Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
and he would have only paid $100 in taxes under the dems?
|
No.
But I used this example in the thread - You Can't Soak the Rich, post #28.
Quote:
... Warren Buffet. Uncle Warren says his taxes are too low, he comments that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does. O.k., but let's look at billionaire behavior.
In 2007 his net worth increased $10 billion. I bet his income taxes paid did not change. Want to know why?
Warren Buffets' company pays him a modest salary, that did not change much. So his income taxes are based on a constant amount from year to year.
Warren Buffet's company does not pay a dividend, which would be taxed as income.
Warren Buffet does not sell stock in his company, which would generate long or short term capital gains that would be taxed at the capital gains rate or as income.
Warren Buffet's children have their own wealth based on their investments in his company. They are already rich and don't need his estate after he dies. There most likely will be no estate tax.
Warren Buffet is giving billions to charity, namely the Gates Foundation. This is tax free. He seems to trust the Gates Foundation more than he trusts government.
If Buffet want to fly anywhere in the world, he owns a charter jet company. He gets the service at no personal cost. If he want a lifetime supply of free ice cream, guess what, he owns Dairy Queen.
Basically Uncle Warren can can do whatever he wants and have no personal income tax consequences. He manages his taxes. The joke is on everyone that buys into his false concerns about how little he pays in personal taxes.
|
Tiger Wood's generates income, that is taxed. Warren Buffet generates wealth, that is not taxed. Tiger Wood's wealth is currently income based. Warren Buffet's wealth is asset based. At some point Tiger Wood's will stop accumulating wealth based on income and start accumulating wealth based on assets, when he makes the transition his lifestyle won't change but his tax burden will. Actually, I bet the odds are that Tiger Wood's has already structured some of the income from endorsement deals in such a manner that greatly reduces his reportable taxable income from those deals.
Are you saying that you don't see the problem with our current system of taxation? The real impact of Bush's tax cuts is that "rich" people have less of an incentive to employ tax avoidance strategies given the lower marginal rates, do you still believe that rolling back Bush's tax cuts will actually cause rich people to pay more if it is not in their financial interests to do it?