Quit acting like a victim, it's unbecoming, especially since you're casting stones.

YOU DON'T START NONE THERE WON'T BE NONE.

>> ^heropsycho:

I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd call me a socialist. That of course makes me a communist, since socialism and communism according to you are the same thing. ROFL...
So in short, everyone even remotely to the left of qm is a communist apparently.
>>

When will he do this? On is death bed?

A tax-deductible foundation is not the federal mafia. Donating to a foundation is voluntary. Buffoon wants the fed mafia to shakedown more evil rich people.

FAIL. I mean, *coughFAIL*cough



>> ^notarobot:

cough
Fortune reports that Buffett will donate 85 percent of his fortune amassed from stock in the Berkshire Hathaway company to five foundations.
The donations, which will come from Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway shares, would amount to about $37 billion, based on current values.
Five-sixths of the money reportedly will go to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which specializes in finding cures for diseases that plague impoverished nations. [source=abc news]
cough
>> ^quantumushroom:
PAT BUCHANAN: Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion.
What's Warren Buffoon waiting for? A gun in his face like the rest of us get?

... just thought this should be restated... add some brackets, and remove the temporary tax-gifts to the wealthiest... no need to get excited... these numbers aren't net worth, just yearly income... this takes us back to the 90's... remember Saved-by-the-Bell? Yeah, the 90's,... see, its all going to be fine.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Here are the current tax brackets.
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
I think Buffet wants something like this,
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500
20% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600
25% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400
30% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150
40% Bracket $600,000
45% Bracket $1,000,000

I can't find any info about sales cost collection. I don't know if that study you're siting costs of enforcement as well.

Income tax, from the stats I saw, was over 98% efficient, even with an IRS around to enforce it. The other issue is the latency of collecting sales tax compared to income tax. It allows the gov't to avoid borrowing money so soon, or during times of surplus, the gov't could actually gain interest on that collected money.

Regardless, it's still very difficult to fashion a consumption tax that is progressive enough anyway to allow for a healthy economy.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Admittedly, I haven't read much about administrating sales tax before, but this study from WA State seems to contradict your numbers. For small retailer the cost of collection was around 6% and that went down to less than 1% for large retailers. That would seem very efficient. Would it be different if it were a National Sales tax? Asking, cause I don't know the answer.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports
/retailers_cost_study/default.aspx
>> ^heropsycho:
The problems with consumption taxes are:
A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.
B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.
That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

"60 % of the time, it works everytime."

"That doesn't make any sense."

>> ^dahauns:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time.
I'd love to see you backing that up with facts. Especially since the Bush tax cuts showed the exact opposite.

Dude, Denmark isn't the US. Your government provides many goods and services to your people that we must pay for out of our own pocket, most notably health care. Wealth in Denmark is also far more evenly distributed in the US because your economy is far more mixed/socialist than the US's is.

In the US, you have thousands of people who were upper-middle class, bought an upper class priced home, then lost their jobs, or had to take massive pay cuts just to stay employed. Many of these people already lost their houses.

Our economy would collapse if we put a min 37-40% flat tax on everyone. No prayer that it would work.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:
You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

40% income tax on my wife and I right now would financially cripple us. We would not be able to afford housing or food. Right now, we have only about $100 a day to spend on consumables, and we are fiscally responsible adults. And we have 2 PhDs. I just got a fellowship for a postdoc at the best university in the country and it will barely cover the rent. And she is still looking for work there.

Indeed, it is likely that 10 years from now our combined income will place us in the highest tax bracket. It is also probably that I will recognize that there are people like me, who are just starting out, have a fantastic education, are looking for work, and struggling to make ends meet.

The arrogance of a flat tax speaks volumes about the ignorance and naivety of those of who propose such a ridiculously preposterous idea.

>> ^gwiz665:

Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.

>> ^gwiz665:

Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

Admittedly, I haven't read much about administrating sales tax before, but this study from WA State seems to contradict your numbers. For small retailer the cost of collection was around 6% and that went down to less than 1% for large retailers. That would seem very efficient. Would it be different if it were a National Sales tax? Asking, cause I don't know the answer.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/retailers_cost_study/default.aspx

>> ^heropsycho:

The problems with consumption taxes are:
A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.
B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.
That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

The problems with consumption taxes are:

A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.

