quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I have gone 'round and 'round with many Progressives and Liberals. The griping about taxes being at historic lows and tax cuts for the rich are ridiculous. The rich are carrying more and more of the load for Federal income tax revenues. Fewer and fewer wage earners have a Federal income tax liability. That's been the trend since the Bush tax cuts (not making any statement on the trend before the Bush tax cuts). Federal Income Tax revenues are nearing historic highs. How is it the rich "aren't paying enough," fewer and fewer wage earners are even paying Federal income taxes, and yet, Federal Tax revenues are nearing record highs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Buffett's wealth comes from capital gains. How would this not affect him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
That was not the question. The question, in case you missed it, was why would you keep your money in the bank at a fraction of 1% instead of making 70% as opposed to 80%.. Your post gives one the sense of a man with a paper asshole trying to fight a forest fire.

So, if all the realistic options aren't given, one should just stfu and deal with it? Well, you should know by now that I'm not going to go that route. If I see an option that could be realistically viable, I'll point it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: switchdavid69

1 % ?. Your'e in the wrong parking spot. I'm getting 7 % in the annunity I am invested in. There is a small cost to manage it, but certainly better than a passbook account..

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
That was not the question. The question, in case you missed it, was why would you keep your money in the bank at a fraction of 1% instead of making 70% as opposed to 80%.. Your post gives one the sense of a man with a paper asshole trying to fight a forest fire.

So, if all the realistic options aren't given, one should just stfu and deal with it? Well, you should know by now that I'm not going to go that route. If I see an option that could be realistically viable, I'll point it out.

Actually you are pointing out something that is not related to the question. You might also point out to us what you had for breakfast but it still does not address the question.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Warren Buffett has a very valid point. For years we have heard that if taxes were raised on the rich, they would simply stop investing. That never made sense to me. Why give up profits? Are they really going to give up 70% profit because they cant make 85%?

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.

...........

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

The group’s average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a “wage” of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I’m assuming they’re paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

........

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

In the meantime, maybe you’ll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won’t go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?_r=0

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

lol... ramble? 3 lines is rambling?

quote:

Warren Buffett has a very valid point. For years we have heard that if taxes were raised on the rich, they would simply stop investing. That never made sense to me. Why give up profits? Are they really going to give up 70% profit because they cant make 85%?

quote:

Facts are, the majority of new ventures don't make it 5 years. The wealthy get burned on deals like everyone else. they need good tax rates to make up for the deals that don't succed.

quote:

The stock market has proven to be a money maker over the long haul, up what, 13% this year so far. So why arn't you in the market? Oh, is it the fear that you might LOSE your money? The more risk one is willing to assume usually means more reward if it works out. So don't beat up the wealthy for having more "balls" than you.