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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
He did not release his actual returns. We know the answer to some of your questions from what he has released.
$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%
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.
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+.
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.
He is. Buffett’s original editorial is here. 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?