Interesting that Mitt doesn't want the free market

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

None were willing to come forward and disprove Buffett.

Aren't these rally different issues? Tax structures are really unrelated to corporate bailouts, it seems. This might depend on how the bailout is strucutresd, but conceptually I am not sure these are comparable except in very broad terms.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

None were willing to come forward and disprove Buffett.

I doubt many super-duper wealthy people felt much inclination to reply to Buffet. Especially since his argument is pretty lame to begin with. I'd prefer that Buffet first prove his position. Let's see his tax return, and his secretaries, and then we can see if it's really true (I seriously doubt that it is).

And even then, once Buffet starts paying his secretary better, he might have some moral high ground here.
Also, calling for the rich to pay more taxes while doing your damnedest to avoid paying them at all kinda takes away that moral high ground again.


But all that is pretty beside the point of the thread.

[Insensitive PAP]

Only Waters would try to make an argument that $1 billion < $5,000.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

Only Waters would try to make an argument that $1 billion < $5,000.

Well, only me and Jesus.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

None were willing to come forward and disprove Buffett.

Who are you and Buffet talking about here? Look at the tax structure. In the end, do you pay anywhere near even 20% of your gross income? I doubt it. You probably pay less than 10%.

The staff he is talking about probably make more that $200,000 per year and have bad accountants, hence the 33%.

The poor you champion, even the lower middle class, rarely pay any tax, and in fact get money back via Earned Income Tax Credit.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The staff he is talking about probably make more that $200,000 per year and have bad accountants, hence the 33%.

and you are trying to argue with me that the rich can't game the system. Better go back to the drawing board and edit your post.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and you are trying to argue with me that the rich can't game the system. Better go back to the drawing board and edit your post.

The poor don't need to game the system.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Well, only me and Jesus.

to fund waterboarding.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

and you are trying to argue with me that the rich can't game the system. Better go back to the drawing board and edit your post.

I'm not saying that at all. Everyone is able to use the tax law to their advantage. In fact, much of the law is designed to push certain actions that are supposed to lead to economic growth. For example, your hated Mitt is proposing tax relief on savings and capital gains for those making less than $200,000 per year. It's fairly obvious what he is trying to do there. As I noted, even those less fortunate working folks can "game" the system themselves by claiming EIC, even if they owe no taxes.

Your point, or at least I thought your point was that the rich get to slide on taxes while the less fortunate get hit hard. I say bullshit to that.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

None were willing to come forward and disprove Buffett.

LOL what a Cannard. Maybe if Buffet really cared he would have his CPA team to scour each of his employees tax liabilities in order to maximize deductions, take advantage of loopholes and create a tax rate that would fall far below his 18% net tax burden.

Also the rich play "less" because of FICA,SS and Medicare. Strange that everyone pays this including the rich, but since these are capped at a certain income level I think around 74K or higher, it appears that the rich are paying less. So while those of us who earn at a rate that allows us to receive these benefits as we push towards retirement, these wealthy individuals receive percentage wise much less. Of course most in that earnings level do not rely on any of these programs so that is nice extra change for the state to fund those that have little to no payment into the system.

Nice twist. If Buffet wants to foot the entire FICA,SS and Medicare bill at his own expense because he feels guilty, than let him so that all those poor people who are paying into a government program that somehow never lost its label of "temporary" solution can lower their tax burden.

Or maybe we can be like Sweden in the 1970's when Astrid Lindgren the worlds most renown childrens author (sold more books worldwide than anyone including Ms. Rowling) who was paying 120% tax due to her wealth.