# Taxes from the Rich **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547 "2011-10-13T16:11:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/81 "2011-10-18T01:08:33Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > As you said, the economy grew. Therefore a smaller percentage of debt, could be a bigger number. But the debt was a smaller part of our GDP. Can you really not understand that? Our percent of national debt dropped about 6 percent. DROPPED. So you’re changing your claim to “with the hottest economy of the last 50 years the debt grew slower” and acknowledging that **jtgain** was correct? Can you really not acknowledge that? And the best Clinton (the second Messiah) and a Congress in Republican hands (protectors of our virtue) can do with the “hottest economy” is _ **slow** _ the increase in the debt? What are we supposed to do with the suckiest economy in the last 70 years? What about the average economy? a) decrease spending b) increase taxes c) both The correct answer is, of course, claim you’re going to do c) but never quite get to the decrease spending part. They don’t get reelected coming in under budget. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/82 "2011-10-18T06:49:53Z")
When the top tax rate was from 94 to 70 percent the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic debt was paid down. [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) > **[History of the United States public debt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)** > > The history of the United States public debt started with federal government debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War by the first U.S treasurer, Michael Hillegas, after the country's formation in 1776. The United States has continuously had a fluctuating public debt since then, except for about a year during 1835–1836. To allow comparisons over the years, public debt is often expressed as a ratio to gross domestic product (GDP). Historically, the United States public debt as a share... > **[Voodoo Economics, and the National Debt Takes off Again](https://zfacts.com/national-debt/)** > > Watch G H W Bush call Reagan's supply-side economics "Voodoo" then deny it when he's Reagan's VP. [http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html](http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html) The richest five percent of the country earns more in constant dollars now than when the top tax rate was 94 percent. Raise it back, and see how fast the national debt declines. ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/83 "2011-10-18T11:43:11Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > When the top tax rate was from 94 to 70 percent the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic debt was paid down. > > [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) > > [History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) > > [National Debt Graph 1940 -- 2020: Zooming Again](http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) > > [http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html](http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html) > > The richest five percent of the country earns more in constant dollars now than when the top tax rate was 94 percent. Raise it back, and see how fast the national debt declines. But the richest 5% (returns over $160k) **have** been paying more (and the richest 1% even more than that). The top 5% have $2.9 trillion. So just to stop the debt from increasing you have to take half their money. The highest effective tax rate has been around 37%. The federal government is spending $12,300 for every single person in the country. In 1996 we spent $5,900. That’s 7.6% annual growth. The population has been growing at around 1.5%. How is that a tax receipt problem? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/84 "2011-10-18T12:03:37Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You can not get the money back from the wars. Nor the TARP. We have already gotten back most of the money we spent on TARP. [Cite](http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-476T). **gonzo** , it might be better if you didn’t post on topics you don’t understand, like loans. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/85 "2011-10-18T12:22:45Z")
> [@nonentity](#): > > But my mom pays over a million dollars plus in taxes every 4 months in estimated taxes. Her net worth is over 100 million dollars and she worked hard for it. I love it when people write things like that because, of course, the implication is that those that are earning less somehow haven’t worked hard. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/86 "2011-10-18T13:34:54Z")
No it isn’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/87 "2011-10-18T13:49:45Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I love it when people write things like that because, of course, the implication is that those that are earning less somehow haven’t worked hard. Only in a fevered imagination. What he is saying is pretty straightforward. That his mother worked for her millions. You may not agree with that, but he didn’t say anything about anyone else. Unless you are of some crazy mindset that unless everyone’s hourly rate is the same, someone is getting more than they earned, and someone less. The guy who cleans our office works harder than me, I work harder than my doctor. But our earnings are ordered the other way around. Does saying that the doctor worked for his money imply that the janitor worked less hard? If it came to tax rates, I would probably agree that the average rates for the three of us should be Janitor 5%, me 25%, doctor 35% (if that is what it takes). But that is based on what we can afford to pay and my desire to have almost everyone have some skin in the game. It is not based on any desire to confiscate “unearned” income. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/88 "2011-10-18T13:49:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No it isn’t. > > Regards, > Shodan Of course it is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/89 "2011-10-18T13:58:24Z")
No, you are making things up. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/90 "2011-10-18T15:44:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We have already gotten back most of the money we spent on TARP. [Cite](http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-476T). > > **gonzo** , it might be better if you didn’t post on topics you don’t understand, like loans. > > Regards, > Shodan The banks bought t-bills. They got government money for free. So they sat back collecting money on government bonds.They did not loan to small businesses to energize the economy. They paid back some of the TARP money with the governments interest money. Paying us back with our money, is not a great boon to the economy. It does make the banks more solvent though. Then the fine upstanding banks cranked up credit card rates and exponentially raised fees. They looted the same people who had survived from the economic debacle, for the second time. Do you actually know anything that isn’t bank/right wing propaganda? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/91 "2011-10-18T21:16:15Z")
