EPTWarren Buffett - "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:07 Sgany wrote: I agree on your points. I had learning difficulties when I was younger, mainly my spelling which is still kinda bad. But I grew up with up with a girl who had a poor family, a disabled father, a mother who had mental problems, she moreless had to raise her two siblings but now she is studying law in one of the best universities in the country, so people can do it if they work hard enough. You're a textbook case for the just-world hypothesis. | ||
|
rza
Canada384 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:07 TheFrankOne wrote: Look, its a team liquid member from a privileged background claiming his experience is universal; a rare occurrence indeed... no wait, that's completely normal here. Colleges in the US leave many students terribly burdened with debt, not even "exclusive schools" but you're going to say they are both easy to get into and free? C'mon man, that shits just ridiculous. The fee of college and a normal us house(with a car and stuff) shackles the student to work for the rest of their life. the US (Owned by private UK company)is maximizing the amount of cash they can get out of any citizen sorry for bad english. | ||
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7700104.html#ixzz1VExSm8hv The fact that she won the Iowa straw poll shows you there's some issues with these candidates or the voters. Not only does she fail to understand what Warren Buffet is saying (tax reform for the wealthy), she also associates his remarks with all taxes. "Taxes are high enough already." Buffet was mentioning taxes for the rich, not everyone. And the scariest thing, she wants Mr.Buffet to write a big check while her husband is leeching off money from Medicare. Yah, well played. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 17 2011 08:54 StarStruck wrote: Not going to lie. It's pretty sad. Anytime the interests/beliefs of morons are threatened, they'll come scurrying out. On August 17 2011 09:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote: Bachman quoted saying: "We do believe, unlike Warren Buffett, that taxes are high enough already," she said. "I have a suggestion: Mr. Buffett, write a big check today." The best part about logical fallacies as talking points is that they'll be easily picked up by supporters who couldn't begin to understand a more nuanced argument. | ||
|
Slardar
Canada7593 Posts
 | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Does he really believe the USA should have a AAAA rating? Of course not! He just doesn't want to lose his fortune so he says something like that to calm investors down. Having a tax policy based on envy is not mature or healthy. Having to 'only' pay 30% taxes is not 'coddling.' Increased taxes on rich people discourage the very kind of giving that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are doing. If anything, they themselves are the greatest example of why we don't need to take more money from the insanely wealthy - because America is already the most generous nation on earth, and we don't need to force our bazzilionaires to give back - they do it of their own free will and choice, instead of having the government compel them to virture! | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Did spending double during the Reagan years, or did taxes get cut in half from 70% to 30%? Because that's when our debt trend really started - the national debt more than doubled during Reagan's years in office. If Republicans could answer that question truthfully while looking at a graph like this, well, they wouldn't be Republicans. Spending didn't lead to us borrowing trillions of dollars. We've had social security and social programs before 1950, when this graph starts. The only real spending inflation has been in our military. What did happen besides spending increases was massive, massive trends of tax cuts with no alternative revenue sources. Government gets less revenue, can't balance the budget, and we're forced to borrow. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Eyr8t.jpg) Also, we see in 1992-1994 the debt growth declines for a few years. Did we cut spending on social programs during those years? Not really. We mostly simply raised taxes on the most solvent people in our country, who easily afforded it. | ||
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:19 Leporello wrote: A little graph that I think is enlightening. Look at 1982. Reagan drastically cut income taxes across the board (with a little extra for the higher brackets), and concurrently, we see massive deficits and the start of our debt trend. Did spending double during the Reagan years, or did taxes get cut in half from 70% to 30%? Because that's when our debt trend really started - the national debt more than doubled during Reagan's years in office. If Republicans could answer that question truthfully while looking at a graph like this, well, they wouldn't be Republicans. Spending didn't lead to us borrowing trillions of dollars. We've had social security and social programs before 1950, when this graph starts. The only real spending inflation has been in our military. What did happen besides spending increases was massive, massive trends of tax cuts with no alternative revenue sources. Government gets less revenue, can't balance the budget, and we're forced to borrow. Also, we see in 1992-1994 the debt growth declines for a few years. Did we cut spending on social programs during those years? Not really. We mostly simply raised taxes on the most solvent people in our country, who easily afforded it. I agree with this. Austerity programs don't work in the long term. The whole idea behind deficit spending is that you are expecting the economy to grow faster than the debt. Cutting social program does nothing to simulate the economy and the few hundred million that you cut every year is NOTHING compared to how much wealth a healthy economy like the USA can generate. This is why stimulus programs are used. Even though they incur a huge debt, you are hoping that the surge of money will jumpstart the economy. Macroeconomics does not always work the way we want, obviously as we see now, but when Conservatives blast the stimulus program, what they are really blasting is the mechanics of capitalism. In that, they are hypocrites. What works is adding revenue to the government that can fund sustainable social programs. It is like taking money from the investment of these billionaire and then INVESTING that money in the government. It is an idea that should be seen as both patriotic and fiscally sensible. | ||
|
Dragom
