Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy

[Rainsford]

No, it matters in the extreme. He's opening his mouth and calling for taxes on The Rich. Why? Because of our massive deficit and even more massive debt issues. So, that's fine. As a rich person, has he done what he's advocating, given there's already a means for him to do so, for the problem he sees that he wants taken care of?

No.

He should be making sure he's giving his 35%, then donating. When he's done that, let us know. Until then he's all talk.

Chuck

To borrow a quote from The West Wing, "What's next, imaginary street signs?"

Even if you believed that everyone is morally obligated to act as if the laws they propose are already in effect, whether Buffetf is "all talk" has very little to do with whether his point is valid or not. The fact that's he's not voluntarily pretending his proposed idea exists makes his argument more credible since it would result in an actual change in his after-tax income (not the case if he paid imaginary taxes).

Warren Buffett's argument has never been that he personally needs to pay higher taxes so much as he's arguing that EVERYONE who makes several times the national average should have higher effective tax rates. Leading by example doesn't seem particularly relevant here.

 

[halik]

A minimum tax on the wealthy already exists and it even has a descriptive name: the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Congress should just concern themselves with fixing the AMT so that it gets back to doing what it was originally intended to do and stop it from having non-consensual rectal relations with middle class homeowners.

^ Truth

 

[Jhhnn]

Or like Phokus who lives in one of the richest counties in the country and wants everybody else to pay more taxes?

Bullshit argument. Phokus is basically saying the same thing as Buffett- "raise my taxes". It's the same thing as what Stephen King offers, along with a whole group of high income earners.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

He pays 28% & doesn't flinch while Mitt pays half as much on an enormously greater income & whines like a little princess who didn't get her pony.

When they offer "Tax me too", Righties offer "Just you, not me!" as if it's some sort of valid argument. It's not.

And, uhh, obviously AMT doesn't apply to incomes like Mitt's, given that he pays 15% or less on $M's/yr.

 

[Incorruptible]

Bullshit argument. Phokus is basically saying the same thing as Buffett- "raise my taxes". It's the same thing as what Stephen King offers, along with a whole group of high income earners.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

He pays 28% & doesn't flinch while Mitt pays half as much on an enormously greater income & whines like a little princess who didn't get her pony.

When they offer "Tax me too", Righties offer "Just you, not me!" as if it's some sort of valid argument. It's not.

And, uhh, obviously AMT doesn't apply to incomes like Mitt's, given that he pays 15% or less on $M's/yr.

Cue the leftist to come defend the other leftists. If he has no problem with his taxes being raised then why doesn't he just a cheque to the treasury?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Buffett is a piece of shit of the highest order, but he's not stupid. He knows the super, super wealthy in the oligarchical ruling class won't pay hardly any taxes at all, since they have numerous ways to hide and shield their wealth behind trusts, tax-exempt foundations, and shell corporations, just as they have done for the last hundred years. What he's really saying by arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy is that he wants the upper middle class and millionaires to shoulder the burden of the government's out-of-control spending.

The whole idea of the elites is to soak the unconnected rich until they find themselves in the middle class, shrink the middle class until it's politically and socially irrelevant, and widen the gap between the ruling class and everyone else.

 

[halik]

Cue the leftist to come defend the other leftists. If he has no problem with his taxes being raised then why doesn't he just a cheque to the treasury?

Warren Buffer is a "leftist"? That's news to me.http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/berkshire-hathaway/89e46ce3ecf64b82aa6687181cbfb86d

The fallacy in the second sentence has already been addressed; try to keep up.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Warren Buffer is a "leftist"? That's news to me.http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/berkshire-hathaway/89e46ce3ecf64b82aa6687181cbfb86d

This assumes, of course, that today's Republican party isn't Leftist. Unfortunately for you, the evidence doesn't reflect this, as the Republican party has been steadily and unabashedly growing the size and power of government along with the Democratic party for many decades now. In fact, the two parties are so similar, they are pretty much indistinguishable, aside from a few meaningless cosmetic differences.

Buffett is undoubtedly a Big Government Leftist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Cue the leftist to come defend the other leftists. If he has no problem with his taxes being raised then why doesn't he just a cheque to the treasury?

Asked & answered, repeatedly, even if you can't understand it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Why not tax the rich people at a 100% tax rate? That would surely solve all of this nation's financial problems!

/sarcasm

Or how about a flat rate across the board (on incomes over a certain amount perhaps, say $15k or whatever) with few deductions. Extremely easy tax code, lack of loopholes, more fair to everyone. Oh, and no one can get a tax return larger than they paid in. But then, with such a simple tax code there would be few tax returns anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

This assumes, of course, that today's Republican party isn't Leftist. Unfortunately for you, the evidence doesn't reflect this, as the Republican party has been steadily and unabashedly growing the size and power of government along with the Democratic party for many decades now. In fact, the two parties are so similar, they are pretty much indistinguishable, aside from a few meaningless cosmetic differences.

