2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Elixir]

a 1%er is paying his fair share and twenty-nine other people's fair share besides.

… while consuming 2900 times as much “public” resources.

 

[Bomb#20]

a 1%er is paying his fair share and twenty-nine other people's fair share besides.

… while consuming 2900 times as much “public” resources.

In case you were assuming my figure was just hyperbolic rhetoric, no, the "twenty-nine other people's fair share besides" bit was a calculation derived from Derec's chart of who earned and paid how much. Work the numbers yourself if you don't believe me. Or if you need me to, I can go through it for you step by step.

Your turn. Where did you get your 2900 bit from? It looks like a number you made up to contrast with my 29 and you didn't actually have any reason to think it's true. "Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense."

 

[Bomb#20]

They also USE more “common property” (roads, airports etc) than poor people.

No doubt; but disproportionately so? Does a guy making $500k a year drive ten times further than a guy making $50000 a year?

Is $50k a year poor now?

Sorry, my bad. Decide for yourself what income level you think is poor. Does a guy making ten times that drive ten times further than a guy making that? (Also factor in the use of roads etc. the guys' respective consumption indirectly causes. For example, the richer guy probably doesn't eat ten times more, so the trucks carrying his food don't cause ten times more wear and tear...)

Also, can we get back to the conversation about how to fund the government and the programs supported by the vast majority of the public (Social Security, Medicare, Military) and we can pay for iit using math, not platitudes?

Social Security appears to be pretty much funded by Social Security tax, so we can move on. Medicare has an outgo problem, not a funding problem -- this business of letting medical costs rise faster than inflation, year after year, decade after decade, is unsustainable no matter what funding approach is adopted. If you want to have a conversation about how to fund it but not a conversation about how to stop it from growing until it eats the entire GDP, that means you just want to kick the can down the road. Have fun with that but count me out. Military spending should be massively cut -- a third of the whole world's military spending is by us, and I don't think we're the targets of a third of the whole world's aggressors.

 

[Bomb#20]

Does a guy making $500k a year drive ten times further than a guy making $50000 a year?

I see that kind of deceptive question offered as an equivocation with disgusting regularity.
Note that the 500k guy probably doesn’t drive whatsoever. His chauffeur drives his own car to work, drives the boss to the airport in the company limo, where the boss boards the corporate jet just in time to make the Chicago meeting and still make it to LA for the gala dinner.
At the end of the day he hasn’t driven at all but has caused the burning of much more than 10x the petrol vs his chauffeur, and has used many many times as much “public” infrastructure.

In the first place, that's just a string of stereotypes based on prejudice. No, the vast majority of $500K/year Americans do not have chauffeurs, are not company bosses, do not fly about in corporate jets, and do not frequent gala dinners. I'm amazed you didn't tell us the guy has a yacht. In the second place, roads are funded by the gas tax and whoever pays the gas tax for all the guy's indirect use passes that cost on to her customers. And in the third place, feel free to include all $50K-man's and $500K-man's respective indirect usage of public infrastructure too, and if you want us to take your word that it's disproportionate, show your work.

... the main story is that yes, very rich people consume much more of everything than poor people do. ... But as a rule applied to Americans, yes. The 500k guy typically consumes (causes the consumption of) >10x what the 50k guy consumes.

Got any evidence for that?

 

[southernhybrid]

What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

It fits the data.

The wealthy TAKE a disproportionately high share of all wealth and PAY a lower percentage of what they take, than people on the bottom.

Data does not bear that out.

They also USE more “common property” (roads, airports etc) than poor people.

If a middle class person making $80k pays say $20k in federal income tax, and a rich person making $320k pays $100k, do you think the latter uses roads and other infrastructure more than five times more? And things like airports are paid for by airline fees and rents on retail spaces, so the more you fly, the more you pay for airport upkeep.

“My secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than I do, and that’s wrong.”
-Warren Buffet

Is there some data linked to this, or is it just a quote based on vibes?
How much was Buffet's income in that year? How much tax did he pay?
How much was the secretary's income in that year? How much tax did he/she pay?
What taxes are included in the calculation, if any was ever made? FICA? State and local taxes, or just federal?
Was that year representative, or was it in some way unique - a one-time windfall for the secretary (like selling an investment property or a bunch of stock) or Buffet realizing some losses which decreased his tax burden?

Without numbers to back it up, this quote in meaningless.

Let's straighten this out, okay? Buffet was talking about the tax rate when he made that famous quote.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/

Why do the wealthy pay such little tax?​

In a 2007 interview, Buffett explained that he took a survey of his employees and compared their tax rates to his. All told, he found that while he paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%.

I used to be a big fan of shows like CNBC and I distinctly recall the day he made that statement. He mentioned that the tax rate was much lower for the extremely wealthy compared to the middle class like those who worked in his office. He never mentioned an amount of taxes, just the rate paid. Carry on....

