House Votes To Repeal Tax On Richest 0.2 Percent Of Americans

[PreachTony]

Just curious, not arguing ... how do you know they are paying different taxes?

Do you know how much a secretary would have to be paid in order to advance high in the tax bracket? Entry level work for a secretary checks in around $34,000 per year ($16.35 per hour based on a 40 hour work week). The top marginal tax rate at that level would be 15%, and that's not accounting for the plethora of deductions available. That rate would place her equal to Buffett, as capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% or so. Plus, she's a secretary. How many secretaries are reporting their income as "capital gains?"

Beyond that, when Barack Obama used her as an example during a State of the Union speech several years ago, he basically presented the nation with a math problem whose only answer was "D. Not Enough Information." Is Buffett's secretary married? Does she jointly file? Does she have children who are dependent on her? Is she paid income or in stock options? Using IRS data based solely upon income, you can easily find out that, in order to pay a higher income tax rate (approximately 34%) than Buffett (who claims to pay only 17% or so income tax), the secretary would have to make between $200,000 and $500,000 per year. Not exactly the 'little fish fighting the giant shark' of a tax code, eh?

 

[InTheLight]

Do you know how much a secretary would have to be paid in order to advance high in the tax bracket? Entry level work for a secretary checks in around $34,000 per year ($16.35 per hour based on a 40 hour work week). The top marginal tax rate at that level would be 15%, and that's not accounting for the plethora of deductions available. That rate would place her equal to Buffett, as capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% or so. Plus, she's a secretary. How many secretaries are reporting their income as "capital gains?"

Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

 

[Revmitchell]

Read the article before spouting ignorance. Thanks in advance.

The ignorance was found in the article of which I read. When you have nothing else you pull this garbage.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

And probably worth every penny of it. I'd say that is in a bracket where she surely does invest and pay capital gains. With a boss like Buffet I am sure he gives her advice ... or maybe she gives him advice. :laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

The ignorance was found in the article of which I read. When you have nothing else you pull this garbage.

Then give us some of your wisdom and not simply ignorant one-liners that say nothing.

 

[PreachTony]

And probably worth every penny of it. I'd say that is in a bracket where she surely does invest and pay capital gains. With a boss like Buffet I am sure he gives her advice ... or maybe she gives him advice. :laugh:

You're missing the point Crabby. She was touted as some kind of "little guy" being taken advantage of by our tax system. If she's making over $200,000 per year, that's not a "little guy."

So let's just skip the nonsense:
What would you, Crabtownboy, do about our tax system to alleviate this 'injustice' that so disturbs you?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then give us some of your wisdom and not simply ignorant one-liners that say nothing.

Yea you got nothing which is on display for everyone to see.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yea you got nothing which is on display for everyone to see.

That is your wisdom?

 

[Revmitchell]

That is your wisdom?

Just stop, you got caught lying once again in this thread and now you want to deflect your false assertion. If you want some wisdom stop being a far left extremist liberal. That alone will give you more wisdom than anyone can asked for in a single moment of life.

 

[InTheLight]

From the article:

Democrats were harshly critical of the bill, saying that it showed Republicans were being hypocritical with their recent expressions of concern for the widening income inequality gap in America.

Hey Democrats! It's not income! It's saved money, it's property, it's real estate. It's an inheritance, for heaven's sake!

Also, a tax break is not a "cost", as the article states. Furthermore, any loss of revenue from this tax break would not be annually, it would be in total, moving forward, and depends on when wealthy people die (article puts a 10 year window on the $269B).

And I've got news for you. Everybody else enjoys what is known as a "step-up" in basis for inherited assets. That is, the person that inherits the asset does not pay tax on the capital gains it has accrued while the owner was alive. So if the deceased had bought a house for $100,000 in 1960 and it is sold for $500,000, there would be a $400,000 capital gain to the property owner. But now that he's died, the person that inherits the house gets to reset the cost basis of the house to $500,000 and not pay that capital gain tax.

This bill would simply give the top 0.2 percent the same "zero basis" for inherited assets that everyone else enjoys. In other words it's a loophole that is being closed, but a loophole that penalized the wealthy.

Further, it's immoral to tax people on their life savings when they die. They've already paid a myriad of taxes on their accumulations be it income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. Now for the government to say, "hey we're going to tax you from the grave", it's just plain wrong.

 

[Don]

From the article:

Democrats were harshly critical of the bill, saying that it showed Republicans were being hypocritical with their recent expressions of concern for the widening income inequality gap in America.

Hey Democrats! It's not income! It's saved money, it's property, it's real estate. It's an inheritance, for heaven's sake!

