Senate Democrats Unveil Buffett Bill - "all millionaires would pay a minimum federal tax of 30 perce - Polidicks

[QUOTE=zombini;34519935]Right, if the money is going towards education, then i'm an Oscar Mayer Weiner.[/QUOTE] I don't know how it is in other states but it does go towards education in florida. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TheCloak;34520068]I was thinking - what would be wrong with the US imposing taxes similar to the way Sweden does it, like 33% tax or something but they also get University completely paid for (and even paid TO go) and they get all of this government help to ensure the safety of the people. Is our country too large to do this?[/QUOTE] We have war and stuff.

[QUOTE=person11;34517353]It wont[/QUOTE] It is going to have some effect to some degree, whether it is minor or major. 1. A millionaire is never going to pass up a smart investment. This is true. 2. However, one would easily assume that naturally, a millionaire being taxed 15% is going to invest more than a millionaire being taxed at say 30% or 35%. How big is the difference in investment is what we should be looking at. Now, I am honestly on your side. I think the capital gains tax should be increased at least to 30%. However, we should allow professionals to really analyze the data and tell us if this actually will hurt us in anyways, which it probably wont, but we have to be careful with assumptions, with the state of the economy. Let me be clear again, I'm against trickle down economics, it's a terrible idea. But before anyone starts messing with the tax system, I think we should have many experts sit down and really tell us what is going to happen and what we need to do to restore income equality to America. America cannot afford to get any worse.

I thought it was less of making rich get taxed more, but get them in line in what they're supposed to pay originally. Your fair share. Making someone pay a higher fraction than another seems a bit screwy to me.

[QUOTE=Gammashack;34520273]I thought it was less of making rich get taxed more, but get them in line in what they're supposed to pay originally. Your fair share. Making someone pay a higher fraction than another seems a bit screwy to me.[/QUOTE] I used to feel the same way. It's kind of funny though. The more I'm getting into business, the more I feel the opposite.

[QUOTE=TheCloak;34520068]I was thinking - what would be wrong with the US imposing taxes similar to the way Sweden does it, like 33% tax or something but they also get University completely paid for (and even paid TO go) and they get all of this government help to ensure the safety of the people. [B]Is our country too large to do this?[/B][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IddKk.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Nikota;34519852]Yeah! Greedy bastards putting it towards shit like "Education". Fucking cunts.[/QUOTE] You have a 1 in fuckjillion chance of winning the lottery, And if you do win, you should get it tax-free.

[QUOTE=Nikota;34519852]Yeah! Greedy bastards putting it towards shit like "Education". Fucking cunts.[/QUOTE] [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oXaMkR6pypE/Tomw2whshMI/AAAAAAAAAJY/9gTZ9v_orFw/s1600/Obama-budget-graphic-001.jpg[/img] Not really, most of the money goes to useless, bloated programs that are in need of major reform. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than most European nations yet doesn't even have universal care. I'd be fine with taxes if I knew they weren't so high just because of corrupt legislators that don't push to reform anything useful. The waste in the US government is just disgusting [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Also note the spending is only growing. The current government is a disease, and by giving it more money you're only feeding its desire to spend

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34521141][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oXaMkR6pypE/Tomw2whshMI/AAAAAAAAAJY/9gTZ9v_orFw/s1600/Obama-budget-graphic-001.jpg[/img] Not really, most of the money goes to useless, bloated programs that are in need of major reform. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than most European nations yet doesn't even have universal care. I'd be fine with taxes if I knew they weren't so high just because of corrupt legislators that don't push to reform anything useful. The waste in the US government is just disgusting [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Also note the spending is only growing. The current government is a disease, and by giving it more money you're only feeding its desire to spend[/QUOTE] miser rationalizes tax evasion

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34521141][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oXaMkR6pypE/Tomw2whshMI/AAAAAAAAAJY/9gTZ9v_orFw/s1600/Obama-budget-graphic-001.jpg[/img] Not really, most of the money goes to useless, bloated programs that are in need of major reform. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than most European nations yet doesn't even have universal care. I'd be fine with taxes if I knew they weren't so high just because of corrupt legislators that don't push to reform anything useful. The waste in the US government is just disgusting [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Also note the spending is only growing. The current government is a disease, and by giving it more money you're only feeding its desire to spend[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Obama proposed a bill to reform the programs. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Baconator;34520400][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IddKk.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Air too clean, pants not low enough.