 

[Bomb#20]

I am against discrimination against any person or group based upon perceptions of their ‘belonging’ to a group firmed around physical characteristics, genetic or cultural roots, religious or political ideology, sexuality or gender, wealth, class or perceptions of these, or any other characteristic that one is born with or into including any I have not mentioned.

That's not true. You aren't against discrimination against any person or group based on all those things. You don't have a good reason to think you are. You think you're against it -- most likely because you like to think of yourself as a good person and you believe good people are against discrimination -- but you aren't really against it. Know thyself.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him. That is you being in favor of discrimination by the law against a person and group based upon wealth.

 

[Bomb#20]

Let's straighten this out, okay? Buffet was talking about the tax rate when he made that famous quote.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/

Why do the wealthy pay such little tax?​

In a 2007 interview, Buffett explained that he took a survey of his employees and compared their tax rates to his. All told, he found that while he paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%.

I used to be a big fan of shows like CNBC and I distinctly recall the day he made that statement. He mentioned that the tax rate was much lower for the extremely wealthy compared to the middle class like those who worked in his office. He never mentioned an amount of taxes, just the rate paid. Carry on....

Thanks, that clarifies things. Drilling down the numbers, it turns out the reason Buffett's total tax rate is so low is because he gives so much to charity. The tax code lets people deduct charity from their income to encourage charitable giving because helping the needy is a big part of what government does so philanthropists are volunteering to do part of the government's job for it. In effect we tax people on what they get, not on what their charities get. If we correct for the amount of charity Buffett is allowed to deduct, his effective total tax rate was 25%, not 17.7%. (And this actually understates it for Buffett since he actually gives away a lot more of his income than the 30% he's allowed to deduct.)

As for why his office staff's rate was 32.9%, that's implausibly high for federal income tax given BH's legendarily modest pay scale, so it presumably includes state taxes, or FICA, or both.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What is interesting is to look at the lifestyle of a family of four earning $500,000 to one making $50,000. Better still, a family of three earning $500,000 to a family of four earning $50,000, because that is closer to reality. We do know there is an inverse relationship between income and family size at these levels.

It's the difference between private school and public.
It's the difference between having a thousand dollars a month allocated for incidentals and wondering if you can keep enough food in the house.
It's the difference between quality child care and mom only being able to work part time while the kids are in school.
It's the difference between owning and renting.
It's the difference between three people living in 4500 square foot home and four living in a 1400 square foot home.
It's the difference between wondering what gas costs these days and not being able to fill up at $5 a gallon.
It's the difference between being concerned with shopping for quality food and frequent dining out and grocery shopping at Walmart.
It's the difference between contributing three thousand dollars a month to your 401k and living paycheck to paycheck.
It's the difference between equity in a home and wondering if you'll ever be able to afford a home.
It's the difference between being able to take two or three vacations a year to unwind and living a life of constant stress and worry.
It's the difference between having a vacation home and worrying if you'll make rent because the car broke down.

Do I care how the playing field is leveled? Only to the point that it can stand up in court.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's straighten this out, okay? Buffet was talking about the tax rate when he made that famous quote.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/

Why do the wealthy pay such little tax?​

In a 2007 interview, Buffett explained that he took a survey of his employees and compared their tax rates to his. All told, he found that while he paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%.

I used to be a big fan of shows like CNBC and I distinctly recall the day he made that statement. He mentioned that the tax rate was much lower for the extremely wealthy compared to the middle class like those who worked in his office. He never mentioned an amount of taxes, just the rate paid. Carry on....

Thanks, that clarifies things. Drilling down the numbers, it turns out the reason Buffett's total tax rate is so low is because he gives so much to charity. The tax code lets people deduct charity from their income to encourage charitable giving because helping the needy is a big part of what government does so philanthropists are volunteering to do part of the government's job for it. In effect we tax people on what they get, not on what their charities get. If we correct for the amount of charity Buffett is allowed to deduct, his effective total tax rate was 25%, not 17.7%. (And this actually understates it for Buffett since he actually gives away a lot more of his income than the 30% he's allowed to deduct.)

Buffett thinks his effective tax rate is too low. It doesn't matter what he does with his income to get the rate that low. Even if Buffett's actual effective tax rate is 25%, that is still lower than his employees stated effective tax rate. And even if their effective tax rate is about the same or lower, the point that a billionaire's tax rate is too low (at least according to him).

As for why his office staff's rate was 32.9%, that's implausibly high for federal income tax given BH's legendarily modest pay scale, so it presumably includes state taxes, or FICA, or both.

Why would you think Buffett or his employees don't know how to compare effective tax rates?

