Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#141

Post by jshen » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 5:14 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #140

jshen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because someone like warren buffet shouldn't pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than the rest of us. Hell, you're the one that is making the case that a worker generates more value than people who gamble on stocks.

News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!

I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06...

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to av

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#142

Post by webXL » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 7:05 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #141

webXL wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News Flash: Warren Buffet pays more in percentage terms than you do: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/distribution_of_... And he gives a lot more away to charity in percentage terms, too!

I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said…

If Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of his income in '06, then other top-1%'ers pay a lot more than 31.2%! (see CBO Effect Tax Rates 2006: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effecti...)

Warren Buffet uses tax loopholes (perfectly legal) to keep more of his money, which he plans to give away to various charities by the time he dies. The solution is to close loopholes and encourage more charity among the super rich, so that the government doesn't need to do as much charity when it can't afford to, and the wealthy are still able to create jobs by not having an effective tax rate much higher than 31%.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#143

Post by jshen » Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #142

jshen wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay way more than 17.7% of my income. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06... Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class. Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said…

If Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of his income in '06, then other top-1%'ers pay a lot more than 31.2%! (see CBO Effect Tax Rates 2006: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effecti... ) Warren Buffet uses tax loopholes (perfectly legal) to keep more of his money, which he plans to give away to various charities by the time he dies. The solution is to close loopholes and encourage more charity among th…

They do pay less than us, and it's that way because they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate far lower than the taxes we pay on income. The forbes 400 pays a significantly lower tax rate than I do as programmer. That's not debatable, it's a simple fact. I think they should pay at least the same rate as I do, don't you?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#144

Post by webXL » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 12:42 AM UTC

jshen wrote: post #143

webXL wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Warren Buffet only paid 17.7% of his income in '06, then other top-1%'ers pay a lot more than 31.2%! (see CBO Effect Tax Rates 2006: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effecti... ) Warren Buffet uses tax loopholes (perfectly legal) to keep more of his money, which he plans to give away to various charities by the time he dies. The solution is to close loopholes and encourage more charity among th…

They do pay less than us, and it's that way because they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate far lower than the taxes we pay on income. The forbes 400 pays a significantly lower tax rate than I do as programmer. That's not debatable, it's a simple fact. I think they should pay at least the same rate as I do, don't you? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html

No, they do not pay less! The top 1% has an average effective tax rate of 32% -- much higher than yours! This includes capital gains taxes! It's whatever amount they send to the IRS divided by the amount they receive as income (including proceeds from stock transactions).

  Methodolgy 

  CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the taxes that they pay directly, such as individual income taxes (including taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains) and employees' share of payroll taxes. The analysis assumes--as do most economists--that employers' share of payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would otherwise be paid. Therefore, the amount of those taxes is included in employees' income, and the taxes are counted as part of employees' tax burden. CBO estimates payroll taxes and individual income taxes, including refundable tax credits, with a tax "calculator" that applies the tax law for the relevant year to the tax return data from the SOI.
  Excise taxes are assumed to fall on households according to their consumption of taxed goods (such as tobacco and alcohol). Excise taxes that affect intermediate goods, which are paid by businesses, are attributed to households in proportion to their overall consumption. CBO assumes that each household spends the same on taxed goods as similar household with comparable income in the Consumer Expenditure Survey.
  Far less consensus exists about how to attribute corporate income taxes (and taxes on capital income generally). In this analysis, CBO assumes that corporate income taxes are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents. Over the long term, however, some models suggest that at least part of the burden falls on labor income.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/methodo...

"taxes that they pay directly, such as individual income taxes (including taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains)"

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#145

Post by jshen » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 6:40 AM UTC

webXL wrote: post #144

jshen wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do pay less than us, and it's that way because they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate far lower than the taxes we pay on income. The forbes 400 pays a significantly lower tax rate than I do as programmer. That's not debatable, it's a simple fact. I think they should pay at least the same rate as I do, don't you? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1126/042b.html

No, they do not pay less! The top 1% has an average effective tax rate of 32% -- much higher than yours! This includes capital gains taxes! It's whatever amount they send to the IRS divided by the amount they receive as income (including proceeds from stock transactions). Methodolgy CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the taxes that they pay directly, such as individual in…

The CBO includes corporate taxes as a tax on shareholders income. The shareholders don't actually pay this themselves and one can make a strong case that the cost of those taxes aren't entirely borne by shareholders.

Warren Buffet's tax rate is lower than his secretary's, and no one in the forbes 400 took him up on his challenge to show him that it's any different for them.

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#146

Post by webXL » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 5:21 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #145

webXL wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they do not pay less! The top 1% has an average effective tax rate of 32% -- much higher than yours! This includes capital gains taxes! It's whatever amount they send to the IRS divided by the amount they receive as income (including proceeds from stock transactions). Methodolgy CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the taxes that they pay directly, such as individual in…

The CBO includes corporate taxes as a tax on shareholders income. The shareholders don't actually pay this themselves and one can make a strong case that the cost of those taxes aren't entirely borne by shareholders. Warren Buffet's tax rate is lower than his secretary's, and no one in the forbes 400 took him up on his challenge to show him that it's any different for them.

You said "they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate" and I said their effective tax rate of 32%, which is higher than yours, includes capital gains taxes.

You can make a strong case that corporate taxes are a tax on consumers, but those are only 1/6 of individual taxes, and even if all of it was passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, you're spreading it out over the entire economy. I highly doubt it pushes your effective federal rate above 32%!

The argument that corporate taxes aren't paid by shareholders is not a justification to raise rates on the super rich, it's a justification to make sure all that tax revenue comes from shareholders. You could lower the corporate rate and increase capital gains, I suppose, but there's no excuse that much of the world has lower corporate tax rates, because it's an inefficient tax - a tax that the poor are partially paying!

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#147

Post by jshen » Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 8:32 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #146

jshen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CBO includes corporate taxes as a tax on shareholders income. The shareholders don't actually pay this themselves and one can make a strong case that the cost of those taxes aren't entirely borne by shareholders. Warren Buffet's tax rate is lower than his secretary's, and no one in the forbes 400 took him up on his challenge to show him that it's any different for them.

You said "they make a lot of their money as capital gains which are taxed at a rate" and I said their effective tax rate of 32%, which is higher than yours, includes capital gains taxes. You can make a strong case that corporate taxes are a tax on consumers, but those are only 1/6 of individual taxes, and even if all of it was passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, you're spreading it out over the entir…

I think you misunderstood me. When the CBO says their (the top 1%) effective tax rate is 32% they are including the corporate tax in that 32% for people that earn money on capital gains. That seems odd to me since those people didn't actually pay the corporate tax. The corporation did! If you take it out, you get something like the 17% that Buffet pays, which is the true value of the taxes he had to pay.

HN isn't meant for this kind of back and forth so i've started a post on my site if you want to continue over there.

http://yakkstr.com/posts/2749-How-much-do-the-rich-pay-in-ta...

Re: Republicans: No compromise possible on net neutrality

#148

Post by warrenwilkinson » Sat, Mar 05, 2011, 6:11 AM UTC

jshen wrote: post #125

warrenwilkinson wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.

The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.

Can I give you a link? http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Ca...

Mary Ruwart (2008 Libertarian Party presidental nomination) answers a very similar question about roads.

The short answer is: Most of the infrastructure would be built and maintained by the people who lived next to them. A university and some nearby business(es) might build a high speed connection. Then some adjacent neighborhoods might tie in. As low-cost regional hubs grow, entrepreneurs might focus on cost effective inter-regional infrastructure.