NYT Warren Buffet - A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

[Mad Mike]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/op...fb-share&_r=4&

SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

In a recent thread I opined that the $250,000 mark was too low and that I would set it at around $500,000 instead. Many people made good arguments as to why I was wrong. Economics not being my strength I conceded that I could very well be wrong. However I find it interesting that Buffet agrees with me. Not that it makes me a genius or anything, but at least I can honestly say I'm not completely out in left field.

[MattFancy]

I agree with Buffet. This seems to make the most sense, but no way the GOP lets this happen.

[alexey]

Yeah I never understood merits of the argument that taxing profits at a slightly higher rate will get people to give up on investing for profit altogether.

[Corcaigh]

Some people have claimed that certain small businesses and job creators are taxed on all revenues, and not net profit.

I have no idea what kind of business that is and why they would operate like that.

[Koolblue13]

Just make it equal across the board with no exemptions and everybody pays the same percentage. It's fair.

[Destino]

I would tax everything as income but I'd end all taxes on businesses that met certain requirements.

[Larry]

Some people have claimed that certain small businesses and job creators are taxed on all revenues, and not net profit.

I have no idea what kind of business that is and why they would operate like that.

There aren't any.

[mrcunning15]

Some people have claimed that certain small businesses and job creators are taxed on all revenues, and not net profit.

I have no idea what kind of business that is and why they would operate like that.

I don't believe that is the case on the federal level but I do know some jurisdictions charge taxes solely on revenue. Fairfax county is one of them.

[twa]

Just make it equal across the board with no exemptions and everybody pays the same percentage. It's fair.

Yeah, quit allowing people to deduct state taxes

[Larry]

I don't believe that is the case on the federal level but I do know some jurisdictions charge taxes solely on revenue. Fairfax county is one of them.

I don't believe you. Not for an instant.

You honestly expect me to believe that when a business buys a widget for $950, and sells it for $1,000, that they pay taxes on $1,000?

I know that retail sales tax works that way.

But now we're bring in state/local sales taxes, into a thread about the federal income tax?

[pointyfootball]

I bet families that earn $250,001 and live in NYC hate Buffet speaking for/about them.

[Special K]

In a recent thread I opined that the $250,000 mark was too low and that I would set it at around $500,000 instead. Many people made good arguments as to why I was wrong. Economics not being my strength I conceded that I could very well be wrong. However I find it interesting that Buffet agrees with me. Not that it makes me a genius or anything, but at least I can honestly say I'm not completely out in left field.

I agree with you that $250,000 is too small a cut-off to consider an individual or household "wealthy."

Probably the lowest cut-off I would ever support would be 500,000, but I would prefer 1 million...

[Larry]

1) In tax year '09 (most recent year for which numbers have been released), an income of $154K puts somebody in the top 5% of all tax returns. $354K puts one in the top 1%.

From this I estimate that $250K puts someone roughly in the top 2-3% of all tax returns.

These people probably don't own 150 foot yachts. But "top 3%" isn't exactly "middle", either.

2) I will also point out that at least what Obama is proposing, is an increase of 3% tax on the income above $250K.

The hypothetical "person who makes $250,001", under Obama, would pay 38 cents tax on that one dollar, instead of the 35 cents he's paying now. In short, Obama's 3% tax increase would cost that person 3 cents. (Not 3% of $250K)

[The Evil Genius]

Just make it equal across the board with no exemptions and everybody pays the same percentage. It's fair.

Who says taxes have to be fair?



Now, if it was up to me, I would push for all income from Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends to be counted and taxed at the same level as your "normal" income.

Maybe we could also return to the Reagan era tax rates of 1984, where the top earners paid a marginal tax rate of 50%

[Special K]

From this I estimate that $250K puts someone roughly in the top 2-3% of all tax returns.

These people probably don't own 150 foot yachts. But "top 3%" isn't exactly "middle", either.

I don't think too many people are claiming that those who make $250,000+ a year are middle class...