I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett

[Arrian]

No Ramo, my claim is that letting the poor abdicate the civic responsibility of maintaining the government through taxation will lead tp "very bad things" for the poor.

Which is absurd.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Which is absurd.

-Arrian

Frankly, his entire argument is absurd. The poor are already minimized and their paying of less of the tax burden isn't going to make them any worse off and vice versa.

[snoopy369]

I think the argument is not entirely absurd. I've read comments by immigrants that they enjoyed paying their taxes, and derived a great deal of pride out of doing so, because it gave them a feeling of participation in government. For many people, this is their only source of participation (paying taxes).

That said, I disagree with the other half of the argument (that adjusting the tax burden to fall more on the rich would deprive the poor of power.) That is utterly absurd; although you could certainly imagine a senator arguing in the future to do away with some poverty programs because the poor don't pay taxes (compare this to school systems, where it is insisted often that schools get money in proportion to their tax base, rather than in proportion to their need, because people want their money going to their own kids).

[Patroklos]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That has zero relevance to what I said.

Frankly, his entire argument is absurd. The poor are already minimized and their paying of less of the tax burden isn't going to make them any worse off and vice versa.

They could certainly be minimized more Imran.

I never said anything about material gain/loss, you guys assumed that. And if it is so unimportant for the poor to be involved in taxes and our only goal is to help them out financial why do we tax them at all right now? The nation could certainly affort that, there is a reason we don't do that.

I'll get back to your longer post later Ramo, lunch break

But before I go, someone please explain why the civic responsibility/obligation to pay taxes is greater for the rich than the poor?

[PLATO]

Approximately 50% of the population had no federal tax liability at all last year.


Here is my thought on taxes:

-First $100,000 in income is exempt.
-Tax rate set annually on all amounts above $100,000 to ensure balanced budget.

$100,000 line should allow everybody to have at least a chance to have a living. Beyond that is where taxes should come from.

Simple.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But before I go, someone please explain why the civic responsibility/obligation to pay taxes is greater for the rich than the poor?

That is not, and should never be, the argument.

Two elements:
1. Buffet argues that the rich should pay at least as much as the poor, not more. He pays 17%, his secretary 34%. Clearly inequitable (unless you are considering macroeconomic factors and ignoring micro).

2. The rich can afford to pay more. The 34% that comes out of my pocket costs me more than the 34% that would come out of Buffet's pocket. He wouldn't notice it at all, while it means I pay off my debt slower, can buy less, put off raising children a few more years, etc. Thus, having a higher (non-flat) tax rate is not entirely unreasonable. Flat taxes are poor ideas for other reasons (largely that people will have an incentive to just fall under the bar, and also the lack of ability to give economic incentive to things (either donations, certainl kinds of spending, investment, etc.), or else lose the value of the flat tax).

Civic responsibility has nothing to do with it (although it has to do with the inverse, which is the poor gaining more from tax payments than the rich).

[Ramo]

That has zero relevance to what I said.

Yes it does. You might want to read it again (see the bolded part in particular).

[Ramo]

I never said anything about material gain/loss, you guys assumed that.

You asserted very bad things would happen to the rights of the poor. What are those things? Specifically.

And if it is so unimportant for the poor to be involved in taxes and our only goal is to help them out financial why do we tax them at all right now?

The poor already have low (and even negative at times) income taxes. Regarding the other taxes, the reason would be people like you....

[Patroklos]

2. The rich can afford to pay more.

So? Are we theives?

[quote]

Civic responsibility has nothing to do with it (although it has to do with the inverse, which is the poor gaining more from tax payments than the rich).

Where does that civic responsibility come from? Certainly not any legally binding bit of paper.

You asserted very bad things would happen to the [b]rights[b] of the poor. What are those things? Specifically.

Not things, rights. More to the point, which I already said once, that once the poor are made nonactors in the support of government, without even symbolic buy in, I see a likely future sentiment to remove them from governance completely down the road.

The poor already have low (and even negative at times) income taxes. Regarding the other taxes, the reason would be people like you....

Sorry if I don't like to relegate poor people to the status of house pets.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by PLATO
Approximately 50% of the population had no federal tax liability at all last year.