194 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:19 0neder wrote: Warren Buffet says what he thinks will protect his interests. It's in his interests to be friendly with the current administration. Does he really believe the USA should have a AAAA rating? Of course not! He just doesn't want to lose his fortune so he says something like that to calm investors down. Having a tax policy based on envy is not mature or healthy. Having to 'only' pay 30% taxes is not 'coddling.' Increased taxes on rich people discourage the very kind of giving that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are doing. If anything, they themselves are the greatest example of why we don't need to take more money from the insanely wealthy - because America is already the most generous nation on earth, and we don't need to force our bazzilionaires to give back - they do it of their own free will and choice, instead of having the government compel them to virture! If only what you said was true -.- its really only the select few that actually give back significant portions of their wealth, most others just do it for publicity | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:30 Dragom wrote: If only what you said was true -.- its really only the select few that actually give back significant portions of their wealth, most others just do it for publicity Or for tax write offs. LOL the Irony. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:19 Leporello wrote: A little graph that I think is enlightening. Look at 1982. Reagan drastically cut income taxes across the board (with a little extra for the higher brackets), and concurrently, we see massive deficits and the start of our debt trend. Did spending double during the Reagan years, or did taxes get cut in half from 70% to 30%? Because that's when our debt trend really started - the national debt more than doubled during Reagan's years in office. If Republicans could answer that question truthfully while looking at a graph like this, well, they wouldn't be Republicans. Spending didn't lead to us borrowing trillions of dollars. We've had social security and social programs before 1950, when this graph starts. The only real spending inflation has been in our military. What did happen besides spending increases was massive, massive trends of tax cuts with no alternative revenue sources. Government gets less revenue, can't balance the budget, and we're forced to borrow. Also, we see in 1992-1994 the debt growth declines for a few years. Did we cut spending on social programs during those years? Not really. We mostly simply raised taxes on the most solvent people in our country, who easily afforded it. And if you looked even further to when we had no income tax, we were perfectly fine. | ||
|
rhs408
United States904 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:08 UnRealXenoth wrote: Yea, lets give our politicians more money to piss away. Bc they will REALLY use that money to pay down debt. /scoff. This is unfortunately a fair arguement. Our government has a well deserved reputation and record of wasteful spending. But I believe today that we are much more responsible as far as spending, especially seeing how we are talking cutting social security and medicare benefits in effort to reduce federal debt. The Republicans and Tea Partiers in Congress right now would be policing the hell out of where the tax revenue is spent, don't you think? | ||
|
Dragom
194 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:08 akalarry wrote: the public school teachers in my area average around 80 grand a year, with the most experienced ones making 100+ grand lol... and then once they retire, they are gonna be ridiculously compensated. obviously this is rare exception though. also, when teachers have taught a subject for 10+ years, they have nothing to prepare for next years curriculum. i don't understand what you mean by entire summer working? are they working for their school district getting paid? are they working some other jobs? 80k a year minus the 30k that they have to pay for taxes you mean. And no, they will not be ridiculously compensated because the conservatives will cut those benefits to 0. Also, are you saying that theres no such thing as technology? my school(i just graduated), got some extra funding for some Smartboards last year, and the teachers(especially the older ones) had to spend part of their summer learning how to work the smartboard. | ||
|
Dali.
New Zealand689 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:07 Sgany wrote: I agree on your points. I had learning difficulties when I was younger, mainly my spelling which is still kinda bad. But I grew up with up with a girl who had a poor family, a disabled father, a mother who had mental problems, she moreless had to raise her two siblings but now she is studying law in one of the best universities in the country, so people can do it if they work hard enough. Looks like you've swayed everyone with your single anacedote of someone who is endowed with an extreme capacity for discipline, intelligence and mental and emotional fortitude. Those qualities are, most often, gifts people are born with. Your friend is lucky, and that's not disrespecting a single one of her achievements of which she deserves the spoils. But she is lucky. | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:19 0neder wrote: Warren Buffet says what he thinks will protect his interests. It's in his interests to be friendly with the current administration. Does he really believe the USA should have a AAAA rating? Of course not! He just doesn't want to lose his fortune so he says something like that to calm investors down. Having a tax policy based on envy is not mature or healthy. Having to 'only' pay 30% taxes is not 'coddling.' Increased taxes on rich people discourage the very kind of giving that people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are doing. If anything, they themselves are the greatest example of why we don't need to take more money from the insanely wealthy - because America is already the most generous nation on earth, and we don't need to force our bazzilionaires to give back - they do it of their own free will and choice, instead of having the government compel them to virture! So you think the super rich should pay a smaller percentage of what they earn than the middle class? All Buffett is saying is that at the very least the super rich should pay the same amount of taxes as a percentage of earning as your average person. Is that really so outrageous? No of course not, and in polling of the American people the vast majority agree with Buffett. This is a simple matter of fairness. | ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:36 Dragom wrote: 80k a year minus the 30k that they have to pay for taxes you mean. And no, they will not be ridiculously compensated because the conservatives will cut those benefits to 0. Also, are you saying that theres no such thing as technology? my school(i just graduated), got some extra funding for some Smartboards last year, and the teachers(especially the older ones) had to spend part of their summer learning how to work the smartboard. 30k out of 80 would be 37%. From what I understand, they pay no social security tax so that number is not right. | ||
|
Dragom
194 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:34 hacpee wrote: And if you looked even further to when we had no income tax, we were perfectly fine. Please state where you got this data from. | ||
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
The first income tax was enacted in 1862, then added as Amendment 16 to the Constitution in 1913. I guess the economy was doing pretty well pre-1862. | ||
|
Dragom
194 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:43 denzelz wrote: The first income tax was enacted in 1862, then added as Amendment 16 to the Constitution in 1913. I guess the economy was doing pretty well pre-1862. No i meant the chart | ||
| ||
