|
|
|
Occupy Bay street
- Thread starter thebigwoof
- Start date
He does not pay a lower income tax rate as he only takes 100,000 in income, he takes the rest in dividends. He chooses to take dividends Instead of a full salary. If he took his paycheque as a paycheque not dividends he would pay the higher tax rate. It's his choice. See you are even falling for his story!
Last edited:
daught
Well-known member
Call it whatever you want, but there are loop holes in the system that allows him to avoid paying lots of taxes. They guy that makes 40K a year cant get a portion of his money in dividends.
Last edited:
You just said dividends count as income, and the 100,000 was salary not total income.
Either dividends aren't income, you made a mistake earlier and he really is lying about his tax rate, or you're playing word games and he's telling the truth. Which is it?
Or you can't read?
Again..he complains that rich people like him aren't taxed enough while taking his money in dividends. If he took it as salary he would pay the higher tax rate. so its his choice that gives him the lower rate not any loophole. Dividends are available to any shareholder of any company big or small not just "rich" people
But many people can't afford to be shareholders so they don't have the option. Many people work from week to week just living on what they earn.
daught
Well-known member
His issue, and my issue, is that he has that choice.
Why? Companies and shareholders provide jobs to employees. How many do you employ? As well the dividends are after tax dollars and then taxed again when given to a shareholder So it's not free it's just a bit lower than if it's taken as pure salary. If you own shares in the banks and some other companies you get dividends too.
And that's life always has been and always will be.
How do you interpret that in any way other than that dividends are income?
So does the tax code distingish profits and dividends between foreign and domestic employers? Because I don't see the net benefit to the US of incentivizing employment in Sri Lanka.
You need to be spoon fed i guess. Income as salary and income as dividend I meant. Profit is profit and taxes are paid on profit in your home based country too regardless of where it's earned.
Well said.
I am exactly where I am in life because of what I did to get there. I'm not rich, but I'm not crying my *** off in a wet tent dressed up for maximum attention whore status because I didn't work for what I feel I'm entitled to.
I hope it rains harder this week and half these dirtbags miss work because they are sick.
CanadianBiker
Well-known member
+10
I'm so sick of these whining Toronto lefty try-hards. They've never worked for anything, never risked anything, uniformly adorn themselve with piriercings and tattoos to be 'different', then moan about being unemployed. s
They have no idea of what true deprivation is and think they are cutting-edge socialists because they eschew PCs in favour of the latest iProduct.
God help this country if it ever faces another Great Depression or World War. These useless pukes will fold like wet cardboard at the first sign of trouble.
I don't think they are protesting true innovators like the top guys at Apple.....it's financial companies that took govt money and gave themselves huge bonuses/raises.
The wall street guys were the best innovators for inventing credit default swaps! So these dummies aren't into innovation...
And the fact apple makes all it's products in China doesn't warrant their attention cause they are to stupid to see the whole picture
Last edited:
True..and the feminising of men continues
That's actually what I understood. It's just that you said something different afterwards.
Anyways, I've heard enough. There is in fact no BS in Buffett's complaint that the rich aren't taxed enough, if that's what he belives. Anyone who receives any kind of dividend income will benefit from a lower overall tax rate. It so happens that the rich are far more likely to receive income from dividends than the poor or middle class. His is an extreme example of that fact.
There's also no contradiction in the fact that his income happens to be structured to benefit from that advantage. It wouldn't benefit anybody for him to voluntarily pay more than the absolute minimum tax rate that he can. There *might* however be value in ensuring that ALL wealthy people paid the same rate as everyone else, as the tax revenue it would generate could have a meaningful impact on the deficit. I'm not saying it's that simple, I'm just saying his point is valid.
To call people dummies for agreeing with him is about as rational as portraying lefty Torontonians as whining, lazy, risk-averse, tattoed, pierced, unemployed, spineless, useless pukes. Instead of erecting straw men to tear down, I recommend you give rational discussion a try.
By the way, even if his salary were commensurate with his position, his tax rate would still be about half of what other employees in his office pay.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20111016/NEWS/710169929
Last edited:
Would anyone argue with me if I said the middle class are just as bad for defaulting on loans compared to the trend of bailouts (which I agree destroy the economy)? That if you looked into all these people annoying bay street you would find defaulters and massive debt to income ratio?
It's not really a stretch to say a lot of people run up an incredible amount of debt and then just default, take a five year credit hit and get themselves right back into debt because they learn nothing from their failure.
A possible solution to some of the problem would be to simply buy what you want when you have the money for it...... deferred gratification. Would it not?
It used to be called will power, self control, impulse control etc.
I know this argument puts the blame back on Joe average but it's not necessarily a counter to the valid point of equal taxation.
In the past people would save their money for the things they wanted. I'll exclude houses and cars since you can't really save for a house but obviously I'm talking about unnecessary items like a 60 inch TV to replace a perfectly good 46 inch TV or the latest (insert "must have" item) when you have last years item that still works fine.
Not really saying you can't have stuff you want, just why run up your credit cards to $30K then balk on them?
I don't buy the "they get you with a low interest rate and then jack it up after a year" because if you use a credit card or credit in general you should be paying it down or paying it off each month aside from emergencies.
It's not really a stretch to say a lot of people run up an incredible amount of debt and then just default, take a five year credit hit and get themselves right back into debt because they learn nothing from their failure.
A possible solution to some of the problem would be to simply buy what you want when you have the money for it...... deferred gratification. Would it not?
It used to be called will power, self control, impulse control etc.
I know this argument puts the blame back on Joe average but it's not necessarily a counter to the valid point of equal taxation.
In the past people would save their money for the things they wanted. I'll exclude houses and cars since you can't really save for a house but obviously I'm talking about unnecessary items like a 60 inch TV to replace a perfectly good 46 inch TV or the latest (insert "must have" item) when you have last years item that still works fine.
Not really saying you can't have stuff you want, just why run up your credit cards to $30K then balk on them?
I don't buy the "they get you with a low interest rate and then jack it up after a year" because if you use a credit card or credit in general you should be paying it down or paying it off each month aside from emergencies.
The key quote in your post is " according to buffet" if you do a search for 2011 US tax rates you will see that the more you make the higher your tax rate percentage goes. The highest tax rate is triple the lowest one. Do some research don't just get excited that a rich guy claims the rich should be taxed more
| $0 – $6,000 | Nil |
| $6,001 – $37,000 | 15c for each $1 over $6,000 |
| $37,001 – $80,000 | $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 |
| $80,001 – $180,000 | $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 |
| Over $180,000 | $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 |
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|