Bush tax cuts for top earners should expire - says someone smarter than all of us!

[IHateMyJob2004]

The title is 100% accurate. The debate can be ended.

Billionaire Warren Buffett said that rich people should pay more in taxes and that Bush-era tax cuts for top earners should be allowed to expire at the end of December.

source:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-billionaire-buffett-says-20101123-184h1.html

also:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...abc-rich-people-should-pay-more-in-taxes.html

more:

“If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further,” Buffett said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week With Christiane Amanpour” that is scheduled to air on Nov. 28. “But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

“The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,” Buffett, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in the interview. “But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

I don't know if I agree with the public catching on. I really think to many poor republicans (poor mentally and financally) are to stupid to know it. They must not realize how things have changed for the middle class and lower class over hte past 30 years. Execs make alot more than they usedto relative to the average salary of an amplyoee under them. It is pathtic how things have changed and it is even more pathetic that people don't seems to comprehend this simple concept.

 

[TridenT]

Warren Buffet is a communist.

/republicans.txt

 

[Deeko]

*sigh*

Yes, Warren Buffett is smarter about money than all of us, no, that doesn't mean he's right about everything.

Also - its a lot easier for one of the richest people in the world to say "the rich should give away more money", because, well, he has more to give. Hell, Bill Gates quit his full time job, to work a full time job dedicated to giving away his money, and he's still rich as hell.

Not that I'm defending or attacking his point. Just that the absurd notion that "so-and-so says so, therefore, you need to do it!!!!" is, well, foolish.

 

[spidey07]

And buffet doesn't pay a whole lot in income taxes anyway so he needs to put his money where his mouth is and write a check to ease his guilt.

 

[CycloWizard]

How will increasing taxes on the wealthiest improve the disparity? Are you going to take money from Buffett and cut a check to everyone making less than him? That will be less than $3 per person for each $1 billion you take from him. But hey, if you soak him and his fellow rich-guy friends for an additional $100 billion, that's $300 for every non-billionaire in the US! Minus the government overhead. Minus the bits that get taken for other government programs. Minus the part needed to close the deficit, which is currently close to 15x that $100 billion every year.

 

[brencat]

If I'm understanding Buffet correctly, he's saying people at the truly high end need to be paying a lot more in taxes, and I absolutely agree with this statement. Many of you know that I have called for 5-6 additional higher marginal brackets at the 750k, 1mm, 1.25mm, 3mm+ income levels.

But that's not what the Dems are offering. They are offering to lump all $250k+ earners in with the top 0.05% earning hundreds of millions per year at the same marginal rate percentage, and THAT is the real problem. It's a problem for people like me who live in NJ, work in NY and already pay an outrageous amount of local income and property taxes that far exceeds anywhere else in the country.

If anything, I AGREE with Buffet that the middle class and upper middle class need a further marginal rate reduction at the current threshold being discussed in Washington.

That's why I disagree with the current Republican approach "no new taxes for anyone" and also with the Dem approach "hey Mr. $250k, you're RICH you pay more!!". I'm hoping Obama counters this tax issue stalemate by raising the income threshold where the Bush tax cuts expire to $500 or $750k. That should force the Repubs to accept it and shield most of NJ, NY, and CA's upper middle class, or they'll be seen as defending the super rich at all costs.

We need higher taxes at the truly high end, which is not the top 2%, but the top 0.05%.

 

[CycloWizard]

If I'm understanding Buffet correctly, he's saying people at the truly high end need to be paying a lot more in taxes, and I absolutely agree with this statement. Many of you know that I have called for 5-6 additional higher marginal brackets at the 750k, 1mm, 1.25mm, 3mm+ income levels.

But that's not what the Dems are offering. They are offering to lump all $250k+ earners in with the top 0.05% earning hundreds of millions per year at the same marginal rate percentage, and THAT is the real problem. It's a problem for people like me who live in NJ, work in NY and already pay an outrageous amount of local income and property taxes that far exceeds anywhere else in the country.

If anything, I AGREE with Buffet that the middle class and upper middle class need a further marginal rate reduction at the current threshold being discussed in Washington.

That's why I disagree with the current Republican approach "no new taxes for anyone" and also with the Dem approach "hey Mr. $250k, you're RICH you pay more!!". I'm hoping Obama counters this tax issue stalemate by raising the income threshold where the Bush tax cuts expire to $500 or $750k. That should force the Repubs to accept it and shield most of NJ, NY, and CA's upper middle class, or they'll be seen as defending the super rich at all costs.

We need higher taxes at the truly high end, which is not the top 2%, but the top 0.05%.

