Politics

[Tanks]

Attempt to explain this part to me like I am a 3rd grader (I wont be offended..)..

Im not tracking or undertanding how the bottom 1% that generally pay no taxes (and/or get refunded all that they paid in, plus some..) are carrying the heaviest burden..

Because, in the age of envy, they are not living as well as the top 1% and that is unfair and unjust.

 

[Big_Easy]

I'm by no means an expert on government mass transit, but I was 15 years old when the Simpsons "Monorail" episode came out. Like everything in the Simpsons, its prophetic and predicts the future with nearly 100% accuracy. In this case, it was the California high speed rail project.

View attachment 764428

Correct...but didn't the Simpsons also predict a Trump presidency, at the end of which the country has been bankrupted as well?! Remind me again, what is our current debt level? $39 Trillion? Adding $2 Trillion a year more in debt? Remember folks, more debt has been added under Trump than any other president.

 

[Big_Easy]

That chart is a little misleading because of the range within the 1%.

I don’t have the numbers information if me but last time I liked at it prior that mage $500-700k pay a much larger percent than those above them. There are all kinds of mechanisms that the very wealthy have that just aren’t readily available even to the wealthy.

I’m not saying redistribute wealth butch there is an argument that the top .1% should carry a little more weight.

It’s isn’t about raising rates but just level out the payments a bit.

Correct. The issue isn't the top 1-2%, its the top 0.1%. Thats because the $500-700K range folks are actually earning their income. Those are the smaller businessman, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and associated professionals.....Active versus passive income (current top rate is ~37%). The top 0.1% don't have active/earned income, its largely passive, legacy/family income, or a few self made billionaires. Forbes actually had a good article years ago about how ~80% of the billionaires started out in wealthy families.

But they only pay 23.8% on their passive income, well, the income that they don't hide or loophole into some foreign rathole. And that's only because of Obama negotiating with Speaker Boehner, and the ACA, otherwise it would be only 15%, like it was under Bush.

 

[Big_Easy]

The tax code is very complicated for a reason. The left often complain about the percentage the top 1% pay. Because they often don’t have “income” and use other mechanisms for drawing liquid assets.

But day in and day out they contribute by other means. Property taxes, wealth taxes on high dollar purchases. Even if a corporation buys the asset. It pays the tax.

Warren Buffet often brags that his secretary pays more in Taxes than he does. But he lives in a tiny house and never took much income. However, recently he’s been dumping stocks and I’ll guarantee somebody paid tax on that. Whether it was him or a corporation, somebody dumped a lot of money into the US treasury. We can play word games and say, Warren Buffett didn’t pay those taxes, but some entity did.

It’s so muddled that each side of the “fair” tax argument can get what they need from the facts. But directly or indirectly the 1-5 percentile contribute more than the taxpayers below.

P.S. a quick search.
“Berkshire Hathaway, the company led by Warren Buffett, paid the taxes on the massive stock sales, specifically highlighting a record $26.8 billion in federal income tax for 2024. These taxes were paid on huge gains, including massive sales of Apple stock, with the company often citing a 21% federal corporate tax rate”

So it can be argued that Warren Buffett didn’t pay the tax. but 26 billion less was put Warrens companies pocket. either way you look at it, the treasury got 26 billion in taxes in 2024 from his company.

Buffet was not bragging about paying a lower net effective tax rate than his secretary, he was lamenting it. He agreed with Obama, and even offered to have the increase in taxes on the wealthy named the "Buffet Tax," or the "Buffet Rule." Essentially increasing the AMT for households earning over $1 million/year in 2011 to 30%. If we taxed all income at the same rate as we do active/earned income, we could reduce our annual deficit by more than 60%.

 

[spike.t]

Not quite going to plan I presume.....