 

[Elixir]

In case you were assuming my figure was just hyperbolic rhetoric

Not the case. In fact I suspect that 29x is a low estimate (despite Derec’s habit of posting shit from dubious and known deceptive sources). Also suspect that my 2900x estimate is low as well.
For every billionaire in the US, there are about 430,000 people living below the poverty line, hardly using any “common property”, while billionaires gorge on it.

 

[Toni]

I am against discrimination against any person or group based upon perceptions of their ‘belonging’ to a group firmed around physical characteristics, genetic or cultural roots, religious or political ideology, sexuality or gender, wealth, class or perceptions of these, or any other characteristic that one is born with or into including any I have not mentioned.

That's not true. You aren't against discrimination against any person or group based on all those things. You don't have a good reason to think you are. You think you're against it -- most likely because you like to think of yourself as a good person and you believe good people are against discrimination -- but you aren't really against it. Know thyself.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him. That is you being in favor of discrimination by the law against a person and group based upon wealth.

I didn’t say that: I said ‘taxing them all down to size.’

Currently many uber wealthy individuals live off of loans that they take out on the growth of their assets ( stocks, real estate, etc.). They are not taxed on the amount of the loan, nor on the growth in value of assets they continue to hold. This strategy is called: Buy, Borrow, Die.

How Wealthy Households Use a “Buy, Borrow, Die” Strategy to Avoid Taxes on Their Growing Fortunes | DC Fiscal Policy Institute

Capital gains are the profits generated from wealth such as stocks and real estate. Wealthy households can use the three-step “buy, borrow, die” strategy to get massive capital gains tax advantages.

dcfpi.org

The US and DC tax systems include many advantages for wealth, allowing it to concentrate in the hands of a few households. Wealthy households, for example, can use the three-step “buy, borrow, die” strategy to get massive capital gains tax advantages. This strategy protects the inheritance of wealth, especially extreme wealth, allowing the very wealthiest families to hold, live off of, and transfer that wealth without ever paying taxes on it—and it’s all legal. Racial justice requires unrigging the system that allows for tax avoidance and taxing wealth more heavily to increase our shared resources, so that all have what they need to thrive.

We need to amend the tax code.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him. That is you being in favor of discrimination by the law against a person and group based upon wealth.

this discrimination is already the law, with tax brackets.

 

[Elixir]

Got any evidence for that? (That the rich consume much more “public” resources than the poor)

Oh no, no evidence at all. Unless I happen to look up. Or go by our general aviation airport. Or check out forest service allowances for “fire mitigation” on thousand+ acre private lands bordering on national forest … etc etc

"Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense."

Those who rely on irrelevant, contrived math are only exhibiting their bias.

 

[Elixir]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him.

That is bullshit and you know it

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars,

I advocate that if they MAKE a billion and earns another hundred, MOST of it shoukd be taxed. Like back when America was Great.

you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her.

Oh … right.
I missed the “her” part. Definitely - ya let them wimmenz get away with having money, society comes apart at the seams.

 

[Elixir]

Does a guy making ten times that drive ten times further than a guy making that?

The guy making ten times that DOESN’T DRIVE.
Does the guy flying around on a corporate jet “consume” more than the schlub who chauffeurs him from the airport to the corporate office?
Nah, he doesn’t consume shit! The COMPANY might be a little excessive, but the money that anyone else would pay out of pocket to travel a few thousand miles, goes right into the rich guy’s bank account, where it can be borrowed against and the interest deducted from the millions that would otherwise be taxed.
Pretty neat, if you’re a billionaire.

 

[Toni]

I am against discrimination against any person or group based upon perceptions of their ‘belonging’ to a group firmed around physical characteristics, genetic or cultural roots, religious or political ideology, sexuality or gender, wealth, class or perceptions of these, or any other characteristic that one is born with or into including any I have not mentioned.

That's not true. You aren't against discrimination against any person or group based on all those things. You don't have a good reason to think you are. You think you're against it -- most likely because you like to think of yourself as a good person and you believe good people are against discrimination -- but you aren't really against it. Know thyself.

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him. That is you being in favor of discrimination by the law against a person and group based upon wealth.

Frankly you have zero idea what you are talking about.

 

[Elixir]

In the first place, that's just a string of stereotypes based on prejudice.

Yeah, I concede your “point”. The dynamic i described applies to the uber-rich, not the merely rich. Also, the 90-plus percent tax brackets never applied to the “merely rich”.
The most I ever made in a year, was several times more than I ever made in any other year. If I was making that much every year, I’d have been able to avoid most of the taxes I paid that year (per my accountant).
The system is fucked up, and benefits the rich, with the VERY rich benefiting even more than the mere “rich”.

 

[thebeave]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him.

That is bullshit and you know it

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars,

I advocate that if they MAKE a billion and earns another hundred, MOST of it shoukd be taxed. Like back when America was Great.

you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her.

Oh … right.
I missed the “her” part. Definitely - ya let them wimmenz get away with having money, society comes apart at the seams.

