Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

[peggy]

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.

Of course they do. Benefits aren't just in dollars. Benefits come in the form of an educated, safe work force, good roads to get that work force to your business and goods out. Benefits like a police force and fire protection for your work force and your goods and place of business. A stable economy is another benefit. And these are just the benefits here at home. Overseas the benefits are not being shot at, or held hostage to unreasonable blackmail to do business. And you and I both know our government advocates for our business overseas constantly. In fact, that is a large part of what Our government does 'overseas'.
A safe, stable work environment and economy is the best benefit of all. And, despite what some may think, the government providing a safe, stable work environment and economy for the workers too is also a huge benefit for business.
But, when that delicate balance between corporate interest and worker interest is skewed, as it has been happening in the last 3 decades, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. A strong middle class is essential for a strong economy, which is essential for strong business, which is the best benefit of all, for everyone.
Buffet understands this principle. Actually, most smart business people understand this, but in this grab-what-you-can environment, greed trumps everything. Why try to fix this and stop the giant suck from the middle class to the upper tiers when all your friends around you are busy raking in the dough while they can? Rape and pillage then simply move on to the next big economy. China perhaps, or India. The world is flat, after all.

[Gregg]

Peggy, I agree that a lot of the things you listed benefit companies, but things like an educated workforce are a benefit to the society as a whole. The fact that a company would derive a benefit from it is just a result of them being part of the whole, not a benefit geared specifically to that kind of entity or made to be exclusive of anyone/anything else.

[Yossarian]

Of course they do. Benefits aren't just in dollars.

No distinction. All tax burdens are borne by and benefits accrue to people- employees, investors or consumers. Business is not something apart from people. To say something benefits "business" just means it benefits the people involved in or with that business.

[bae]

To say something benefits "business" just means it benefits the people involved in or with that business.

But if you draw the distinction, then you can play divisive politics with "evil business" vs. "the people". Handy, that!

[peggy]

Now where did I say business was evil? I never said that, or even implied it, but I guess 'reading between the lines' helps to further divide us and continue the wall between our common goals. Right/conservative victimization is such an easy card to play, you can pull that one out of the deck for just about anything you disagree with. Handy that!

Gregg- yes, they ARE a part of the whole. What benefits business benefits the country as a whole! It's all connected. We are all connected. When one part fails, we all fail, and when one part succeeds, we all succeed. Success doesn't have to always come with piles and piles of cash. And even though the part that fails may seem small (middle class family who after all don't have piles and piles of cash to buy the wealthy man's widgets) all together, the whole middle class, it does represent piles and piles of cash which the wealthy businessman needs to be successful.

Wanting a fair tax code isn't the same as saying business is evil. (although asserting that is sure useful for stopping conversation) And I'm smart enough to not be BS'd by the completely goofy mantra of 'poor corporation taxed so much we really need to give them a break cause they are job creators and all that cash has been taxed already (as if every dollar any of us has hasn't been taxed many times over)'. Did I cover them all? I won't even give space to the "Well I'll just take my money(ball) and leave the country (go home).

I just want what's fair. I want a strong economy, strong business and a strong middle class which keeps it all afloat. I know, and you know, the wealthy aren't selling useless widgets to each other. They need this strong economy to get and maintain their wealth. They benefit from a strong economy, and a happy workforce.
Doesn't it scare you even a little bit that the big corporations, who are now people, apparently with more power than any one person could ever imagine, are not only buying politicians to write tax code and laws that give them more while draining the middle class, are also backing the Republican drive to weaken the power of the workers/unions? It's not enough that they will win, but everybody else must lose!

[txgran]

"Doesn't it scare you even a little bit that the big corporations, who are now people, apparently with more power than any one person could ever imagine, are not only buying politicians to write tax code and laws that give them more while draining the middle class, are also backing the Republican drive to weaken the power of the workers/unions? It's not enough that they will win, but everybody else must lose!"


Applause! Applause!

[bunnys]

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

Post #11 in this thread called for the 49% of the population who currently don't pay income tax to begin coughing it up. That would include the poor, some of whom not only don't pay income tax but get an earned income tax credit.

I am against a flat tax because the wealthier one becomes the lower percentage of income must be spent on the necessities of life (food, shelter, health care, clothing, etc.) Because they have more disposable income (by definition income they can fritter away in any manner they choose,) I feel the fair thing is to expect them to pay a heavier burden in tax.

My belief is that when "defining" fair as many in this thread have inquired about, it is inherently more fair for those who make more money to be expected to pay more and a higher percentage of their income (regardless of how it is "earned") to taxes.

Ultimately this boils down to a philosophical difference between two camps and how they see "fair." One one side are those who believe that "fair" and "equal" are synonymous. On the other side is the camp that believes "fair" should be defined more closely with "best." Some people are really good at making money. Others are really good at sports or scholarly pursuits or engaging with other people. In life, it's naive to think that the playing field is equal for all. And it's not fair to hold those who aren't good at making money easily to the same standard as a person who finds it easy and even effortless to make a bunch of money, regardless of the circumstances.

It is folly to think that someone in one camp can convince someone in the other camp that their position is correct, regardless of how well though out and logical their arguments are. Just like it would be pointless for me to read a book written in a language other than English. I don't think that way and so I'm never going to be able to understand the other perspective.

[ApatheticNoMore]

"Doesn't it scare you even a little bit that the big corporations, who are now people, apparently with more power than any one person could ever imagine,

Definitely. In fact people are simultaneously stripped of power by the repressive apparatus of the government (aware of, notice the civil liberties situation, what they have in mind for protestors etc.). So corporations are simultaneously empowered (all rights are theirs including infinite money funneling into the government) while people are scared.

are not only buying politicians to write tax code and laws that give them more while draining the middle class, are also backing the Republican drive to weaken the power of the workers/unions? It's not enough that they will win, but everybody else must lose!"

Exactly. They (the corptocracy - a select set of large corporations) win regardless. We have imperialist wars for oil regardless of who gets elected. Banks get bailed regardless of who gets elected. We have no real environmental policy regardless (though this one is less ingrained than the others). The real wins and the real system continues in the interest of a select set of businesses regardless, but then it's all about destroying a few ameliorative programs in the mean time which they don't really need to destroy because they can really continue on profitably without doing so, but hey might as well. And maybe that is where the repressive apparatus is needed, when you can no longer even buy someones compliance with the payoff of a puny safety net, then what?

[Lainey]

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. .

This fact bears repeating. Often. So we can finally put this meme about the 47% who don't pay federal income tax in context: they don't pay because They Are Too Poor. Why is that something to be upset and jealous about?

[jp1]

About 22%, or almost half, of the 47% is people on social security. And as Andrew SUllivan points out in this link, http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ays-taxes.html it's only federal income tax upon which 47% of the population doesn't pay taxes. The vast majority of those people still pay quite a bit of other taxes. Even people in the bottom 20% income-wise still pay 13% of their income in total taxes.

And while people at the lower end of the income spectrum pay less in federal income taxes, as figure 3 on the following link shows, the lower income earners actually pay more in state and local taxes as a percentage of income. Not to mention that only people at the very high end of the income spectrum pay less then average in payroll taxes (social security and medicare withholding) Figure 2 on this link. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505