posted August 18, 2011 03:32 PM            

He`s saying the loopholes are there to take advantage of, which he admits he does.

He`s, maybe, just maybe, trying to wake the voters up to do something about the tax structure via voting by rubbing their noses in it?

------------------
Submit to Love without thinking, as the sun rose this morning recklessly, extinguishing our star-candled minds.

posted August 18, 2011 11:18 PM            

Sorry, your leftist dictionary failed you again acoustic.

Hypocrisy consists of:

the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour

posted August 19, 2011 09:21 AM            

In general, words mean whatever we say they mean

posted August 19, 2011 11:37 AM            

You look like a moron when you suggest things that so obviously contrary to reality, common sense, and the dictionary definition of things.

You and Randall need to stop looking for ways out of dealing with practical reality all the time.

quote:

---

In general, words mean whatever we say they mean

---

posted August 19, 2011 12:15 PM            

So, when Buffett screeches that the rich should pay more in income taxes, he's a common hypocrite...pure and simple.

posted August 19, 2011 12:35 PM            

as he said, when the code demanded it he paid more. that is true of ALL the billionaires and millionaires, and their COMBINED HIGHER TAXES would make a significant difference.

as he ALSO pointed out, times are different now. NOW is the time when the rich should be stumping up - and as also mentioned, he and many of his co-billionaires have taken a pledge to DONATE a huge amount of money, but they would be fine with the government making it LAW that they pay more in taxes too.

but it seems randall and jwhop see the rich as truly greedy and hypocritical when they express a philanthropic impulse. i thought it was LEFTISTS who hated the rich!

the english rich don't emigrate just because taxes are high there. buffet is just pointing out that it is ridiculous to be so afraid that OUR rich would scarper if they were asked to pitch in when EVERYONE else needs help! after all, the rest of us are where their money came from, right? they drive on the same roads, enjoy the same first-response help, some of them even send their kids to public school, though not as many as in the past.

posted August 19, 2011 03:18 PM            

------------------
Submit to Love without thinking, as the sun rose this morning recklessly, extinguishing our star-candled minds.

posted August 19, 2011 05:52 PM            

2010 IRS statistics show there were 1.399 million filers in the top 1% of income earners.

Those 1% of top income earners reported total "adjusted net income" of 1,685,472 million dollars. That's 1 billion, 685 million, 472 thousand dollars.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

The US federal budget for 2010 was $3,552B. That's $3 trillion, 552 billion dollars.

The US spends about $9.6B per day.

The US spends about $400,000,000, $400 million per hour.

If the total "adjusted net income" from the top 1% of income earners was taxed at a 100% rate, the $1.685B would run the US federal government for about 4 hours.

Great con but it only works on those who never bother to check the numbers.

Let's give these stinkin demoscats the boot in 2012.

posted August 19, 2011 06:18 PM            

In other words, more of the same crap which didn't work, won't work and will add to the national debt. Got to spend all the money in that debt limit increase.

posted August 19, 2011 06:37 PM            

The Adjusted GROSS Income of the top 1% equals 1,685,472 x 1,000,000 (millions), which equals $1,685,472,000,000 (1 trillion, 685 billion, 472 million dollars).

quote:

---

Great con but it only works on those who never bother to check the numbers.

---

posted August 19, 2011 11:50 PM            

So, if the entire adjusted gross income of the top 1% of income earners was confiscated by the feds, 100% tax rate... it would run the government about 5 months.

posted August 20, 2011 11:18 AM            

“We billionaires have been coddled long enough by Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”—Warren Buffett

“The rich aren’t paying enough. We should greatly raise their taxes.”—Ben Stein

Earlier this week in an op-ed for the New York Times, Warren Buffett, one of the richest billionaires on Earth and a social democrat, proposed a sharp increase in taxes on those making a million dollars or more a year.

He argued the case on the basis of fairness. He noted that his federal tax bill of $6,938,744 last year was only 17.4% of his taxable income, considerably less than his employees. Their tax burden ranged from 33% to 41%. He can pay less because most of his income is in the form of long-term capital gains, which is taxed currently at 10%.

Ben Stein, a conservative Republican, lawyer and part-time actor, agrees and has been making the case for soaking the rich since 2006. “They can afford to pay more,” he states. “We’ve got to do something about the deficit, and cutting spending won’t solve the problem entirely. We need to raise some tax revenues.”

Of course, Buffett and Stein are correct in one way: The rich can afford to pay more in taxes. The rich (I’m in this category) have surplus wealth that we can draw on to send to Washington .

The real question: Is that a good idea?

Suppose an American entrepreneur earns $1 million, and is able to save half of it after paying taxes and his living expenses. He can use that half a million dollars in a variety of ways:

1. Expand his business, or start a new business (creating new jobs).

2. Invest in other successful businesses, i.e., invest in stocks and bonds, or through private venture capital.

3. Place funds in bank savings or CDs, which in turn might be loaned out to businesses.

4. Give money to good causes—charities, churches, think tanks and alma maters (e.g., scholarships for needy students).

5. Make improvements on his home by hiring skilled workers, etc., or spend the money in other ways.

Or send the tax money into Washington in hopes that the money will be used appropriately.