Iraq and Pakistan Strike Iran Transit Deals to Move Oil and LNG Through Hormuz

Explore the significance of the Strait of Hormuz amid recent oil shipping deals between Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran.

gcaptain.com

 

[Tanks]

If we taxed all income at the same rate as we do active/earned income, we could reduce our annual deficit by more than 60%.

And why would one invest their money in stock market then?

 

[Big_Easy]

Big_Easy, with what seems like continually looming elections, the Dems are perpetually in need of a dependent underclass for support and votes. Ultimately it is about retaining or regaining power. It has gotten to the point now they are not even hiding their desire for legalizing illegal alien voting.

The Democrats didn't create the dependent underclass, the Republican politicians you vote for, and their big business pimps did. The Democrats just use them to their political advantage, just like Trump does when he blames all their problems on immigrants.

 

[Big_Easy]

I believe he was saying that the bottom portion of the1% is paying the lions share of taxes for the entirety of the 1%.

Or the 1% is paying a disproportionate amount of taxes compared to the .001%

Correct, he's noting that the top 1-2% actually pay a higher net effective tax rate than the top 0.1%, or top 0.01%, due to a lower tax rate on unearned income versus earned income.

 

[Big_Easy]

And why would one invest their money in stock market then?

You're asking why would somebody forgo record financial returns because they had to pay more in taxes on their earnings? I think your question answers itself.

Example: My wife and I are in a MFJ top federal tax bracket of 24%. But only 15% for Capital gains. You're asking if paying an extra 9% of my profits in taxes to the government would convince me to forgo potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment returns over our lives? What other investments vehicles would I put our money into? CDs? Savings Accounts? Money Market? Treasuries? All of those have vastly underperformed the stock market over the last 30+ years.

 

[Pheroze]

Mind describing the article that is hidden behind a pay wall?

That’s so weird because I don’t pay for it!

 

[Pheroze]

She is tough and demand accountability and results.

 

[Brent in Az]

Correct...but didn't the Simpsons also predict a Trump presidency, at the end of which the country has been bankrupted as well?! Remind me again, what is our current debt level? $39 Trillion? Adding $2 Trillion a year more in debt? Remember folks, more debt has been added under Trump than any other president.

Meat puppet Biden actually added slightly more debt.
The bulk of the debt under Trump's first term was covid relief and subsequent spending related to covid.
The Covid unleashed by the gain of function folks that Fauci had his dirty Democrat fingers in was directly responsible.
But nice try in your usual deflection of actual reality

 

[LivingTheDream]

Investment income is earned. I find capital gains tax pretty ridiculous since the income for the investment was already taxed. Not to mentioned it doesn't take into account the inflation rate. So the government can devalue the currency and then tax you on the gains, when in theory you lost value.

The reason Tanks said why invest in the stock market, is because it doesnt offer any tax protection, there are other investments that have the same return but offer tax protections or allow you to write off against it.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Buffet was not bragging about paying a lower net effective tax rate than his secretary, he was lamenting it. He agreed with Obama, and even offered to have the increase in taxes on the wealthy named the "Buffet Tax," or the "Buffet Rule." Essentially increasing the AMT for households earning over $1 million/year in 2011 to 30%. If we taxed all income at the same rate as we do active/earned income, we could reduce our annual deficit by more than 60%.

Yes I understand that Warren was lamenting the fact. But he uses that statement like a badge of honor. He’s so virtuous.

Unfortunately there isn’t enough wealth in the entire nation to pay for the huge Federal government appetite. Even if you confiscated every penny owned and ever asset owned by every American it won’t pay off the debt and continue to generate the taxes to pay future the bills.




“If the U.S. government confiscated all personal assets, wealth—including property, investments, and cash—estimates suggest a total pool exceeding $150 trillion to $160 trillion.

The top 5% of Americans own roughly 50%-60% of all wealth, totaling an estimated $75 trillion or more.

Seizing all wealth from U.S. billionaires (roughly 800 people) would only yield around $8.1 trillion, covering federal expenditures for just over one year (approx. 13.4 months). Then what.

