Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy

[dank69]

fail, fail fail fail, you are fail. that's your counter argument? seriously? and you called me stupid? you are seriously a weak being

Oh I see, money is an argument against moving but not against eating.

 

[chucky2]

Since you and bfdd STILL don't get it, I will help you along. Start by telling us what would be accomplished by Buffett giving 100% of his income to the government earmarked to go toward the deficit? You know, other than shutting your stupid pie hole.

Because if he views the income side of the problem as serious enough to take more of other peoples money and give it to the endess pit that is called Politician, if it is that serious, then he himself, since he views it as so darn serious, should be already giving his own money at the rate he's proposing.

Why isn't he? It's serious enough to propose taking others money, but, it's not serious enough to give your own. Until they make you that is. So...obviously it's not that serious...

Talk about someone who can't get it... :hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Something even FDR understood.

Asked & answered many times- income is income, regardless of the source.

 

[silverpig]

what a poor argument for the state. I also breathed in air etc etc. BTW I never asked for such things to exist, they just do regardless of my birth. So are you saying I'm a slave to you, your society and your Government simply for being born? That's stupid. You believe in the Social Contract, I don't. I never signed shit, I was forced into it.

Nobody had to work or pay money to provide air for you.

You don't have to take anything. You don't HAVE to drive on roads, or work a job in a society that benefits from an educated populace. You can opt out if you like. You don't have to leave the country, just go live in the middle of nowhere. No money, no police, no water, no electricity. You're still technically protected by the military, but we'll give you a pass on that one if you give everything else up.

You are making a conscious choice to accept the fruits of society, and you are wah wah wah-ing your way out of thinking you should help pay for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nobody had to work or pay money to provide air for you.

You don't have to take anything. You don't HAVE to drive on roads, or work a job in a society that benefits from an educated populace. You can opt out if you like. You don't have to leave the country, just go live in the middle of nowhere. No money, no police, no water, no electricity. You're still technically protected by the military, but we'll give you a pass on that one if you give everything else up.

You are making a conscious choice to accept the fruits of society, and you are wah wah wah-ing your way out of thinking you should help pay for it.

Too true. Maybe he could be the next Unabomber...

 

[Attic]

Asked & answered many times- income is income, regardless of the source.

No.

Investing carries with it risk, you ignore that here.

Whether or not it should be taxed as other income is its own matter, but income is not income in the manner you suggest. You can argue cap gains tax should be the same as other rates, no need to fudge about it when making that point. Not fudging would make the argument better.

 

[Jhhnn]

No.

Investing carries with it risk, you ignore that here.

Whether or not it should be taxed as other income is its own matter, but income is not income in the manner you suggest. You can argue cap gains tax should be the same as other rates, no need to fudge about it when making that point. Not fudging would make the argument better.

Income is income when it lands in my bank account, or anybody else's. The element of "risk" is immaterial, particularly when applied to the uber wealthy. Properly diversified, they're economically unassailable. Even radical fluctuations in income have zero effect on their lifestyles, simply because they spend only a small part, re-invest the bulk of it. If ol' Mitt never made another dime in his life, his lifestyle would remain unchanged, because he can liquidate some of his vast holdings if required. His "risk" only exists on the balance sheet, not wrt his life or that of his family.

Lose $50M? So what? What difference would it make, other than in scoring the money game?

Middle class people take more significant risks all the time. Somebody who puts their life savings into a small business startup takes a more significant risk. Many who bought a home during the "Ownership Society" unknowingly took an enormous risk, and lost. Lots of people who put 20% down are still underwater. That 20% went poof! when prices collapsed. They take bigger risks in their IRA's & other retirement accounts, because they depend on that money in ways that Rich people don't.

Middle class people are often at the mercy of risk taking decisions beyond their control, too. People who worked for Bear Stearns got screwed, even when they were doing a good job, while those working for GS didn't. That story is writ large all over this country, because the uber wealthy weren't concerned about risk- they could afford to lose, and what happened to the little people didn't mean a thing to them, at all. It still doesn't.

 

[silverpig]

No.

Investing carries with it risk, you ignore that here.

Whether or not it should be taxed as other income is its own matter, but income is not income in the manner you suggest. You can argue cap gains tax should be the same as other rates, no need to fudge about it when making that point. Not fudging would make the argument better.

Being a cop carries no risk? A firefighter?

 

[CitizenKain]

what a poor argument for the state. I also breathed in air etc etc. BTW I never asked for such things to exist, they just do regardless of my birth. So are you saying I'm a slave to you, your society and your Government simply for being born? That's stupid. You believe in the Social Contract, I don't. I never signed shit, I was forced into it.

Then sack up and leave. Wait, that requires effort and hard work, something libertarians are strictly against. This is why libertarians are so hilarious, they simply expect things to happen for them, but are always too lazy to do anything on their own.

 

[blankslate]

will we have better roads? better schools?

will our country be more financially secure? what is the goal?

We when we had better schools, were improving the infrastructure (including roads), and when the economy was in generally good shape. Guess what taxes were higher than they are now. That would be the goal.

Joe Scarborough, who I rarely agree with and who I think will be considered a RINO now for having said it, stated that

..but again, If you're making billions of dollars... again...
There's something immoral Mika about these people paying 14%, 15%, 16% on their taxes because the tax rates are the way they are while small business owners who, you know, make $250,000 a year in Manhattan and may employ 4 or 5 people pay a 35% tax rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rie5qbldmYY at about 4 mins. 47 secs. into the video.

Then they go on to talk about how people who have enviable position won't all of a sudden quit just because the tax rates go up 5% to 10% on capital gains.

Did this guy hit his head recently?

 

[dank69]

Because if he views the income side of the problem as serious enough to take more of other peoples money and give it to the endess pit that is called Politician, if it is that serious, then he himself, since he views it as so darn serious, should be already giving his own money at the rate he's proposing.

Why isn't he? It's serious enough to propose taking others money, but, it's not serious enough to give your own. Until they make you that is. So...obviously it's not that serious...

Talk about someone who can't get it... :hmm:

I asked you what it will accomplish, other than shut you up. Your only answer is that it will show he is serious. All that will do is shut you up. That is not an answer because this issue isn't about appearances. He has a specific goal: to reduce the deficit to a managable level. What he proposes will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. Donating all of his money voluntarily will not accomplish the goal.

 

[nehalem256]

Asked & answered many times- income is income, regardless of the source.

(1) Then why did FDR treat it differently than earned income?

(2) And its not income. Its capital gains. It is even called something different. As a clear example of why its different. Say inflation was 3% and your stock price went up 3%... did you make any money?

 

[nehalem256]

Middle class people take more significant risks all the time. Somebody who puts their life savings into a small business startup takes a more significant risk. Many who bought a home during the "Ownership Society" unknowingly took an enormous risk, and lost. Lots of people who put 20% down are still underwater. That 20% went poof! when prices collapsed.

And you realize that houses have special tax treatment. Such as not having to pay capital gains taxes when you sell it right?

They take bigger risks in their IRA's & other retirement accounts, because they depend on that money in ways that Rich people don't.

And you realize that IRAs and other retirement accounts have special tax treatement righht?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

(1) Then why did FDR treat it differently than earned income?

(2) And its not income. Its capital gains. It is even called something different. As a clear example of why its different. Say inflation was 3% and your stock price went up 3%... did you make any money?

(1) Probably because he had it.

(2) It is income you ignoramous:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/income

noun
1.
the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

2.
something that comes in as an addition or increase, especially by chance.

#2 is clearly what dividends are, adding money through gambling on the market...although most of the people who really make money there aren't gambling because they practice insider trading et al.

As for your idiotic 3% statement, yes you did. The same way as if one gets a 3% raise they are making more money.

BTW, does your mom know you hate her?

 

[bfdd]

Then sack up and leave. Wait, that requires effort and hard work, something libertarians are strictly against. This is why libertarians are so hilarious, they simply expect things to happen for them, but are always too lazy to do anything on their own.

lol @ this. why should I have to leave? All I'm asking for is to not be forced to participate in your Government. You dumbshits keep acting like "society" is anything, it isn't. You're all indoctrinated fools following the latest religion. Government is a cult and please explain how I'm supposed to travel without traveling on sidewalks or roads? I was born in a city, I had no choice in this matter. I'm simply asking to secede from the rest of you dumbshits, but you won't let me. You think I and everyone who thinks like me is your property. You're nothing but wannabe slave owners. *yawn* and I am "leaving" so to speak. I'm preparing to "fall off the map". There's only two ways to avoid Government intervention. Be rich enough that you can buy them off or poor enough they don't bother you. Since I would rather NOT play the game any more, I'm going to the lower end of things. Just because I'm not openly talking about the ways I'm going about hiding my money(getting it out of FRNs), aggregating goods and spending half my time not at work learning various different skills.

All because you cannot fathom other ways of "leaving", you think I need to just pick up and "leave". Still requires me to play along with your "society" fail. Everything you know is based on a logical fallacy.

btw this is the last post I'm making on this forum. Peace to all and to those who weren't tools this whole time good luck in the future. If you're an American or European, we're going to need it.

