Skip to main content

View Diary: Are we on the verge of another 1848 or 1917? (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Patango - I have written, here at DKOS, more (0+ / 0-)

    than 100 times that I favor higher marginal rates for high income earners. I favor them for all high income earners, not just CEOs.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:43:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your comments are right there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen
      VClib

       He paid a lot more in actual tax. Buffet paid millions in tax, his secretary paid thousands. Buffet and his secretary are an odd example because they both have similar salaries, about $125,000 and Buffet makes all of his money from long term capital gains.

       people who are following the ( tax ) law are doing nothing wrong.

      Buffet pays more taxes than his secretary

      The statement that Buffet pays less tax than is secretary has been repeated so many times that many people actually believe it, when he actually pays millions more in income tax.

      The frame work for the argument presented by Buffet himself has been establish for about 2 years

      Your counter arguments make clear your position and what you support , and your obvious misinterpretation of other peoples comments here only solidify what you stand for

      You insinuate an argument no one presented , then from there proclaim the whole progressive argument is not  correct , most people in here are to bright to fall for all that

      Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

      by Patango on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:42:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Buffet is not a representative example (0+ / 0-)

        for two reasons. First he makes $125,000 for being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The other CEO's make millions and pay the top marginal rate. The second is that Buffet's secretary makes at least $100,000 and maybe a lot more based on her reported marginal rate. For 495 of the Fortune 500 CEOs, and their secretaries, the CEO pays a significantly higher effective rate than their secretaries. The other five are founders like Buffet and their income is from long term capital gains. The Buffet story makes it seem like it is common that CEOs pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries when it's not. Is the rare exception. This has led to the misperception that CEO compensation is eligible for long term capital gains treatment, when it isn't, and that some CEOs pay less actual tax than their secretaries, which is ludicrous.

        So while I favor higher marginal rates for high income earners, something I have favored the many years I have been here, the Buffet discussions are one of my hot buttons because I think his specific situation is not well understood and his statements used without the proper context.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:31:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Buffet is a lot like many investors (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Patango, Tonedevil

          who make their principle income from investment income and capital gains. Some CEOs get very high salaries, taxable at ordinary rates. Obviously this isn't the case for Buffet.

          So the point still stands the Buffet is making. The idea the example is limited to just CEOs is a strawman.

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:40:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that most people (0+ / 0-)

            when they read about the Buffet example understand that Buffet obtains nearly all his income from investments. They don't understand that he takes a nominal salary that hasn't changed in 25 years. They view Buffet in the context that he is the CEO of Birkshire Hathaway and assume that his income is primarily from his job. Virtually none of the people who write about Buffet on the internet put his statement, or his source of his income, in context.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:03:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  VClib says (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, Tonedevil
              when they read about the Buffet example understand that Buffet obtains nearly all his income from investments.
              Once again you imply people are just not very bright when it comes to this subject , you are a prime example for DBAD imo , I read DK and the comments in here and I am always impressed by the community , if anything you are the one coming off as " uninformed "

              Buffet framed his argument in a very informative way , for you to claim "Virtually none of the people" can grasp it is a self centered narrow minded view , and I would imagine " offensive "  to most of the thinking people of this community

              Such messaging is loud and clear , and your message is being nailed ,  and will not fly in my DK skies  

              Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

              by Patango on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:56:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Everyone understands the context (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              which is that an extremely wealthy man, on e of the wealthiest, pays a lower rate on his taxes than the person who handles his appointment schedule.

              That's the only context they need to know.

              There was a time I was involved in real estate investments. I made all of my money from those investments. There were some years I paid nothing at all in taxes.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:00:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  ZhenRen (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen, Tonedevil

            I just remembered how my last debate ended with VClib , I introduced a person like Paris Hilton into a debate like this , and VC ended up basically saying

            "what she pays in taxes on her inherited family investments were no ones business but her own "

            And that is some how a completely separate issue when it comes to paying taxes  

            But these people are all for making the tax system fair ?

            FLOP

            Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

            by Patango on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:34:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  VClib (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil
          Buffet is not a representative example for two reasons. First he makes $125,000 for being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
          Stanford Blog
          Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
          And Romney paid a 12% tax rate , his income that is on the books any way

          So basically your position is that "capital investment income" is completely excluded in the accounting of  taxation on the public , that means your claims that you are for raising taxes on the wealthy are a complete farce , since you people refuse to accept that as INCOME    

          Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

          by Patango on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:20:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How can anyone who grosses $60,000 (0+ / 0-)

            have an effective federal income tax rate of 30%. It's not possible. The math doesn't work. The top marginal rate at $60,000 is 28%.

            I certainly accept that investment income is income for tax purposes. That's the law and investment income should be taxed. Investment income was not initially included in the original (Post 16th Amendment) income tax, but was added many decades ago.

            I do not believe that earned income and the long term capital gains rate should be the same.  For most of the post WWII period long term capital gains were taxed at one half your top marginal rate. The two tax rates have never been the same except for a short period after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 when both the earned income rate and the long term capital gains rate were both capped at 28%. Every country in the G20 has a lower tax rate for capital gains than for earned income. I think that if we raised the long term capital gains rate to 39.6% it would negatively impact economic growth, capital formation, and the balance of payments without producing much, if any, additional revenue for the Treasury.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:15:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Economic growth (0+ / 0-)

              at the expense of workers, where putting a higher tax rate on labor than on capital in order to create "growth" is used as an excuse to extract wealth from workers for redistribution to the rich, reveals the explotive nature of the system which serves the wealthy class.

              This excuse has been used to resist increasing the minimum wage, shorter work days, and just about any benefit accruing to labor. It is the wealthy class basically saying, "give us all the money, we know what to do with it, and our behavior will enrich the majority working class, too."

              The workers produce the wealth, they produce growth, and they deserve their share of the wealth.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:44:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site