Also, a tax break is not a "cost", as the article states. Furthermore, any loss of revenue from this tax break would not be annually, it would be in total, moving forward, and depends on when wealthy people die (article puts a 10 year window on the $269B).

And I've got news for you. Everybody else enjoys what is known as a "step-up" in basis for inherited assets. That is, the person that inherits the asset does not pay tax on the capital gains it has accrued while the owner was alive. So if the deceased had bought a house for $100,000 in 1960 and it is sold for $500,000, there would be a $400,000 capital gain to the property owner. But now that he's died, the person that inherits the house gets to reset the cost basis of the house to $500,000 and not pay that capital gain tax.

This bill would simply give the top 0.2 percent the same "zero basis" for inherited assets that everyone else enjoys. In other words it's a loophole that is being closed, but a loophole that penalized the wealthy.

Further, it's immoral to tax people on their life savings when they die. They've already paid a myriad of taxes on their accumulations be it income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. Now for the government to say, "hey we're going to tax you from the grave", it's just plain wrong.

Thank you. Nice analysis.

 

[revmwc]

Nope.

Why add to the national debt by giving the already rich a tax break. They have loop-holes that allow them to pay less in income taxes than you and I.

How about giving us a break?

All the money, and everything on earth is God's so they are in effect taxing God in the blessing He gives to all. Think about it! Do you believe God should be taxed for His great wealth? How He chooses to bless people is how He chooses to do it. Just because He blesses some more than others doesn't mean they should be taxed more than others.

God laid out a tax for Israel to pay, the first 10% of the living, many call that a tithe now days, but it for Israel a tax in order to keep the tabernacle/temple updated. Why should man tax people more than God taxes them? God made it an equal tax for everyone, 10%. Why not just do a 10% tax across the board. Do away with the IRS and several government agencies. The super wealthy should not need to pay different taxes than the poor it should all be one equal percentage.

 

[OldRegular]

The GOP just can't help but help the super rich at the expense of the rest of us.

You simply can't be honest can you CTB. The house voted to repeal the inheritance tax. That applies to everyone with an estate large enough to be taxed and can ruin many small businesses, farms, etc.

Following is some information on which political party the richest people in the country gave money:

The 50 Richest People in America and Their Political Contributions

By JLP | March 8, 2011

I went through the 50 richest people in the Forbes 400 Richest People in America list and tracked their political donations just to see how they stack up. Here is what I found out:

NOTE: Some political contributions spanned several years. I used the total amounts given and ignored the years in which they were given.

• Of the 50 people I tracked, 26 of them made contributions to both Democrats and Republicans.

• 7 of them only made contributions to Democrats.

• 9 of them only made contributions to Republicans.

• 17 of them gave more to Democrats than Republicans.

• 24 of them gave more to Republicans than Democrats.

• 8 of them showed no contributions at all (Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Forrest Mars, Mark Zuckerberg, Blair Parry-Okeden, Steve Jobs, and Donald Newhouse).

• Total contributions to Republicans totaled $1,874,574.

• Total contributions to Democrats totaled $1,400,936.

• $473,638 more was given to Republicans than to Democrats.

• The largest Republican contributor was Jim Walton at $181,300 (he also gave $4,700 to Democrats).

• The largest Democrat contributor was George Soros at $236,250 (he gave nothing to Republicans).

• The average contribution to Republicans was $37,491.48.

• The average contribution to Democrats was $28,018.72

There was no mention of other political contributions to Libertarians or the Green Party.

- See more at: http://allfinancialmatters.com/2011...political-contributions/#sthash.AS1lILy4.dpuf

Top 20 Richest Americans & Which Political Party They Donated To!
Posted by Randy Hollenbeck on March 20, 2011
America, Money

Rank Name Net Worth Age Residence Source

1 Bill Gates $54 B 55 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Buffett $45 B 80 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Larry Ellison $27 B 66 Woodside, CA Oracle
4 Christy Walton & family $24 B 56 Jackson, WY Walmart
5 Charles Koch $21.5 B 75 Wichita, KS Diversified
5 David Koch $21.5 B 70 New York , NY Diversified
7 Jim Walton $20.1 B 63 Bentonville, AR Walmart
8 Alice Walton $20 B 61 Fort Worth, TX Walmart
9 S. Robson Walton $19.7 B 67 Bentonville, AR Walmart
10 Michael Bloomberg $18 B 69 New York , NY Bloomberg
11 Larry Page $15 B 37 Palo Alto, CA Google
11 Sergey Brin $15 B 37 San Francisco, CA Google
13 Sheldon Adelson $14.7 B 77 Las Vegas, NV casinos
14 George Soros $14.2 B 80 Westchester, NY hedge funds
15 Michael Dell $14 B 46 Austin, TX Dell
16 Steve Ballmer $13.1 B 54 Seattle, WA Microsoft
17 Paul Allen $12.7 B 58 Mercer Island, WA Microsoft, investments
18 Jeff Bezos $12.6 B 47 Seattle, WA Amazon
19 Anne Cox Chambers $12.5 B 91 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises
20 John Paulson $12.4 B 55 New York, NY hedge funds

