Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Warren Buffett on taxes

Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2011, 4:44 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Conservatives champion the poll tax.


As the poll tax is one of the greatest obstacles to voting rights, you have to wonder how much conservatives actually support democracy.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Contrary to what Democrats would like people to believe, the poll tax was a democrat invention, not a Republican one.


Back in the 19th century! In those days, it was the Democrats who had championed states rights, support for succession, weak federal government, and opposed civil rights - out of which the poll tax was born. The Republicans of that time period represented the exact opposite of their Democratic counterparts. It wasn't till later that the parties traded places, and the Republicans came to represent crackers and rednecks who figured gays, blacks, Muslims, and other minorities were out to get them by wanting to be treated as human beings, let alone as Americans, and the super corporations who don't want to pay taxes, or have the government tell them not to poison consumers, or the environment. While the Democrats came be the party of those who couldn't fight for themselves due to poverty, disability, or racial discrimination, who looked to the federal government to help when no one else could. Oh, and they're also the party of those damn intellectual elitists, with all their fancy book learnin.'

-Bill, otherwise known a Kraichgauer



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

16 Aug 2011, 5:19 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Thatcher said that if you cannot pay the poll tax that you should go to jail.


Tony Blair maintained that people who can't pay their TV licence should go to jail too. In fact, every Prime Minister since 1946 has maintained this position, including six Labour PMs - including Attlee, who brought in the sodding TV tax in the first place.

Your point?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2011, 5:45 pm

Tequila wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Thatcher said that if you cannot pay the poll tax that you should go to jail.


Tony Blair maintained that people who can't pay their TV licence should go to jail too. In fact, every Prime Minister since 1946 has maintained this position, including six Labour PMs - including Attlee, who brought in the sodding TV tax in the first place.

Your point?


As an American, I might be out of my depth here concerning Limey politics, but enforcing a poll tax is just an insidious way of keeping an underprivileged group from voting.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Aug 2011, 7:00 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Tequila wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Thatcher said that if you cannot pay the poll tax that you should go to jail.


Tony Blair maintained that people who can't pay their TV licence should go to jail too. In fact, every Prime Minister since 1946 has maintained this position, including six Labour PMs - including Attlee, who brought in the sodding TV tax in the first place.

Your point?


As an American, I might be out of my depth here concerning Limey politics, but enforcing a poll tax is just an insidious way of keeping an underprivileged group from voting.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


24th Amendment to the Constitution as well as the 1966 case Brown v. Virginia Board of Elections pretty much ended poll taxes, they are considered to be unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax

Oh and if you are referring to the voter ID law like in Indiana, a state issue ID for purposes of voting does not cost any money for the person getting the ID, which is why it was ruled Constitutional in 2008.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v ... tion_Board



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

16 Aug 2011, 7:04 pm

A Poll Tax would be a lot more burdensome tax for the middle class to pay than a television tax especially if the income tax were eliminated.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Aug 2011, 7:14 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
A Poll Tax would be a lot more burdensome tax for the middle class to pay than a television tax especially if the income tax were eliminated.


Well there is also the matter of Poll Taxes being unconstitutional and therefore illegal.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Aug 2011, 7:16 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Tequila wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Thatcher said that if you cannot pay the poll tax that you should go to jail.


Tony Blair maintained that people who can't pay their TV licence should go to jail too. In fact, every Prime Minister since 1946 has maintained this position, including six Labour PMs - including Attlee, who brought in the sodding TV tax in the first place.

Your point?


As an American, I might be out of my depth here concerning Limey politics, but enforcing a poll tax is just an insidious way of keeping an underprivileged group from voting.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


24th Amendment to the Constitution as well as the 1966 case Brown v. Virginia Board of Elections pretty much ended poll taxes, they are considered to be unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax

Oh and if you are referring to the voter ID law like in Indiana, a state issue ID for purposes of voting does not cost any money for the person getting the ID, which is why it was ruled Constitutional in 2008.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v ... tion_Board


I was actually referring to the poll tax in Great Britain, not America.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

16 Aug 2011, 7:20 pm

Even in America the Poll tax is not illegal it just cannot be used to deny a person the right to vote. In America even if you fail to pay your income taxes you still have the right to vote.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Aug 2011, 8:13 pm

visagrunt wrote:
All of the rehetoric around taxes as a disincentive to growth fails to take into account the simple truth: it never hurts you to earn an extra dollar.