I agree that a huge problem in Washington right now is that only evolutionary changes are being suggested to huge problems. We need to go back to square one and make some real changes. The idea of using these fixed tax brackets is idiotic and doesn't correspond to reality now (if it ever did). I have come up with half a dozen ways in which the tax code could be reformulated from scratch to be more progressive and still make ends meet, all the while making taxes much simpler. Maybe we as a people are just too stupid to think outside the box or consider any real changes to what we already know. If so, we are definitely doomed.

 

[Patranus]

If I'm understanding Buffet correctly, he's saying people at the truly high end need to be paying a lot more in taxes, and I absolutely agree with this statement. Many of you know that I have called for 5-6 additional higher marginal brackets at the 750k, 1mm, 1.25mm, 3mm+ income levels.

But that's not what the Dems are offering. They are offering to lump all $250k+ earners in with the top 0.05% earning hundreds of millions per year at the same marginal rate percentage, and THAT is the real problem. It's a problem for people like me who live in NJ, work in NY and already pay an outrageous amount of local income and property taxes that far exceeds anywhere else in the country.

If anything, I AGREE with Buffet that the middle class and upper middle class need a further marginal rate reduction at the current threshold being discussed in Washington.

That's why I disagree with the current Republican approach "no new taxes for anyone" and also with the Dem approach "hey Mr. $250k, you're RICH you pay more!!". I'm hoping Obama counters this tax issue stalemate by raising the income threshold where the Bush tax cuts expire to $500 or $750k. That should force the Repubs to accept it and shield most of NJ, NY, and CA's upper middle class, or they'll be seen as defending the super rich at all costs.

We need higher taxes at the truly high end, which is not the top 2%, but the top 0.05%.

Huh?

The real problem is the 48% who pay nothing.

Secondly, you should be paying far greater local taxes and significantly less federal taxes.

If your city wants a new school, it should get an earmark from a some bureaucrat in D.C., it should raise taxes or issue bonds.

At the heart of the issue is the destruction of community by the "progressive" in favor of a central planning body in Washington.

 

[crownjules]

How will increasing taxes on the wealthiest improve the disparity? Are you going to take money from Buffett and cut a check to everyone making less than him? That will be less than $3 per person for each $1 billion you take from him. But hey, if you soak him and his fellow rich-guy friends for an additional $100 billion, that's $300 for every non-billionaire in the US! Minus the government overhead. Minus the bits that get taken for other government programs. Minus the part needed to close the deficit, which is currently close to 15x that $100 billion every year.

If they are not getting taxed as much it increases their buying power a heck of a lot more than the same amount does with the middle class. This allows them to bid higher on assets which further increases the gap in the classes because it puts those assets out of the buying range of those making less money. Very few people of intelligence are saying use taxes to redistribute the wealth in a direct manner (ie. take from the rich and literally give to the poor). It's all about the relative power and how that shifts when money gets stratified into one class that already has lots of it.

 

[CycloWizard]

If they are not getting taxed as much it increases their buying power a heck of a lot more than the same amount does with the middle class. This allows them to bid higher on assets which further increases the gap in the classes because it puts those assets out of the buying range of those making less money. Very few people of intelligence are saying use taxes to redistribute the wealth in a direct manner (ie. take from the rich and literally give to the poor). It's all about the relative power and how that shifts when money gets stratified into one class that already has lots of it.

Their buying power is so far beyond that of the middle class that it's impossible to bring them even reasonably close together again using taxation as a mechanism, short of utilizing a marginal rate of over 100%. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that this money gives them purchasing power within government. They grease enough palms and, in return, get even more wealthy as a result of government spending which just so happens to flow primarily in their direction.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Man, you P&N people make me laugh. People are so irrational about this. To me, it's obviosu that rich people need to pay more. It's just funny how people are so blinded by their beliefs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Someone that is making $5M is not purchasing goods that someone who is making $50K is?

All the extra tax on them is doing is allowing the money to be handed out to the lower class or used for earmark projects to keep the pols employed by the middle class.

None of those taxes is going to reduce the debt which will help the middle class or create self sustaining employment

 

[Phokus]

And buffet doesn't pay a whole lot in income taxes anyway so he needs to put his money where his mouth is and write a check to ease his guilt.

That's the way the tax code works for the rich, you moron.

----------------------------------------------------
If you need to call someone a name in a thread, then use the dictionary to find a word that I will not recognize.

Otherwise, be prepared for a loss of posting priviledges.

Common Courtesy

 

[ElFenix]

i'm absolutely certain we've had this thread before, and there is a fairly similar thread that's still being bumped as of today.

 

[CycloWizard]

Man, you P&N people make me laugh. People are so irrational about this. To me, it's obviosu that rich people need to pay more. It's just funny how people are so blinded by their beliefs.

