EPTAnd when did the US not have an income tax? Because if it's before 1914, the US was just that country to the west that worried a little Europe, but just a little.
Warren Buffett - "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
And when did the US not have an income tax? Because if it's before 1914, the US was just that country to the west that worried a little Europe, but just a little. | ||
|
Hypertension
United States802 Posts
On August 17 2011 08:49 IntoTheheart wrote: Could you please enlighten me as to how his family can contest the will and win? I'm Canadian so I don't know anything about how that sort of thing works in America. It happens almost every time someone rich dies in the US. People hire lawyers and go to court to say they deserve more money. The most famous recent example I can think of was when Anna Nicole Smith's husband died, his sons beat the will and she didn't get his money. + Show Spoiler + from wikipedia "After Anna’s death, the New York Times reported that the case over the Marshall fortune "is likely to continue in the name of Ms. Smith’s infant daughter."[26] The current situation is that Anna Nicole Smith's estate will not inherit any of her late husband's estate.[27] Following the decision by the Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit, lawyers for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith requested the appeal be heard before the entire 9th circuit. However on May 6, 2010 the appeal was denied.[28] On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to hear the case.[29] On June 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against the estate of Anna Nicole Smith, deciding that a bankruptcy court ruling giving her estate a sum of 475 million was decided incorrectly. A California bankruptcy court awarded Smith part of the estate, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal said that a bankruptcy court could not make a decision on an issue outside of bankruptcy law. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of the 9th circuit court of appeals" | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 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. He's been saying the same things for decades, including when Republicans were in power. On August 17 2011 09:19 0neder wrote: 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. How is this in any way relevant to the discussion at hand? On August 17 2011 09:19 0neder wrote: Having a tax policy based on envy is not mature or healthy. Having to 'only' pay 30% taxes is not 'coddling.' The whole point of his argument is that the wealthy don't pay close to that much. On August 17 2011 09:19 0neder wrote: 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! Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are outliers in terms of charitable giving among the rich. Their giving was not in any way affected by the tax rates over the years, and you'll find that the same is true for rich people who don't give. Whether those of extreme means give or not is a question of whether they are generously-minded or not, not what the tax rate is. | ||
|
rhs408
United States904 Posts
It isn't even relevent where the data came from - when there was no income tax, it was a completely different world, so it doesn't have any bearing on what we are talking about today. Hacpee, r u a tea party man? You remind me of Michelle Bachmann, with a twist of Mitt Romney. | ||
|
rhs408
United States904 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:45 Kukaracha wrote: It amazes me how the elite brainwashes the commoner into defending its interests and not his own. No kidding, huh? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 17 2011 06:46 Kaitlin wrote: Maybe we shouldn't debate what tax rates should be, but what is the appropriate level of government spending relative to GDP, then generate tax revenues for that amount. As it is now, tax increases merely result in more government spending, requiring additional tax income, and so forth. Let's figure out what and acceptable size of government is, and stick to that. Oh shut up. Spending cuts and tax increases are both on the plate, and are both equally important here. There is no being cutesy here and dicking around with regard to tax hikes in a certain area. It either happens, or it doesn't - and it needs to happen. "As it stands now tax increases cause increase in government spending" - horse shit. Don't bother showing me all the cute biased "evidence" that points to this moronic conclusion. I can absorb that all day over at Fox News. I don't need somebody to parrot in out. | ||
|
skiptomylou1231
United States63 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote: We're talking about what happens when he dies. I don't know what religion you are, but short of re-incarnation, 100% of everyone's wealth is "given away" when they die. He is preventing the government from getting it's cut of 60% even though his comments call for the rich to pay more. He is being quite hypocritical by demonstrating the exact opposite, that he wants to control how his money is spent, instead of the government. You must be trolling. I'm sure the government does not mind that he's donating billions of dollars to charity.. | ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany674 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:04 BuddhaMonk wrote: It's funny how those attacking Buffet for "cheating" the government out of estate