The Buffett Rule

[Fishpart]

[QUOTE=zimmy;889854]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If there are loop holes, if they are not "targeted" to help create a more productive outcome, they should be eliminated. If capital gains is, ultimately, a scam and doesn't produce the desired investment, it shouldn't be tweaked, it should be eliminated and all gains should be considered income as earned.
QUOTE]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but it isn't really apples to oranges. It is about income and capital gains are a huge part of income for some people who have enormous amounts of money to invest. I am not sure what the answer is, but it basically equates to a tax shelter. For the guy making $50,000 working, they are limited in what they can put in an ira or 401k or roth. Are there limits on the amount of capital gains that are taxed at the 15%? I may be wrong, but it seems like the economy is driven by middle class people buying homes, cars etc. The very richest people are still investing today and many businesses are typically sitting on more cash then ever. The problem is consumer confidence is low. Call it what you like, the middle class guy that gets most of his money from working gets taxed at a rate higher than the rate for alot of money the rich guy makes through stocks. I am not sure buying stocks necessarily helps the economy in the same way the middle class guys car, home, restaurant, and gift purchases do.

A guy works hard to earn an income, pays some % in taxes then puts his money at risk by loaning it to a business so they can grow. If the business grows, he makes some money, if not he loses it. He has already been taxed on the initial investment, by taxing him at a higher rate on the profits from his loan, you reduce the amount of money available to grow other businesses he may make a loan to.. In my eyes helping companies grow through loaning them money is at least as powerful as growth through consumption, but a business can't grow without some level of both.

[justplugit]

[QUOTE=Fishpart;890071]

Originally Posted by zimmy

A guy works hard to earn an income, pays some % in taxes then puts his money at risk by loaning it to a business so they can grow. If the business grows, he makes some money, if not he loses it. He has already been taxed on the initial investment, by taxing him at a higher rate on the profits from his loan, you reduce the amount of money available to grow other businesses he may make a loan to.. In my eyes helping companies grow through loaning them money is at least as powerful as growth through consumption, but a business can't grow without some level of both.

Well put.
Politicans are well aware of the jealousy factor and love to use it to
try to make points by making it sound like, "its just not fair" with out
reminding people of the risks that are taken, and the good effects the
market has on the economy and jobs.

[detbuch]

I wonder why someone like Buffet has confidence that the government will spend his excess money more wisely, more productively, more beneficially, more anything good, than he. Hasn 't he been more successful in producing wealth than the government? Why would he want to fund a wasteful, irresponsible government that is better at getting in debt than it is at producing wealth--a government that borrows and prints vastly more money than he or others like him combined can give? Why wouldn't he use his excess money to actually do usefull, beneficial things--build hospitals, repair roads, donate to charities, create scholarships? It is admirable that he has lead a frugal life and has already been abundantly charitable and he plans to give most of it away. But he, apparently feels that he still has too much money and wants the government to take more in taxes. Couldn't this excess money more efficiently go directly to needed places, rather than giving it to a government that would return less of it, if at all, to those places, and squander much of it to pay off its chosen winners and supporters. I guess he must think the government is doing a great job. Stupid of me to wonder.

And how about, instead of raising the tax rate of the ultra rich from 16-17% to the same rate as those earning $100,000 or so, LOWERING the rate of the latter so the ultra rich payed the same rate. Isn't the 17% rate what some calculate a flat tax rate should be. Everybody pay 17%.