3 solutions, ranked by logic. 1) Lower the receptionist's taxes to 17.6% 2) Buffett fires his tax lawyers and restructures his business where he become an employee, then he pays the same as her. 3) make every other American except Buffet himself pay more taxes. All this to make Buffet feel better
you are really wasting your time. the fellow you replied to is "real special", along the lines of Palins baby. You just can not argue with a 20th percentile. That is a immutable law of nature. It's like arguing with a Borg. "Resistance is futile".
it's logical that someone making 60,000 should pay same tax rate as another making 46 mil? i don't think so. if you make many millions you need to cough up at least a 1/3 for the sake of the country in particular and humanity in general.
This issue is ,what is income? Someone making millions has lots of control how that income is distributed. Example. a rich guy has 100 million in Municipal bonds. He makes a guaranteed 5% return. He gets 5 million a year tax free. Should he have to pay taxes? Right now 40% of the bottom earners pay no tax. 5% of the top pay 72% of all taxes. It is not the percent of income but the dollar amount of taxes that should be looked at.
"Buffett said he earned $46 million in 2006 and had paid a lower tax rate than one of the secretaries in his office, who earned about $60,000." ------------------ I was under the impression that the rich and famous metric is the "rate of taxes" as a percentage of net worth. I think you would find a much LARGER difference with WEB getting a greater bargain.
if a system, gives you "opportunity", and allows you to "safely" and "securely" generate wealth, the system has a right to be compensated for providing the above. The question then becomes, what is "fair" compensation. Getting paid to provide a valuable service is not a socialist concept. That is in fact a purely capitalistic concept. The top 1% own more than 75% of the wealth. When someone makes 40K a year, that's INCOME. They are not generating wealth. When someone makes 40 Million a year by investing in municipal bonds, that's wealth generation. also your comment: "40% of the bottom earners pay no tax." Is PATENTLY FALSE. Unless you are referring to INCOME tax. Even then, your statement is patently false. The lower 40% pay MORE of their income as tax than the top 1%. In fact for top 1% earners, given all the tax loop-holes, their effective tax rate approaches zero.
Is the value of one dollar the same to someone who earns $50,000 as it is to someone who earns $50,000,000? Depends on your measure. Objectively, yes. Taking into account the concept of diminishing marginal utility, no. What is the ultimate end of taxes? Is it to increase wealth? Or is it to increase happiness? The idea of what is "fair" in practice is a matter of convention.
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.