The 555 survey respondents, who each had household investable assets of $1 million or more excluding real estate, may be saying, "Well, I don't consider myself the ultrawealthy when I compare myself to a Buffett," he said.

The survey didn't ask respondents for the level of income or assets that should trigger higher taxes, according to Alan Aldinger, a PNC spokesman.

Buffett, 81, the world's third-richest person, according to Forbes magazine, in August urged Congress to raise taxes on households earning more than $1 million, in an opinion article published in the New York Times. About 236,883 households earned $1 million or more in 2009, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

In a nutshell right there. Don't worry, guy with $1mm in assets. Buffett's plan will not raise your taxes.

If you make more than $100k and can't afford a 2-3% increase in taxes you suck at money management.

/Makes less than $100k
/Can handle a small tax increase

wait . . . are you saying that people with very little money are immoral for demanding that the people who have millions to spare actually pay a bit more in taxes?

EGAD!

What will Rupert Murdoch do without his fifth yacht?

Face it, the rich can afford higher taxes better than the poor.

skullkrusher: In a nutshell right there. Don't worry, guy with $1mm in assets. Buffett's plan will not raise your taxes.

I'm betting you share my annoyance that "millionaire" has gotten all confused with "makes a million per year".

Lots of people wind up with a million in assets, very few make a million in a year.

Gee subby, let's see who gets their way and compart that to who should get their way.

thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: In a nutshell right there. Don't worry, guy with $1mm in assets. Buffett's plan will not raise your taxes.

I'm betting you share my annoyance that "millionaire" has gotten all confused with "makes a million per year".

Lots of people wind up with a million in assets, very few make a million in a year.

yep. It's not like it is all that hard to understand :)

Wow, if only there was some historical precedent we could refer to to see how this scenario eventually plays out?

*guillotine*jpg
*Russianrevolution*jpg
*PolPot*jpg

PanicMan: If you make more than $100k and can't afford a 2-3% increase in taxes you suck at money management.

/Makes less than $100k
/Can handle a small tax increase

hehe it's not a case of "can't afford" but rather "why the fark should I pay more?" Not to mention ignoring the relative cost of living makes such absolute dollar amount pronouncements virtually meaningless at this level

Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability. Simply for being a lazy inbred with a bunch of kids. We need to make this a little more fair for everyone in this country, I have a hard time telling millionaires they should be paying more when so many people contribute nothing.

The top incomes have been siphoning up all the income gains of the last 30 years; they're the only ones who can afford a tax hike.

IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability. Simply for being a lazy inbred with a bunch of kids. We need to make this a little more fair for everyone in this country, I have a hard time telling millionaires they should be paying more when so many people contribute nothing.

0.1/10

heinekenftw: Face it, the rich can afford higher taxes better than the poor.

Not to mention that the rich were the ones that by far got the most out of the insane raygunomics / voodoo economic policy that has wrecked the country in the past 30 years.

The 99% just weren't smart enough to buy themselves some politicians to argue their case like the 1% were.

It'll trickle down! It'll trickle down! Only 30 more years to wait!

//getting umbrella.

I don't have a problem with my taxes going up, I have a problem with ONLY my taxes going up so the people who have taken all the money over the last 25 years don't have to have theirs go up as well.

IamPatSajak: I have a hard time telling millionaires they should be paying more when so many people contribute nothing.

That's because you're not very bright.

Can find the source link if necessary, but I've posted these about 1,000 times over the past year.

IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability. Simply for being a lazy inbred with a bunch of kids. We need to make this a little more fair for everyone in this country, I have a hard time telling millionaires they should be paying more when so many people contribute nothing.


a) You don't realize that they DO pay taxes
b) You don't realize that they don't earn enough to pay federal income taxes
c) You're a troll
d) some combo thereof

IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability.

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability. Simply for being a lazy inbred with a bunch of kids. We need to make this a little more fair for everyone in this country, I have a hard time telling millionaires they should be paying more when so many people contribute nothing.

The captains of industry make money when they sell their goods and services. If they sell more, they make more. Imposing higher taxes on the lower brackets (which affects everyone, just not equitably) means they have less to spend. Having less money to spend means.... they spend less money. If they spend less money, they buy fewer goods and services. Fewer things bought means less money for the folks at the top. I say we enact this immediately. Worst case, a few rich people will get knocked down with the middle class and they'll have to pay the higher taxes they rallied for.

thurstonxhowell: I'm betting you share my annoyance that "millionaire" has gotten all confused with "makes a million per year".

