Taxes: 101

Discussion in 'Politics' started by P@triot, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. P@triot
    Online

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,738
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,565
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. P@triot
    Online

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,738
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,565
    Because dumbocrats are so profoundly stupid, please allow me to explain this simple chart to you.

    In each section, the bar on the left (since most dumbocrats can't tell their left from their right, they color-coded it for you - so the left is the gray bar) is the percentage of wealth that group has accumulated (in this case, the first one is the top 1%). The bar on the right (again, color-coded for the dumbocrats - so look for the orange bar) is the percentage of taxes that group has paid.

    So in the first example, the Top 1% of the wealthy (think Bill Gates level) has accumulated 13% of the wealth. Now, if they were to pay their "fair share" like the idiot liberal dumbocrats scream they want, then they should pay 13% of the taxes. Instead, they pay 22% of the taxes.

    In each case, the taxes (ie bar on the right) exceeds the wealth earned (ie bar on the left) for the upper class. It's not until you get to the middle class that this trend ends.

    So you see, as I've long been saying, in order for the wealthy to pay their "fair share", we would have to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy.

    This demonstrates how profoundly stupid the dumbocrats are....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. P@triot
    Online

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,738
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,565
    Given that long, well-publicized history, there isn't much news to be found in Buffett's latest Times op-ed this morning, calling once again for a minimum tax on millionaires. Except that Buffett opens this one with a rifle shot at Grover Norquist specifically, and supply-side economics generally:

    Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

    Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.


    It's a catchy opener, attracting headlines and guffaws from the expected quarters. But I'm struck by his opener because I can think of at least one real-world example in which a rich investor nearly spiked a deal due to taxes: Warren Buffett himself, as recounted in Alice Schroeder's terrific biography, The Snowball (pages 230-232).

    Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily—almost one third of his early fund's capital—in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility lines and such. But he soon grew frustrated with the company's leadership, which "operated more like a club than a business," and which refused to return greater dividends to investors. So Buffett amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally in hand he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two (one for the mapping business, and one to hold the company's other outsized investments).

    Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand, Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of ... taxes. As Schroeder recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences—"let's just swallow the tax," he suggested.

    To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder):

    And I said, 'Wait a minute. Let's -- "Let's" is a contraction. It means "let us." But who is this us? If everyone around the table wants to do it per capita, that's fine, but if you want to do it in a ratio of shares owned, and you get ten shares' worth of tax and I get twenty-four thousand shares' worth, forget it.'

    Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked, saving him from his own Norquistian response.

    Hypocrisy... it is the cornerstone of the idiot liberal dumbocrat. As Andrew Wilkow so brilliantly stated: "Buffett wants to pull the ladder up behind him". He's made his billions, now he wants to pull the ladder up so that no one else can climb to the same level he did through business and personal wealth crushing taxes. It ensures his wealth and power for himself and future generations of his family.

    Watch What Warren Buffett Does, Not What He Says | The Weekly Standard
     
  4. P@triot
    Online

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,738
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,565
    Look at the two bars in the middle of the graph - the top 20% are paying nearly 70% of the taxes. That is an outrage.

    It's time the parasite class start paying their fair share. We need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, substantially reduce taxes on the middle class, and drastically increase taxes on the parasite class (as well as end entitlements for them that are allowing them to live off of the American tax payer).
     
  5. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,390
    And the middle/bottom have a share of total earned income at the same % as the top 1-5. LOL
     
  6. P@triot
    Online

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,262
    Thanks Received:
    2,738
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,565
    Yeah, which means they've been more successful. What's wrong with that? If bottom class actually got up off their lazy ass and did something, they would earn a lot more. "LOL"
     
  7. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    IOW, the reason YOU are not one of the 1% is that YOU are lazy.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,725
    Thanks Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,861
    Would it be fitting here to remind all that, since possessions are not federally taxed, the greatest impediment to anyone- anyone!- becoming wealthy is taxation.
     
  9. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,673
    Thanks Received:
    2,260
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,842
    Who needs facts when rhetoric works?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas New Life Member of the NRA 12/15 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    24,019
    Thanks Received:
    3,744
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +11,185
    I hate to point this out but someone at the CBO can't count, the percentages of total income taxes adds up to more than 100%. How did they do that?
     

Share This Page