I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett

[snoopy369]

At its simplest, a flat tax is X% after $Y income level. 25% over $100k, period, no relevance where the money came from or anything else.

The incentive to go into tax brackets is a moot point, because the incentive is there to stay below the flat level (if it's appreciably high to be still doing okay under it) - or even to hide your income beyond the flat tax level elsewhere. It's no different.

As I said above, the problem becomes marginal valuation of money (marginal tax rates). 25% to $100k earner is different from 25% to $500k earner, is different from $50M earner. Some of that is negated by setting the bar quite high ($100k, as Plato said, or higher even), but then you hit Patrokolos' problem - beyond a certain point (i'd say $25k personal $50-$60k family) you have an issue of fairness, ie why should a $1m earner pay tax and a $90k earner not, even though both have disposable income? But, if you set it at the lower level ($25k per adult, $5k extra per child) then you end up with marginal tax rate issues again, ie 25% of (45k-25k=20k, or 4k) may have a higher marginal value than 25% of (1m=250k).

This is why a flat tax, though 'easier' per se, is not simple policy, and not necessarily a good policy. The current tax code is actually not that complex if you don't want to get into the complex deductions; it takes me <30 minutes to do my taxes each year, and I have no formal training in it.

[Patroklos]

ie why should a $1m earner pay tax and a $90k earner not, even though both have disposable income?

Thats not why I have the problem with it. Why does citizen $1M have a responsibility/obligation that citizen $90K does not have in a government of our type?

Its not about disposible incomes, it is about what you, as equal citizens, are on the hook for.

[Kontiki]

So Patty, you favor a fixed amount of tax for everyone? Say $10,000 a year? Otherwise a flat tax rate has exactly the same issues as a progressive rate - namely, that those with high incomes pay more tax than those with lower incomes.

[Patroklos]

So Patty, you favor a fixed amount of tax for everyone? Say $10,000 a year? Otherwise a flat tax rate has exactly the same issues as a progressive rate - namely, that those with high incomes pay more tax than those with lower incomes.

No, that would be a flat tax to, just using a set amount vise a set percentage.

I have nothing against a progressive tax system done intelligently. One that as discussed in this thread takes into account what real value means in terms of taxing the poor to death and taxing the rich beyond all reason.

The thing that got me going is this notion from the OP that just because money is there it has to/should be taxed and the possible repercussions that could lead to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Oh, wonderful, a taxation = stealing person.

The justifiable reason is to provide a good living standard for people who don't make as much money, a lot of times though not much fault of their own.

[Patroklos]

Oh, wonderful, a taxation = stealing person

Yeah, because thats exactly what I said

The justifiable reason is to provide a good living standard for people who don't make as much money, a lot of times though not much fault of their own.

When did we become comunists? I willingly and happily pay my taxes because for the most part they go to things that benefit everyone equally, or could. Roads, defense, law enforcement, ets. I think you will find more people of that mind set

[Dinner]

There is a difference between communism and believing government should provide a social safety net and basic services.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, because thats exactly what I said

That's basically what you said. ALL taxes are "Taking money or anything from someone solely because they can afford it ", regardless of the purpose it is being taken.

When did we become comunists? I willingly and happily pay my taxes because for the most part they go to things that benefit everyone equally, or could. Roads, defense, law enforcement, ets. I think you will find more people of that mind set

I guarantee you that a good majority of people would also happily pay taxes for basic levels of subsistance for poor folk, whether that be welfare, or social security, or what have you. Hell, look at the vast numbers in favor of expanding the S-Chip program!

And how did using tax revenues to create social safety nets suddenly become communist?

[Patroklos]

I said nothing of the sort

That's basically what you said. ALL taxes are "Taking money or anything from someone solely because they can afford it ", regardless of the purpose it is being taken.

/=

Oh, wonderful, a taxation = stealing person.

I could very well tax you when you can't aford it now couldn't I. And just becasue you're being taxed and can afford it doesn't mean that is the reason I am taxing you.

The goverenment doesn't tax people for the sake of taxing people. If being able to afford it was all that was required, hell, we could tax 100% of everything over 50K. Really you can afford giving everything over 20K to taxes with a few lifestyle changes.

The question is WHY tax. There seems to be a perception that the simple fact that wealth exists means it should be taxed.

There is a difference between communism and believing government should provide a social safety net and basic services.

And why is it the duty of the rich to provide said safety net?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The question is WHY tax. There seems to be a perception that the simple fact that wealth exists means it should be taxed.

What, you think they are just going to take that money and horde it? I assume it'll be spent.

And why is it the duty of the rich to provide said safety net?

A. They can afford it. It won't hurt them nearly as much as the middle class or poor.

B. The social system in place allows them to benefit. People who are taken care of, in some way, are less likely to revolt or engage in massive overturning of society. In addition, they buy the goods the rich are selling .

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I have nothing against a progressive tax system done intelligently. One that as discussed in this thread takes into account what real value means in terms of taxing the poor to death and taxing the rich beyond all reason.

The thing that got me going is this notion from the OP that just because money is there it has to/should be taxed and the possible repercussions that could lead to.

That doesn't jive with

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.

Unless everyone pays the same total amount of tax, you're taking more from higher income earners because they can afford it. If you're OK with this, then you can't really use that whole "theivery" meme when discussing higher rates for higher earners.

As for what was discussed in the OP, it was that the highest earners tend to pay lower rates than those significantly worse off than them because they often don't pay income tax, but rather capital gains and payroll taxes. Buffet thinks this is unfair.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And why is it the duty of the rich to provide said safety net?

Again, unless you want everyone to pay the same total amount of tax, it will always be the case that the rich provide by far the greatest portion of this anyway.

[Wezil]

Imran already provided the best answer why the wealthy should be willing to pay more.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
... People who are taken care of, in some way, are less likely to revolt or engage in massive overturning of society.

The wealthy are obviously doing well by the current system. It is in their interest to see it continue.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

If you mean me personally, and no one else, no...because that would be unfair.

This wouldn't be forced. Just something you could willingly do. Would you do it?

No. Right now the government is using its efforts to benefit the richest Americans at the expense of the rest of us. I volutarily give money to my union, because it works to benefit folks like me.

[GePap]

Given the massive pwning of Patty and DD in this thread, why does it continue?

Thought massacres can be funny sometimes.....