[QUOTE=The Worm;34521651]I'm pretty sure Obama proposed a bill to reform the programs. [/QUOTE] Ah, yes. "Proposed." That has surely saved us all.

[QUOTE=Penguin-Man;34519824]because that would actually be fair?[/QUOTE] Let me rephrase that. Why should someone who makes 14 million dollars a year pay the same tax rate as someone who earns less than a tenth of that annually? Shouldn't the millionaire's tax rate be.. you know.. higher? [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikota;34520166]I don't know how it is in other states but it does go towards education in Florida.[/QUOTE] The money is obviously not being spent very well in my county. A group of enraged monkeys with clubs in a china shop have more order and organization than my school district's administration.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34522239]Ah, yes. "Proposed." That has surely saved us all.[/QUOTE] That's all he can do in terms of legislation.

I think it might be a good idea to have the tax rate at 40%, unless the individual pays at least 7% of his income to charity. If they do the 7% their tax rate gets lowered to 30%. That's enough incentive(3% increase in money) to get millionaires to do it, and charity tends to spend money a whole lot more efficiently than government, so it would come it a win-win situation.

[QUOTE=joes33431;34518046]We need to provide extra, larger brackets for those making millions of dollars. For, you see, the income tax bracket of 35% (which is apparently being bypassed via a loophole of some sort) begins at around $350k a year. Now tell me, why should someone who makes $350k a year pay the same percent tax rate as someone who makes $14 million a year? It's simply absurd. [/QUOTE] I remember reading a Newsweek article last year saying that while more money does make you happy, its effect peters out after you make over 75K a year. (Although, with the way things are going with our currency it could be better to assume 80-100K per year) So something as extreme (to most Americans) as a 35% tax bracket for only 150K a year could be argued as fairly reasonable.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34517220]So 30% on your primary source of income if you are a millionaire? I'm ok with this, as long as economic advisors rule that it won't negatively affect investment[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34517391]I'm not so sure about that. [url]http://iret.org/pub/CapitalGains-1.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] I don't mean to be that way, but you're either naive or disingenuous. You posted an "analysis" from a conservative think tank, [I]sponsored[/I] by another conservative think tank, operating under Chicago-school economic thought. It will, by virtue of its founding premises, not by virtue of empirical observation, find this flawed, and indeed does. Having models means nothing if they're not substantiated or otherwise theoretically sound. [QUOTE]Unlike its Austrian forebears, who used a verbal axiomatic system called praxeology, the Chicago school is known for its rigorous mathematical modeling. Of course, given that mathematical models also rely on axioms, the end result looks fairly similar to the Austrians anyway. Instead of "my verbal deductions tell me that we need more free markets," it's "my mathematical models tell me we need more free markets."[/QUOTE] You need a better criticism than "I believe this will harm the economy because my simulations, designed under the assumption that this will harm the economy, indicate that this will harm the economy."

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34522654]I think it might be a good idea to have the tax rate at 40%, unless the individual pays at least 7% of his income to charity. If they do the 7% their tax rate gets lowered to 30%. That's enough incentive(3% increase in money) to get millionaires to do it, and[B] charity tends to spend money a whole lot more efficiently than government, so it would come it a win-win situation.[/B][/QUOTE] Haha, not really. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34521141] Not really, most of the money goes to useless, bloated programs that are in need of major reform.[/QUOTE] The issue with Medicare and Medicaid isn't really the fault of government, but the medical industry in the United States.

Yeah, charities are not bastions of efficiency. Not by a long shot.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34522654]I think it might be a good idea to have the tax rate at 40%, unless the individual pays at least 7% of his income to charity. If they do the 7% their tax rate gets lowered to 30%. That's enough incentive(3% increase in money) to get millionaires to do it, and charity tends to spend money a whole lot more efficiently than government, so it would come it a win-win situation.[/QUOTE] No flat taxes It would be morally reprehensible to tax a single college student or a family making just above the poverty line 40% of their income

Of course, charities are a politically attractive option for the American right, so the evidence is a bit murky.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34523651]No flat taxes It would be morally reprehensible to tax a single college student or a family making just above the poverty line 40% of their income[/QUOTE] Not a flat tax, I'm talking about the top bracket. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34523635]Yeah, charities are not bastions of efficiency. Not by a long shot.[/QUOTE] The government isn't a bastion of efficiency either. In fact I would say government is the most inefficient money spender that continues to exist. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] AND either way, the government can make a list of charitable organizations that are efficient(UNICEF, Scholarship America, for example), and those are the ones eligible for tax credit.