Warren Buffett: Tax me and the rest of the wealthy more

Why is the discussion always about only raising or lowering taxes? How come the discussion is never about the optimum level of taxation? Seriously, the US has fiddled with tax rates from 0 to 90+%. I'm absolutely not asking these as political questions, I'm asking them as economic questions based on history and previously policy successes and failures. Is there an optimum as a percentage of GDP or some other national metric? Is there a optimum revenue target as a percentage of income?

If the "rich" should pay more, what is the target rate? (e.g. When would those insisting they pay "more" consider that goal reached?)

 

^ very good point FL... I suspect a real rigorous study has never been done.

 

Well, there was a 'trickle down' effect when Kennedy lowered the top bracket from 90% to 70%. This wasn't do to a supply side effect of voodoo economics. It was purely demand side. The uber rich simply had more cash to spend on cars, yachts, furs, and other luxury items. So more money started flowing through the economy.

Reagan brought the rate down into the 30s, and also increased spending. When those first tax cuts didn't increase revenue has claimed it would, he was pragmatic enough to institute some new taxes. Mostly, I think, he eliminated loopholes and deductions for the middle class though.

Ideal top tax rate is probably 40% or higher, based on my in depth analysis, and going by present tax code. Capitol gains in line with regular income would change this, as well as how deductions and credits are used.

 

Tax rate doesn't mean much in the U.S., unless you are speaking about effective tax rate. The U.S. has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but our corporations pay one of the lowest. All of the tax breaks, loopholes, and other incentives effectively lower the rate substantially. This is why it is pretty pointless to discuss tax rates in isolation.

Tom

 

Why is every solution to a problem involve Taxing and Spending more to liberals? The politicians have it setup so that those with the money can avoid the taxes, to curry favor and to invest that money generating employment and additional tax revenue which ALL politicians know is the way things work. Each time liberals scream "TAX THE RICH" the poor, middle class and small businesses take it in the shorts. Even if we managed to tax the rich it falls way short of the amount needed to do anything about the spending problem and debt we've gotten our selves into.

To conclude I'd just like to say . . .

 

It's the taxes that were cut by Bush without cutting spending, stupid.

Some of you guys need a lesson in arithmetic 101.

 

No he wasn't, he made a deal with the democrat's that IF taxes were raised the Democrats would also cut spending but they wanted the taxs implemented first. Democrat's never cut spending, lucky for us Reafan's economic policies over came the lack of spending cuts and the economy boomed.

Democrats did the same thing to Bush I, asking for and getting a raise in taxes, promising cuts in spending which never materialized. This time it burnt Bush. The economy tanked and he lost reelection. That is why Speaker Boehner and the Republicans were so adamant about spending cuts and spending cuts only in the budget/debt ceiling deal they hashed out recently. Democrat's will never be trusted again to lower spending, EVER! :nono:

 

So do the arithmetic and post it, stupid.

Bush did not have a sterling record on spending but it was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficit.


http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/did-the-bush-tax-cuts-cause-todays-deficits/

 

There's blame enough to go around on the spending issue.
Fact is, no matter what color tie the Commander-in-Chief dude is wearing, he can't spend one thin dime without the Legislature approving it.
Yeah...there's always the veto pen, or the threat of a government shutdown, but that's always (been) an empty threat.
The "Tax-the Rich", "tax the poor", or "Don't tax anybody" rhetoric is just ear candy for the Sunday morning talk shows. I'm just a little convinced these days that all we're managing to do is try to scratch each other's eyes out in these daffy circular firing squads, while my beloved government keeps on swiping the old National Credit Card.
One of these days, we're going to swipe it that one last time, and the little machine is going to say "Insufficient Funds!"
Then....maybe....we'll start to look for solutions rather than who is "winning the argument."

FWIW.....simple math says we have to reduce spending...AND tax the rich....AND tax the pooah....and us folks in the middle are gonna get taxed more too.

 

He sites the Wall Street Journal as a source. I site reality to note it's the tax cuts that caused the deficit.

But let's say spending cuts alone can solve the problem (they can't, but let's pretend they can). Since we're dealing in fiction, let's say someone hands you the keys to entire spending.

Where would you cut? To keep SOME basis of reality, you have to go by the real figures (and not just say "cut the bazillions we spend on welfare queens!"). Here you go: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget]2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You have $1.3 trillion to trim. Start trimming.

 

Pay no attention to TREB, he lives in some sort of alternative universe, and vacations in the state of delusion.

Icarus