Buffett makes $46 million and only pays 17.7 percent

[jimmifli]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

[Ru]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

Well, of course, all his income is dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate. And your percentages for the working man don't even include the FICA taxes paid.

[anEinherjer]

So I make money, and it's taxed at 30%+. I take what I have left over, and it happens to return something better than nothing, and you want to tax that at 30% too?

[Gilly]

hey no one want to change the retarded tax system so you get retarded results. capital gains should only be taxed 15% the SECOND time you tax that money.

[admarc]

Buffet also committed to donate $30 Billion over 20 years including a $1.9 Billion donation to the Gates Foundation last year.

http://www.buffalorange.com/showthread.php?t=115659

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_bi_ge/charitable_giving

Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially.

Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher.

Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively.

"I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said.

The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005.

[Ru]

hey no one want to change the retarded tax system so you get retarded results. capital gains should only be taxed 15% the SECOND time you tax that money.

When is the first time capital gains are taxed?

[JLB]

When is the first time capital gains are taxed?

he said the money.

[JLB]

Buffet also committed to donate $30 Billion over 20 years including a $1.9 Billion donation to the Gates Foundation last year.

http://www.buffalorange.com/showthread.php?t=115659

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_bi_ge/charitable_giving

Mega-gifts, which Giving USA considers to be donations of $1 billion or more, tend to get the most attention, and that was true last year especially.

Investment superstar Warren Buffett announced in June 2006 that he would give $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of that total, $1.9 billion was given in 2006, which helped push the year's total higher.

Gaudiani said that gift reflects a growing focus on using donated money efficiently and effectively.

"I think it's also a strategic commitment to upward mobility exported to other countries, in the form of improved health and stronger civil societies," she said.

The Gates Foundation has focused on reducing hunger and fighting disease in developing countries as well as improving education in the U.S. Without Buffett's pledge, it had an endowment of $29.2 billion as of the end of 2005.

:rockon:

Thank You Mr. Buffet!!!

[Ru]

he said the money.

Yeah? Well, the money itself is taxed endless amounts of times. The system we use (right or wrong) is based on income, and capital gains are a form of income that is only taxed one time. I understand the double taxing dividends (corporate level and individual level) but capital gains are only taxed one time.

[TheGoodShepherd]

This is old news. I reported tax rates very similar to the ones used by jimmi in his opneing post a long time ago in a tax thread on the crossfire forum.

Gilchristfan didn't believe me.

I'll take this news as vindication for me.

[JLB]

capital gains are only taxed one time.

We all know that to be the case. :rockon:

The money invested that creates a capital gain however is taxed before the investment is made.

Taxing on investments is just a double tax.

Do you know when we started taxing interest income and why?

[Ru]

We all know that to be the case. :rockon:

The money invested that creates a capital gain however is taxed before the investment is made.

Taxing on investments is just a double tax.

Do you know when we started taxing interest income and why?

That doesn't even make sense. The original investment (the cost basis) is not taxed again, it's only the income earned over the carrying period (the capital gain) that is taxed. Taxing on investments is NOT a double tax.

Do I know when we started taxing interest income? No, please do tell, but I'm sure it has to do with trying to correct the tax burden so that those who make money on their money are paying their fair share as those who make their money on the sweat of their own labor.

[jimmifli]

This is old news. I reported tax rates very similar to the ones used by jimmi in his opneing post a long time ago in a tax thread on the crossfire forum.

Gilchristfan didn't believe me.

I'll take this news as vindication for me.
I don't read the crossfire forum. It's stupid. You should have posted it here.

And you're right this isn't new.

[jimmifli]

Well, of course, all his income is dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate. And your percentages for the working man don't even include the FICA taxes paid.
Correct.

Income taxes should be lowered to the same rate as dividend, cap gains and interest taxes.

[gilchristfan]

This is old news. I reported tax rates very similar to the ones used by jimmi in his opneing post a long time ago in a tax thread on the crossfire forum.

Gilchristfan didn't believe me.

I'll take this news as vindication for me.