Here is my thought on taxes:

-First $100,000 in income is exempt.
-Tax rate set annually on all amounts above $100,000 to ensure balanced budget.

$100,000 line should allow everybody to have at least a chance to have a living. Beyond that is where taxes should come from.

Simple.

Indexed it to inflation, not a bad plan. $100k per person or is that combined household income?

-Arrian

[PLATO]

It would have to be per person (or per adult). If not, then you would hear about "the marriage penalty"...and yes, it may smell a bit like social engineering to promote marriage. If my plan errs on one side or the other, I would like it to err on the side of supporting the family.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So? Are we theives?

It is hardly complicated to understand that the 'real value' of money is not the same for everyone, and that 'real value' is tied to, among other things, income.

The dollar has no actual value; it is a piece of paper (or an electronic bit, more commonly). It has value because we assign it value. That value varies widely by the person.

An extra $100 buys Warren Buffett ... nothing. An extra $100 buys someone earning $6/hr several meals, or a coat for their child, or other very useful things.

The marginal value of taxation is an important concept to non-flat tax systems, and is not hard to understand for those who understand economics (or math...) Suggesting a 'flat tax' (that taxes everyone equally %-wise, or even better, numerically) taxes unfairly, because it does not count marginal value.

Just as someone who makes $100,000 a year is more likely to buy a $4000 plasma TV and not care about the cost, while someone who makes $20,000 a year will probably not afford even an $800 TV; if we taxed everyone an equal 25%, we would be taking more 'real value' from the $20,000 earner than the $100,000 earner, even if the percent is equal.

Where does that civic responsibility come from? Certainly not any legally binding bit of paper.

Civic responsibility is not on legally binding paper (well, except for all those laws out there )... it is something that just, is. It is considered the civically responsible thing to do, to ensure noone starves to death, or dies of a treatable disease, due to poverty. Some things our society considers important enough to enshrine in the government; others are considered appropriate for private donations.

[Japher]

Does a flat tax purposly indicate X amount across the board or does it indicate X amount for Y income? Instead of X amount upto this amount, Y amount up to this other amount after X amount, etc.

So if you make 65k/year you are taxed 20% over the whole amount. Not, 15% on the first 30K, 17.5% on the next 15K, and 20% on the rest.

I think the flat rate not only makes it easier to calculate what you owe, but also gives incentive to go into another tax bracket and to keep you from slipping into a tax bracket below.

[Patroklos]

I am still trying to figure out who you are argueing with about the flat tax.

An extra $100 buys Warren Buffett ... nothing. An extra $100 buys someone earning $6/hr several meals, or a coat for their child, or other very useful things.

I usually don't like to quote myself, but we have been over this already.

People say that a flat tax is stupid because a percentage, though completely proportional mathematically, in reality means something different in real dollars to a poor person. I agree. The opposite is true though. That same percetage, though insignificant on the cost of living/quality of life to a rich person of a certain level eventually reaches a real value that is out of all touch with the reason we are able to tax in the first place (ie your individual/personal buy in to support the system).

Note I very clearly don't advocate a flat tax in that quote.

So again, your arguement about the real value of the dollar is a two edged sword. Taking money or anything from someone solely because they can afford it is theivery. You have to have a justifiable reason for it, and because it is there isn't one. You simply want what someone else has.

You can afford to live with one testicle and one eye, do we tax you for the others?

Civic responsibility is not on legally binding paper (well, except for all those laws out there )... it is something that just, is. It is considered the civically responsible thing to do, to ensure noone starves to death, or dies of a treatable disease, due to poverty. Some things our society considers important enough to enshrine in the government; others are considered appropriate for private donations.

Well your civic responsibilities are open for debate since they are arbitrary. Everyone has a different set of those.

I am talking about or civic responsibilities as spelled out in the constitution as citizens, or more to the point where we are required to comply with the powers granted to the government by that constitution. Paying taxes, submitting to conscription, following laws enacted through the constitutional process, etc.

[Patroklos]

Does a flat tax purposly...

A flat tax in its pure form is that you pay X% period, there are no brackets.