I haven't seen you give any rationale for why this should be the case - only that it is obvious to you. It's obvious to me that different things are obvious to different people, and that conflicting sides of a story might each lead to obvious, yet conflicting, conclusions for different people.

 

[LunarRay]

Huh?

The real problem is the 48% who pay nothing.

If each of the 48% paid on average say... 100$ in tax to the Federal coffers would that take 100$ each out of the economic flow?
There is a logic involved that considers all aspects of the taxation scenario. Some folks have no income so surely you'd not tax them... Some have poverty level income and you'd be hard pressed to take more of what they have none of to support our National War Agenda. In these two 'classes' of folks tax dollars go back to them to enable our social agenda... Is that a bad thing? I call it stimulus and social consideration.
I think you've to consider that the % of wealth held by the lower tier of the population is below 1 % so who should pay for the 99 % the rest control?

Secondly, you should be paying far greater local taxes and significantly less federal taxes.

When you consider Property tax, Sales tax, City tax and other taxation that visits the local area I'd say all folks in your 48% pay a far greater amount in Local tax than Federal tax.

If your city wants a new school, it should get an earmark from a some bureaucrat in D.C., it should raise taxes or issue bonds.

I think the vast majority of schools are State and Local 'sponsored'. But that also invokes the separate ain't equal bit... The rich private schools produce the best product, usually.

At the heart of the issue is the destruction of community by the "progressive" in favor of a central planning body in Washington.

I think local control is paramount in most all things. I just see an inequality twixt the rich areas and the poor areas... but such is life, I guess.

End of the day, The Stronger the States are the better I like it... I support States rights in most all things.

 

[Paul98]

People need to remember when they are letting the tax cuts expire for those making 250k+. That means that 250k is the low end and those making 250k-500k really won't be paying much more at all. Where it really starts to take effect so that people will actually be a good bit more are those who are making a mil+.

 

[soulcougher73]

Sounds good to me. Tax the rich more, tax the middle and lower class less. Bring in the same amount of revenue. Then cut the spending until we have a surplus. We cant just tax our way out of debt without also cutting the spending.

 

[Phokus]

People need to remember when they are letting the tax cuts expire for those making 250k+. That means that 250k is the low end and those making 250k-500k really won't be paying much more at all. Where it really starts to take effect so that people will actually be a good bit more are those who are making a mil+.

Good luck convincing the rich. Some of them are tremendously stupid and have no idea how the progressive tax code works. There was an article a few years back where some were trying to avoid making more than 250K because they thought that they would actually make less money after tax than if they were under 250K. This is spidey07 level stupidity when it comes to taxes.

 

[nick1985]

That's the way the tax code works for the rich, you moron.

Do you get the same PM's about personal attacks from mods that I do?

-----------------------
Wrong Thread

Common Courtesy

 

[AstroManLuca]

 

[Zebo]

i'm absolutely certain we've had this thread before, and there is a fairly similar thread that's still being bumped as of today.

Every 3 days about.

 

[soulcougher73]

ROFL. Hadnt seen that one yet. Sad but true.

 

[Darwin333]

The title is 100% accurate. The debate can be ended.



source:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...-billionaire-buffett-says-20101123-184h1.html

also:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...abc-rich-people-should-pay-more-in-taxes.html

more:




I don't know if I agree with the public catching on. I really think to many poor republicans (poor mentally and financally) are to stupid to know it. They must not realize how things have changed for the middle class and lower class over hte past 30 years. Execs make alot more than they usedto relative to the average salary of an amplyoee under them. It is pathtic how things have changed and it is even more pathetic that people don't seems to comprehend this simple concept.

I have continually stated that we should make a few new brackets and raise taxes. Unfortunately, that doesn't even begin to solve our fiscal problems.

I also think it is pathetic how few people know the reasons behind the middle class slide over the last few decades. Hint: it ain't taxes.

 

[Darwin333]

People need to remember when they are letting the tax cuts expire for those making 250k+. That means that 250k is the low end and those making 250k-500k really won't be paying much more at all. Where it really starts to take effect so that people will actually be a good bit more are those who are making a mil+.

Its all a diversion by the politicians, nothing more and nothing less. Everyone knows the real "meat" is the uber wealthy bastards and most of the argument is about the 250K-sub$1m/year people. I wonder how I would fix this, gee, maybe a new bracket or two? Lets say $1m and $10M, I doubt you would get much push from the public on increasing the $10M bracket so the real "meat" of the tax increases can likely be had very easily.

Naw, lets argue about the insignificant portion and do nothing instead, its the American way.