Buffet: Tax the mega-rich

[javaguru]

You mean no federal taxes, obviously. They still pay a good portion of their income in payroll, sales, etc taxes.

Sure, they pay payroll taxes but current retirees paid around 100k in payroll taxes to medicare but will consume 300k in services. When my generation retires we'll pay roughly the same but consume 400k in services.

It isn't talked about much but I don't think it's a coincidence that where the fed pays for stuff it inevitably becomes outrageously expensive...Higher education is even a better example than health care.

 

[javaguru]

Bush appointee, wasn't he???

Well, the fed gives the POTUS three names to appoint....

The president doesn't really have a choice...

 

[Mr. dB]

and paying no taxes and, in many instances, getting refunds in excess of all taxes withheld from them during the year...thanks to your friend g-dub (give credit where credit is due).

The point being, the GOP Koolaid drinkers always harp on the 45-51% who don't pay income tax, but those people constitute 0.1% of all income. So even if all their tax benefits were revoked, the effect on tax revenue would be minimal.

 

[mrplunkey]

The point being, the GOP Koolaid drinkers always harp on the 45-51% who don't pay income tax, but those people constitute 0.1% of all income. So even if all their tax benefits were revoked, the effect on tax revenue would be minimal.

Everyone should have skin in the game though, even if they are only chipping in a few thousand per year.

 

[UA_Iron]

Everyone should have skin in the game though, even if they are only chipping in a few thousand per year.

Flat tax

 

[mrplunkey]

Flat tax

I like a flat tax or even a pure consumption tax with no income tax.

To me, it seems like we should tax people as they spend -- not as they accumulate. I'd love to see people save more.

 

[digimon7068]

The point being, the GOP Koolaid drinkers always harp on the 45-51% who don't pay income tax, but those people constitute 0.1% of all income. So even if all their tax benefits were revoked, the effect on tax revenue would be minimal.

well...77% of u.s. households fall into that $40k to $60k range...and, personally, i'm not in love with the fact that 40 to 50% are paying no taxes (although, lately, i think it's probably a little higher than that)...and, i'm not a dyed-in-wool affiliate of any party, for what it's worth.

 

[Mr. dB]

...and, personally, i'm not in love with the fact that 40 to 50% are paying no taxes (although, lately, i think it's probably a little higher than that)...

I'm not in love with the fact that 40 to 50% are doing so poorly that they qualify for the kickbacks.

 

[javaguru]

I'm not in love with the fact that 40 to 50% are doing so poorly that they qualify for the kickbacks.

I'm all for repealing the Obama tax cuts for the rich, can't call them the Bush tax cuts anymore since Obama endorsed them last go around, and eliminating all deductions.

FYI, eliminating the Obama tax cuts would actually generate more revenue from those making less than 250k year as opposed to those making 250k+ a year. It's about time people start paying for the handouts they were promised from the politicians.

 

[digimon7068]

I'm not in love with the fact that 40 to 50% are doing so poorly that they qualify for the kickbacks.

one man's poor is another man's 80% of the united states...oh and, i've mentioned this before...there's a common thread that MANY of those 80% possess...obesity...ain't no poor fat people...period.


<------------------ i'm poor! and i'm getting tired of paying for the dang handouts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!