Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    The problem with relying on taxing the rich …

    The problem with relying on taxing the rich …

    … in order to pay for your grand spending plans is that sometimes you run out of rich:

    … based on 2009 IRS figures, … the number of taxpayers reporting annual income over $1 million fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2009; the number of super-wealthy individuals making over $10 million annually plunged 55 percent.

    The carnage wasn’t confined to millionaires. The number of taxpayers earning over $200,000 per year also decreased by 612,000 – or 13 percent.

    Ya didn’t think this through, did ya, geniuses?

    Spotted in Ithaca:

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Zachriel: “Yes, and if you go about the unfairness of some people not paying income tax while ignoring that they pay other taxes, then your position is misleading.

    Individual income taxes account for approximately 45% of total federal revenues, a percentage that has been relatively stable for several decades. It is the biggest single chunk.

    And lets be honest . . . SSI is really in a category of it’s own, or at least it is according to law. I cannot think of a justifiable reason someone should be able to draw down from the retirement account without having made the legitimate contributions thereto. Of course, others disagree . . .

    But the big fiscal problem right now is the baby boom bumper crop of retirees drawing down benefits, with a basically level influx of revenue “income” from younger workers.

    Now, as for federal fuel taxes, give Obama time, for heaven’s sake. He and the elitist Democrats are systematically attempting to drive people out of their cars, one way of which is by pushing to raise federal gas taxes to the point that only those with means will be able to afford to drive. And mass transit will continue to be subsidized at unjustifiable levels. They talk about it all the time. Where have you been?

    As for Warren Buffett:

    If Warren Buffett was serious about the need for him to pay more personal federal income taxes — I strongly suspect he was not addressing corporate income taxes — instead of just looking for a way to score a political point for his friend, he could have easily done so, as was noted by one writer, by simply filing for the standard deduction!

    It is not a bracket problem, as you parroted . . . rather, he obviously must have chosen to shelter much of that income, likely through gifts to foundations.

    But in the recent past, he also made it clear that his generous charitable giving is, in the long run, a way to ensure that his money is more effectively spent that way than if it was just handed over to the government.

    So, I’d have to say that I agree with the following comment of his from back in 2007:

    “In 2007, Mr. Buffett said, “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

    So when he recently started publicly grousing about not having the honor of paying enough in Federal personal income taxes, he was just not telling the whole story. He was trying to give his buddy Barack Obama a little political boost.

    And in doing so, he was also taking issue with the Warren Buffett of just a few years ago!


       
       0 
       
       0
      Zachriel in reply to Trochilus. | August 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm

      Trochilus: But the big fiscal problem right now is the baby boom bumper crop of retirees drawing down benefits, with a basically level influx of revenue “income” from younger workers.

      To finance their retirement, people have been overpaying Social Security for decades in order to build up a surplus. So Bush lowered income taxes. The income tax payers, who are supposed to pay for most of government services other than entitlements, have been getting a break for years.

      Trochilus: It is not a bracket problem, as you parroted . . . rather, he obviously must have chosen to shelter much of that income, likely through gifts to foundations.

      One such anomaly is the 15% rate that hedge and private equity fund managers pay on what is essentially their salary, as opposed to the marginal tax rate plus payroll taxes their secretary and cleaning person pays.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend