abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 2,569
- 315
Buffett doesn't "own the vast majority of Berkshire."I love your link. "20% received sufficient wealth to make the list from their inheritance alone."
Compared to the claim made by a survey of the wealthy which found that 80% are first generation rich.
So................. 20% got enough wealth to be rich from inheritance..... which is supposed to be your contradiction that 80% are first generation rich? Unless you had public education.... wouldn't your link largely validate the claim?
No, when you increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy they don't pour all their money into tax havens. But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators.
But even if they do?
Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation
There is no "if they do".... They do. When tax rates are high, the rich avoid the taxes. That's why there is a huge difference between the effective rate, and the marginal rate.
Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike
Millionaires Go Missing
TaxProf Blog: Oregon's Millionaires' Tax Drives Millionaires Out of State
This isn't a debatable point. The wealthy do change how they live, to avoid taxes.... as we all would.
But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators. Just a couple miles from my house, at the slopes of a mountain, lies Hawks Ridge Nursery. It was created as a "tax haven", a tax writeoff for the wealthy landowner. Now it is one of the country's largest supplier of shrubs and ornamental flowers. If the tax rate was lower the owner never would have created that business.
That seems entirely unlikely. I know enough about tax law, to know that buying land, does not count as a tax write off. Further, unless the business was losing money year over year, you can't get a tax write off from it.
If the business was losing money, they likely were not hiring people at that time.
I wager your understanding of how that works is flawed.
However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true. It would have to mean that the wealthy land owner was avoiding a higher tax, by investing in something with a lower tax.
The wealthy land owner could have invested in something else. For example, would you rather he invest in a major national company that would have hired possibly millions of people? Or Hawks Ridge Nursery? If the taxes being high, resulted in him investing in something just to offset taxes, instead of something that would have provided growth to the entire country.... was that a good trade off?
No, it was not. Unfortunately, you'll never know what good could have been done.
That said.... the truth is, most wealthy do put their money into tax havens, that are not a nursery. Apple put billions into a tax haven, and it did in fact create thousands of jobs, just like you said..... except for Ireland, not the United States. Many wealthy invest overseas. High taxes drives that.
Why do you think the rich lobbied Congress to lower their taxes? Because they wanted to work harder and generate more business? Because they wanted to take more risk? Hell no, it is because they wanted to work less and get more money. They wanted to take less risk and get higher returns. I mean this ain't rocket science.
Well yeah, of course. That's *MY* point.
Think about it this way..... Let's say your tax rate is 90%. You make a million, and lose $900K. That would suck right? Well what if you could spend $200,000 on lobbying, and get a small exemption that reduces your tax rate by 40%. You save $400,000. That's a ton of work, and a risk of the media finding out, and all this hassle with the scum of Washington.... for just $200K. Is that worth it?
But what if you made $100 Million? Now you are saving $40 Million dollars, by spending $200K in lobbying.
Is that worth it? Yes! Of course it is.
Now let's back up. What if your tax rate is only 30%, and the best you could hope for, is a few percentage points of tax reduction? Is it still worth it? NO.
This is why the politicians love high tax rates. They love being able to sell those tax exemptions. The love raking in the lobbying money. They love selling "protection" from the government.
It's a mafia job. People were not calling up Al Gore in his office. Al Gore was calling up people from his office, and shaking them down for money.
And they want you to believe that taxes benefit you. No, they benefit the government elite. Everyone in government knows that no one is going to pay that 70% tax AOC started babbling about. They know this, because they themselves are going to be the ones pushing tax exemptions in exchange for lobbying money.
As for making more money while doing less work.... no they already made the money. You are just trying to take the money they already made, and is rightfully theirs. They are not trying to be lazy. If they were lazy, they wouldn't have the income you complain about them having.
So if we increase the tax rate on the wealthy, in order for them to enjoy their same standard of living, they will have to go out and take more risk, they will have to create more jobs. Do you really thing they are going to pick up their toys and go home? What, make no damn money just to spite the government?
Are you crazy? If you do that to me, and increase my tax rate, so now I have to get two jobs, to have the same standard of living I have now, you think I'm just going to roll with that?
No. Of course not. I'll pack up and leave.
Yes, that is exactly what I claim the rich will do. In fact, I know that's what the rich will do, because they did it that way in the past.
In fact, if you read the history of Ronald Reagan, the primary reason Reagan was opposed to taxes, is because he had to deal with that himself. Reagan realize that after doing a film, he would be in the top tax bracket, and lose all his money to the government. So he figured out.... why work?
Reagan would specifically stop working, go to his ranch, ride horses, and travel around with his wife, and do nothing for months on end. Until the next year, and then he would start working again.
And yes, the rich do this as well in different ways.
They may not stop working completely, but they might invest in a company in Sweden instead of America.
But often the super wealthy find other ways to conceal their wealth. Take Warren Buffet. As much as Buffet is a darling of the left-wing, and as much as he talks about how the rich should pay more taxes, Buffet is likely one of the most sly and cunning tax avoidance people on the planet.
He has a set salary of $100,000 a year. The top marginal rate is only on income over $500K. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and Buffet wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.
Buffet owns the vast majority of shares in Berkshire Hathaway, and yet specifically has the company setup to not pay dividends. This avoids taxes on what would be his substantial dividend income. Instead what money would be used for dividends, is used to buy back shares of the company, which make Buffets shares in the company more valuable, while still not paying a single penny in tax.
Buffet also uses his stock in the company to purchase other companies, but he is extremely careful to keep his stake in the companies that he purchases, low enough to not trigger them being a purchased asset by the IRS, and getting taxed on it.
Even the last few years, Buffet famously pledged to give away most of his wealth. But Buffet didn't tell you was that Buffet has carefully crafted this giveaway to avoid taxes. First, he doesn't sell the stock he owns, and give the money to charities. Instead he donates the stock itself, which of course avoids any taxes. Not only that, but he also has only been donating exactly how much stock is needed to reach the charitable deduction cap. So not only does he avoid taxes on the sale of the stock, but he gets a tax deduction on his earnings from the charitable donation, and does not donate one dime over the deduction cap.
And why wouldn't a rich person do this? They all do this. And we all, if we could, would also do it.
When you poo poo the idea that the rich are going to pack up their ball, and leave...... they do this! All the time. Happens all the time.
In France, they had rich people, closing their businesses, and moving out of the country. They would reopen in Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Venezuela, had rich people showing up in Spain, Miami, and Brazil. Cuba had people coming to the US. Greece, all over Europe.
Happens.... ALL THE TIME. All the time.
If you try and pin down the rich in the US, and beat on them with taxes, they absolutely will leave. No question or doubt in my mind.
And has Billions outside of it, which is more than he needs to live in Omaha.
That's another issue though..
The Estate Tax which WOULD get alot of his and other's appreciated/unrealized wealth.
That was just KOed by Trump.
Of course Trump had proposed a solution/Wealth Tax for the his run in the 2000 election on all Individuals/Trust worth more than $10 million
Elizabeth Warren JUST did the same with a $50 Million threshold.
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich - November 9, 1999
Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich
November 9, 1999
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.
Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.
By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25% levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.
.....
The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning.
"No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.
[.....]
"By my calculations, 1% of Americans, who control 90% of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.
"The other 99% of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.
Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government $200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.
Trump said depositing $100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate $3 trillion "over the next 30-years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke" and instead keep the fund "solvent through the next century."
The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax "which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else," Trump said.
Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated $5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted. "Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it," Trump said.
Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40% boost in economic activity, with more business start-ups, more jobs, and more prosperity.....
`