US Presidential debate thread

Resticon wrote: Warren Buffet even came out and said that he pays lower taxes than his secretary.[/color]

As he should, and I'm guessing here for conversations sake.... but he has the capacity to maximise his taxation efficiency wheras the secretary is probably only able to have the one wage and therefore cannot implement efficiencies. The secretary is probably trying to get the highest wage possible irrelevant to the tax bracket it might put them in.

The statement is most likely misleading (hopefully!!!) in that his companies pay a lot of tax, but personally Warren probably draws a low wage to minimize personal tax. The difference is Warren's companies probably own everything that he considers his... so overall the statement probably misrepresents reality. I do not know if that's accurate but its what most business people do to maximise profit legally. If its true, the question is then why did he misled people... mind games, his own amusement, politics etc

Adder wrote: As he should, and I'm guessing here for conversations sake.... but he has the capacity to maximise his taxation efficiency wheras the secretary is probably only able to have the one wage and therefore cannot implement efficiencies. The secretary is probably trying to get the highest wage possible irrelevant to the tax bracket it might put them in.

The statement is most likely misleading (hopefully!!!) in that his companies pay a lot of tax, but personally Warren probably draws a low wage to minimize personal tax. The difference is Warren's companies probably own everything that he considers his... so overall the statement probably misrepresents reality. I do not know if that's accurate but its what most business people do to maximise profit legally. If its true, the question is then why did he misled people... mind games, his own amusement, politics etc

I do understand what you are saying but Warren Buffet's money does not come from a company. It comes primarily from stocks. He only actually pays 17% tax while she pays over 30%. He actually has close to half the taxes that she has.

Desolous wrote:
I know that most of you will express indifference to politics, apathy even. You are still doomed to live under the policies of the victor and his political party. Even in the fiction, the Jedi serve at the request or demand of the Republic, then Empire (kind of) then Rebellion. Our reality is even more stark. Politics pervades nearly every single thing that you do, at least in this country. And to express anger and discontent over the outcome of our politics, while simultaneously trying to keep your hands clean and float above the fray is disingenuous at best.

I will not tell my son, when he asks me years from now why things are so messed up, how did they get this way, why didn't you do something, I will NOT tell him anything less than I did all I could do to leave a better world for you. But I was adrift in a sea of idiocy and apathy, and it eventually drowned me.

No. I'm a strong swimmer. I will be able to look him in the eye and respond with pride.

I respect your passion for this. I really do. You and all others that are trying to make America the way you want it to be. I don't have that passion for politics.

In my opinion, to attempt to change this bureaucratic system of government is like trying to fight a forest fire with a small bucket of water. The government isn't set up to represent the people anymore. It's set up to make money. It's a machine, a business, a career, "too big to fail."

If I have the conversation later with my son about what went so wrong, I'll tell him another part of being a Jedi is being able to accept what is. If he wants to fight and rage against the machine, I will tell him the odds of success. If he wants to let it go and accept what reality is, he can do that, too. If he wants to leave this country, begin a revolution, sit quiet, etc. I'll give him my opinion on the likely outcomes of all those choices.

I see the state of politics in this country and I'm not angry about it, but I'm not happy about it either. I observe it. Perhaps a day may come when the fire burns within me to do something, but right now it's not in me. I respect those that have that fire, but at the moment...I'm just a Watcher.

MTFBWY,
LTK

Resticon wrote: No, he only pays 17% tax while she pays over 30%. He actually has close to half the taxes that she has.

Nah he'd pay heaps more. Its as a percentage remember.

The figure is either his personal tax, hence my previous comments about setting a low personal income and using his empire to own lots of things, or its his empires total. If its his empire, then 17% on a few multimillions is much more then 30% on $100k. So he actually pays a heck of lot more tax then she does. Either way it seems disengenious to sit there and say those things to the media but I see in the article it looks to be for political purposes afterall.

