Warren Buffett and the rich

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So why do you favour a flat tax rather than flat amount?

You are right, I favor a flat rate. I think taxes should be like my NYC teacher union dues were (when I taught). Everyone paid the same amount. Some teachers earned more than double what I paid but when the union got to set its own fee grid it did not feel a percentage was just. It used a flat fee (and only advocates progressive fees for others). After all, we all want the same representation so we paid the same fee. Similarly, if I go to a restaurant regardless of incomes, the same meal costs the same amount.

But since we are so far from treated taxes that way, I'd settle for a flat rate. The reality, however is that taxes will probably become more and more graduated and those who produce the most will have the disproportionate burden increase.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Actually you're dead wrong for a couple of reasons.

First of all we're talking about 90% of just the top marginal income bracket, not corporate taxes so right out the gate you're talking apples and oranges.

Second of all ONLY your income above and beyond that specific watermark. In other words the first X amount of dollars you earn a ...[text shortened]... k you for just admitting you just made that claim out of hand and have no facts to back it.

I understand marginal rates, and that's all the more reason for someone facing the higher rate to suspend or slow down to avoid them.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are right, I favor a flat rate. I think taxes should be like my NYC teacher union dues were (when I taught). Everyone paid the same amount. Some teachers earned more than double what I paid but when the union got to set its own fee grid it did not feel a percentage was just. It used a flat fee (and only advocates progressive fees for others). Af ...[text shortened]... d more graduated and those who produce the most will have the disproportionate burden increase.

The simple reason that your projection is likely correct is that so many don't pay taxes, and have no interest in lower rates.

Originally posted by normbenign
The simple reason that your projection is likely correct is that so many don't pay taxes, and have no interest in lower rates.

Agreed!

Originally posted by quackquack
You are right, I favor a flat rate. I think taxes should be like my NYC teacher union dues were (when I taught). Everyone paid the same amount. Some teachers earned more than double what I paid but when the union got to set its own fee grid it did not feel a percentage was just. It used a flat fee (and only advocates progressive fees for others). Af d more graduated and those who produce the most will have the disproportionate burden increase.

Wow, really? Are you aware this [a flat amount] implies taxing the lowest incomes for more than their income?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Wow, really? Are you aware this [a flat amount] implies taxing the lowest incomes for more than their income?

I understand that a homeless person can't pay more than they earn (but we could give some a partial waiver and have virtually the same system) -- to me that's just a mechanical adjustment.

I believe that it is ridiculous for some to pay many multiples more than others for the same service (a service the government decide we should all pay for not the end user). When services are priced in the private sector users decide whether they want the good and everyone pays the same price (not some third party deciding you should pay twenty times what another pays). The government has never demonstrated it is particularly efficient (in fact often its goal is other than efficiency). The real reason government expands in areas like healthcare is to redistribue income and I object to this.

Originally posted by quackquack
I understand that a homeless person can't pay more than they earn (but we could give some a partial waiver and have virtually the same system) -- to me that's just a mechanical adjustment.

I believe that it is ridiculous for some to pay many multiples more than others for the same service (a service the government decide we should all pay for not the ...[text shortened]... son government expands in areas like healthcare is to redistribue income and I object to this.

We don't all get the same service from the government. Rich get WAY more service - virtually all of government service is geared towards the interests of the rich. I'm talking about the police, the military, government representatives, etc.

Originally posted by quackquack
You are right, I favor a flat rate. I think taxes should be like my NYC teacher union dues were (when I taught). Everyone paid the same amount. Some teachers earned more than double what I paid but when the union got to set its own fee grid it did not feel a percentage was just. It used a flat fee (and only advocates progressive fees for others). Af ...[text shortened]... d more graduated and those who produce the most will have the disproportionate burden increase.

In that situation, everyone has a guaranteed professional level income - they're all teachers! Also, if the richest only had double the income of the poorest, that would be the most "socialist" economy on the planet!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
We don't all get the same service from the government. Rich get WAY more service - virtually all of government service is geared towards the interests of the rich. I'm talking about the police, the military, government representatives, etc.

I am not sure how one would measure this, but it certainly does not seem that way to me.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
In that situation, everyone has a guaranteed professional level income - they're all teachers! Also, if the richest only had double the income of the poorest, that would be the most "socialist" economy on the planet!

They all do the same job in the same conditions. How different would you expect two people with the same job responsibilities hired by the same people performing at the same level to be?

Originally posted by quackquack
I am not sure how one would measure this, but it certainly does not seem that way to me.

Measure it like this.

How much wealth does the person have such that if stolen it would result in a police report?

The poor have little wealth to protect, what wealth they have they can carry with them or keep in their home if they have one, are accustomed to protecting it themselves, and generally avoid the police.

On the other hand, they do tend to steal stuff more...

Originally posted by quackquack
They all do the same job in the same conditions. How different would you expect two people with the same job responsibilities hired by the same people performing at the same level to be?

No they don't. Conditions vary tremendously, and the lower paid teachers generally have the crappiest conditions.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No they don't. Conditions vary tremendously, and the lower paid teachers generally have the crappiest conditions.

I am not sure how this relevant but we all worked in the same school and teach the same subject to the same groups of kids.

Originally posted by normbenign
I understand marginal rates, and that's all the more reason for someone facing the higher rate to suspend or slow down to avoid them.

You obviously don't because that made absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
We don't all get the same service from the government. Rich get WAY more service - virtually all of government service is geared towards the interests of the rich. I'm talking about the police, the military, government representatives, etc.

That is total Tauroscatology. Take fire and police, probably a local basic mainstay. Usually the wealthy live in cloistered communities with their own private patrols, have expensive fire alarms and deterent systems. They are far less likely to use these services, than poor folks living in fire traps heated with kerosene space heaters.