 

[dank69]

lol @ this. why should I have to leave? All I'm asking for is to not be forced to participate in your Government. You dumbshits keep acting like "society" is anything, it isn't. You're all indoctrinated fools following the latest religion. Government is a cult and please explain how I'm supposed to travel without traveling on sidewalks or roads? I was born in a city, I had no choice in this matter. I'm simply asking to secede from the rest of you dumbshits, but you won't let me. You think I and everyone who thinks like me is your property. You're nothing but wannabe slave owners. *yawn* and I am "leaving" so to speak. I'm preparing to "fall off the map". There's only two ways to avoid Government intervention. Be rich enough that you can buy them off or poor enough they don't bother you. Since I would rather NOT play the game any more, I'm going to the lower end of things. Just because I'm not openly talking about the ways I'm going about hiding my money(getting it out of FRNs), aggregating goods and spending half my time not at work learning various different skills.

All because you cannot fathom other ways of "leaving", you think I need to just pick up and "leave". Still requires me to play along with your "society" fail. Everything you know is based on a logical fallacy.

btw this is the last post I'm making on this forum. Peace to all and to those who weren't tools this whole time good luck in the future. If you're an American or European, we're going to need it.

Make sure you stop using electricity and especially the internet because they wouldn't exist in the current form if it wasn't for the government you hate. :thumbsup:

 

[waggy]

some arguments are fucking idiotic. Yes company's use roads, phone etc etc. so does EVERY PERSON in teh us. btw we all pay tax's (yes company's get ways out of paying what they should close those).

but to say a business owner didnt make his company because of it is insane. IF i start a business and it fails im the one that takes a major hit in credit, income, money, family etc. nobody else. So why if it succeeds its now everyones success?

 

[dank69]

some arguments are fucking idiotic. Yes company's use roads, phone etc etc. so does EVERY PERSON in teh us. btw we all pay tax's (yes company's get ways out of paying what they should close those).

but to say a business owner didnt make his company because of it is insane. IF i start a business and it fails im the one that takes a major hit in credit, income, money, family etc. nobody else. So why if it succeeds its now everyones success?

I am not sure that anyone is making that claim in this thread. People are however saying that they don't think they should have to pay taxes AT ALL.

 

[chucky2]

I asked you what it will accomplish, other than shut you up. Your only answer is that it will show he is serious. All that will do is shut you up. That is not an answer because this issue isn't about appearances. He has a specific goal: to reduce the deficit to a managable level. What he proposes will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. Donating all of his money voluntarily will not accomplish the goal.

Well I'm not rich, nor have no particular love for them. Raise the level up to 50% for all I care. The point is, people of power often say and/or do things for reasons other than what is fed the general public. If Buffett wishes to be taken seriously by more than his jealous and/or greedy supporters, he could go miles in demonstrating that he is walking his talk instead of just talking about it.

He hasn't.

Why?

Chuck

 

[Incorruptible]

I am not sure that anyone is making that claim in this thread. People are however saying that they don't think they should have to pay taxes AT ALL.

The leftists are making that argument every time people call for lower taxes. They love the fear mongering

 

[xj0hnx]

I agree with you. Liberals however would pick equal.

Fair is too subjective, equal is better.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

some arguments are fucking idiotic. Yes company's use roads, phone etc etc. so does EVERY PERSON in teh us. btw we all pay tax's (yes company's get ways out of paying what they should close those).

but to say a business owner didnt make his company because of it is insane. IF i start a business and it fails im the one that takes a major hit in credit, income, money, family etc. nobody else. So why if it succeeds its now everyones success?

Now you're catching on! Welcome to utopia! 😉

 

[chucky2]

some arguments are fucking idiotic. Yes company's use roads, phone etc etc. so does EVERY PERSON in teh us. btw we all pay tax's (yes company's get ways out of paying what they should close those).

but to say a business owner didnt make his company because of it is insane. IF i start a business and it fails im the one that takes a major hit in credit, income, money, family etc. nobody else. So why if it succeeds its now everyones success?

Their answer will be circular: You didn't build that. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[waggy]

I am not sure that anyone is making that claim in this thread. People are however saying that they don't think they should have to pay taxes AT ALL.

I have yet to see anyone claim that they don't need to pay taxes at all. thats just stupid.

they do need to close the loopholes in tax's though. no way should someone making millions have a less tax rate then me.

Aslo you seem to ignore the meat of my post. how is it that if i start a business and it fails it is my failure to deal with. I have to deal with the credit hit, the income hit, the physical (yes it is physical too (witch is one of the reasosn i retired)), emotional etc by myself. its all my issue.

But if it is a success now it's EVERYONES's success? seems to many wan't it both ways but that's not possible.

 

[Munky]

I thought that little experiment was already being tried in France, and failing spectacularly.