quote Originally posted by Toddster: America has (at present) 403 billionaires. Net worth = about $1.3 Trillion. So, let's suppose we taxed them at 100%! That's right let's take ALL the money they earn each year. And let's estimate that their annual earnings are about 10% of their net worth (pretty optimistic), that is $130 Billion per year. OK, Warren, Bill, and all those eeeeeeeeevil billionaires get ALL of their income taken. Congrats, we have just reduced the deficit by a whopping 5%. And the national debt by a staggering .00774%!!! Break out the champaign! The problem is solved, we'll just go after the rich like Obama says!! What? What do you mean "Am I crazy?" The President said the Billionaires need to pay their fair share, we take everything they earn and ...oh, wait, it doesn't do **** to solve the problem...I see your point. What was I thinking? Sorry. I'll never suggest going after "rich" people makes sense every again. I promise!

Dude, that's not fair, you have a calculator, the folks in DC don't.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I thought I covered that point for you newf. Should I quote myself to point it out or did you just miss it?

Nope you clarified it. I was pointing out why I commented on it in the first place.

Nope, there isn't really a tax classification for 'rich or wealthy' or even for middle class--just for a poverty level. Rich basically, is anyone who makes a lot more than the person looking at the equation. Nor, is there a Bureau of Labor classification delineating the rich from middle class--it's just a common usage term involving intangibles.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: -it's just a common usage term involving intangibles.

Sure wish I had more of those intangibles. Now where's that Powerball ticket I had?

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Nope, there isn't really a tax classification for 'rich or wealthy' or even for middle class--just for a poverty level. Rich basically, is anyone who makes a lot more than the person looking at the equation. Nor, is there a Bureau of Labor classification delineating the rich from middle class--it's just a common usage term involving intangibles.

Agreed, though I would say different tax brackets are sometimes used to define oneself or others in terms of wealth.

On a talk radio show today, I heard that Buffett is getting around estate taxes by putting his money into charity. If he really wanted the rich to pay more taxes, why doesn't he WRITE A GODDAMN CHECK???

Like Don said, there are published figures on what is considered the "poverty level" and it's primarily used for statistical purposes.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
The poverty level for families with the following number of people in 2009 was:
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010

There is no corresponding "wealthy" level. The federal income tax rates are progressive ranging from 10% for taxable income below $8500 per year and up to 35% for income from $379,150 and up.
The arbitrary $250,000 cutoff doesn't even limit it to the top tax bracket.
http://www.moneychimp.com/f...res/tax_brackets.htm

quote Originally posted by fierobear: On a talk radio show today, I heard that Buffett is getting around estate taxes by putting his money into charity. If he really wanted the rich to pay more taxes, why doesn't he WRITE A GODDAMN CHECK???

He is, as he is incrementally giving it away. You can give a set amt away/yr to charity without a federal tax penalty, just as you can give away a set amt each year to your spawn (and every year) without a tax burden being incurred by them. (they still have to report it on a K form but it isn't taxed)

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-15-2011).]

Nice try toddster ..so only billionaires are rich now? How's about including the total wealth of the 23,000 multimillionaires, and plain ol' impoverished millionaires in the USA? TAHAT should bring a few trillion more in .Interesting fact here: in 2009 therewere a couple of thousnd MORE millionairaires added to the list

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Nice try toddster ..so only billionaires are rich now? How's about including the total wealth of the 23,000 multimillionaires, and plain ol' impoverished millionaires in the USA? TAHAT should bring a few trillion more in .Interesting fact here: in 2009 therewere a couple of thousnd MORE millionairaires added to the list

Is that figure their total wealth or ones who make a million a year?
You can easily have a total wealth of of a million, but make less than a hundred grand a year.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Nice try toddster ..so only billionaires are rich now? How's about including the total wealth of the 23,000 multimillionaires, and plain ol' impoverished millionaires in the USA? TAHAT should bring a few trillion more in .Interesting fact here: in 2009 therewere a couple of thousnd MORE millionairaires added to the list

I don't think you grasp the difference between "million" and "trillion." 23,000 millionaires with $1M each would total $23 Billion. For their assets to add up to even $1 Trillion, let along a "few trillion," every single one of them would have to have nearly $44 Million. Each.

Take it all, and it won't fix the problems...

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Is that figure their total wealth or ones who make a million a year? You can easily have a total wealth of of a million, but make less than a hundred grand a year.

In terms of total wealth (cash, real estate, "other assets") there are millionares right here on PFF. Many of those, are probably regular blue collar working Joes.

(Hey--My Indys are worth 1/2 mil each---right?)

quote Originally posted by maryjane: In terms of total wealth (cash, real estate, "other assets") there are millionares right here on PFF. Many of those, are probably regular blue collar working Joes. (Hey--My Indys are worth 1/2 mil each---right?)

When I was in business making $36,000/YR we needed a loan so we had to do a total wealth.
A little fudging and I was worth 1.5 mil.
Yes at one time I was one of the evil people, well on paper anyway.

Here it is in text form:

Eat the Rich

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I don't think you grasp the difference between "million" and "trillion." 23,000 millionaires with $1M each would total $23 Billion. For their assets to add up to even $1 Trillion, let along a "few trillion," every single one of them would have to have nearly $44 Million. Each. Take it all, and it won't fix the problems...

No you are quite right there BUT...add to that a LOT more Government fiscal control and spending cuts (like ALL spending cuts), and that figure they are chasing stops, and the deficit can be overhauled...gradually.

quote Originally posted by newf: Also I notice the old standard and tired response of "Nothing's stopping him from writing a big cheque to the IRS" has been added many times to this thread. I think he is making a point that the tax system is unfairly treating the rich and it seems to be backed up by statistics AND real world examples. Not sure why he would feel that he should contribute more to a system he considers flawed, especially when giving so much of his wealth to charities he believes in.

