He is the 3rd richest person in the world. Is he being over taxed? He doesn't think so.
2007-10-31 14:41:29 · 10 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
one_for (below) Yawn. I've posted the encyclopedia's definition of neo-con more often than I cared to. Look it up on Encarta online. Next!
2007-10-31 14:47:41 · update #1
james k (below) states:
- "i support whatever youre against neolib" -
Great! So you are: pro gun control, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro Hillary, and a lot more. Thanks for letting me know. Neo-cons LOL. Go figure...
2007-10-31 14:50:05 · update #2
kevin s (below) Great dodge! Neo-cons cry-me-a-river of how the "rich" pay so much of their earnings in taxes. Turns out, as I've always stated and proved, they pay LESS than I do percentage wise.
So how about an answer to my question there kevin s?
2007-10-31 14:52:34 · update #3
Brian (below) TOP DOG!
He himself compared his last year's filing to 15 of his employees. They were in the 30% bracket. He suggested a PROgressive consumption tax versus income tax. The bigger the toy, the bigger the tax.
2007-10-31 14:54:51 · update #4
I would need to know exactly what he made in taxable income last year. Don't forget his stocks aren't taxable until he sells them. I know he still lives in the small home he grew up in and contributes a good amount to charity. Without more details it's impossible to know if that is a fair percentage or not........
I am certainly open to some sort of consumption tax if done correctly.........
2007-10-31 14:51:33 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everyone inside the beltway supports regressive taxes like Social Security.
And consumption taxes, like sales tax, are regressive as all heck. The simple fact is that as your income rises, the proportion of that income that you save/invest grows. In fact, when you're income is low enough, you likely engage in 'dis-savings' that is, spending savings or borrowing. Most Americans are net debtors, and thus, in effect, consume more than they earn, and would get pounded by a consumption tax. The super-rich, OTOH, while they consume more than the average person, can only consume so much, the rest they invest - tax free, under a consumption-only 'flat tax' scheme.
How you'd make something like that truely progressive, I can't imagine. You could make it progressive in terms of how much you consume, higher marginal rates for higher-consuming individuals, but it would still be trivial compared to the income of the truely rich who engage in investment to such a great degree.
2007-11-01 13:57:55 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both parties support a corrupt, flawed tax system. So far, the best one I've seen is the consumption only (fair tax) system. Puts accountants out of a job, makes illegals pay taxes, and curbs rampant consumption.
2007-10-31 22:30:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neocons consider the middle-class and poor to be less important than the rich. The non-rich are considered parasites who suck away the earning of the rich. Consequently, the neocons feel that the rich deserve their large tax cuts while the rest of us are called lazy and told to work harder
2007-11-04 06:21:23 · answer #4 · answered by xg6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Warren Buffet should pay less in taxes.
He has been one of the most productive members of our society and has made countless Americans wealthy.
You may also want to pay attention to his $36 billion donation to charity.
Either way, what might seem "fair" to him has no bearing on what the correct tax policies are. Tax policies should be instruments of collecting revenue for the government to provide basic necessities to people, not instruments of alleged social justice. The most fair system would be communism, but it wouldn't be that great for the people living in the system.
2007-10-31 22:14:49 · answer #5 · answered by Biggg 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What do you think he's doing with that money sticking it in his mattress? What's with the mind of a lib. How many productive meaningful jobs has his money created.
If his money was taxed away there would just be phony non productive government jobs.
2007-10-31 21:48:07 · answer #6 · answered by kevin s 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i support whatever youre against neolib...how 'bout them apples, bubba?
lol very good! although i am anti right to life. that is up to the individual. most social issues i am liberal. i am conservetive on taxes, economics, smaller govt, and states rights. just so you know, bubba. lol.
2007-10-31 21:45:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes , then Buffet pointed out that his secretary was paying higher percentage in taxes than he was, and he said "that wasnt right"!!
2007-10-31 21:49:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
problem? possibly.
here's the solution: focus on lowering taxes for everyone. everyone wins!
2007-10-31 21:48:54 · answer #9 · answered by WJ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
can you define "neocon"?
Oh wait to you it is anyone that doesnt believe your whole " bush did 9/11" belief.
" i've posted encyclopedias definition"..... thanks for proving my point.
You are laughable
2007-10-31 21:44:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