Skip to comments.Warren Buffett would pay 0.2 percent tax rate under Perry tax plan
Posted on 10/28/2011 6:53:29 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Warren Buffett, the worlds third-richest man, would see his tax rate fall to 0.2 percent under Rick Perrys Cut, Balance, and Grow, tax proposal, according to an analysis by a Center for American Progress economist.
Buffett, worth about $39 billion, gets nearly all of his income from capital gains and dividends.
Perrys proposal would eliminate taxes on those sources of income.
As such, said Seth Hanlon, director of fiscal reform for the Doing What Works Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Buffetts tax rate based on his 2010 tax return would be microscopic.
Hanlons organization is a liberal predominantly Democratic think tank.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
1. Spend it. Buy things...which helps the economy..we want the consumer to return..it creates jobs.
2. Invest it...which provides capital for other companies to grow, and expand, and hire more poeple
3. Donate it to charity..help those less fortunate
Or any combination of the above.
See..the quetsion is should Buffet be able to decide what's best to do with his $$, or the govt?..
Please MSM, put the math book down and step away from the calculator.
You are dealing with things far, far above your meager mental abilities.
Get back to simple things involving simple people, like journolism and politics.
"Capital" can be changed to "invested capital" ~ which would turn "dividends" into "personal income".
Now that's a game changer eh!
We could also TAX income before donation ~ you get it, you pay the taxes, then you get to give it away if you want ~ to a Foundation, or your favorite charity, or whatever.
There's nothing sacred in when income is taxed (according to the 16th amendment).
Cain's 999 system could easily tax Buffett's "income" at about 30% rather than his curent rate of 7%.
Perri's 20% is still nearly 3 Times higher than what Buffet pays in personal income taxes now, and if corporate taxes are considered prior to payment of dividends, it's probably 5% higher than Buffett's actual tax payment (provided it taps his income before charity).
Again, all you need to do is change the definitions to win your point in any of these income tax discussions.
That, BTW, is simply further evidence of why that the personal income tax system is BROKEN ~ it has failed and should simply be abolished. Time to come up with something new.
And using Buffet as a guide is dumb. Buffet's companies employ how many? The mojority of us employ or provide jobs for "0".
He buys what during the year...not a used car like I did.
there should be a special
just for warren buffet and other lib-rino progressives
That is probably more than he is paying now.
Exactly what I was about to say.
I am tired of hearing about the socialist moron Buffet and his taxes. If Buffet is really interested in paying more tax he should just drop his court case and pay the money he owes the IRS.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
So, could someone tell me why, if we are to have a flat tax, we don’t tax ALL income, including capital gains, dividends, gifts, and inheritances, at that flat rate?
If the answer on capital gains and dividends is that they’ve already been taxed once, then don’t tax the corporate income; just tax the dividends or the capital gains. Not taxing corporate income would also justify taxing inheritances, because usually the main argument against that tax is that the inheritors have to sell the family business to pay the tax. If the tax had never been paid, and if the owner was too stupid to provide for the inheritance tax, then the business should be sold, because taxes are owed on its long-term income.
As for gifts, hey, it’s income to the recipient, so tax it at the flat rate.
Someone explain to me why this is unfair, won’t work, or is a bad idea. For sure, it would put a lot of accountants out of work, because they wouldn’t be needed for figuring out how to convert taxable income streams into non-taxable ones. If it’s income, tax it...at the flat tax.
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.