Occupy Wall Street

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Riot

The tax rate for Buffett's income level is 35%. Buffett payed 17.4%. Looks like "far less" to me. Looks like "far less" to Buffett, too. That's his deal. Not mine. I just posted that he did a rare thing, in pursuit of the change he wants. You might read what he has to say, and why he is lobbying for a tax rate change, if you want to comment on it.

You guys (you, Slot, Dell) are hilarious: you all have negative comments about something you've heard a little about, you base your arguments on partial information you read here, and you absolutely refuse to be fully informed about what you're bitchin' about, because it's so much easier to argue your imaginary "what ifs" than what someone like Buffett or the OWS crowd has really said on the record.

Honest question: do you understand the difference between income earned by salary or wages (subject to the federal income tax) and income earned off investments (subject to capital gains taxes)? Further, do you understand that capital gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes in order to encourage capital investment? Lastly, the only ways to make Warren Buffett pay more than 17.4 percent in taxes is to give him a larger salary (his is $100k and has been for 30 years), eliminate deductions, or to tax capital gains at a significantly higher rate. Pick your poison.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honest question: do you understand the difference between income earned by salary or wages (subject to the federal income tax) and income earned off investments (subject to capital gains taxes)? Further, do you understand that capital gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes in order to encourage capital investment? Lastly, the only ways to make Warren Buffett pay more than 17.4 percent in taxes is to give him a larger salary (his is $100k and has been for 30 years), eliminate deductions, or to tax capital gains at a significantly higher rate. Pick your poison.

Which would make sense if that's how it worked in the real world, but it's not. Because most stocks aren't initial public offerings, where the money goes to the company, theoretically to be used to expand; in fact, they're traded on the secondary market between private individuals and organizations that have no interest in their sliver of ownership of the company besides whether they can make a financial profit on eventually selling the stock. It's the difference between financial investment and economic investment. Most trading is a financial investment, which doesn't do the economy any good, unless the Warren Buffets of the world are taking their profits to build things. Which they aren't; they're buying more secondary market stocks and pocketing the profits.

So taxing capital gains as income isn't poison at all. It's far more fair than the current system. If the gov't wants to make an exception for IPOs, and tax them at a lower rate to encourage the company to further expand , fine, but once the stock has changed hands, it's not encouraging anything other than more profit-making with no intent to put that money back into the economy.

[slotdirt]

All well and good, but just understand that raising capital gains taxes is going to effect pretty much anybody who invests in stocks or mutual funds and not just Warren Buffett. Agreed?

[clyde]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

All well and good, but just understand that raising capital gains taxes is going to effect pretty much anybody who invests in stocks or mutual funds and not just Warren Buffett. Agreed?

Put a rider on it saying only those with net worth of 1 million dollars or more/and or are Tiger fans shall be subject to the tax.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by clyde

Put a rider on it saying only those with net worth of 1 million dollars or more/and or are Tiger fans shall be subject to the tax.

Those two groups may be mutually exclusive.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Those two groups may be mutually exclusive.

How do you know the Tigers don't have millionares as fans. Can you supply evidence including W2's of all Tigers fans to prove your point. After all, "Is it really too much to ask of someone who's arguing a certain point to provide evidence substantiating said point? "

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by jms62

How do you know the Tigers don't have millionares as fans. Can you supply evidence including W2's of all Tigers fans to prove your point. After all, "Is it really too much to ask of someone who's arguing a certain point to provide evidence substantiating said point? "

Very funny. I am, after all, the Tiger fan to whom clyde was referring in the first place.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Those two groups may be mutually exclusive.

Oh.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honest question: do you understand the difference between income earned by salary or wages (subject to the federal income tax) and income earned off investments (subject to capital gains taxes)? Further, do you understand that capital gains taxes are significantly lower than income taxes in order to encourage capital investment? Lastly, the only ways to make Warren Buffett pay more than 17.4 percent in taxes is to give him a larger salary (his is $100k and has been for 30 years), eliminate deductions, or to tax capital gains at a significantly higher rate. Pick your poison.

Yes, I pay different tax rates on my regular income versus my capital gains. Duh. Are we in economic kindergarten here?

What I suggest you do is read what Buffett is lobbying for regarding the tax code, rather than guessing and assuming. It's a bit more complicated than the mean understanding so far expressed.