I'm not sure how a flat tax rate on the rich would be implemented.... across all business activities (unworkable), across his personal income (which can be zilch, moot point)... what then?

Edit; do you mean his companies profits come from stocks, while his personal income (probably small) comes from those companies. I do not know enough about the US tax system (anything?) to talk about how different businesses are taxed, sorry.

Adder wrote: Nah he'd pays heaps more. Its as a percentage remember.

The figure is either his personal tax, hence my previous comments about setting a low personal income and using his empire to own lots of things, or its his empires total. If its his empire, then 17% on a few multimillions is much more then 30% on $100k. So he actually pays a heck of lot more tax then she does. Either way it seems disengenious to sit there and say those things to the media but I see in the article it looks to be for political purposes afterall.

I'm not sure how a flat tax rate on the rich would be implemented.... across all business activities (unworkable), across his personal income (which can be zilch, moot point)... what then?

Yes, I'm sure he actually pays more money than others do but he also makes more. For example, if she makes 100k and he makes 200k (I know he makes more, I'm using simple numbers though) then she will pay 30k in taxes and he will pay 34k even though he makes 100k more than her in this example. Why should he pay less taxes (percentage-wise) than someone else who works just as hard for their money?

And of course it is for political purposes, things do need to change here and he's one of the few 1% who are actually on the side of the other 99%. I wouldn't dream of arguing numbers and percentages with that man. He has pledged to give away 99% of his money to philanthropic causes and has made more money in his life than most people could dream of simply by working with numbers and statistics. She may pay less money but she pays more of her income...see where I'm going with this?

Here's a bit of info on W.B. to help you understand where his money comes from.

Resticon wrote: She may pay less money but she pays more of her income...see where I'm going with this?[/color]

I understand what your saying, but I do not see where your going, no. It sounds like you want to tax more as wealth increases, but wouldn't that just remove wealth and stop business activity - which means the main source of US funds (corporate tax) disappears and all jobs disappear. The government would be flush with cash for 6 months and can distribute it like a socialists (term used loosely) dream since no-one has a job anymore, but then it would stop, and the only other option under that tax regime is to have a state run economy (basically just another business with no tax run by politicians) much like the Soviet Union.

Adder wrote: It sounds like you want to tax more as wealth increases

This may be where you are confused as to my point. I do not wish for everyone to make the same amount of money or have the rich getting a 60% tax while the middle class gets 10%. I want all people regardless of power, money, influence, etc. to be taxed evenly. America was partly founded on a principle of no taxation without representation. Unfortunately, lower class and middle class Americans have lost their representation because their "representation" is made up of the upper class Americans. The taxes in this country are slanted and should be even across the board. It should be illegal for businesses to receive tax breaks simply by setting up a small "headquarters" outside of the country. Businesses should be required to reserve a certain percentage of jobs for American citizens instead of outsourcing.

Our businesses are hurting now as well because they outsource our jobs and then expect Americans to purchase their products...but with what money? By paying American workers, these businesses would be putting money into their own pockets simply because more Americans would have jobs and have more money to spend on goods/services. That's basic economics.

Resticon wrote: This may be where you are confused as to my point. I do not wish for everyone to make the same amount of money or have the rich getting a 60% tax while the middle class gets 10%. I want all people regardless of power, money, influence, etc. to be taxed evenly.

It might not be affordable for businesses in a global market place. Individuals with employment are protected compared to businesses operating in the open market. If it worked it would certainly generate a ton of money for the government!!!

I do agree that certain businesses would go away because of this option but they would do so anyway when Americans can no longer afford to buy their goods because the unemployment rate hits 20% or something. When unemployment increases the effects can easily be seen as big businesses start going belly-up. This happened a few years ago which caused our government to bail these companies out with American taxpayer money. Sometimes, you just have to say, "enough it's time for things to change cause the same old broken thing ain't working."

Some good debate going on in here. Good to see. Not much irritates me more than willful ignorance and apathy.