Maybe if we cut some more Somali day care and LA hospice fraud we could stretch the Billionaires money to last 2-3 years.

 

[Russ16]

Attempt to explain this part to me like I am a 3rd grader (I wont be offended..)..

Im not tracking or undertanding how the bottom 1% that generally pay no taxes (and/or get refunded all that they paid in, plus some..) are carrying the heaviest burden..

I mean the bottom half of the top 1%. My issue isn’t with the whole code. Basically there is a big gulf between to top earners and the uber wealthy. And the code doesn’t really address that. People making $600,000 are taxed much more heavily on a percentage basis than people with super high incomes.

 

[Russ16]

B

And why would one invest their money in stock market then?

Because you’ll still make money. If we taxed all income the American the rate could be between that for active and passive income. It wouldn’t be a disincentive to invest.

 

[Scott CWO]

Correct. The issue isn't the top 1-2%, its the top 0.1%. Thats because the $500-700K range folks are actually earning their income. Those are the smaller businessman, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and associated professionals.....Active versus passive income (current top rate is ~37%). The top 0.1% don't have active/earned income, its largely passive, legacy/family income, or a few self made billionaires. Forbes actually had a good article years ago about how ~80% of the billionaires started out in wealthy families.

But they only pay 23.8% on their passive income, well, the income that they don't hide or loophole into some foreign rathole. And that's only because of Obama negotiating with Speaker Boehner, and the ACA, otherwise it would be only 15%, like it was under Bush.

It’s their money, passive or not. Some of it was earned earlier by predecessors and taxed as earned income already back then. How many times should it be taxed?

 

[rookhawk]

Buffet was not bragging about paying a lower net effective tax rate than his secretary, he was lamenting it. He agreed with Obama, and even offered to have the increase in taxes on the wealthy named the "Buffet Tax," or the "Buffet Rule." Essentially increasing the AMT for households earning over $1 million/year in 2011 to 30%. If we taxed all income at the same rate as we do active/earned income, we could reduce our annual deficit by more than 60%.

Buffet was an idiot in his thinking. He was lamenting that dividend income is taxed at only 18% and a very high wage earner like his half-million a year secretary is taxed at 36% is unjust.

So what happens if you tax investment income at marginal tax rates?

1.) The market tanks to third world status immediately. People will pull their money out of stocks and move them into real property.

2.) Little old ladies and other pensioners will be on welfare. They live on their dividends but they'll fail to make their life work, forcing them to sell the now worthless stock due to outflows. They'll shortly be on the dole all while the companies of America lose their capitalization.

Why is Buffet a marxist?

A.) He doesn't understand risk. A wage earner takes no risk whatsoever. They receive their wages so long as they have an employer. They imperil no capital. If the company goes down in value, their wages do not instantly adjust for the change in value. If the company goes bankrupt, there is no deficiency judgment and lien placed on the wage earner. In short, they have no skin in the game.

B.) The capitalist has already paid their taxes, they had wages and instead of consuming them, they imperiled them by investing capital to encourage business. The stock can go to zero overnight, they lose everything. Capital investment is higher risk and therefore it is incentivized by less punitive tax policy. If we treat capital like labor, the risk-premium of deploying capital will exceed the risk-reward benefit. Deploying capital will no longer be justified, the US economy will look like Zimbabwe overnight.

 

[Altitude sickness]

You can tax billionaires at 75% as they did in the mid 70s and it will never be enough. The spending will always outpace the generation of wealth.

 

[Big_Easy]

It’s their money, passive or not. Some of it was earned earlier by predecessors and taxed as earned income already back then. How many times should it be taxed?

At least we can agree that only some of it was earned.

The tax isn't on the income/principal, its on the growth that it generates. Think of that growth as "new" money vs. existing money...Like sales tax. If you resell the same item again and again, it generates the tax multiple times vs. just once.