He's got a point. Taylor Swift is, for all practical purposes, a self made billionare in her mid-30's. It would seem the "no billionaires" crowd would have to put a stop to this. Even though she enjoys what she does and most certainly wants to keep making records and touring. Given her fame popularity and work ethic, its a given she would continue to grow her wealth pretty substantially for the near future. Hmmm...what to do? Maybe she should give up her music career and become Travis Kelce's trad wife?

 

[Elixir]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him.

That is bullshit and you know it

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars,

I advocate that if they MAKE a billion and earns another hundred, MOST of it shoukd be taxed. Like back when America was Great.

you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her.

Oh … right.
I missed the “her” part. Definitely - ya let them wimmenz get away with having money, society comes apart at the seams.

He's got a point. Taylor Swift is, for all practical purposes, a self made billionare in her mid-30's. It would seem the "no billionaires" crowd would have to put a stop to this.

Wut? I think we can afford to support a single artist making several lifetimes of average earnings ever year. “No billionaires” is not an objective. At least not for me. At current currency values, I would tax the hell out of last bunch of millions she makes in a given year, and would have made the increase in personal net worth from a half billion to a billion into a much steeper hill to climb.

Even though she enjoys what she does and most certainly wants to keep making records and touring.

Irrelevant. Good for her. More people should be fortunate enough to live well off what they love.

Given her fame popularity and work ethic, it’s a given she would continue to grow her wealth pretty substantially for the near future.

At her level of wealth, her continued increase in net worth is virtually guaranteed even if she never gets out of bed again.

Hmmm...what to do? Maybe she should give up her music career and become Travis Kelce's trad wife?

Or vice versa? Travis’ career could end any day he steps in the field, even during practice. Far less likely to happen to Taylor.

 

[Toni]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him.

That is bullshit and you know it

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars,

I advocate that if they MAKE a billion and earns another hundred, MOST of it shoukd be taxed. Like back when America was Great.

you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her.

Oh … right.
I missed the “her” part. Definitely - ya let them wimmenz get away with having money, society comes apart at the seams.

He's got a point. Taylor Swift is, for all practical purposes, a self made billionare in her mid-30's. It would seem the "no billionaires" crowd would have to put a stop to this. Even though she enjoys what she does and most certainly wants to keep making records and touring. Given her fame popularity and work ethic, its a given she would continue to grow her wealth pretty substantially for the near future. Hmmm...what to do? Maybe she should give up her music career and become Travis Kelce's trad wife?

Or maybe she should pay her fair share in taxes.

Maybe Kelce should become the ‘trad wife.’ I predict that Swift’s career will last decades longer than Kelce’s.

I don’t know how Swift has structured her income but I’m certain that she has set up at least one and probably more corporations, and either draws income from those corporations or has a portion of the revenue from her music ( performances, recordings, etc.) as income. I assume those corporations pay corporate taxes. Entertainers are businesses. In order to perform at their job, they must employ a host of other people: booking agents, for musicians, other musicians, sound engineers, lighting people, roadies, truck drivers, etc—lots of people are employed by at least big artists to go on tour. In studio—again, lots of people: other musicians, sound and recording engineers, etc. personal trainers, hair stylists, wardrobe and makeup. Personal security, lawyers, accountants, wardrobe and makeup for performances. Trainers, voice coaches, etc.

My assumption is that if you are a pro athlete, much of this is provided by the team you play for. I’m certain you have considerable personal expenses and should include an accountant and a lawyer or team thereof. But a lot of the overhead is covered by your employer

Both Kelce and Swift are incredibly successful and incredibly wealthy. We know a bit more about Swift’s use of a portion of her wealth: she’s incredibly generous to her road crew and she has used her wealth to acquire the original masters of her work. Today’s performers, or at least some of them, are savvy enough to avoid or recoup from the common practice of recording studios owning the original work that the artists made. I understand the practical reasons behind this set up but it must be incredibly galling to have someone else earn most of the profit off of your own artistic endeavors.

I’m not a Swiftie, nor a pro football fan nor any type of accountant or lawyer. I’ve just mentioned some very broad outlines of known expenses and issues.

I think everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. Hubby and I file jointly and pay more in taxes than our younger adult children. Maybe more than our oldest as well. And we should pay more in taxes at our income level than those at lower income levels.

While we, along with most people, wish that we had more money left after paying necessities —and I consider paying for all of the things that make our society function: healthcare, education, roads, fire and police departments, etc etc etc a necessity, I firmly believe that the taxes we pay are what we owe our selves, our community/state/country. Or part of what we owe. I believe it is also our responsibility to act in ways that are responsible and ethical and avoid imposing additional burden on others or society in general. I believed this when I was a broke 20 year old. I still do. I believe it is true of everyone living in this country.