goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2012, 07:54:57 PM
-
Why is this confusing so many people? It's so rough ridin' simple.
Our own president and his senile puppet master (along with the so-called media) can't seem to wrap their arms around it. So embarrassing, we look like neanderthals to the world.
-
Why is this confusing so many people? It's so rough ridin' simple.
Our own president and his senile puppet master (along with the so-called media) can't seem to wrap their arms around it. So embarrassing, we look like neanderthals to the world.
According to Warren Buffett, he pays an effective rate of 17.4% and his secretary pays twice that much (34.8%).
Pop quiz, how much money does a single person, utilizing only the standard deduction, have to make to pay a 34.8% tax rate? Middle class wages?
-
lol, responding to your own post that didn't get a bite after 24 hours.
-
I bit
-
There's something strange about this whole Buffett secretary thing. How could anyone pay an effective tax rate of 35%? How is that even possible? She needs to start using TurboTax or something.
-
e-mail her about the H&R block Detroit commercial thingy.
I would love to see her new rebate number and how happy she would be :D
-
There's something strange about this whole Buffett secretary thing. How could anyone pay an effective tax rate of 35%? How is that even possible? She needs to start using TurboTax or something.
they include payroll taxes.
-
the stats in this thread are overwhelming
-
There's something strange about this whole Buffett secretary thing. How could anyone pay an effective tax rate of 35%? How is that even possible? She needs to start using TurboTax or something.
they include payroll taxes.
That still doesn't explain it. Payroll tax is only 6.2% (it's actually 4.2% for the past few years, but let's assume Warren was talking about the non-discounted rate). And, her effective payroll tax would actually be less, because payroll tax is capped at $106k, and we can assume she makes quite a bit more than this. So, let's just just say she's paying a payroll tax of 5%. Her effective federal rate is 30%? I still don't see how that is realistic.
Maybe if she earns something like $500k and takes no deductions? Maybe that would get her close? I don't know. This claim sounds very suspicious.
-
I did some searching, and this short piece from the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/) is the best I could find. In short, Warren and his secretary are completely full of it. Maybe she has been misled, but old Warren must be downright lying because there is no way someone as smart as he could be so far off.
The fact that liberals have latched onto this as a talking point is... disgustingly dishonest.
-
There's something strange about this whole Buffett secretary thing. How could anyone pay an effective tax rate of 35%? How is that even possible? She needs to start using TurboTax or something.
they include payroll taxes.
wrong
-
I did some searching, and this short piece from the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/) is the best I could find. In short, Warren and his secretary are completely full of it. Maybe she has been misled, but old Warren must be downright lying because there is no way someone as smart as he could be so far off.
The fact that liberals have latched onto this as a talking point is... disgustingly dishonest.
Did Buffett's secretary give him permission to tell the world what she pays in income taxes? Seems like a pretty big breach of her privacy. Shameful all around
-
That still doesn't explain it. Payroll tax is only 6.2%
the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf
-
That still doesn't explain it. Payroll tax is only 6.2%
the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf
Ok, so now we're accounted for 8.4 to 12.4% but, again, that's actually too much because of the cap-out at $106k. So let's just assume 10% is payroll tax, even though that's probably way too high. Still need to find another 25%. That's crazy. Not to mention, it is completely dishonest to add in all payroll taxes to the secretary's rate, but not add any corporate taxes to Warren's. McArdle points this out in The Atlantic:
The problem is that if we impute the employer half of the payroll taxes to her, then we should impute corporate income taxes to Warren Buffet, at which point he has nothing like a 17.4% effective tax rate; more like a 40+% tax rate.
This is grossly dishonest. Buffett and Obama know better. They think the American people are too stupid to figure this out.
-
6.2 is just ss. add in medicare too. good point re. corp taxes for buffett.
-
The problem is that if we impute the employer half of the payroll taxes to her, then we should impute corporate income taxes to Warren Buffet, at which point he has nothing like a 17.4% effective tax rate; more like a 40+% tax rate.
Never get tired of seeing this.
Does the arrow on your "I'm with stupid" T-shirt point up?
-
The problem is that if we impute the employer half of the payroll taxes to her, then we should impute corporate income taxes to Warren Buffet, at which point he has nothing like a 17.4% effective tax rate; more like a 40+% tax rate.
Never get tired of seeing this.
Does the arrow on your "I'm with stupid" T-shirt point up?
why is this stupid?
-
The problem is that if we impute the employer half of the payroll taxes to her, then we should impute corporate income taxes to Warren Buffet, at which point he has nothing like a 17.4% effective tax rate; more like a 40+% tax rate.
Never get tired of seeing this.
Does the arrow on your "I'm with stupid" T-shirt point up?
why is this stupid?
You can get around the "double" taxation fairly easily if you want to. You could only invest in S corporations for instance. That would work for a while, but eventually you're going to get to a point where it's easier (and more profitable) to invest in public companies. The problem is S corps are limited to 100 shareholders so liquidity can become an issue. There's also the fact that you're going to be taxed at your regular income rate, not the 15 percent rate for dividends and other capital gains.
The argument is also frequently used for dividends, which is even more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Corporations aren't required to pay dividends, so by investing in a corporation that pays dividends you're choosing to be "double" taxed.
-
The problem is that if we impute the employer half of the payroll taxes to her, then we should impute corporate income taxes to Warren Buffet, at which point he has nothing like a 17.4% effective tax rate; more like a 40+% tax rate.
Never get tired of seeing this.
Does the arrow on your "I'm with stupid" T-shirt point up?
why is this stupid?
You can get around the "double" taxation fairly easily if you want to. You could only invest in S corporations for instance. That would work for a while, but eventually you're going to get to a point where it's easier (and more profitable) to invest in public companies. The problem is S corps are limited to 100 shareholders so liquidity can become an issue. There's also the fact that you're going to be taxed at your regular income rate, not the 15 percent rate for dividends and other capital gains.
The argument is also frequently used for dividends, which is even more Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Corporations aren't required to pay dividends, so by investing in a corporation that pays dividends you're choosing to be "double" taxed.
got it, you have no point, k thx