jcd11235 0 #176 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Fact is, we tax INCOME, not ACCUMULATED WEALTH. Yes, but I get taxed on the income my accumulated wealth makes. To me, rich is when you make enough off of the income from your accumulated wealth that you don't have to work. That's not a bad definition. Mine is when the person's accumulated wealth creates more income than the person's labor can provide, especially when the difference is great. Both definitions are relative, they're just relative to different things. Nice to see you in SC again, Ron. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #177 August 25, 2008 QuoteDoes the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? I suspect that's why both candidates homed in on income as the measure. Do you recall how the question they were asked was phrased? Did it ask about income level or how they defined rich?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #178 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteDoes the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? I suspect that's why both candidates homed in on income as the measure. Do you recall how the question they were asked was phrased? Did it ask about income level or how they defined rich? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3302883#3302883... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #179 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteFact is, we tax INCOME, not ACCUMULATED WEALTH. To me, rich is when you make enough off of the income from your accumulated wealth that you don't have to work. However . . . That could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people though. For instance, say I write a piece of music or patent some device and earn royalties on it. What is "enough" income so that I no longer "have to work"? So again, it's a matter of income.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #180 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoes the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? I suspect that's why both candidates homed in on income as the measure. Do you recall how the question they were asked was phrased? Did it ask about income level or how they defined rich? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3302883#3302883 REV. WARREN: Okay. Taxes -- this is a real simple question. Define "rich." (Laughter.) I mean, give me a number. Is it 50,000 (dollars)? One hundred thousand (dollars)? Two hundred thousand (dollars)? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How do you define that? It looks like Warren implied income, even if he didn't explicitly say it that way.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #181 August 25, 2008 QuoteSo the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise. No, the people who invest and build the economy get taxed on their efforts."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #182 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise. No, the people who invest and build the economy get taxed on their efforts. So does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #183 August 25, 2008 QuoteSo does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Higher RATE, not more in taxes. Your article's title is intellectually dishonest. 17% of 10 Billion is a ton more than 30% of 60,000. 30% of 60,000 = 18,000 17% of 10 Billion = 1,700,000,000 QuoteYet Buffett starts by making the extraordinary claim that he and his receptionist currently both pay the same 30% of their very different incomes to the federal government. This is pretty much impossible unless receptionists in Omaha are paid more than the CEO's of the companies they work for. Buffett takes a salary of $100,000 from Berkshire Hathaway (according to the company's most recent proxy statement) -- and assuming that his receptionist makes the same amount, then her average federal tax rate would be something like 16%, according to the IRS's online calculator. Adding the 6.2% payroll tax paid by her employer, we get to about 22%. Her salary would have to be about $250,000 to get up to the 30% Buffett claims."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #184 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Higher RATE, not more in taxes. Your article's title is intellectually dishonest. 1. I didn't write an article. 2. I very clearly wrote "higher rate".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #185 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise. No, the people who invest and build the economy get taxed on their efforts. So does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Her investments get taxed at the same way as those other people. Less, if he pays her poorly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #186 August 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise. No, the people who invest and build the economy get taxed on their efforts. So does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Her investments get taxed at the same way as those other people. Less, if he pays her poorly. Let's hope he pays her well enough that she has some to invest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #187 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise. No, the people who invest and build the economy get taxed on their efforts. So does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Her investments get taxed at the same way as those other people. Less, if he pays her poorly. Let's hope he pays her well enough that she has some to invest. Let's raise the minimum wage to the point where everyone has money to invest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bjjman 0 #188 August 26, 2008 QuoteHow is paying the cost of running the country a penalty? I never said that; paying taxes is a good thing in that regard. I'm just referring to the portion of taxes that go to help (and therefore encourage) lazy/irresponsible people."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #189 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteHow is paying the cost of running the country a penalty? I never said that; paying taxes is a good thing in that regard. I'm just referring to the portion of taxes that go to help (and therefore encourage) lazy/irresponsible people. " ...responsible people should be penalized " I think you'll find penalized and penalty share the same root. How about the $12BILLION a month in direct costs of a war started under false pretenses and that helps no Americans at all. I'm sure we could do without that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #190 August 26, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Does the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? Yes. They use the source to determine how much I owe. Currently, my investment gains are only taxed at 15% versus the higher rate from my income from employment. So the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise.