elect these politicians who want to give away the farm are for the most part going to be people not receiving the biggest part of the government handouts. Look at old Warren Buffett here. He never was one to rake in a bunch of welfare benefits, and neither are the vast majority of those voting for Democrats at the polls. Maybe people do this because they might need the “safety net” someday. Maybe they do it because they think it’s government’s job to take care of the less fortunate. I don’t know, but every election the majority of those voting for Democrats are going to be people who make enough money that they aren’t going to be getting government handouts.

Thanks for your detailed, thoughtful post. I agree with your contention that a flat tax, while nice, is impractical at this point. That was wishful thinking on my part. ;o)

I think the rich who vote Democratic do it partly because it relieves them of the duty of directly caring for the less fortunate. I work with the people of my church who are down and out and it is frustrating, heartbreaking work. Many of the rich, I think, want to enjoy their trips and jewels and pool and filet mignon without guilt so they justify it with charitable contributions of money and with tax programs for which they are largely exempt from paying. I don’t put down those who contribute money but actually getting your hands dirty and helping these people face to face is what really educates you on the plight of the poor and the best ways to help them escape their situation.

I do, however, get frustrated with seeing people who pay no taxes whatsoever have as much vote as do I on how much in taxes I must pay to support them. Can’t recall the author (perhaps DeTocqueville) but a wise man once noted that once the people discovered they could vote themselves entitlements, the nation was on its way to being lost.

I hate the way liberals always state INCOMES in DOLLARS, TAXES in PERCENTAGES, and TAX CUTS in DOLLARS.

Of course, saying the bad guy paid $8M dollars in taxes and his secretary paid $20K would draw attention to the REAL inequity in our tax system: How ridiculously unfair it is for two people to be forced to pay such HUGELY DISPARATE amounts to support the SAME government.

Why do we not demand Americans treat each other the way we would our friends and SPLIT THE COST EVENLY ? If you were going to build a fence between your yard and your neighbor’s, would you demand he pay 75% of the cost just because he makes 3x as much money as you do ? Not if you had any self-respect, you wouldn’t.

Most Democrats aren’t rich though. They’re middle class. And those who actually tend to vote, be they Democrats or Republicans, tend to be in the middle class or higher rather than in the bottom end of the earnings spectrum. Most of course are in the middle class because that is obviously by far and away the largest socioeconomic class. Some poor people vote, just like some 18 or 19 year olds vote, but according to all the relevant statistics I’ve seen, comparatively few of those at the bottom of the earnings heap who would be most likely to receive all the handouts to the poor actually get out there and exercise their right to vote. It’s people who pay the taxes who vote for the programs that support those who don’t pay taxes. Or at least it is these people who are electing the politicians who come up with these programs and vote to fund them.

Depends on what you mean by “solve”.

If you have been lulled into thinking percentages are the correct way to pay for government, then maybe a flat percentage tax would “solve” it.

Unfortunately, percentages don’t buy anything, including government services. Dollars are needed. So how about we forget the percentage talk and use dollars instead ?

Only when someone is confronted with the question of why one person should be forced to pay $100,000 every year for the same government that another man pays $5,000 for will anybody question the absurd cost of government.

Our Federal government has grown to where it costs $10,000 each for every man, woman, and child. The fact that many people have “voted” for somebody else to pay their fair share of the cost doesn’t change the facts at all.

The fact that most people in the wealthiest nation on Earth cannot AFFORD to pay their fair share of government costs is the clearest indicator you could ask for that government does too much and spends too much.

A Flat Tax might be an “improvement”, but it does not “solve” the real issue. A way to “solve” the real issue would be to get the government out of areas it should never have gotten into: Retirement (SS), Medicare, Housing (HUD), Welfare, Farming, Energy, Education, Disaster Relief, etc. Eliminate all those programs that should always have been left as personal responsibilities and the cost of the Federal government would be about $2,000 a year for every man woman and child.

In other words, we’d have a government that most Americans could afford without forcing their friends and neighbors to pay some of their share.