Lots of people wind up with a million in assets, very few make a million in a year.

Yep, and I know a couple of millionaire couples (invested, not including primary house) who don't realize over $75k a year. House is paid off, so expenses are low. Much of the nest egg got sheltered via work deferments (401k), IRAs and the like so they aren't paying taxes on dividends (even though with their smallish realized income, long-term gains and qualified dividends are taxed at ZERO right now).

By the tax books (and lifestyle), they're very much middle-class. And their taxes really aren't going to skyrocket.

Hope to join their number in 10-15 years.

The problem is the "poor" would have no issues with having their taxes raised by 2-3% if the wealthies would stop with all the tax loopholes to get out of paying taxes. "I only make $1 a year, but get 15million a year in stocks but don't dare tax those as income because they are investments"

Lawnchair: thurstonxhowell: I'm betting you share my annoyance that "millionaire" has gotten all confused with "makes a million per year".

Lots of people wind up with a million in assets, very few make a million in a year.

Yep, and I know a couple of millionaire couples (invested, not including primary house) who don't realize over $75k a year. House is paid off, so expenses are low. Much of the nest egg got sheltered via work deferments (401k), IRAs and the like so they aren't paying taxes on dividends (even though with their smallish realized income, long-term gains and qualified dividends are taxed at ZERO right now).

By the tax books (and lifestyle), they're very much middle-class. And their taxes really aren't going to skyrocket.

Hope to join their number in 10-15 years.

if you can afford it, putting away as much as possible into your 401k is a nice way to go. People living longer and having a nice chunk of change to retire on, travel, buy a summer house, whatever and live another 20-25 years is pretty sweet

TNel: The problem is the "poor" would have no issues with having their taxes raised by 2-3% if the wealthies would stop with all the tax loopholes to get out of paying taxes.

but in real life the "poor" aren't comforted in their tax burden if the wealthier are paying more. Gee, honey, we're paying 5% more in taxes this year, isn't that terrible? Oh, it's not so bad, I hear Bill Gates is paying more too because loopholes were closed. No one thinks that way.

skullkrusher: hehe it's not a case of "can't afford" but rather "why the fark should I pay more?" Not to mention ignoring the relative cost of living makes such absolute dollar amount pronouncements virtually meaningless at this level

Frankly, because we (as a country) need it. There's not much more you can cut without some serious second order effects*. Certainly not enough to make up the deficit. So we need more money from taxes. Especially since we've been cutting taxes for the past 10 years. Especially since those cuts have focused on high earners.

The $100k number was my own, and is less than half of the number actual politicians are considering ($250k). I just think $100k is a lot of money for an individual to make and still complain about the need for basic public services.

*Cutting jobs puts people on welfare, welfare costs go up. Cutting welfare puts people on the streets, causes crime, needs more police spending. Cutting education spending reduces the number of people with high paying jobs, lowers future tax revenue. etc.

Take 2 people, give one a bagel, and the other a 5 course meal. Both say, "hey, that person should give up some of their food for the greater good." By subby's logic, both statements are valid and should be given equal consideration.

IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all

The "47% pay no tax" talking point refers to the percentage of the population that don't earn enough to pay an income tax. Quite often when you factor in payroll tax, property tax, sales taxes and so on, that 47% has a HIGHER tax burden as a percentage of their income than a billionaire.

Quit being a goddamn moron/troll.

PanicMan: Frankly, because we (as a country) need it. There's not much more you can cut without some serious second order effects*. Certainly not enough to make up the deficit. So we need more money from taxes. Especially since we've been cutting taxes for the past 10 years. Especially since those cuts have focused on high earners.

we as a country do not need to raise taxes on the middle class. In many parts of the country, the places where a huge chunk of the population lives, $100k is middle class.

PanicMan: The $100k number was my own, and is less than half of the number actual politicians are considering ($250k). I just think $100k is a lot of money for an individual to make and still complain about the need for basic public services.

$250k is still too low if there is no CoL adjustments made. These are the people who have disposable income. That disposable income stimulates aggregate demand and boosts the economy. Why take money out of their pockets when we should be taxing cap gains and divs as ordinary income in some fashion (maybe above a certain level?) and getting those with the most money to pay at least an equal proportion?

You want to tax the doctor or the engineer or the lawyer so people like Buffett can continue paying 17% effective rates?

To put it in perspective, I checked your profile. You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living. Doing a basic income tax estimate, the person in Baltimore making $60k earns $48,875 after federal income taxes. The person in NYC making the CoL-adjusted equivalent $100,000 earns $78,383 after taxes. If we readjust this $78,383 to standardize for Baltimore's CoL it becomes 47,424. That's almost $1,500 less in actual purchasing power solely based on the absolute dollar amount method we use for determining tax brackets. This doesn't include how we use absolute dollar amounts to determine IRA deduction phase outs, child tax credits, claiming interest on student loans, mortgages, etc. This is why absolute dollar amount pronouncements are so unfair.

Gunther: IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all

The "47% pay no tax" talking point refers to the percentage of the population that don't earn enough to pay an income tax. Quite often when you factor in payroll tax, property tax, sales taxes and so on, that 47% has a HIGHER tax burden as a percentage of their income than a billionaire.

Quit being a goddamn moron/troll.

actually it refers to the percentage of the population who didn't pay federal income tax in 2010 because of temporary tax breaks from the stimulus package. Many of those people normally do earn enough to pay federal income taxes. I believe the typical fed income tax free percentage is somewhere in the high 20s% and this includes the elderly, people who are unemployed, etc.

It was just the stimulus bill that pushed it so high to create the 47% stat

skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

Meh, I'm in like the bottom fourth of income, and I'm fine paying more taxes. Honestly, I think the current system is more or less fine. Close some loopholes, bump everybody's burden up a few percent, *bam* increased revenue without unduly burdening anyone.

Bob16: IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability.

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

No, it's not. It could have been worded more precisely, but it isn't a big lie. In 2011 46.4% of filing Americans, that means only Americans who are earning enough money to have to file federal tax returns are being considered and those who earn no income aren't being included, were exempt from federal income tax. Here is a Huffington Post Article (new window) regarding this. If you don't like that article, a quick google search will reveal many more.

Obviously, that isn't to say that they pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever. I think it was clear that the above poster was speaking to federal income taxes only, but it would have been clearer if they had stated that. However, it's disingenuous to pretend that the point he was trying to make is a lie. I realize that they still have social security and medicare withheld from their paychecks but those are specifically for social security and medicare payouts that they will receive later in life and don't contribute to the running of the federal government. On top of that most people will receive much more from those two programs than they paid into them(typically slightly less payout from social security than was paid in but drastically more payout from medicare than was paid in). Link (new window) They also possibly pay state and local taxes, but those taxes don't contribute to running the federal government and aren't relevant when discussing taxation at a federal level. When you are looking at funding the federal government it is separate from the state, they both have to be funded. When discussing taxation at the state level contributions to the federal government aren't relevant because they don't help the state have the necessary funds to operate.

I'm not saying that we need to jack up rates on poor people, but we do need to have an honest discussion about it and he makes a fair and valid point. Over 46% of Americans who file federal tax returns, so not including those without jobs or children/teenagers who don't work, contribute nothing to running the federal government. Maybe you think that this is acceptable and they shouldn't have to. If so, then you should make your argument for why you believe that. It's disingenuous and unfair, however, to simply call someone pointing this out and saying that they don't think it's right a liar and pretend that it's not the reality of the situation.

Lawnchair: skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

Hey you can leave New York from an area that's just like the nicest parts of Baltimore!

runin800m: Wall of text

Marginal tax rates

Lawnchair: skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

well that's some stupid right there

It's almost like people don't understand what payroll taxes are or who pays them.

CPennypacker: Lawnchair: skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

Hey you can leave New York from an area that's just like the nicest parts of Baltimore!

we made a wrong turn at the very end of our trip on our way from Massachusetts to Baltimore to play Loyola in rugby. We got pulled over by the sheriff for being white. Literally. He pulled us over to give us directions on getting the fark out of the neighborhood we were in.

runin800m: Bob16: IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability.

