What will solve the looming debt crisis?

If the rich get higher taxes ergo back to before the tax cuts.Our esteemed lawmakers will just create more loopholes for them...

While it is true that the rich can afford to pay more, they can also pass the burden on to others or change there investments in order to maximize profit and minimize there tax burden.Take Buffett for example, he earns more in a year than his secretary yet she pays more taxes, not because she earns more but because hers is income and his is capital gains, he doesn't pay himself a salary... Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Actually, there's much more to it than that!

The disingenuousness of Warren Buffett's call for tax hikes on the wealthy can better be understood if you do a quick little drilldown on the code as it relates to the structure of his holdings. Then you can see that even a large capital gains tax increase would not expose Buffett to significantly greater tax liability.

See full explanation @ http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...9&postcount=24

Post was #24 in the following thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=612671

And Buffett is unique only with respect that he's the wealthiest broadly diversified investor of all. Many others avail themselves of at least some of the same tax avoidance maneuvers.

I remember reading an interview of Ted Turner about 30 years ago. He was bragging about how few taxes he paid. He told the interviewer that he in essense leased his company to the board that he was the CEO of. So he didn't own CNN at the time, the board did. As CEO he drew a salary of about $100,000 but he had an open ended expense account of $4 millioin. If he needed more money he just asked himself for more money. He paid income tax on his salary of $100,000 and the company paid his expense account company overhead.

I remember reading an interview of Ted Turner about 30 years ago. He was bragging about how few taxes he paid. He told the interviewer that he in essense leased his company to the board that he was the CEO of. So he didn't own CNN at the time, the board did. As CEO he drew a salary of about $100,000 but he had an open ended expense account of $4 millioin. If he needed more money he just asked himself for more money. He paid income tax on his salary of $100,000 and the company paid his expense account company overhead. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

where the hell was Reagan ?

There's an interesting discussion at

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Can-a...61.S.187766889


The thread starter proposes

A. Elimination of the US Federal Reserve

B. A separation of business and government amendment

C. A single consumptive flat tax set equal to local/state/federal budgets plus a small minimum repayment of the debt principal in a balanced budget amendment.

There is much more to all of it, I was just keeping it simple!

Read Ann Coulter. She is saying that the GOP should take on the astronomically rich liberal by raising taxes on the top 1% of the top 1%. You know, the Buffets, the Gates, the Geffens, the Zuckerbergs, etc. She also said put the excise tax back on Hollywood that was there in the 40s. Buffet's income is now coming from dividends, investments, and capital gains so let him pay the income tax rate of 35-39% instead of the investment rate of 15%. Let Streisand starting paying her fair share, Beyonce too.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

As for Reagan, he had a democratic congress and according to the Constitution (up until Obama) all tax law comes out of Congress.

Read Ann Coulter. She is saying that the GOP should take on the astronomically rich liberal by raising taxes on the top 1% of the top 1%. You know, the Buffets, the Gates, the Geffens, the Zuckerbergs, etc. She also said put the excise tax back on Hollywood that was there in the 40s. Buffet's income is now coming from dividends, investments, and capital gains so let him pay the income tax rate of 35-39% instead of the investment rate of 15%. Let Streisand starting paying her fair share, Beyonce too.

http://www.anncoulter.com/ Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You're touting Ann Coulter's tax policy advice? Seriously? Wow.

If you had read my previous post (#47) and the post to which I linked, you would have realized that Buffett would not be impacted more than a miniscule amount (relative to his net worth) by proposed increases in the tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends. The same is largely true of people like Gates and Zuckerberg, who can maneuver in various ways to minimize their tax liabilities. For one thing, they can, whenever they wish, simply borrow large sums of money against their stock if they don't feel like paying capital gains taxes at the rate in effect at the time. And while doing that, they can protect their positions (against potential losses) by employing any of a number of hedging strategies. That's not quite so true of entertainers like Streisand, who no doubt has a bit more difficulty getting out of paying her "fair share."

Your (Ms. Coulter's?) recommendation of raising the capital gains tax rate to the high 30s has been tried before, and it backfired. In the post-Watergate days, liberals in congress tried to satisfy their tax-the-wealth zeal by pushing the cap gains rate to 39%, and revenues promptly declined. Consequently, congress passed a bill cutting the rate to 28%, and the president signed it. That tax-cutting Reagan, you might think? Nope, Jimmy Carter.

Most of the finance ministers of Europe's social democracies certainly are not lacking in desire to tax the hell out of the wealthy. But as the record shows, there's something of a consensus that capital gains tax rates in the 35-39% range are simply too high.

We need effective, serious tax policy that produces adequate revenue without creating distortions and impediments to the flow of capital to its highest and best uses, not politically motivated "feelgood" legislation.

We've already done enough damage to prospects for healthy long-term economic growth by shoving through way too much of the latter.

Okay, you didn't read it but you are commenting on it. Kind of stupid don't you think?

Okay, you didn't read it but you are commenting on it. Kind of stupid don't you think? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What the hell are you talking about? Coulter stated quite clearly that she thinks Buffett ought to pay income tax rates on his capital gains. You parroted what she said, even though you (and she) obviously have no understanding of how the tax system works in practice.

And you're calling my comment stupid? That's rich!

You've repeatedly claimed elsewhere in this forum that you teach at a college or university level. Don't you encourage your students to read and learn about the issues under discussion? Obviously, every good teacher should do that. Had you done so, comprehending what I said in post #47 would have saved you from the embarrassment of making the ridiculous statements you served up five posts later.

I suggest that you try it yourself sometime. Maybe you'll seem a bit less ignorant.