> [@Mekhazzio](#): > > This might be intended to sound ludicrous through exaggeration, but it’s not. If we take Warren Buffet’s 17% figure as average, tripling that still only gets you to 51%, which is within historical bounds within living memory. Considering that some portion of that 17% is local, state, sales and everything else. No it isn’t. The 17% is federal taxes (including payroll) only. > [@Warren Buffett](#): > > Last year my **federal** tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/92 "2011-10-18T21:28:09Z")
Did Buffet release his actual returns or just quote the numbers? That is, do we know how much of his income came via capital gains? How many deductions he claimed etc.? The numbers by themselves (without the returns) don’t give us the full story. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/93 "2011-10-18T22:02:12Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The banks bought t-bills. They got government money for free. So they sat back collecting money on government bonds.They did not loan to small businesses to energize the economy. They paid back some of the TARP money with the governments interest money. Paying us back with our money, is not a great boon to the economy. It does make the banks more solvent though. > Then the fine upstanding banks cranked up credit card rates and exponentially raised fees. They looted the same people who had survived from the economic debacle, for the second time. > Do you actually know anything that isn’t bank/right wing propaganda? gonzo, you need to understand something, which is that you don’t understand something. > [@](#): > > Originally expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion,[1] by December 16, 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total cost would be $19 billion,[2] although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner argued that the final cost would be still lower. > [@](#): > > Of the $245 billion invested in U.S. banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010[update]. AIG is considered “on track” to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) I was going to add a lot more, but there isn’t any point. **gonzo** , like I said, don’t post on topics that you don’t understand. It isn’t good for you, it isn’t good for the boards, and it isn’t good for my blood pressure. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/94 "2011-10-18T22:04:49Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Did Buffet release his actual returns or just quote the numbers? The latter. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/95 "2011-10-18T22:11:13Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Did Buffet release his actual returns or just quote the numbers? That is, do we know how much of his income came via capital gains? How many deductions he claimed etc.? > > The numbers by themselves (without the returns) don’t give us the full story. He did not release his actual returns. We know the answer to some of your questions from what he has released. > [@](#): > > In his response to Huelskamp, Buffett said his adjusted gross income last year was $62,855,038, and his taxable income came to $39,814,784. He explained to CNN that the roughly $23 million difference between his adjusted gross income and taxable income was due largely to deductions he took for charitable giving and local taxes. > > Buffett said he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes and that his federal income tax bill came to $6,923,494, or 17.4 percent of his taxable income. $15,300 in payroll taxes suggests wage income of about $600k. We do not know how the remaining $62m gross income was split between capital gains, dividends and interest. However, as interest would be taxed at 35%, not much of it could be interest with a total tax rate of just 17.4% ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/96 "2011-10-18T22:16:50Z")
If he didn’t release his returns then I’d surmise that most of his income is from capital gains thus the lower rate. So he really isn’t comparing apples with apples when it comes to say his secretary. Would dearly love to see his deductions. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/97 "2011-10-18T22:26:11Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > If he didn’t release his returns then I’d surmise that most of his income is from capital gains thus the lower rate. So he really isn’t comparing apples with apples when it comes to say his secretary. > > Would dearly love to see his deductions. We know from the rate he pays (17.4%) that the vast majority of his income is capital gains and dividends. However, as both are taxed at 15%, we cannot surmise that most is from capital gains from his tax rate. We know he is not comparing apples with apples when comparing with his secretary, as does Buffett. His point is that he does not see why he should get a much more favorable tax rate because his income is from investments compared to what his secretary pays on earned income. His deductions are mostly for charitable giving. The article mentions state taxes also, but that is going to be a relatively small portion. At 7% state tax, he would get a $4.4m deduction from his federal income tax. That suggests charitable giving of $18m+. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/98 "2011-10-18T22:29:50Z")
Wouldn’t it make more sense then to call for a higher capital gains rate (which he may well be doing). Most of the middle class do not get a significant portion of their income via dividends and capital gains. Keep income taxes relatively low and increase capital gains. Of course that might retard investment but it would make Mr. Buffett feel like he’s doing more. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/99 "2011-10-18T22:35:27Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Wouldn’t it make more sense then to call for a higher capital gains rate (which he may well be doing). He is. Buffett’s original editorial is [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html). While he thinks taxes should be raised on all people earning over $1m, he includes capital gains taxes and he states that higher capital gains never inhibited him from investing. > [@](#): > > Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. > > I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547/100 "2011-10-19T01:00:33Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > He is. Buffett’s original editorial is [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html). While he thinks taxes should be raised on all people earning over $1m, he includes capital gains taxes and he states that higher capital gains never inhibited him from investing. The Republicans don’t believe that so it must not be so. If Fox and CNBC claim it enough, it simply has to be true. What can Buffet know when compared to Erin Burnett? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxes-from-the-rich/599547.md?page=6)