$447 bil

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Another rule...if all your life experiences suck perhaps the blame should...
No wait that's not right...
I cant remember the wording,

Never mind.

I think it goes like this;

If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

If you don't like lemonade, find life, and beat his head in with a pipe wrench.

JC

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

That guy you're talking about, did he merely OWN companies, and hire people to lead them? If so, that's not really impressive. In order to actually lead a company, you need leadership skills, and someone who simply reads books after school isn't going to develop that. I'm not saying he needs to play football, but athletics of any kind (regardless if they are school-sponsored or not) are very effective at teaching kids confidence, self-control, assertiveness, time management, the ability to banter with someone without blowing a cork, the importance of putting yourself aside and working towards a team goal, and probably most importantly, how to motivate & encourage others.

Activities like marching band are great too, but personally I think they don't provide as many benefits.

People can get good grades and get into good colleges and then get good jobs because of that........But, will they become leaders of those companies? Will they have a good social life?

Personally, the most successful people I know are those who got good grades AND played sports.......They are great time managers / multi-taskers, and they know how to navigate the social / interpersonal world within an organization (i.e. grease the wheels)

Started and built a company from the ground up, and sold it... Bought another... Don't know him well enough to know all of the details, but again... Not participating in athletics doesn't mean a kid is going to be worthless...

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by shmike

Really?

Use PC's example, 1950's.

Lowest tax bracket was 20%, only about 22% of population got out of paying income taxes.

Today, the lowest bracket is 10% and nearly HALF all all filers pay no income taxes (over 47% last I saw).

I don't care how much you make or what the top tax bracket is, 0% is always easier to pay than any other non-negative percent.

First question would be, how many of those who pay no income taxes are actually in the lowest tax bracket? How many of them are in the top tax bracket, and are paying no taxes through loopholes in the tax law?

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

First question would be, how many of those who pay no income taxes are actually in the lowest tax bracket? How many of them are in the top tax bracket, and are paying no taxes through loopholes in the tax law?

I know a few in the middle brackets using nothing more than good ole fashioned deductions.

What exactly is a "loophole" in the tax law?

[Homeslice]

Buffett Blasts Low Taxes On Billionaires, Says Congress Must Stop Coddling Them
By Henry Blodget

The most respected investor and capitalist on the planet, Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York Times this morning to bust a myth that has dominated political discourse in recent months:

The idea that raising taxes on super-rich people would hurt the economy.

Buffett observes that his own personal taxes as a percent of his income have plummeted in the past decade, to all-time lows. He observes, as he has before, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary. He calls out the absurdity of hedge-fund managers and other professional investors playing "long-term capital gains" rates on short-term trading profits.

And then he takes aim at the biggest rationale for preserving these astonishing tax breaks: The claim that, if taxes on deca-millionaire and billionaires were increased, these super-rich Americans would stop investing, thus clobbering the economy and hurting job growth: ( )

"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. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

"When presented with these facts, those who argue against tax increases on the super-rich--or, even more absurdly, for more tax cuts--often point to President Ronald Reagan, observing that he cut taxes for the wealthy, helping usher in a long economic boom.

"This ignores the point that Reagan also raised taxes. And more importantly, it ignores how high tax rates on super-rich people were when Reagan cut them: In 1980, the top bracket was a startling 70%. It also ignores how Bill Clinton raised taxes and then took the US from the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years to a surplus. It ignores how George Bush cut taxes, plunged the budget back into a deficit, encouraged the wild borrowing spree that inflated the housing bubble, and then oversaw the worst recession since the Depression. It ignores how the US prospered all through the 1950s and 1960s, when marginal tax rates were super-high. And so on.

"In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology, rather than common sense."

Buffett, by the way, isn't proposing a blanket increase on today's entire top tax bracket, those making over $379,150, many of whom protest against the idea that they are "rich." Buffett is suggesting the implementation of two new brackets--one for taxpayers making over $1 million, of whom there are 237,000 in the country, and one for taxpayers making over $10 million, of whom there are only 8,000.

In other words, Buffett's tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by shmike

Fuck me.

I had a long response typed out and lost it!!!

Cliff's notes:
Today, top eaners = $379k.
1950 top earner = $200k ($1.8 mil today)

Largely immaterial, given that the truly wealthy are vast multiples of these numbers. You should really ask yourself why your government doesn't create higher tax brackets, precisely to cover these massive earners.

Originally Posted by Warren Buffett

"In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology, rather than common sense."

And this, right here, is the issue. People don't open their eyes and look at the available evidence. They instead close them, and decide that they already know why things happen.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You should really ask yourself why your government doesn't create higher tax brackets, precisely to cover these massive earners.
.

