Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy

[FerrelGeek]

The purpose of taxes isn't revenge.

It is to many liberals.

 

[Exterous]

Hopefully this hits 100% of the 1%ers that brag and post in here.

I doubt there are many here who make $1,000,000 a year. I'm betting most of the 1%ers that post are closer to $350,000 a year than $1M

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

So the point has no validity unless he gives more in taxes? I think not. Not to mention that it could very well be a desire to see actual results from a group action as opposed to a near meaningless impact from a single person.

 

[nehalem256]

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”) were least able to guess how conservatives would answer.

This is not a surprise. See how much trouble liberals have with understanding why conservatives favor abortion restrictions.

 

[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.

Nice! Resorting to insults

Start by insulting anybody & everybody who ever worked for govt in any capacity, then whine about being insulted as a consequence.

Always the victim, huh?

 

[Zivic]

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

+1...

let's just get it over with. we all know that raising taxes on the "rich" is out of spite and revenge.

maybe the left will realize that after taking all the wealthy's money and we still are drowning it debt it was never a "revenue" problem. I guess it doesn't matter at that point, because it was never about the financials.... it was all about making those damn rich people pay.

edit:
also, WB is no idiot, what better way to make him look good to the 99%-ers? Make this proposal, but in the mean time he has the ability to send in checks to the government to cover his 30-35% that he is proposing, but doesn't..... how much sense does that make? I guess it makes a lot of sense

 

[Ausm]

+1...

let's just get it over with. we all know that raising taxes on the "rich" is out of spite and revenge.

maybe the left will realize that after taking all the wealthy's money and we still are drowning it debt it was never a "revenue" problem. I guess it doesn't matter at that point, because it was never about the financials.... it was all about making those damn rich people pay.

edit:
also, WB is no idiot, what better way to make him look good to the 99%-ers? Make this proposal, but in the mean time he has the ability to send in checks to the government to cover his 30-35% that he is proposing, but doesn't..... how much sense does that make? I guess it makes a lot of sense

That's not what the reality shows...

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

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Nice propaganda puff piece. Mitt obviously escapes the AMT, paying <15%, as do many of the uber wealthy.

Between 1945 & 1980, America's wealthiest paid much higher taxes, yet that was the period of greatest growth & shared prosperity this country has ever experienced, and investment was much higher than today. Business also faced greater obstacles in the form of tariffs & high unionization, yet America's wealthiest thrived nonetheless.

It's amusing to watch as dreamers & schemers who'll likely never have a net worth equivalent to 1M of today's dollars carry on as if they know what they're talking about when they defend & extoll the virtue of those making over $1M per year...

Grover Norquist likened progressive taxation to hte Holocaust, while Steve Schwarzman said raising his rates to 20% would be like the invasion of Poland. It's bullshit, of course, but apparently our resident Righties actually believe them.

What a travesty it would be if the uber wealthy had to pay the same effective rates as the rest of the top 1%! The Horror!

 

[nehalem256]

Nice propaganda puff piece. Mitt obviously escapes the AMT, paying <15%, as do many of the uber wealthy.

Why do you repeatedly show you are unable to understand the difference between capital gains and earned income?

Something even FDR understood.

 

[Zivic]

That's not what the reality shows...

so have the govt take all their money and see where we end up. by your logic, we will all be much better off.... then again, you thought walker would be removed from office. How'd that play out?

 

[Incorruptible]

This is not a surprise. See how much trouble liberals have with understanding why conservatives favor abortion restrictions.

And thats the problem with liberals, abortion on demand and the taxpayer must pay for this nonsense

 

[dank69]

so have the govt take all their money and see where we end up. by your logic, we will all be much better off.... then again, you thought walker would be removed from office. How'd that play out?

Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man.

 

[Zivic]

Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man.

if you call it that, then let's just say they tax them at the proposed 30-something% rate... then what? so they pay more in taxes and we are still swimming in debt, heck more like still drowning in debt.

It won't even make a dent. the 30% means nothing more than making the rich pay more because we want life to be "fair"

 

[Ausm]

so have the govt take all their money and see where we end up. by your logic, we will all be much better off.... then again, you thought walker would be removed from office. How'd that play out?

He won't make it for another term and in fact I doubt he will make his first term due to a pending indictment in the works.

 

[dmcowen674]

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

Nice graph

Clearly shows we should be at least doubling to the 30% on the 1%.

Buffet for President, too bad he is too old.

 

[Zivic]

Nice graph

Clearly shows we should be at least doubling to the 30% on the 1%.

Buffet for President, too bad he is too old.

what will any of us get out of raising their taxes?

will we have better roads? better schools? will our country be more financially secure?

what is the goal?

 

[Zivic]

He won't make it for another term and in fact I doubt he will make his first term due to a pending indictment in the works.

blah, blah, blah.....

 

[dank69]

what will any of us get out of raising their taxes?

will we have better roads? better schools? will our country be more financially secure?

what is the goal?

The goal is to get the deficit under control. Raising taxes is not the only way to do it, but it must be part of the equation. That's why Dems offered spending cuts in exchange for the increase in rates. Put them together and you have a real start at reducing the deficit to managable levels. But Repubs won't let the minor tax increases happen, so now we don't get spending cuts either.

 

[Incorruptible]

blah, blah, blah.....

Agree, LOL at the leftist upset with Walker

 

[Incorruptible]

The goal is to get the deficit under control. Raising taxes is not the only way to do it, but it must be part of the equation. That's why Dems offered spending cuts in exchange for the increase in rates. Put them together and you have a real start at reducing the deficit to managable levels. But Repubs won't let the minor tax increases happen, so now we don't get spending cuts either.

We need to cut spending and the spending "cuts" offered by both parties aren't actual cuts

 

[dank69]

Agree, LOL at the leftist upset with Walker

This is not a Walker thread. Why so desperate to divert?

 

[dank69]

We need to cut spending and the spending "cuts" offered by both parties aren't actual cuts

You are not qualified to judge that.

 

[Incorruptible]

You are not qualified to judge that.

So we should increase spending then? Look how bad that was

 

[dank69]

So we should increase spending then? ...

Illogical leaps like this are why I usually don't bother engaging you.

 

[Zivic]

The goal is to get the deficit under control. Raising taxes is not the only way to do it, but it must be part of the equation. That's why Dems offered spending cuts in exchange for the increase in rates. Put them together and you have a real start at reducing the deficit to managable levels. But Repubs won't let the minor tax increases happen, so now we don't get spending cuts either.

the spending cuts are the only answer that is meaningful. the rates increases are a moral victory for the left who think everything in life should be equal and fair.

I understand any dollar amount towards the whole is helpful, but let's get realistic about their real world impact on our situation

 

[dank69]

the spending cuts are the only answer that is meaningful. the rates increases are a moral victory for the left who think everything in life should be equal and fair.

The bolded is a misrepresented version of what the left stands for/against. We stand against unfair/lopsided tax cuts for the rich. The original cuts overwhelmingly favored the rich, which is itself morally wrong. This isn't about revenge, it is about removing bad policy. Policy that has been a major contributor to the deficit.

I understand any dollar amount towards the whole is helpful, but let's get realistic about their real world impact on our situation

Then you should also understand that the Republicans are holding the spending cuts YOU want hostage in order to keep the unfair tax cuts for their rich buddies and the Democrats are fighting to give you the spending cuts YOU want and take away the unfair tax cuts from the wealthy.