If you believe in the flat tax

[belarus]

I can tell you the problem with social security.  Its much bigger than the income cap.  No one pays it on over about $25,000 a year that has a corporation.  Social security is the easies of all taxes to not have to pay.  

A 10% flat tax on adjusted gross would bring in more money to the IRS not just social security.  I think that is too high of a percentage for just social security.  

[kraft-t]

Try it first on SS. I don't care whatthe rate is. First dollar last dollar same tax rate. You don't see any righties trying to promote that because paying more is not the objective. They favor the flat  tax because they know they will pay less.

My congress critters did not write the tax incentives into the IRS code. It's you congress critters that chose to solve every issue with a tax avoiding incentive. They think less taxes is the solution and that is simply not logical.

[jput]

I thought you libs keep saying SSI has no problem,   it's good well into the future.

But krafty,   if you really,  really,  really want to tax the "rich",   replace the current complex,  with all kinds of exemptions wove into it income tax with a straight Flat Tax.   Then Buffett,  Gates,  the Kennedy trust fund clan won't be able to escape paying.    And their 15% is a much bigger pile of money paid in than what the middle class would be paying.

[farawayguy]

I keep seeing this idea promoted that the Buffett will pay much more with a 15% flat tax. In 2011, Buffett, in advocating higher taxes for people like himself, put it out there that he only paid a total federal tax rate of 17.4% on his income, which he felt was not enough. So I'm not sure how a 15% flat rate would be a higher rate for him. 

[jput]

Take away all the loopholes Buffett takes advantage of in the current complex tax code,   then the Flat Tax really bites guys like him.

[farawayguy]

Buffett's number was his tax divided by his total income. Came in at 17.4%. His point was that it was too little. For you to say that he really paid less, makes no sense, because the more he over reports his tax rate, the more he undercuts his own argument. Also, Buffett mostly makes his wealth from investments he never sells, so the flat tax, unless you want to apply it to unrealized gains, wouldn't hurt him even if your argument was correct. 

[BA Deere]

Buffet is a shyster, i don`t know what he`s really up to, but when he says his tax rate is "17%" he`s probably talking about some income that are "capital gains" that he paid 15% on, which is money that had already been taxed before.  Here, Cato explains it better than I.

http://www.cato.org/blog/warren-buffetts-fiscal-innumeracy  

The thing that`s missing in the "flat tax doesn`t punish rich people enough" argument is, do we want to be punitive towards success or do we want the maximum REVENUE stream coming in to the nation`s coffers?    I would hope it would be the latter.

[sw363535]

Double Kudo if i could, BA.

You define one of the major issues.  Taxes are suppose to fund government activity.

But to the democratic side of congress for the last 50 years they are a method to punish and reward.  

Correcting the inequities among the people with tax policy.

[Husker-J]

Buffet lives fairly modestly, I'd be willing to bet that he drives a car older than Kraft-t, and also in a cheaper house.  His 'needs' like many of his meals, his business suits, travel expenses, etc, etc, are covered by 'the company', so that BKH gets to use them as business expenses, as they are perks that the business 'provides' the CEO.

His salary is also quite modest, for a CEO of any company, let alone one as big as BKH, so I belive him when he says he pais about 17% of his income in taxes, and I also believe him, when he says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary (dirty little secret, his secretary is paid very well, for loyalty to Buffet, and BKH, her actual 'salary' was higher than his, last time I heard, so it only makes sense that her tax rate is higher - a detail that tends to be overlooked, when people use the talking point that Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The last time the numbers were made available, Buffet had a 'take home pay' of a little over $100k per year.  
The rest of his vast wealth, is building up in his company.   He doesn't cash in his shares of BKH, nor does he take dividends from them, but rather pours any profit, back into BKH, buying more stocks.

He is quite clever, using BKH as a holding company, or dummy corporation, if you want to call it that, so that whenever he DOES sell a stock for an obscene profit, the profit goes straight to BKH sares' value, which is then spent buying more shares of another company.   Buffet doesn't have to pay any capital gains, because any gains by selling the stock, go to the value of BKH, and not him, and BKH gets to expense out the profit it made, by buying more stocks somewhere else.   The whole thing is of a sort of gray area in the tax code, which might go a long way towards explaining why the IRS belives Buffet's company owes them over a Billion dollars (Billion, with a B).

What I truly find amazing, is how so many who belive the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, will give Buffet a pass on owing a Billion, as long as he pays lip service by complaining his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does.

[kraft-t]

You do such a nice job of separating the income between the personal and corporate level until you get to the last part of your post and then you assert that Warren owes a billion in taxes when infact the supposed tax responsibility belongs at the corporate level.

There remains some confusion over capital gains. That you can sell one farm and reinvest it in another and not triggering a taxable event if done in a proper sequence. Is Berkshire claiming the same option when it sells one company and buys another. Like you trading in your old tractor for anew on e and not having to declare the procceds from the sale of the old unit as income. Perhaps that is the reason their is some disparity about what is legit and what isn't.

To place the blame on Warren for tax issues that have bnot been clearly defined is a bit unreasonable. That is why they have trials  to decide these issues and often new tax law is decided via court decisions. Thus Berkshires legal standing is not yet decided and will be through litigation.