LOL. Income tax and estate tax are 2 separate and distinct taxes. Different rates, different property subject to tax, different provisions of the tax code. Apples and oranges.

PS, you still don't know the difference between a gross estate and a net estate. That's why you'd never answer my question. And that's also why the numbers you gave were a bit off.

[JLB]

That doesn't even make sense. The original investment (the cost basis) is not taxed again, it's only the income earned over the carrying period (the capital gain) that is taxed. Taxing on investments is NOT a double tax.

Do I know when we started taxing interest income? No, please do tell, but I'm sure it has to do with trying to correct the tax burden so that those who make money on their money are paying their fair share as those who make their money on the sweat of their own labor.

Sure it makes sense you earn an income you put some aside to invest.
That money is taxed before you set it aside.
You then choose your investment.
When and if you realize a capital gain your taxed again.

Taxing of interest income is bs.
You work save a few bucks.
Yadda yadda yadda.
This doesn't affect the rich they know how to avoid it.
It only screws over the little guy.

[TheGoodShepherd]

LOL. Income tax and estate tax are 2 separate and distinct taxes. Different rates, different property subject to tax, different provisions of the tax code. Apples and oranges.

PS, you still don't know the difference between a gross estate and a net estate. That's why you'd never answer my question. And that's also why the numbers you gave were a bit off.

It's obviously not the same thing, but it's disengenious to say taxes aren't also connected. I have forward thinking, you apparently don't.

I view the tax system as a house of matchsticks. You don't.

PS. Yes I do. I answered your question in full, and you resorted to inane blather.

And I was a "bit off"? Exactly how much is a "bit?" Before, according to you anyway, I was 'way off.'

Thanks for the softening of language. It shows you've apparently conceeded something.

[dilbert]

lol!!!

This will be fun to watch.

[gilchristfan]

Sure it makes sense you earn an income you put some aside to invest.
That money is taxed before you set it aside.
You then choose your investment.
When and if you realize a capital gain your taxed again.

Taxing of interest income is bs.
You work save a few bucks.
Yadda yadda yadda.
This doesn't affect the rich they know how to avoid it.
It only screws over the little guy.

You put $1000 in the bank at @ 10% interest. (if you find a bank paying 10% interest right now, let me know).

You make $100 for a years interest.
You pay taxes on the $100, not the $1000. I don't see the double tax.

You invest $1000 in a stock. The stock ends up paying a dividend of $30.

You pay a tax only on the 30 dollars.
I don't see the double tax.

You end up selling the stock 5 years later for $3000. You pay a capital gains tax on the $2000 gain, not the entire $3000 sales price. $3000 selling price - $1000 investment cost.

I don't see the double tax. Even better, while the stock was appreciating in value, you paid nothing in tax. So any gain you had in the stock was deferred until you actually sold it.

[Ru]

Sure it makes sense you earn an income you put some aside to invest.
That money is taxed before you set it aside.
You then choose your investment.
When and if you realize a capital gain your taxed again.



With all due respect, that makes no sense. Your original investment is not taxed again. The income earned on that investment is. We, right or wrong, are taxed under a system that uses income as its base. Why should that income be treated differently than other income?

[dilbert]

Are you thinking of estate tax JLB?

[gilchristfan]

It's obviously not the same thing, but it's disengenious to say taxes aren't also connected. I have forward thinking, you apparently don't.

I view the tax system as a house of matchsticks. You don't.

PS. Yes I do. I answered your question in full, and you resorted to inane blather.

And I was a "bit off"? Exactly how much is a "bit?" Before, according to you anyway, I was 'way off.'

Thanks for the softening of language. It shows you've apparently conceeded something.

Ok, you were way off.

We were talking about estate taxes. You argued that the IRS collected far below the statutory marginal rates on estate taxes.

You cited some figures showing "average value" of the estates taxed, the tax paid, and said the "The IRS took in FAR BELOW the statutory marginal rates of 37 per cent to 55 per cent."

I asked what you meant by "average value"

You have to explain what you mean by "average value"? Are you referring to the Gross estate, the taxable estate or something else? Not trying to be a dick, but depending on what the "average value" is, it makes a huge difference in those figures.

