SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: John Koligman who wrote (2633)11/1/2007 2:24:51 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
As a shareholder he is part owner.

As part owner he effectively pays taxes when the company pays corporate income taxes. (To the extent that Berkshire stock increases because of it unrealized capital gains in other companies those other companies pay taxes).

If the corporate income tax rate was zero, or even just much lower than it is now and much lower than normal personal income tax rates, and nothing else changed, than he would indeed be paying tax at a much lower rate than his employees. (I think it was a secretary rather than a maid that he talked about, but maybe he made similar statements at different times about different people).

Besides if the secretary is over taxed my answer would be to reduce her taxes not raise his.

Also the secretary probably only pays 30+% in federal taxes if you include payrolls taxes. (She might have pay over 30% on the marginal dollar, but not on her whole income when you consider that much of it is taxed at a lower rate, and when you considered deductions and exemptions) Now here there may be some point, heavy taxes on employment probably aren't a good idea. OTOH it would be pretty hard to get rid of, or greatly reduce them considering the huge current and even larger future obligations tied to the programs covered by those taxes. Another point is that the programs are often defended as "social insurance, not welfare". I don't really agree with that idea, but to the extent it is considered true by anyone than her rates are higher because at the marginal dollar she is still paying "premiums" on this "insurance".

It might be better to disconnect the programs from the payroll tax, and pay for them as any other government program, but the transition would be hard both politically and practically.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News