Buffett is undoubtedly a Big Government Leftist.

Smaller vs larger govt isn't a left or right issue, or even an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

Big govt countries can have very high personal freedom, like Sweden, while some small govt societies, much of the 3rd world, have very low personal freedom.

Only Libertopian twits can fail to recognize that.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Smaller vs larger govt isn't a left or right issue, or even an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.

In this case it is, as the U.S. government, under both the Democrats and Republicans, has grown increasingly socialist and collectivist.

Big govt countries can have very high personal freedom, like Sweden, while some small govt societies, much of the 3rd world, have very low personal freedom.

LOL. Sweden has high personal freedom? You mean, the same country where the government takes nearly half the nation's GDP in taxes? LOL.

Sorry, pal, but personal freedom means, "the freedom to not be a tax cow slave for the government six months out of every year".

Only Libertopian twits can fail to recognize that.

What's there to recognize? As usual, you've got nothing resembling a thoughtful response.

 

[nehalem256]

Bullshit argument. Phokus is basically saying the same thing as Buffett- "raise my taxes". It's the same thing as what Stephen King offers, along with a whole group of high income earners.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

He pays 28% & doesn't flinch while Mitt pays half as much on an enormously greater income & whines like a little princess who didn't get her pony.

When they offer "Tax me too", Righties offer "Just you, not me!" as if it's some sort of valid argument. It's not.

And, uhh, obviously AMT doesn't apply to incomes like Mitt's, given that he pays 15% or less on $M's/yr.

Someone doesnt understand the difference between income and capital gains again.

I wonder how CG taxes were handled under say FDR?

From 1913 to 1921, capital gains were taxed at ordinary rates, initially up to a maximum rate of 7 percent.[1] In 1921 the Revenue Act of 1921 was introduced, allowing a tax rate of 12.5 percent gain for assets held at least two years.[1] From 1934 to 1941, taxpayers could exclude percentages of gains that varied with the holding period: 20, 40, 60, and 70 percent of gains were excluded on assets held 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively.[1] Beginning in 1942, taxpayers could exclude 50 percent of capital gains on assets held at least six months or elect a 25 percent alternative tax rate if their ordinary tax rate exceeded 50 percent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Wow under FDR the CG tax rate was ~50% of the income tax rate too! Is that because FDR was a stooge of the corporate lootacrcy?

 

[Jhhnn]

Someone doesnt understand the difference between income and capital gains again.

I wonder how CG taxes were handled under say FDR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Wow under FDR the CG tax rate was ~50% of the income tax rate too! Is that because FDR was a stooge of the corporate lootacrcy?

Nice duh-version.

What you're saying is that if the rich were unfairly advantaged in the past, well, we just need to keep on doin' it, right?

And, obviously, current efforts are talking about raising LTCG rates to the 20% rates of the Clinton years, not the 25% rates of 1942-1968.

LTCG rates haven't been at Bush levels since 1932, and it's not like Rich people weren't, you know, rich through it all.

http://www.edgepoint.com/articles/Capital-Gains-Taxes-Paying-Uncle-Sam-Less

 

[3chordcharlie]

It's a shame that Warren Buffet has to have govt agents threaten him with jail in order for him to give what he wants to give.

Is he really that inadequate? I hope not... maybe I'm missing something.

You're not missing anything, at least not unintentionally.

 

[Incorruptible]

In this case it is, as the U.S. government, under both the Democrats and Republicans, has grown increasingly socialist and collectivist.



LOL. Sweden has high personal freedom? You mean, the same country where the government takes nearly half the nation's GDP in taxes? LOL.

Sorry, pal, but personal freedom means, "the freedom to not be a tax cow slave for the government six months out of every year".



What's there to recognize? As usual, you've got nothing resembling a thoughtful response.

Agreed, he has nothing to go on so he resorts to insults

Lol at him thinking Sweden has freedom

 

[Jhhnn]

In this case it is, as the U.S. government, under both the Democrats and Republicans, has grown increasingly socialist and collectivist.



LOL. Sweden has high personal freedom? You mean, the same country where the government takes nearly half the nation's GDP in taxes? LOL.

Sorry, pal, but personal freedom means, "the freedom to not be a tax cow slave for the government six months out of every year".



What's there to recognize? As usual, you've got nothing resembling a thoughtful response.

Heh. Swedes seem perfectly happy with it, believing that what they get for their taxes is worth it. In truth, it just means that lower wage earners in Sweden enjoy more freedom from economic hardship than in this country. They receive excellent tax supported healthcare, parental leave, vacations, pensions, education and so forth.

