EPTRehaul the cost structure of these unsustainable programs.
Fucking socialism is going to bankrupt us all.
Warren Buffett - "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Rehaul the cost structure of these unsustainable programs. Fucking socialism is going to bankrupt us all. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On August 17 2011 22:35 SharkSpider wrote: It's arguable as to whether or not it actually harms countries, because the required amount of savings in taxes would likely be fairly high for someone to move (especially to a country operating in a different language) but that said, Canada experiences quite a bit of it in general because most, if not all, Canadian credentials are valid in the US. I'm not sure where you'd find exact stats, but it's pretty well-accepted at universities that if you're among the best, you go south after you graduate. As a whole, Canada still stands much better than the USA. Less debt, better healthcare (overall), less crime, etc. blabla | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
| ||
|
Revolt
United States288 Posts
there should be fair taxing: taxation relevant in percentage to your income. but that's never going to happen. t.t | ||
|
AZN)Boy
United States57 Posts
On August 17 2011 22:23 SharkSpider wrote: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html Hyperbole, much? It saids INCOME TAX; which the top 1% will report nothing. Their earnings are strictly on oversea investments, such as capital gains and losses, and private equity firms. The government does NOT report the truth in their statistics. Such as inflation; they exlude food and energy. Or the LBS stating that unployment is at around 9% when it should be at around 15 - 16%. | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
I also would contend that taxing people that are rich because it is the "just" thing to do isn't just, forcing someones hand does not make an act a good deed. Also, profits will be less because of taxes and thus their will be less jobs. In addition, if taxes increase, that tax is going to be carried on to the consumer. If a company does not increase the cost of their merchandise then they will see higher sales but smaller profits from each sale. I would propose removing the social security, medicare and medicaid and reducing the defense budget by an appropriate amount as well. Government should be a necessary burden instead of the workhorse that it is now. Oh and also remove public schools, introduce a voucher program so that your child is still paid for by the government but schools have to compete for your business. Also, legalize most drugs, especially drugs that don't alter your frame of mind. Some drugs can be argued that they alter your mind and thus remove your ability to make proper choices, but outside of that there is no real need to carry restrictions on drugs. Also, the prison system is full of people that don't really need to be there and U.S locks up more of its citizens per capita than any other country. I would consider myself a libertarian or at most a republican because of my conservative values. I don't agree with many policies of republicans, nor do I agree with most policies of democrats either. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
America doesn't have a spending problem. The problem is that the government doesn't collect enough taxes to pay for all the waste. It is time to divert the blame from government excess and unsustainable social programs to "rich" people. Pretty convenient. Man the public is just a bunch of sheep. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
I am sometimes very glad that there's so much water between the continents. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
This is the issue here. The whole point of taxing this income is to collect more revenue. According to Buffet's own numbers in 1992 $4.93 billion were collected, but in 2008 $19.54 billion were collected. The economy grew in that time, but not by a factor of 4. Also he conveniently used 2008, which had less revenue than the years before and after it because the stock market tanked. Clearly the new tax rates collect more revenue which is why both Clinton and Bush lowered the rate and it is why Obama has not raised it despite promising to. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice you have cut off your nose to spite your face because you will collect less revenue. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The problem is government expenditure. The government is not putting in serious enough effort to balance the budget and leveraging America's future with unsustainable amounts of borrowing and printing money. The country will go bankrupt at today's spending rate and no amount of tax increases is going to change that. These social programs cost more and more every single year. This isn't including social security that will go broke in the near future. | ||
|
esperanto
Germany357 Posts
First of all, I dont know about US, but in europe, when a company owner earns alot and invests alot in his company again (if he is expanding), all this money from the company and his investment is not touched by the income taxes. So higher income-taxes for rich ppl never directly effect the amout of money their company can invest to grow! Second, how can ppl actually think that if rich ppl have to pay a few more % of everything they earn above 200k or maybe 500k (depends on the system), that would take any motivation to become rich. While becoming succesfull, I never would mind a diffrence from 3 or 2.5mil a year, but as a normal worker, the diffrence between 3k or 2k a month is huge. I bet most of the ppl here defending the rich are normal employes too, falling for the lies of the big dream and waiting for the big golden shower to trickle down. While its the schools of their kids that get worse, the higher crime-rate they have to deal with when the social crisis gets too high. And as the last 3 years have shown, its normal workers that have to suffer the most when big companys are failing. The rich easily get a new job. The managers that missmanage companys actually get a huge paycheck for doing so... Stop coddling the rich! | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
The biggest scam the government is pulling on the public is focusing all the attention on taxes on the rich, and diverting it from their over bloated PIIGS spending habits. | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On August 17 2011 23:06 esperanto wrote: I cant believe ppl actually follow the argument "if beeing rich has a higher taxes, less ppl want to become rich and it hurts the economy alot". First of all, I dont know about US, but in europe, when a company owner earns alot and invests alot in his company again (if he is expanding), all this money from the company and his investment is not touched by the income taxes. So higher income-taxes for rich ppl never directly effect the amout of money their company can invest to grow! Second, how can ppl actually think that if rich ppl have to pay a few more % of everything they earn above 200k or maybe 500k (depends on the system), that would take any motivation to become rich. While becoming succesfull, I never would mind a diffrence from 3 or 2.5mil a year, but as a normal worker, the diffrence between 3k or 2k a month is huge. I bet most of the ppl here defending the rich are normal employes too, falling for the lies of the big dream and waiting for the big golden shower to trickle down. While its the schools of their kids that get worse, the higher crime-rate they have to deal with when the social crisis gets too high. And as the last 3 years have shown, its normal workers that have to suffer the most when big companys are failing. The rich easily get a new job. The managers that missmanage companys actually get a huge paycheck for doing so... Stop coddling the rich! The argument is not about people getting rich and having to pay more taxes, the ones that are going to make it will do so inevitably. The argument is the rate at which that growth happens, the faster companies grow, the better the economy will be to show for it. Secondly, I am not sure I would trust any entity with so much power as the united states government and the funding for it is absolutely ridiculous. | ||