Umm... don't you know about the time value of money?? When you invest, you give up the value of having money now for money later. So, the extra dollar costs you something. Now, what that cost really ends up being may vary from person to person, and this could actually be a market that isn't similar to the crossed lines in basic supply-demand economics. However, the "rhetoric" often comes from that model of upward sloping supply, so any counter-argument has to argue that supply really WOULDN'T slope upwards, which.... isn't the most common thing.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Aug 2011, 8:17 pm

Jojoba wrote:
Economist Thomas Sowell had an informative article about raising taxes and the idea that government collects greater amounts of money for doing so. Often times, when taxes are raised, state revenues are not enhanced. Politically though, the idea is a vote getting for politicians.

"Ideals Versus Realities"
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072911.php3

excerpt:

Quote:
Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.
How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.
Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas — and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.
All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

His point is very intelligent. The gains from a tax increase will be less than expected. There won't be a Laffer curve phenomena in all likelihood, but income will be moved in a direction that may not be for the social good, as the taxation of an investment is including in analyses of what a financial person should do with a certain amount of money.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

16 Aug 2011, 9:39 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
Economist Thomas Sowell had an informative article about raising taxes and the idea that government collects greater amounts of money for doing so. Often times, when taxes are raised, state revenues are not enhanced. Politically though, the idea is a vote getting for politicians.

"Ideals Versus Realities"
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell072911.php3

excerpt:

Quote:
Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.
How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.
Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas — and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.
All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

His point is very intelligent. The gains from a tax increase will be less than expected. There won't be a Laffer curve phenomena in all likelihood, but income will be moved in a direction that may not be for the social good, as the taxation of an investment is including in analyses of what a financial person should do with a certain amount of money.


If the laffer curve reflects reality - which is up for debate but I'll allow it for now - tax decreases since the 1980s have seemed to decrease rather than increase revenue, which would seem to indicate that we are on the left-hand side of the laffer curve.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Aug 2011, 9:47 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
If the laffer curve reflects reality - which is up for debate but I'll allow it for now - tax decreases since the 1980s have seemed to decrease rather than increase revenue, which would seem to indicate that we are on the left-hand side of the laffer curve.

I am not a Laffer curve guy either. I am not even sure it is useful in reflecting reality at all either, as it is an oversimplified model of taxation.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

16 Aug 2011, 11:00 pm

I always love a tax debate, although I find it amusing how complex people can make it.

There is definitely a curve phenomenon with taxes, which is why the Bush tax reductions didn't give anything near the bounce Reagan's did. It is generally believed that we have room right now to raise taxes without negative economic effect.

As for Buffet, if the capital gains and dividend rates are increased, he'll pay more taxes. How can anyone argue otherwise? If you raise rates across the board, ie on all types of income, everyone who gets any sort of income will pay more taxes.

You have to understand that tax avoidance costs money, not just in fees but also in economic opportunity, and people don't go that route over small changes in the tax code. The rich understand the cost-benefit analysis better than anyone.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

17 Aug 2011, 12:59 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
If the laffer curve reflects reality - which is up for debate but I'll allow it for now - tax decreases since the 1980s have seemed to decrease rather than increase revenue, which would seem to indicate that we are on the left-hand side of the laffer curve.

I am not a Laffer curve guy either. I am not even sure it is useful in reflecting reality at all either, as it is an oversimplified model of taxation.


Oversimplified would be fine, but most people who talk about it don't think it has a left side.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

18 Aug 2011, 1:08 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
It is generally believed that we have room right now to raise taxes without negative economic effect.

Names, please, not meaningless generalities. I have heard of no one knowledgeable who thinks the U.S. economy is currently robust enough to withstand immediate tax increases without negative economic effects.

Quote:
As for Buffet, if the capital gains and dividend rates are increased, he'll pay more taxes.

Sure. He'll pay 1.5% instead of his current 1.1%. Not that big a deal.

Let's see his reaction if something is threatened that would really capture any significant proportion of his wealth in taxes - like making his kids' charitable foundations taxable, or increasing corporate tax rates to match individual tax rates.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Aug 2011, 6:33 am

psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
It is generally believed that we have room right now to raise taxes without negative economic effect.

Names, please, not meaningless generalities. I have heard of no one knowledgeable who thinks the U.S. economy is currently robust enough to withstand immediate tax increases without negative economic effects.

Quote:
.


In fact the U.S. economy is fragile and quite volatile. We are just a tad above total stagnation. If we get pushed back into a Depression that could lead to war. The U.S. economy came out of the Great Depression because of preparations for war, followed by participation in war.

ruveyn