Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

They pay for what, their own wars? Who benefits from those anyway?

Who paid for the federal reserve bailout of all the banks, and then much of the European banks? (which may have really be an indirect bailout of who knows what). 1.2 trillion? Who benefited?

Maybe worse if you believe things like this:
http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailo...illion-of.html

Absolutely massive bailout of the financial system (likely continues with more and more and more).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

How many times should the same dollar be taxed? If you, as a partial owner of a company, invest your money in the form of stocks or bonds, which then generates a 10% annual return, should it be subjected to the highest corporate tax rate in the world prior to you receiving it only to then have it taxed again at a 25 to 30% rate? Exactly how many slices of the pie should the government take before you are allowed to enjoy the crumbs?

---

Or alternatively, which income should be taxed at a higher percentage. Income derived from the sweat of one's labor or income derived from opening an investment account statement and smiling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East River Guide

So what does that mean? Should the amount of tax you pay have any relation to the amount of government services you consume? Should we take money from those that have it just because they have it or should it matter how they got it? Which is more important, income or assets? What exactly do you think makes it a "fair" share?

---

It's impossible to know how much government services anyone takes. How could one even begin to calculate the benefit the oil companies get from our military presence in the middle east. I'd be willing to guess, though, that it far outstrips whatever taxes they pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbgeek

If we want to talk about fair share, how about we include those 49% of folks who don't pay income taxes AT ALL? The top 10% of earners pay 70% of all the taxes. How is that not fair?

Source: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pa...ome-taxes.html

---

Of course the people who scream about all those who "don't pay taxes" ignore the fact that a sizeable chunk of the non-tax-payers are retired and living off a relatively small social security income and students. In other words, people who DID pay taxes for most of their lives or those who WILL pay taxes most of their lives.

And as Tradd mentioned, there are a lot of us with no children and no mortgage deduction who are only able to take the standard deduction. I make a high 5 figure income and pay a way higher percentage tax rate then Buffet. And that doesn't even take into account the very regressive withholding taxes for social security and medicare, which don't get taken out of investment income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Oh, everybody knows that. This is about the sliding scale they charge you at the door. Half the diners eat for free and the few percent they dislike the most, who are already paying for 70 or so percent of the evenings meals, get to pay an additional premium for the privilege of dessert.

---

ha ha ha ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bunnys

I do not understand the rationale of expecting the very poorest people in our society to have to pony up and pay more taxes than they already do. (Yes, they do pay taxes. Sales tax, gas tax, utility taxes, etc.) So many of them have multiple part time jobs with no benefits making minimum wage and must run households and raise children and pay health costs on those paltry hourly wages. Still, people want the poorest to cough up more and "pay their fair share" whatever that means. This mentality seems so utterly heartless to me.

---

I know of no one proposing that the burden on the poor should be increased. Economic equations are neither heartless or compassionate in their own right. That type of consideration comes from the parameters set by those who apply the rules to society. Even flat tax advocates who propose a percentage straight across the board all have lower limits below which a person would not be expected to pay. Some people misinterpret that as compassion, but in reality it is simply a practical matter. It doesn't make any sense to force someone to pay when doing so will place them in a position of needing more assistance that will cost society more than those people paid in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I know of no one proposing that the burden on the poor should be increased. ...

---

Oh I don't know. There is one point of view that holds EVERYONE w should have some skin in the "Tax Me" game. I realize it's not practical to require someone below the poverty line to cough up a few bucks for income taxes, they just don't have it, but I like the philosophy of it. Everybody plays, everybody pays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

How could one even begin to calculate the benefit the oil companies

---

Companies don't receive any benefits. Ever. All tax burdens fall on people- employees, investors or consumers.

In most cases a consumption oriented tax could be tailored to more readily reflect government usage than one based on income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

..... but I like the philosophy of it. Everybody plays, everybody pays.

---

Yea, kind of like health care with the affordable care act. Everyone plays so everyone pays! Glad you finally see the light Iris L.;)

I'm getting into this conversation late but one thing they never mention is that by the time you get your dividend, its already taxed at the corp tax rate of 35%, though the corporation probably pays a someone lower rate, then you pay our 15% tax, so its double-taxed.

I general, I am for all tax hikes which increase other taxes and against those which increase mine :)