|
Bigpet
Germany533 Posts
On August 17 2011 22:38 Tien wrote: Stop coddling the entitlement programs. Rehaul the cost structure of these unsustainable programs. Fucking socialism is going to bankrupt us all. I also think that killing people in the middle east is way more important than trying to provide for your own citizens. edit: fyi I was answering with a hyperbole to a hyperbolic statement | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
That's the 1st place it would take the hatchet to. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote: According to his statements that the rich should pay more taxes to the government, the fact that he's donating 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies is hypocritical. By donating to charities that HE favors, he denies the government about 60% of his wealth that would have been paid in estate taxes had he not made that selfish decision himself and left it to the government's better judgment. I know I'm pages and pages behind but this just made me laugh. Anyways, props to Buffett for making suggestions for the sake of the whole not himself. I'm all for pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps and earning what you have, but tax breaks for the "super-rich" just doesn't make sense. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 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. Where the hell do you live? 80k? Most teachers make roughly half that. They also furnish their classrooms out of their own pocket. My cousin teaches 4th grade at a public school in a very rich/yuppie part of town. The PTA gave her... $80 to spend on classroom supplies. Everything else, pencils, markers, books, crayons, cleaning supplies, posters, games, paper (for 30 kids), etc, she has to buy herself. Ever wonder why your teachers in elementary school were so stingy about not mistreating crayons? Because when you break them, *she* has to go buy new ones. She's also making a fraction of that 80k you're talking about, and puts in a LOT of hours. I'm honestly rather offended that you'd insinuate that teachers are overpaid. When did we start living in a world where workers making roughly 40k a year are overpaid, but CEO's making 40million a year are overtaxed? What sort of logic justifies those assertions? I see lots of the same bullshit arguments in this thread that you see everywhere else. Taxing the rich is punishing success! You can't punish success, that's anti-capitalist! If you tax the rich they'll make less jobs! They assume all the risk! Bulllllll shit. The notion that you can't tax success absurd. That's what income taxes are. It's what we do every time we pay income taxes. What we haven't learned how to do is to tax failure, otherwise wall street would be fucking dead broke. CEO's such as Buffet don't pay all of their employees out of their own pockets. Their salaries come from the same place the worker's do, the company. Now small businesses are different, obviously you make whatever's left over, but we're not talking about them at the moment. Taxing these people isn't going to destroy jobs or whatever else. The super rich don't have to assume any of the risk. They get paid regardless. In the case of wall street in 2007, *we* the tax payers, bailed them out. Those at the top still made their billions of dollars, and the savings and pensions of millions of "average" people were lost. You can't tax success. The idea behind that is ridiculous. The idea that somehow the "middle class" workers; teachers, janitors, firefighters, call center workers, etc are somehow not "successful" or "productive", while millionaires are making bank because they're more "productive" than us. We've bent over and accepted that we live in a two-class society. The "job creators", (a rather magical title given to the super rich who sit on their asses and wait for the economy to fix itself), and the rest of us. We've had 30 years of rather unabated tax cuts for the rich. Why the hell do they deserve it? I'll never understand why so many people vehemently defend the ultra wealthy. Is it some sort of absurd hope that one day you'll be that goddamn rich? Not going to happen, sorry. Is it some sort of Ralph Nader-esque hope that the rich will come down from the mountain and save us all by hiring everyone? Some irrational hatred for union workers? I don't get it. edit: also: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/reaganomics.jpg) | ||
|
thebigdonkey
United States354 Posts
On August 17 2011 22:58 meadbert wrote: Clearly the new tax rates collect more revenue which is why both Clinton and Bush lowered the rate and it is why Obama has not raised it despite promising to. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice you have cut off your nose to spite your face because you will collect less revenue. Have a source for this? I'd love to see it. Every bit of data I've seen on Laffer Curve theory seems to indicate that we are to the left of the point of inflection (which is the rate which maximizes revenue), thus lowering taxes from their current rates would only result in a reduction in tax revenue. The incentive that presidents have to lower taxes has nothing to do with economics or revenue maximization. It's pure political appeasement. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." — Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I defend the rich because I have zero faith in how the government spends and wastes money. It isn't the rich's fault America's public debt is at 100% of GDP. Warren Buffet also agrees with me, because last time I checked, he's donating his entire net worth to charity, and not to the government. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 17 2011 06:38 thebigdonkey wrote: EDIT: To stem the tide, of "why doesn't he just give his money away then" comments, Mr. Buffett's has already willed his fortune to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation upon his death. Every penny he earns now, he earns for future charity. Notice Buffett didn't give it to the federal government. [A] Federal government is a black hole that sucks up money and hardly has anything to show for it [B] His 50 billion dollars or so is a drop in the bucket and doesn't make a dent in the national debt. Increasing taxes so the federal government has more money is a total waste of money. Find some other way to "help". | ||
| ||