B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.

That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@snoozedoctor One flaw I find with the logic is governments don't provide service typically. Only in the military does the government provide this service to a client.
I would like add as an aside that when you raise taxes higher and higher to capture income that people avoid, the people that don't avoid it, the load becomes so burdensome that they can't afford to compete on the same playing field. It forces a feedback loop of insidious tax evasion to the point of not only avoiding paying a fair share, but any share at all. It also drives money over seas to avoid taxation. A simpler, and easier to follow tax code would be a benefit to everyone, including those who want it to be progressive. I found a couple of tax systems interesting, even though I don't support progressive taxes, mainly, "the fair tax". It is a flat tax but rebates all citizens the basic poverty level of good and services worth of tax back. It ends up having a similar effect as Milton Friedman's negative income tax where by people who don't make enough to meet the minimum standard of living don't pay any tax, and actually get some extra in their pocket. Some are critical that we are rewarding people for being poor in that instance, but no one wants to be poor, so I don't see it as a feedback loop like higher taxes causing money to go overseas is.
Fairly speaking though, the current system is completely broken, so people who want flat rates OR progressive rates are both not getting what they want. The entire tax structure needs an overhaul because this isn't working anymore. It is the same in the coding world. When your code beast becomes to difficult to manage, you start your new revision with all the knowledge you learned from the last revision. Tax 3.0 is needed, and soon.


Wonderful, but no country in the world has tried this, and none seem willing to. It ends up just being a right wing scape goat argument. "I want flat taxes, but...we'll take care of the poor, we promise."

I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Strictly speaking, it's more like 10 people since I'm paying double the normal rate due to progressive taxes. But I don't understand why you consider my earnings theft. Even if there is a limited supply of money, my money has been received through consensual exchange. If I buy a car which is in limited supply is it by definition stolen? Surely we should reserve the word theft for when things are taken from people against there will. Personally I think taxation is an example of this.


Ah yes...the standard Libertarian view of earnings = consensual exchange and taxation = stealing. The problem is, in a democracy, no amount of tax will ever be consensual to every citizen. That's kind of why we have majority rule, right? So, if one person thinks one penny in tax is theft on the part of government, does that mean we have to have zero taxes? Thankfully, the answer is no.

Most Libertarians favor some sort of basic tax for a defensive military, so consider this. For a time during the Civil War, you could buy your way out of the draft. That was consensual exchange under the law. Do you consider that type of exchange morally acceptable? If a rich father pays for a surrogate soldier for his son, is that fair? The son did nothing to earn that money through free exchange other than be born to a rich family...why does he deserve to have someone fight in his place?

With a truly free market, prostitution would be legal free exchange, you could sell body parts, offer your womb up to carry other peoples' babies, etc. If your answer is "well, let's not go that far" then where do you stop? If you sign a contract to offer up your eggs and a baby for someone else and you change your mind, who do the courts rule in favor of when someone sues?

These are real world questions that beg to be answered when you take the hardcore Libertarian position. Few people successfully argue in favor of their Libertarian position without inviting heavy criticism from wide swathes of the population...hence the lack of a strong Libertarian party in the country. This general line of thought just doesn't hold up in specific real world cases which come up, often making it to the Supreme Court.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Because you "earn" the income of about 80 people.
Or in otherwords - since the supply of money is limited - you steal the wages of 79 people who would otherwise have an income.
That's called selfish. Plain and simple.
[Not to mention completely cruel & dickish now that we're in a Global Depression]
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?



The supply of money isn't limited, per se...it's directly related to the total amount of debt. If people promise to pay more debts (and therefore interest), then there is more money overall. That's a big reason why consumer confidence and the housing market are such huge drivers in the economy. The more people take out loans for stuff/cars/homes, the more money becomes available for banks to loan. Hence, when there are too many defaults and foreclosures, the supply of money shrinks and you get credit crunches, etc.

If anyone's "stealing", they're stealing a relative amount of money compared to everyone else. You've got the right general idea, I think, but it's more like having a piece of a pie when the pie can get bigger and smaller.