The question that Warren Buffett, Ben Stein and other wealthy Americans need to answer is this: Will this surplus wealth be used in a productive way or wasted on some boondoggle?

I suspect that Warren Buffett and Ben Stein could use the money more productively than the federal government.

And that’s the crux of the matter (which has been lost in this debate):

An income tax on the rich is a tax on productive capital.

A capital gains tax is a tax on capital.

A federal estate (or inheritance) tax is a tax on capital.

posted August 20, 2011 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

So, if the entire adjusted gross income of the top 1% of income earners was confiscated by the feds, 100% tax rate... it would run the government about 5 months.

---

posted August 20, 2011 12:56 PM            

------------------
Submit to Love without thinking, as the sun rose this morning recklessly, extinguishing our star-candled minds.

posted August 20, 2011 01:00 PM            

3,552B divided by 12 = 296B per month...spending

1,685B, revenue from top 1% at 100% tax rate..divided by 296B = 5.6 months of spending

August 20, 2011
Obama and the Class Envy Card
By Steve McCann

Barack Obama, the Left and the Democrats are determined to continue their never-ending and over-used drum beat of "raise taxes on the rich." While of little practical value in solving the nation's overwhelming debt and deficit problem, this siren song aims to foster class envy, intimidate opponents and foment potential violence. It is the action of a desperate administration and party attempting to obfuscate their abject failure in growing the economy and creating jobs.

The IRS issues a report every year analyzing the tax filings, receipts and payment by income groups. The report for 2009 has just been issued. It fully contradicts the mantra of the Left that by taxing the so-called "rich" the United States could solve its deficit problem without severe cuts in spending.

In 2012 the projected annual deficit will be around $1,100.00 Billion and near that same amount in 2013.

President Obama in his usual demagoguery always focuses on the "millionaires and billionaires." In 2009 there were 236,900 tax returns filed showing an adjusted gross income of $1,000,000 or more. This group paid $177.5 Billion individual income taxes out of a total of $726.9 Billion in total AGI or an effective rate of 24.4%.

If the nation were to go down the road of increasing the tax rates or eliminating deductions on this group and create a 25% higher effective tax rate of 30.5%, the additional revenue to the Treasury would be $44.1 Billion. Still $1,055.9 Billion short of mitigating the deficit. A 40% higher effective tax rate of 34.1% would generate only an additional $70.3 Billion.

That assumes a static number of taxpayers would continue to earn over $1,000,000 per year. In fact, the number of taxpayers in this group changes almost yearly and as an absolute certainty this variation would become far worse if the effective tax rate were to be raised dramatically particularly when factoring in already high state and local taxes.

In 2007 there were 392,200 income tax returns filed showing an AGI of $1,000,000 or more; in 2009 there were only 236,900, a drop of nearly 40%. Worse, among those showing an AGI of $10,000,000 or more the number fell from 18,394 in 2007 to 8,274 in 2009 (a precipitous fall of 55%). The receipts to the IRS from this income sector declined from $310.1 Billion in 2007 to $177.5 Billion in 2009. (-43%)

Therefore the reality is that other income groups would have to be included in any tax increases if Obama and the Democrats are insistent on "revenue enhancers."

In 2009 there were 3,688,000 filers in the $200,000 to $1,000,000 AGI sector. They paid $256.8 Billion in individual income taxes out of a total Adjusted Gross Income of $1,237.4 Billion or an effective rate of 20.8%. Were the effective rate to be raised by 25% to 26.0% an additional $64.9 Billion would be realized.

The largest AGI group is the $75,000 to $200,000 in annual income. In 2009 there were 24,986,000 filers paying $292.8 Billion in income taxes out a total AGI of $2,792 Billion. (Effective rate of 10.5%).

A comparative chart is as follows utilizing the 2009 statistics:

See chart: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_and_the_class_envy_card.html

These three income groups account for of the total Adjusted Gross Income recorded in the tax filings in 2009 and 84% of all income taxes paid

As the deficit in 2012 is estimated to be in excess of $1,100 Billion and near that amount again in 2013, there are simply no way raising income tax rates or eliminating so-called loop-holes for the "rich" will generate anyway near enough income even if one assumes no change in tax paying behavior. other income groups are where the money is and that is the ultimate target of the current administration and the Left.

Further, this is a consumer driven economy with consumer spending accounting for 70% of all economic activity, as the goods-producing sector (20% of GDP) has been greatly diminished and forced to move to other countries, thanks to regulations, mandates, taxes and an anti-capitalist mindset in Washington D.C. Virtually all the jobs created in the past ten years have been in the low paying service sector, further exacerbating the nation's economic woes and causing the income gap between the middle-class and the rich to widen as upward income mobility has been greatly hampered.

In America's current economic structure, the top 20% of income earners in the United States account for 61% of all consumer spending. (This also puts to a lie the inane and absurd claim made by various Democrats that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the best way to help the economy as these payments spur economic growth. The bottom 80% of the working population accounts for only 39% of consumer spending). The reality is the more the higher income earners are forced to pay in taxes at the federal, state and local level the less will be available for spending and growing the economy.