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400


Which political party they donated to:
D = Democrat
R= Republican
I= Independent

1. d
2 d
3 d
4 r & d
5 r
5 r
7 r
8 r
9 r
10 d, i, r
11 d
11 none
13 r
14 d
15 r
16 r & d
17 d & r
18 d
19 d
20 d & r

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php

Note the 3 richest people in the country, Gates, Buffett, and Ellison are all democrats.

So Crabbie, as usual, you are taking the modified Marxist line, dictatorial rule by the oligarchy, or the bureaucracy, or any leftist; but keep everyone else on the plantation!

 

[church mouse guy]

What makes you think that only the rich pay capital gains. I pay capital gains and I am not rich. I paid capital gains when I was much poorer than I am now. Currently I am reshuffling my investments so I will not be subject to capital gains in the future. I am in the protect what I have now stage of life.

If you are not investing your should be. But remember, to make money in the market requires working at it. And rule number 1 is never buy anything just because a broker tells you to do so.

I am quite sure that Buffet's secretary pays capital gains, or will do so when she sells her shares in Hathaway. I would be very surprised if Buffet has not given her a number of annual bonuses of shares in his fund.

It seems that you think that it is okay to try to evade taxes yourself but you don't want the Clintons to evade death taxes when they leave their 100 to 200 million dollars to Chelsea. The Clintons have already paid taxes on their 100 to 200 million dollars and you want to tax it again while trying to evade additional taxes yourself--what's fair about that?

 

[Crabtownboy]

It seems that you think that it is okay to try to evade taxes yourself but you don't want the Clintons to evade death taxes when they leave their 100 to 200 million dollars to Chelsea. The Clintons have already paid taxes on their 100 to 200 million dollars and you want to tax it again while trying to evade additional taxes yourself--what's fair about that?

Is it evading taxes to invest in non-taxable securities?

 

[InTheLight]

Is it evading taxes to invest in non-taxable securities?

No. And there's a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.

 

[church mouse guy]

Is it evading taxes to invest in non-taxable securities?

OK, you are trying to avoid taxes--why don't you just pay them? Don't you think that the Clintons have the moral right to avoid paying taxes a second time on their income? It seems to me that you should sympathize with your class.

 

[targus]

Is it evading taxes to invest in non-taxable securities?

Not at all.

But this does serve as an example of adjusting your finances to minimize the effect tax laws.

So in the end it really doesn't matter what happens with the tax laws because people with money will find a legal way within the regulations to minimize their taxes.

 

[church mouse guy]

Not at all.

But this does serve as an example of adjusting your finances to minimize the effect tax laws.

So in the end it really doesn't matter what happens with the tax laws because people with money will find a legal way within the regulations to minimize their taxes.

Yeah, the bourgeoisie have their tax exemptions so that the secretary probably pays more than the person with the tax-exempt investments.

In the case of the Clintons, they left the White House flat broke, not knowing how they were going to pay the mortgages on their houses and send Chelsea to college. They paid their taxes and made it to the 1% and now Uncle Sam is hanging around the funeral home trying to get the last dime by taxing again money that was previously taxed. It is immoral.

The death tax should be repealed. Chelsea should get to keep every last dime that her mom and dad made after the terrific sacrifices that they made in public service that left them flat broke and forced to steal the White House silverware.

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah, the bourgeoisie have their tax exemptions so that the secretary probably pays more than the person with the tax-exempt investments.

In the case of the Clintons, they left the White House flat broke, not knowing how they were going to pay the mortgages on their houses and send Chelsea to college. They paid their taxes and made it to the 1% and now Uncle Sam is hanging around the funeral home trying to get the last dime by taxing again money that was previously taxed. It is immoral.

The death tax should be repealed. Chelsea should get to keep every last dime that her mom and dad made after the terrific sacrifices that they made in public service that left them flat broke and forced to steal the White House silverware.

You forget that the Clintons did not earn their millions or billions. They were gifts from various and sundry wealthy people and organizations around the world and the US taxpayer. Hillary racked up 1,000,000 flying miles, at taxpayer expense, as bag lady for the two of them. $200,000-300,000 for a half hour speech is a gift not earned income!