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

No, it's not. It could have been worded more precisely, but it isn't a big lie. In 2011 46.4% of filing Americans, that means only Americans who are earning enough money to have to file federal tax returns are being considered and those who earn no income aren't being included, were exempt from federal income tax. Here is a Huffington Post Article (new window) regarding this. If you don't like that article, a quick google search will reveal many more.

Obviously, that isn't to say that they pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever. I think it was clear that the above poster was speaking to federal income taxes only, but it would have been clearer if they had stated that. However, it's disingenuous to pretend that the point he was trying to make is a lie. I realize that they still have social security and medicare withheld from their paychecks but those are specifically for social security and medicare payouts that they will receive later in life and don't contribute to the running of the federal government. On top of that most people will receive much more from those two programs than they paid into them(typically slightly less payout from social security than was paid in but drastically more payout from medicare than was paid in). Link (new window) They also possibly pay state and local taxes, but those taxes don't contribute to running the federal government and aren't relevant when discussing taxation at a federal level. When you are looking at funding the federal government it is separate from the state, they both have to be funded. When discussing taxation at the state level contributions to the federal government aren't relevant because they don't help the state have the necessary funds to operate.

I'm not saying that we need to jack up rat ...

No, it wasn't clear. He was parroting the same bullshiat as Fox, that they pay no taxes. Say what you mean, not a retarded version that is meant to get morons angry at poor people.

runin800m: lots of dogs

Don't like it? Then we should help get those people into a higher tax bracket.

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Lawnchair: skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

Hey you can leave New York from an area that's just like the nicest parts of Baltimore!

we made a wrong turn at the very end of our trip on our way from Massachusetts to Baltimore to play Loyola in rugby. We got pulled over by the sheriff for being white. Literally. He pulled us over to give us directions on getting the fark out of the neighborhood we were in.

I went to undergrad at Loyola. Baltimore is a a city of neighborhoods arranged in no particular order. Loyola is surrounded by 3 neighborhoods. One has mansions, the other has giant houses, and the third is the second worst drug-riddled neighborhood in the entire city. The thing that baffles me is that the people in the bad neighborhood stay there and rob each other instead of walking 16 feet to the left and robbing millionaires.

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Lawnchair: skullkrusher: You live near Baltimore. I am in NYC. $100,000 in NYC is the equivalent of $60,000 in Baltimore when you adjust for the cost of living.

Port Authority is at 40th and 8th Ave. Buses leave every hour.

Hey you can leave New York from an area that's just like the nicest parts of Baltimore!

we made a wrong turn at the very end of our trip on our way from Massachusetts to Baltimore to play Loyola in rugby. We got pulled over by the sheriff for being white. Literally. He pulled us over to give us directions on getting the fark out of the neighborhood we were in.

I went to undergrad at Loyola. Baltimore is a a city of neighborhoods arranged in no particular order. Loyola is surrounded by 3 neighborhoods. One has mansions, the other has giant houses, and the third is the second worst drug-riddled neighborhood in the entire city. The thing that baffles me is that the people in the bad neighborhood stay there and rob each other instead of walking 16 feet to the left and robbing millionaires.

good crab cakes though and they treated us really well at this bar there that had an open air porch... Greg's something I think.

PanicMan: If you make more than $100k $25k and can't afford a 2-3% increase in taxes you suck at money management.

/Makes less than $100k
/Can handle a small tax increase

FTFY

Saiga410: PanicMan: If you make more than $100k $25k and can't afford a 2-3% increase in taxes you suck at money management.

/Makes less than $100k
/Can handle a small tax increase

FTFY

FTFY

HOW LOW CAN WE GO?

CPennypacker: Saiga410: PanicMan: If you make more than $100k $25k and can't afford a 2-3% increase in taxes you suck at money management.

/Makes less than $100k
/Can handle a small tax increase

FTFY

FTFY

HOW LOW CAN WE GO?

0. If you make 0 you can afford to pay infinately more as a percent.

Bob16: IamPatSajak: Everyone should be paying taxes if they have some sort of income. 47% pay nothing at all or have a negative tax liability.

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Thats a big lie

Agreed. A lie. No or negative tax liability would imply that someone makes no money, or generates a negative income. Between $0-$8700.00 for this tax year, the federal income tax rate on funds earned within this bracket are taxed at 15%.