Maybe it would help if you provided a link for your source.

That was in post 176. The thread went on for another 40 or so posts, and you still haven't answered what you meant by "average value"

http://buffalorange.com/showthread.php?t=102088&page=22

Care to take another shot at it?


Here is the question

[JLB]

With all due respect, that makes no sense. Your original investment is not taxed again. The income earned on that investment is. We, right or wrong, are taxed under a system that uses income as its base. Why should that income be treated differently than other income?

Not talking about an original investment being taxed more than once.

Dollars from your job get taxed that's once.
You invest what you can.
Your fortunate enough to make a capital gain.
You withdraw those investments.
Uncle Sam says hello again gimme some.
Again tax on your dollars you just put at risk.
Uncle Sam shouldn't get rewarded for what you risk.
If you lose your money you can only deduct up to what you gained.
****ed up system.

[JLB]

Are you thinking of estate tax JLB?

No all I tried so say was you work hard pay your taxes and if you manage to save a couple bucks and make a good investment Uncle Sam comes knocking again and wants to share your profits from the risk you just took.

[Ru]

Not talking about an original investment being taxed more than once.

Dollars from your job get taxed that's once.
You invest what you can.
Your fortunate enough to make a capital gain.
You withdraw those investments.
Uncle Sam says hello again gimme some.
Again tax on your dollars you just put at risk.
Uncle Sam shouldn't get rewarded for what you risk.
If you lose your money you can only deduct up to what you gained.****ed up system.

Not true at all unless you're a corporation.

And again, we have an income based system of taxation. Why should certain types of income be exempt while others are taxed? Seems pretty biased toward the wealthy if you ask me to tax earned income (i.e. wages) but exempt capital gains, interest, and dividends. You may not agree with the system in place, but at least we should be consistent within the system that is in place.

[JLB]

Not true at all unless you're a corporation.

On a personal income tax can you deduct all your losses in an investment.

Let's say I lose 30,000 dollars in a given year that same year my other investments earn a gain of 3,000 dollars.

Are you saying I can deduct a net loss of 27,000 dollars?

[Ru]

On a personal income tax can you deduct all your losses in an investment.

Let's say I lose 30,000 dollars in a given year that same year my other investments earn a gain of 3,000 dollars.

Are you saying I can deduct a net loss of 27,000 dollars?

You can deduct up to a net of $3,000 of capital losses and you would carryover the additional $24,000 to the following tax years to either offset any gains or to deduct up to $3,000 dollars of losses and then carry over the remainder to the following year etc. They do limit the amount of capital losses you can take in any given year (i.e. $3,000) but you are able to use the losses indefinitely to offset any income. They are not lost. You can also deduct losses on rental properties and from businesses as well.

[sukie]

I thought this thread was about Jimmy Buffet.

[JLB]

You can deduct up to a net of $3,000 of capital losses and you would carryover the additional $24,000 to the following tax years to either offset any gains or to deduct up to $3,000 dollars of losses and then carry over the remainder to the following year etc. They do limit the amount of capital losses you can take in any given year (i.e. $3,000) but you are able to use the losses indefinitely to offset any income. They are not lost. You can also deduct losses on rental properties and from businesses as well.


I was referring to the current tax year only.
So what I was saying was true.
Money now gone you get cold feet and swear off investing.
You may possibly never deduct those losses.

[JLB]

I thought this thread was about Jimmy Buffet.

He paid lots of taxes.
It should have been about him.

[Ru]

I was referring to the current tax year only.
So what I was saying was true.
Money now gone you get cold feet and swear off investing.
You may possibly never deduct those losses.

No, it wasn't true. You get to use those losses. I guess you could argue with the capital loss limitation ($3,000) but you always have those losses to take. And it's not true that you'll never be able to take those losses because if nothing else you can take it in $3,000 increments for the rest of your life. Besides, if you never generate gains in your investments, you might want to get out of the market.

You know, though, if you want to just keep saying "double taxes", the government sucks, they're takin' my money, etc., then fine have it. But I'm telling you that your opinions as stated in this thread with regards to the taxation of captial gains is flat out wrong.