Which is what Obama is proposing, but I'm sure it will never go anywhere.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Buffett Blasts Low Taxes On Billionaires, Says Congress Must Stop Coddling Them
By Henry Blodget

The most respected investor and capitalist on the planet, Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York Times this morning to bust a myth that has dominated political discourse in recent months:

The idea that raising taxes on super-rich people would hurt the economy.

Buffett observes that his own personal taxes as a percent of his income have plummeted in the past decade, to all-time lows. He observes, as he has before, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary. He calls out the absurdity of hedge-fund managers and other professional investors playing "long-term capital gains" rates on short-term trading profits.

And then he takes aim at the biggest rationale for preserving these astonishing tax breaks: The claim that, if taxes on deca-millionaire and billionaires were increased, these super-rich Americans would stop investing, thus clobbering the economy and hurting job growth: ( )

"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. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

"When presented with these facts, those who argue against tax increases on the super-rich--or, even more absurdly, for more tax cuts--often point to President Ronald Reagan, observing that he cut taxes for the wealthy, helping usher in a long economic boom.

"This ignores the point that Reagan also raised taxes. And more importantly, it ignores how high tax rates on super-rich people were when Reagan cut them: In 1980, the top bracket was a startling 70%. It also ignores how Bill Clinton raised taxes and then took the US from the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years to a surplus. It ignores how George Bush cut taxes, plunged the budget back into a deficit, encouraged the wild borrowing spree that inflated the housing bubble, and then oversaw the worst recession since the Depression. It ignores how the US prospered all through the 1950s and 1960s, when marginal tax rates were super-high. And so on.

"In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology, rather than common sense."

Buffett, by the way, isn't proposing a blanket increase on today's entire top tax bracket, those making over $379,150, many of whom protest against the idea that they are "rich." Buffett is suggesting the implementation of two new brackets--one for taxpayers making over $1 million, of whom there are 237,000 in the country, and one for taxpayers making over $10 million, of whom there are only 8,000.

In other words, Buffett's tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

Buffett is setting up a straw man to knock down. He is focusing on the "super-rich" people like himself who make most of their money from investments rather than income. Buffett pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary because he primarily pays capital gains rates on investments while his secretary pays income tax rates on her salary and bonuses. The people in Buffett's circumstance are a small subset within the "millionaires and billionaires" whose taxes Obama has wanted to raise.

I have heard little concern for people like Buffett in the tax discussion. From what I have seen it has primarily focused on small business owners who file as individuals and would get caught in the over $200k individual/$250k couple area whose taxes Obama has so far wanted to raise.

Apparently we are going to find out what the response will be to these kinds of taxes. On Monday Obama is supposed to propose new tax rules for the "super-rich" they are calling, appropriately, the Buffett Rule. Buffett is getting his wish and we will see how much resistance there really is to this kind of thing, assuming Obama's rule is as limited as they claim it will be.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Largely immaterial, given that the truly wealthy are vast multiples of these numbers. You should really ask yourself why your government doesn't create higher tax brackets, precisely to cover these massive earners.

As I said above, the very specific group of people like Buffett don't get their money from income. We could create an income tax bracket for people who earn over $1 million with a rate of 100% and it will have little effect on Buffett. I don't know if capital gains taxes have ever been bracketed but I know for the last 20+ years they have been set at a flat rate for everyone.

What I suspect Obama is going to announce is a cut off for capital gains income. What I mean is someone can only have a certain amount of money taxed as cap gains and everything after that is taxed as normal income.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Which is what Obama is proposing, but I'm sure it will never go anywhere.

The value of this is debatable as well, especially for some of the higher profile people like Buffett and Gates. They have pledged to give the majority of their wealth to charity when they die. That being the case I believe they can put their income, regardless of where it comes from, in tax free charitable trusts. Either way I'm curious to see what Obama will propose tomorrow.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

As I said above, the very specific group of people like Buffett don't get their money from income. We could create an income tax bracket for people who earn over $1 million with a rate of 100% and it will have little effect on Buffett. I don't know if capital gains taxes have ever been bracketed but I know for the last 20+ years they have been set at a flat rate for everyone.

What I suspect Obama is going to announce is a cut off for capital gains income. What I mean is someone can only have a certain amount of money taxed as cap gains and everything after that is taxed as normal income.

One of his points was, even back when capital gains were taxed at a higher rate, it didn't discourage people from investing, and wouldn't, because investing in stocks will always be one of the most effective and pain-free ways to get a good return on your savings.

And I doubt there are very many people earning a million-plus salary, or even just $200K+, who don't invest in stocks. Compare that to the middle-class and lower, many of whom don't have any stocks. The point is, someone who pulls down a high salary can afford to put a higher percentage of that salary into savings. Therefore, his savings will grow more quickly, to the point where a substantial portion of his income is coming from capital gains.