(Not really) Bull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #191 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm surprised, and maybe I shouldn't be, that both candidates define rich by annual income. IT'S ACCUMULATED WEALTH! Fact is, we tax INCOME, not ACCUMULATED WEALTH. The question in the OP was not about taxes, it was about what annual income makes you rich. The answer is that accumulation makes you rich; which is a functiuon of spending, savings, investment, etc. You can make $10 million per year, but if you invest poorly, spend it all on depreciating trinkets and baubles, etc, you will not be rich. You are correct, we tax income. Fact is though, rich is defined by wealth, not income." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #192 August 26, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Does the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? Yes. They use the source to determine how much I owe. Currently, my investment gains are only taxed at 15% versus the higher rate from my income from employment. So the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise.(Not really) Bull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does. I wonder what % of Joe's income is from investments, as compared to the average billionaire.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #193 August 26, 2008 Quote . . .the average billionaire. While there are certainly more of them around these days, that's still a bit of an oxymoron." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #194 August 26, 2008 100/K a year is a loser ? Wow,,,,you are not opinionated at all are you ? Do you have any idea how the income level breaks down? Do you know what the average american makes? smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #195 August 26, 2008 Quote1. I didn't write an article. 2. I very clearly wrote "higher rate". 1. No, but you tried to use it to claim "So the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise." When in fact there is no privileged treatment. Both him and his secretary's investment income is taxed at the same 15%. 2. Which is also not true. Both have their investment income taxed at the same rate...the same rate you and I also pay. Quote So does Warren Buffett's secretary, at a higher rate. Again, they both pay the same rate on the investment income. And unless she makes more than 100k (which is Buffets salary) then she does not pay a higher rate on her earned income either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #196 August 26, 2008 Quote 100/K a year is a loser ? Wow,,,,you are not opinionated at all are you ? Do you have any idea how the income level breaks down? Do you know what the average american makes? Apparently you don't know how to read, as I never said that. But its ok, now just go back and reread it more carefully. Its ok you can do it. Then again I find it hard to believe that somebody could be dislextic enough to read my post so incorrectly, which would suggest you just want to start an arguement. Therefore, I suggest you pick somebody else's post to misread and maybe you can have fun argueing back and forth with that person.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #197 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteBull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does. I wonder what % of Joe's income is from investments, as compared to the average billionaire. translation - the good professor thinks that getting identical tax rates on identical investments = 'preferential treatment" for the one with more wealth or income or even just if they look different or live somewhere or say things other than what the libs want them to Mike - once you realize this, it's easier to recognize the exchange will go nowhere ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #198 August 26, 2008 QuoteThen again I find it hard to believe that somebody could be dislextic enough to read my post so incorrectly, which would suggest you just want to start an arguement. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thats funny right there....Who was the comedian who used to make up nonsensical words??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #199 August 26, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Does the taxman care what the source of your income is (excluding certain privileged classes like farmers, who do get special treatment)? Yes. They use the source to determine how much I owe. Currently, my investment gains are only taxed at 15% versus the higher rate from my income from employment. So the rich get privileged treatment. There's a big surprise.(Not really) Bull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does. A better way of putting it is that corporate income received by both Joe Six Pack and Warren Buffet has usually been taxed by at least 43% (C-corps earning over 75K/year pay a 34-39% tax rate, and what's left is taxed again as dividends at 15%). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #200 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBull - Joe Sixpack pays 15% on any investment income just like Warren Buffet does. I wonder what % of Joe's income is from investments, as compared to the average billionaire. translation - the good professor thinks that getting identical tax rates on identical investments = 'preferential treatment" for the one with more wealth or income or even just if they look different or live somewhere or say things other than what the libs want them to Mike - once you realize this, it's easier to recognize the exchange will go nowhere Let's try that again. Warren Buffett tells us that overall his secretary pays tax at a higher rate than he does, based presumably on the different sources of their income. In general the poor don't have a whole lot of investment income, and the middle class still primarily depend on earned income. The rich in general depend less on earned income and derive more from investments. Hence the tax code favors the rich, just as Buffett said. I think we should give him the benefit of knowing his own and his employee's affairs better than you do. It's easy when you take off your blinders.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
