Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warren Buffett would pay 0.2 percent tax rate under Perry tax plan
Houston Chronicle ^ | October 27, 2011 | Kyle Glazier

Posted on 10/28/2011 6:53:29 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd

Warren Buffett, the world’s third-richest man, would see his tax rate fall to 0.2 percent under Rick Perry’s “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.

Perry’s 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, Buffett’s tax rate based on his 2010 tax return would be “microscopic.”

Hanlon’s organization is a liberal predominantly Democratic think tank.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rickperry; warrenbuffett
I think this is great. Especially as liberal heads are exploding.

1 posted on 10/28/2011 6:53:30 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd what could Buffet do with the extra $7 million?

1. Spend it. Buy things...which helps the economy..we want the consumer to creates jobs.

2. Invest it...which provides capital for other companies to grow, and expand, and hire more poeple

3. Donate it to 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?..

2 posted on 10/28/2011 6:58:30 AM PDT by ken5050 (Cain/Gingrich 2012!!! because sharing a couch with Pelosi is NOT the same as sharing a bed with her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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.

3 posted on 10/28/2011 7:03:21 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
One of the more entertaining aspects of discussions of "income tax" as a theory is that everyone assumes that as you make changes that all the definitions will remain the same. I don't though. All the definitions can and will be revised.

"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.

4 posted on 10/28/2011 7:14:00 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
You got it right....

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.

5 posted on 10/28/2011 7:15:32 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

there should be a special

stupid tax

just for warren buffet and other lib-rino progressives

of 90%.

6 posted on 10/28/2011 7:17:14 AM PDT by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

That is probably more than he is paying now.

7 posted on 10/28/2011 7:18:58 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport
That is probably more than he is paying now.

Exactly what I was about to say.

8 posted on 10/28/2011 7:26:24 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To the left the truth looks Right-Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sport

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.

9 posted on 10/28/2011 7:27:03 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Not Supporting FR?

Click The Marxist To Donate

"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

10 posted on 10/28/2011 7:51:17 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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 the flat tax.

11 posted on 10/28/2011 9:00:16 AM PDT by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson