Buffet says tax the super rich

[Don Vito Corleone]

I read the article dipshit and nowhere does he say where you should draw the line.

Buffett wrote the following:

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

 

[theeedude]

Guess what? If he wants to give his money away, the US treasury accepts cash, credit, check, and gold.

Typical reply from the intellectually weak.

 

[a777pilot]

Mr. Buffett will never give billions of his dollars willing to the Federal Government. This is all just a PR stunt.

I don't believe this country ought to tax personal or business income from any source at all. I also don't believe this nation ought tax private real property at all.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I partially agree with Buffet. The low capital gains that allows the super rich to have very low effective tax rates is ridiculous and should be fixed. However, that doesn't change the fact that the deficit is still mostly a spending problem.

yup.
and have we defined what super rich is?
all i know is $250k is not it.

 

[Brovane]

Mr. Buffett will never give billions of his dollars willing to the Federal Government. This is all just a PR stunt.

I don't believe this country ought to tax personal or business income from any source at all. I also don't believe this nation ought tax private real property at all.

Considering your Avatar how would would then fund the USMC?

 

[matt0611]

I have a serious question for you. Do you understand why this argument that you are making is dumb? Do you understand the difference between advocating for collective action that you would participate in, and unilaterally undertaking action that would have no effect?

As I have done many times, compare this to a war. If you advocate for going to war with a country, can you see the difference in electing to participate with a collective war action as opposed to picking up a rifle and conducting a solitary invasion? Can you see why even someone who supported the war would be a moron for doing that, and how their support for the war would in no way be undermined by declining the solo invasion option?

Stop comparing it to a war, do you understand why that is dumb?
One person fighting a war alone will make no difference, he will just die and lose.

A person donating money to the government lowers the debt by that much that he pays. He makes a difference and can set an example.

Its like saying "I won't give money to a charity unless other people are forced to". How about just help make a difference by you setting an example if you're so "rich" and so "coddled". Put your money where your mouth is and write out a check instead of writing op-eds. Until then you're just another big government shill.

Warren should go over all his old tax returns and pay the government the difference that he should pay.

 

[soulcougher73]

Mr. Buffett will never give billions of his dollars willing to the Federal Government. This is all just a PR stunt.

I don't believe this country ought to tax personal or business income from any source at all. I also don't believe this nation ought tax private real property at all.

Really? So his advocating taxing his income more so the fed can take more of his money is a PR stunt? And what kind of stunt is he actually trying to pull here? Enlighten us please as what his ulterior motive may be kind sir.

 

[Genx87]

Buffett wrote the following:

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

It would be nice for him to say at what rate he would expect to raise for these groups. And what kind of revenue increase can we honestly expect?

He glosses over the cuts that will need to be made to programs that he at least acknowledges even the rich cant afford to pay.

 

[soulcougher73]

Stop comparing it to a war, do you understand why that is dumb?
One person fighting a war alone will make no difference, he will just die and lose.

A person donating money to the government lowers the debt by that much that he pays. He makes a difference and can set an example.

Actually its not dumb. You just dont want it to make sense because it goes against your retarded ideaology.

He would donate that money, the government would spend it and nothing would have changed. What he is wanting is the government to tax the wealthy more on their income as a policy change. Including his. If he donated he would be equivilent to the guy going off alone by himself and dieing in a war.

 

[Brovane]

Wow, did he just piss off a bunch of people in the upper echelon or what?

Snip

Buffett said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.


"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.



Snip."

This part is confusing for me. Is Buffett comparing apples to Oranges? For example is he comparing his Federal Tax rate with the other people's in his office total tax burden including federal and state tax? The highest Federal income tax bracket is 35% and that is only on income over $370k if you are single. How could his people in his office have a average federal income tax rate of 36%, this just doesn't make any logical sense.

 

[Genx87]

This part is confusing for me. Is Buffett comparing apples to Oranges? For example is he comparing his Federal Tax rate with the other people's in his office total tax burden including federal and state tax? The highest Federal income tax bracket is 35% and that is only on income over $370k if you are single. How could his people in his office have a average federal income tax rate of 36%, this just doesn't make any logical sense.

The whole piece is jumping around between tax rates on different types of incomes, clearly taxes from state and federal, and he discusses the top 400 wage earners for an example of how much they make then wants to apply more taxes to hundreds of thousands of tax payers who arent in the top 400.

 

[matt0611]

Actually its not dumb. You just dont want it to make sense because it goes against your retarded ideaology.

He would donate that money, the government would spend it and nothing would have changed. What he is wanting is the government to tax the wealthy more on their income as a policy change. Including his. If he donated he would be equivilent to the guy going off alone by himself and dieing in a war.

No he wouldn't, I already explained why.
Its not a dumb argument. It just destroys his whole point and the liberals Buffet ball sucking fest in this thread so you want to dismiss it. Its ok, I understand.

If you think you should pay more, start by doing it, until then its not a serious argument. Of course he won't do this though.

 

[Genx87]

Actually its not dumb. You just dont want it to make sense because it goes against your retarded ideaology.

He would donate that money, the government would spend it and nothing would have changed. What he is wanting is the government to tax the wealthy more on their income as a policy change. Including his. If he donated he would be equivilent to the guy going off alone by himself and dieing in a war.

Isnt that part of the point though? If Buffet sends the govt 5 billion. The govt will piss it into the wind without making a difference. What does it matter if he gets 400, 10,000, or 300,000 others to do the same? The amount isnt the point though. It is we acknowledge him doing such a thing is a waste and changes none of the fundamental problems of our govts financial situation.

 

[fskimospy]

Stop comparing it to a war, do you understand why that is dumb?
One person fighting a war alone will make no difference, he will just die and lose.

A person donating money to the government lowers the debt by that much that he pays. He makes a difference and can set an example.

Its like saying "I won't give money to a charity unless other people are forced to". How about just help make a difference by you setting an example if you're so "rich" and so "coddled". Put your money where your mouth is and write out a check instead of writing op-eds. Until then you're just another big government shill.

Warren should go over all his old tax returns and pay the government the difference that he should pay.

One person fighting a war will make a difference in the fighting capability of that country by how many opposing soldiers he kills and how much warmaking equipment he destroys. He makes a difference and can set an example. It will be an insignificant impact, but so will the donation of a single person's wealth. There really isn't any clearer explanation of a collective action problem. Maybe you can be more clear as to what you don't understand? Do you know what a collective action problem is?

The idea that someone's opinion on an issue isn't credible unless he harms his own self interest in a futile and purposeless gesture is mind boggling.

 

[BoberFett]

I think it is funny how when people talk about balancing the budget there is always this "Its only a few billion a year" or "Only 10 billion a year, we need something big." Guess what, to truly balance the budget will take tons of these billion here and billion there decisions. There is no massive silver bullet that will fix everything.

This is why congress will not balance the budget any time soon and especially not in a way that actually makes sense. It is easier for the no back bone crowd to cut 10% from everything, than here about how someone's pet program was cut even though it only saved "a few billion" a year.

And I've said before, taxes need to go up across the board. But Democrats aren't willing to cut anything. The whole party seems to believe that taxing the wealthy will pay for everything.

 

[matt0611]

Isnt that part of the point though? If Buffet sends the govt 5 billion. The govt will piss it into the wind without making a difference. What does it matter if he gets 400, 10,000, or 300,000 others to do the same? The amount isnt the point though. It is we acknowledge him doing such a thing is a waste.

Yup, this, more people will send the government more money and they'll piss it into the wind. Wow, great.

 

[BoberFett]

Buffett wrote the following:

I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

That's a start. What's the estimated revenue from such a change?

 

[BoberFett]

Actually its not dumb. You just dont want it to make sense because it goes against your retarded ideaology.

He would donate that money, the government would spend it and nothing would have changed. What he is wanting is the government to tax the wealthy more on their income as a policy change. Including his. If he donated he would be equivilent to the guy going off alone by himself and dieing in a war.

Hahahahahahahaha!

So if one person pays more, the government spends it and nothing changes.

But if everyone pays more... Wait I don't see the difference.

 

[fskimospy]

Isnt that part of the point though? If Buffet sends the govt 5 billion and the govt pisses it into the wind. What does it matter if he gets 400, 10,000, or 300,000 others to do the same? The amount isnt the point though. It is we acknowledge him doing such a thing is a waste.

No, that's not the point at all. The amount of money he would donate on a one time basis is insignificant as compared to the scope of the problem. If you get large numbers of other people to increase their contributions on an annual scale, you can generate numbers that are not insignificant to the scope of the problem.

That's basically the entire point of taxation. I mean when you fill up your car you contribute about $5 to the government's transportation investments. That's nothing, so I guess we should just do away with gasoline taxes. Better yet, if you like roads you should donate your entire personal fortune to their upkeep regardless of what other people do. To do otherwise would be hypocritical and a PR stunt.

 

[matt0611]

One person fighting a war will make a difference in the fighting capability of that country by how many opposing soldiers he kills and how much warmaking equipment he destroys. He makes a difference and can set an example. It will be an insignificant impact, but so will the donation of a single person's wealth. There really isn't any clearer explanation of a collective action problem. Maybe you can be more clear as to what you don't understand? Do you know what a collective action problem is?

The idea that someone's opinion on an issue isn't credible unless he harms his own self interest in a futile and purposeless gesture is mind boggling.

Yes but the war argument is time sensitive and there is synergy in the amount of people that fight the war. You need squads of soldiers to do things at the same time to actually be able to do anything.

An army is more than the sum of its parts. Its not the same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Hahahahahahahaha!

So if one person pays more, the government spends it and nothing changes.

But if everyone pays more... Wait I don't see the difference.

Are you serious? You don't see the difference between insignificant individual action and collective action?

 

[Triumph]

Mr. Buffett will never give billions of his dollars willing to the Federal Government. This is all just a PR stunt.

I don't believe this country ought to tax personal or business income from any source at all. I also don't believe this nation ought tax private real property at all.

Your taxation ideas only leave one avenue for generating federal revenue - tariffs. I'm curious how you feel about those?

Also, just out of curiosity, are you one of those that believe the federal government has no constitutional right to collect taxes? Just asking.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes but the war argument is time sensitive and there is synergy in the amount of people that fight the war. You need squads of soldiers to do things at the same time to actually be able to do anything.

An army is more than the sum of its parts. Its not the same thing.

You're just proving my point.

Action here is time sensitive as well, and there is most certainly synergy in the accumulation of capital. You need large numbers of taxpayers to do things that actually accomplish something. Seriously, do you get the idea of collective action problems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action#Collective_action_problem

 

[Genx87]

No, that's not the point at all. The amount of money he would donate on a one time basis is insignificant as compared to the scope of the problem. If you get large numbers of other people to increase their contributions on an annual scale, you can generate numbers that are not insignificant to the scope of the problem.

That's basically the entire point of taxation. I mean when you fill up your car you contribute about $5 to the government's transportation investments. That's nothing, so I guess we should just do away with gasoline taxes. Better yet, if you like roads you should donate your entire personal fortune to their upkeep regardless of what other people do. To do otherwise would be hypocritical and a PR stunt.

I understand the point of taxation. However I dont understand why anybody can claim him sending the govt 5 billion means nothing while claiming giving them more will mean something. That to me sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

Either it is a worthwhile venture or it isnt. If sending the govt 5 billion means nothing and is a waste. I dont think sending them 50 billion or 500 billion will change that feeling.

That said I wouldnt be against a tax increase on the top 2% of wage earners if we see a corresponding cut in govt spending. And I am not talking about govt "cuts" where instead of an 8% increase we see a 5% increase in spending. I mean actual cuts where programs see a negative increase in actual spending.

We have a spending problem plain and simple and have for decades. We cant tax enough now to make up the difference. We have to make deep cuts across the board. Social Security, medicare, military, ect..

 

[matt0611]

You're just proving my point.

Action here is time sensitive as well, and there is most certainly synergy in the accumulation of capital. You need large numbers of taxpayers to do things that actually accomplish something. Seriously, do you get the idea of collective action problems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action#Collective_action_problem

Such as what? Our deficit is 1.6 trillion, so we can lower it to 1.5 trillion maybe?

Capital investment is best to come from the private, profit driven sector, instead of a politically motivated government decision.