taxes are blatantly ignoring the actual point that the richest in the U.S. actually pay the least amount in taxes as a percentage of their wealth. Ignore the message, attack the messenger. what did you expect? there are no real arguments against what Buffet says, so they have to attack anything they can, even though it makes no sense. gj Buffet!!! | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: Oh shut up. Spending cuts and tax increases are both on the plate, and are both equally important here. There is no being cutesy here and dicking around with regard to tax hikes in a certain area. It either happens, or it doesn't - and it needs to happen. "As it stands now tax increases cause increase in government spending" - horse shit. Don't bother showing me all the cute biased "evidence" that points to this moronic conclusion. I can absorb that all day over at Fox News. I don't need somebody to parrot in out. So you've shown that you like to employ a harsh tone and some ad hominem here and there.. Do you have any content to what you're saying rather than bare assertions? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:54 arbitrageur wrote: So you've shown that you like to employ a harsh tone and some ad hominem here and there.. Do you have any content to what you're saying rather than bare assertions? Nope. It's a tired, fruitless debate. Been there. Done that. At this point I have no patience for this shit. Nor does the majority of the country. You know perfectly well what the two sides of the issue are, and where reality lies - and whose interests stand in the way of certain truths and necessities. Time will tell. PS Look up "ad hominem". You might be interested to know that it involves personally attacking somebody - something I did not do. Harsh tone? You're goddamn right. Personal attack? Get out. | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:55 FallDownMarigold wrote: Nope. It's a tired, fruitless debate. Been there. Done that. At this point I have no patience for this shit. Nor does the majority of the country. You know perfectly well what the two sides of the issue is, and where reality lies - and whose interests stand in the way of certain truths. Time will tell. PS Look up "ad hominem". You might be interested to know that it involves personally attacking somebody - something I did not do. Harsh tone? You're goddamn right. Personal attack? Get out. You're right, I mistook your dickhead tone in every sentence for personal attack. You're probably just another guy who thinks he knows what he can't know given the information available to him. | ||
|
ChoboCop
United States954 Posts
Bottom line is that you don't make money by working hard... you make money by having money. And the more money you have the more profit you make. Noone who works for a living meets John McCain's standard for 'rich.' (>5million). | ||
|
TheAuditor
United States136 Posts
On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote: He's basically saying the rich should be taxed, the debt will go down and jobs will be made, right? If he cares so much why doesn't he give his money away to people that he thinks need/deserve it? because he doesn't think they deserve it. No one deserves free money. Mr. Buffet has earned every cent of his money. He's not going to give it away, it's his. What he is saying is that he doesn't agree with what the government is doing. Just because he doesn't agree to it doesn't mean he's not going to follow what they do. No sane person will ever give their money to the government because they don't agree with tax law. | ||
|
Retry17
30 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
Way to think independently TL'ers. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:59 arbitrageur wrote: You're right, I mistook your dickhead tone in every sentence for personal attack. Forgiven. On August 17 2011 09:59 arbitrageur wrote: You're probably just another guy who thinks he knows what he can't know given the information available to him. "I'm probably a guy that thinks I don't know what I can't know." -Sure. Probably. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 17 2011 09:49 skiptomylou1231 wrote: You must be trolling. I'm sure the government does not mind that he's donating billions of dollars to charity.. Are you being sarcastic? Why would the government not care about missing a $30 billion pay day while it has a massive budget deficit? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On August 17 2011 10:01 TheAuditor wrote: because he doesn't think they deserve it. No one deserves free money. Mr. Buffet has earned every cent of his money. He's not going to give it away, it's his. What he is saying is that he doesn't agree with what the government is doing. Just because he doesn't agree to it doesn't mean he's not going to follow what they do. No sane person will ever give their money to the government because they don't agree with tax law. Some of these people do have a point. If Warren Buffett is concerned about the fiscal health of the United States, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more taxes? Why does he instead donate the vast majority of his wealth, making much of his income tax-exempt? At some level, Warren Buffett believes his money is better spent in his hands than in the hands of the government, and that's the same talking point that the right uses. Talk is cheap. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Eyr8t.jpg)