[JLB]

No, it wasn't true. You get to use those losses. I guess you could argue with the capital loss limitation ($3,000) but you always have those losses to take. And it's not true that you'll never be able to take those losses because if nothing else you can take it in $3,000 increments for the rest of your life. Besides, if you never generate gains in your investments, you might want to get out of the market.

You know, though, if you want to just keep saying "double taxes", the government sucks, they're takin' my money, etc., then fine have it. But I'm telling you that your opinions as stated in this thread with regards to the taxation of captial gains is flat out wrong.

I never posted that you pay anymore than once on any Capital gain look it up.
My only argument with you is the 3,000 limit.
You can't deduct the rest of your loss that year.
I never said anything but that.

[Ru]

Not talking about an original investment being taxed more than once.

Dollars from your job get taxed that's once.
You invest what you can.
Your fortunate enough to make a capital gain.
You withdraw those investments.
Uncle Sam says hello again gimme some.
Again tax on your dollars you just put at risk.
Uncle Sam shouldn't get rewarded for what you risk.
If you lose your money you can only deduct up to what you gained.****ed up system.

Hmmmm.

[JLB]

Hmmmm.

Thanks read it carefully word by word.

Earnings get taxed once period.

Capital Gains get taxed once period.

3,000 limit per year is also correct all I ever said.

The highlighted portion is perfect.

If you lose you can only deduct up 3,000.

You even admitted that and that's all I was saying.

[Ru]

Thanks read it carefully word by word.

Earnings get taxed once period.

Capital Gains get taxed once period.

3,000 limit per year is also correct all I ever said.

The highlighted portion is perfect.

If you lose you can only deduct up 3,000.

You even admitted that and that's all I was saying.

OK last post on this. But that's not true. If you lost $10,000 on one investment and gained $10,000 on another investment, you have zero capital gains and have used all of your loss in the current year. And even if not, you can still carry the remainder in excess of the $3,000 forward to offset any future gains or to take it $3,000 a year. In effect, you get to deduct all capital losses. And as part of your other point, I'm not sure why you make a distinction between wage/business type income from investment type income. It's all forms of income that should be taxed under our current system.

[JLB]

OK last post on this. But that's not true. If you lost $10,000 on one investment and gained $10,000 on another investment, you have zero capital gains and have used all of your loss in the current year.

This is not the argument I made 10,000 vs.10,000 is another ?.
My argument was 30,000 loss vs. 3,000 gain for that current year only.
You can't change my argument you can yours but that's about it.
You didn't say anything wrong about tax law or rules.
But I was very clear on my scenario as well.
You can't deduct the remaining 27,000 in that year period.

[TigerJ]

JLB, you and Ru are both right. You can't take more than $3000 net capital gain losses in one year against your gross income. You are able to claim the entire $30,000 in losses over a ten year period. I had to spread out capital losses out over a couple years once. I really didn't mind it too much. Part of investing wisdom consists in learning how to time the taking of losses to maximum benefit. What you have with Ru is a fundamental philosophical difference. You are fundamentally opposed to capital gains taxes and Ru doesn't mind them. There really is no resolution to the disagreement. As for me, I would like to see the establishment of a floor for capital gains taxation. I'd like to see the first $20,000 in capital gains be tax free. That would encourage more widespread investing across middle class America. Beyond $20,000 I don't mind capital gains being taxed. If they weren't you would see the wealthy use investing as a tax shelter, and they would have ever increasing incomes with and an ever decreasing percentage paid in income tax. You would even see many of the wealthiest Americans having fabulous incomes all from investment, and paying zero tax, and it would pass from generation to generation.

[35Pete]

One phrase: "Flat tax with NO deductibles".

The uber-wealthy get away with this crap and the progressive tax crowd uses it to justify higher taxes and more progressivity.

Problem: The Buffet's of the world STILL find a way around it but the upper middle class gets hammered.

[TigerJ]

I like the flat tax idea. I think it should still allow exemptions though.

[sukie]

I agree with Petey on this one. I would like to be uber rich however... let me think again.