I think he is advocating the Progressive agenda. What is his opinion about the tax system treating the poor unfairly ? Everybody should have skin in the game. Many who are poor give to charities and churches. In fact, it could be said that they give more than Buffett, percentage wealth wise.

Hey, Warren, No One’s Stopping You from Paying More Taxes
http://godfatherpolitics.co...m-paying-more-taxes/

quote Warren Buffett believes that the super-rich should pay more taxes. Buffett is a great investor, but he’s a lousy judge of government. Do you think that he would ever invest in a company that was run like the federal government? If there’s one thing businessmen know, is that when money is spent, it’s their money, and there’s no easy way to get more money if they run out. They can’t steal it; they can’t force people to give it to them; it’s expensive to borrow, and they have to pay it back with interest; and they can’t raise their debt ceiling when financial times get rough. Only governments can do these things, because they pass laws and have a police force that compels us to comply. Anybody with a modicum of common sense would never invest in such a business venture unless there was going to be some type of payback. Buffett is super-rich. He’s not going to have to pay taxes on the money he’s already made and already paid taxes on. It’s only on any new money he makes that he’ll have to shell out more in taxes. This means that the up-and-coming super rich are at a disadvantage. Calling for higher taxes on these newcomers is going to put people like Buffett, Bill Gates, and other guilt-ridden rich people at an advantage. It’s typical of the rich, whether individuals or corporations, to use the power of government to put regulatory roadblocks in front of late-to-the game competitors. For example, through lobbying efforts and political favoritism, Pan American Airways was selected by the United States government to be its “chosen instrument” for overseas operations, giving the air carrier a near monopoly on international routes. New airlines like TWA were at a decided disadvantage. Buffett and his rich friends know all of this. They also know that paying higher taxes won’t make a dent in their existing portfolios. Buffett’s a multi-billionaire. A billion is a thousand million. He’s worth forty-thousand million dollars. That’s $40 billion dollars. Let’s say that he gets taxed ten percent on what he already owns. That would be four billion dollars. That’s a lot of money to us, but Buffett will still have $36 billion left. A lot of people are all right with this; it’s the way it should be, they argue. It’s a bad business deal, and Buffett knows it. The federal government will just piss it away. Congress and the president will use it to buy votes. What do they care? It’s not their money. If they need more, they can tax the less than super-rich. Buffet knows that there aren’t enough rich people in the United States to make a dent in the deficit, even if all their money was taken. The stocks they owned would go nearly to zero in value, incentive to work the following year would also fall to zero, and there wouldn’t be any more rich people to tax. No one is stopping Warren Buffet from voluntarily giving money to the federal government. He could write a check today. He won’t, because he knows he doesn’t have to. He only needs to make the offer to look good to all the guilt-manipulators and bloodsuckers that pontificate from their lofty towers of moral superiority. He also knows that if such a tax were ever to go into effect, none of his present $40 billion would be touched. One more thing. Please explain to me how anyone should have to pay millions of dollars in taxes, no matter how much they earn? They certainly aren’t getting millions of dollars of services in return. It’s obvious that their confiscated money will go to other people who did nothing to earn the windfall. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if some other entity steals for them. Consider this example. If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need? Now the picture has changed, and I suspect that a lot of people would not call it theft because elected government officials are doing the taking. I have a better idea for Mr. Buffett. Take the extra tax money you want to pay and set up a venture capital institute. People who have new business ideas or products that need investment capital would present their ideas to a board of experienced entrepreneurs who would evaluate the business plans. If accepted, the business would be capitalized. Existing business enterprises that needed additional capital for expansion could also participate. Four billion would go a long way. Another Buffett-funded enterprise could be a school for entrepreneurs where students could learn how to run a business and pick up the basis in accounting, marketing, and advertising. Buffett and other high income earners will be able to assuage their guilt for being rich, raise up a generation of new business leaders, increase employment, curtail rising economic dependency, and even expand the tax base all without raising anybody’s taxes. So Warren, don’t dump your money down a rat hole. Do something productive and lasting with it. Invest in Americans, not in the federal government.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: No you are quite right there BUT...add to that a LOT more Government fiscal control and spending cuts (like ALL spending cuts), and that figure they are chasing stops, and the deficit can be overhauled...gradually.

True, but proper fiscal reform and you don't have to "eat the rich."
I don't want to take everything from the rich. I want them to invest that money in new business to make more money. Why? Because that creates jobs, which means the economy grows.

Every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that doesn't get spent and put into the economy.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Nice try toddster ..so only billionaires are rich now? How's about including the total wealth of the 23,000 multimillionaires, and plain ol' impoverished millionaires in the USA? TAHAT should bring a few trillion more in .Interesting fact here: in 2009 therewere a couple of thousnd MORE millionairaires added to the list

Just quoting the President. He throws around the term "Billionaire" as if anybody who makes more than $50K a year is a member of the club. It is nausiating.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: True, but proper fiscal reform and you don't have to "eat the rich." I don't want to take everything from the rich. I want them to invest that money in new business to make more money. Why? Because that creates jobs, which means the economy grows. Every dollar the government takes in taxes is a dollar that doesn't get spent and put into the economy.

While I would love to see more investing also, unless Uncle Barrack and Congress decide to provide incentive (or even if they do) it's still the investor's choice whether they want to invest or not. Right now, there is no incentive (that I am aware of) only high risk. Taking that risk is still the wealthy's or investor's choice.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I don't think you grasp the difference between "million" and "trillion."

Exactly!

This thread should illustrate that point pretty well:

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...087431.html#lastpost