Face it, numbnut, there will always be the lower 50% in any society, and their lower 50% have it a lot better than our own. That probably extends even higher into the economic foodchain, perhaps as high as 80-90%.

The difference between working for the govt & working for the Man is obvious, with working for the govt being a better deal for most people, even the delusional few such as yourself.

 

[Incorruptible]

Heh. Swedes seem perfectly happy with it, believing that what they get for their taxes is worth it. In truth, it just means that lower wage earners in Sweden enjoy more freedom from economic hardship than in this country. They receive excellent tax supported healthcare, parental leave, vacations, pensions, education and so forth.

Face it, numbnut, there will always be the lower 50% in any society, and their lower 50% have it a lot better than our own. That probably extends even higher into the economic foodchain, perhaps as high as 80-90%.

The difference between working for the govt & working for the Man is obvious, with working for the govt being a better deal for most people, even the delusional few such as yourself.

Most government jobs shouldn't exist and they are overpaid and useless

 

[Jhhnn]

Most government jobs shouldn't exist and they are overpaid and useless

Yes, jaundiced Libertopian drivel is drivel, no matter how many times it gets repeated & repudiated.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yes, jaundiced Libertopian drivel is drivel, no matter how many times it gets repeated & repudiated.

Nice! Resorting to insults

 

[SparkyJJO]

Nice! Resorting to insults

Par for the course for him. I doubt he could more than a couple posts in here without throwing in some lame insult. Makes him feel better about himself I guess 😛

Same goes for the rest of his crew.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Heh. Swedes seem perfectly happy with it, believing that what they get for their taxes is worth it.

Yes, they are sort of like religious folks in that sense, who believe that what they get for their faith in mystical beings is "worth it".

People can be indoctrinated to believe almost anything, especially Swedes, who spend most of their formative years in government education camps.

In truth, it just means that lower wage earners in Sweden enjoy more freedom from economic hardship than in this country.

LOL.

Freedom from economic hardship = freedom from personal responsibility

They receive excellent tax supported healthcare, parental leave, vacations, pensions, education and so forth.

Of course, none of that stuff is free, since they have to pay for it.

I wonder if they could afford that stuff on their own if their government wasn't stealing 45-50 percent of their earnings away from them?

Probably.

Face it, numbnut, there will always be the lower 50% in any society, and their lower 50% have it a lot better than our own.

That's debatable. I say they don't.

That probably extends even higher into the economic foodchain, perhaps as high as 80-90%.

Again, debatable. I say they don't.

The difference between working for the govt & working for the Man is obvious, with working for the govt being a better deal for most people, even the delusional few such as yourself.

You make it sound as if "the Man" is somehow separate from "the government". Why do you make this assumption? What prevents "the Man" from taking control over "the government"? How do you know they are two separate entities?

 

[bfdd]

Fuck Buffett. Pay it out then, stop giving your shit to charity. To you guys praising him for giving his shit to charity, why? If charity is such a good idea, why support Government? Let charity and NGOs handle everything. Fuck Governments of coercion and force. I already seceded from the rest of you long ago when I realized I'm no ones fucking slave, especially not some faux religious deity, Government. Nullification. Stop participating, denounce it every chance you get. Fuck this shit.

 

[Socio]

The purpose of taxes isn't revenge.

That entirely depends on the motivation and intent.


When considering the the amount of revenue generated by taxes Obama wants raise on the rich (whom are predominately White) will only equate to about 8 days of government spending but intentionally and detrimentally hurt the middle class (whom are predominately White), I would say the motivation and intent are quite clear.

Here is more on Buffett's BS;

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...o-hike-taxes-will-hurt-ordinary-americans.htm

Billionaire Warren Buffett, always popular among Democratic redistributionists, says he wants a "minimum tax" on the very rich.

Never mind that we already have one, and that what he proposes would hurt both the economy and the middle class.

The third richest man on Earth has endeared himself to the far left by calling for punitive taxes on those with wealth.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But the question you choose to answer is irrational, in my opinion. It isn't what was literally intended, no? This is why I thought you responded to a stereotype with another, that Republicans really do eat babies in democrat's eyes. You do but you rationalize doing so behind many layers of abstraction.

I have mentioned many times how dangerous this is but you focus only on the stereotype and not the deeper reality.

The reality is that liberals don't understand how conservatives think.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtla...moral-stereotypes-of-libs-and-cons.pub601.pdf

This study asked 2,000 Americans to fill out questionnaires about moral questions. They were asked to fill them out as they thought a “typical liberal” or a “typical conservative” would respond. Moderates and conservatives were very good at guessing how liberals would answer questions. Liberals (especially those who described themselves as “very liberal&#8221😉 were least able to guess how conservatives would answer.

 

[dmcowen674]

The reality is that liberals don't understand how conservatives think.

Thank god for that.

Conservatives are nuts.