|
On August 18 2011 13:02 jacosajh wrote:
Are you implying you and every other American works just as hard as he does?
Not at all; in fact an awful lot of Americans work much, much harder than he does and earn literally thousands of times less than he does. Almost all of his money comes from investment, and while he certainly works to chose the right investments, the money he earns from his investments is the result of other people's work.
|
On August 18 2011 13:28 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 13:02 jacosajh wrote:
Are you implying you and every other American works just as hard as he does? Not at all; in fact an awful lot of Americans work much, much harder than he does and earn literally thousands of times less than he does. Almost all of his money comes from investment, and while he certainly works to chose the right investments, the money he earns from his investments is the result of other people's work.
Read a book about Buffet. I doubt that there are a lot of people who work as consistently and hard has he did.
|
On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o That is a totally different issue, what does ''having money'' have to do with pointing out failures of a complete system. 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?
Say there are 1000000 dirty dishes, and some guy suggests that people should wash them. Would you tell him "why don't you wash all the dishes if they needs washing" ? It's one thing to act upon the wrong things but it's another to point out the wrong things. Both are nessesary and one who only does the former is not doing his best to fix the issue.
|
On August 18 2011 06:24 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 05:19 Ig wrote:On August 18 2011 05:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 18 2011 04:34 Ig wrote:On August 17 2011 06:57 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? Number wise yes, but not percentage wise. I think he mentions it in his article. He pays around 17% while his coworkers pay around 30? HE did mention it. What a crock of crap. I don't mean you, as I know Buffett said it, but first, his tax records are not public, so he can claim whatever the fuck he wants and nobody can verify it. Not even the IRS can come out and call him a liar, as they are bound by disclosure laws. Second, payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount, so his fellow employees pay payroll taxes on their entire income where he does not. He pays the same taxes as they do, and more, up to the cap that applies to social security taxes. Third, he said a lot of his income is from capital gains, which when compared to the wages his employees are making, it's apples and oranges. Fourth, he most certainly has dividend income, which is taxed at a lower rate these days, but that income is being double taxed anyways, as the corporation paying the dividend has already paid tax on that, a rate that you can be sure Mr. Buffett is not including in his 17% calcuation. Fifth, I'm sure Mr. Buffett has plenty of private foundations in his name that he contributes to annually, which he determines how the money is to be spent in charitable ways. These contributions are deducted from his income before calculating his taxes, even though he dictates how the money is spent, instead of the government. Sixth, it's safe to say that his 17% number is based on his total income before all these deductions that he is taking and not based on his taxable income, whereas his "coworkers" do not have deductions to that extent. Misleading at best. It's not misleading at all, so stop trying to mislead us because you have an obvious agenda/vendetta against this man and his words. He can indeed claim whatever he wants, but for a cause such as this, why would he lie? The payroll tax cap is one of the issues, I'm not sure why you would bring that up against him. The rich should be taxed by their entire income, they can afford it. Capital gains at his tax bracket are probably the only thing on which he is currently taxed more than his workers, but after 2012 short term capital will be taxed at the income tax rate of the individual and long term capital gains will be capped at 20%. You only need to own something for 12 months before selling it to qualify as a long term capital gain, do you see any problems yet? Double taxing such large dividends is fine, it should be taxed more quite frankly. Do you really think there's an issue with Buffett giving money to charities as he pleases? To say he's denying the government it's share is a straw man, it's simply what he wanted to do because he didn't want to coddle his children and family with wealth by passing it down to them. Regardless of what you say about his deductions, the fact is the tax rate on the rich is quite low in the US even when compared against previous decades and the money they save isn't being reinvested back into workers, production, or even R&D. A look back at history when we had similar policies and chain of events should bring up the Great Depression as a result. Take your straw man to the Tea Party where they'll believe it. His argument, however "invalid" you may deem it, wasn't a straw man, so it's quite annoying to see you present it as one. I don't understand how you think it wasn't misleading either. Sure, you may think it's justified regardless, but that's completely different than misleading... It was a straw man because it chose to misrepresent Buffett's statements without making note of something very obvious. Granted, the numbers are vague at best, but Buffett doesn't mislead us at all - his income breakdown and gifts to charity have many similarities with other rich or super-rich people, resulting in similar (or in the ballpark) overall tax rates that are indeed lower than their secretaries'. Has nobody here seen this obvious connection? *edit* I suppose I forgot to mention the issue of Buffett giving virtually all of his money to charity. If a middle-class couple with no children did the same with say, 500k they saved up over time, nobody would say a damn thing, but if Warren Buffett does it, it's suddenly denying the government money? It didn't misrepresent anything, it was fairly accurate from what I read. And who said donating to charity is denying the government money? I believe Kaitlin was merely mentioning that was how such a low figure came about. I don't think he was saying there was anything wrong with it.
If you think what Kaitlin said was accurate, you've just completely ignored the whole point Buffett tried to make, and the obvious connection I emphasized that gives it credence: Buffett isn't just talking about himself, which everyone for some reason thinks and uses as examples/counterexamples, but about other people like him (rich/super-rich) who are worth millions and billions and earn massive amounts, yet are taxed at an overall lower rate than their employees. He's also made a point that basically says trickle down is complete bullshit.
Kaitlin said it, as in not implied but actually stated that it was denying the government it's share. I can't doubt that Kaitlin thinks it's wrong (that would be absurd, like the straw man he put forth), but he damn well said it, and that's pretty damning evidence that an argument is weak or based around a straw man.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up?
Blaming and punishing a small group of people is a ploy from politicians and socialists to divert the masses attention away from excessive uncontrollable government spending.
|
Actually, when the argument is raised that the rich have worked hard and so deserve their money, I completely agree.
If they could not pass it on the next generation, that is.
If everyone in a country started from the same point at birth, I would have no qualms about letting the tax rate be flat. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
|
On August 18 2011 23:31 targ wrote:
Actually, when the argument is raised that the rich have worked hard and so deserve their money, I completely agree.
If they could not pass it on the next generation, that is.
If everyone in a country started from the same point at birth, I would have no qualms about letting the tax rate be flat. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
There's a massive inheritance tax I believe, although there are many tax laws to get around a lot of it. When the wealth goes down, government gets a huge portion. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but I believe trusts can work around them and stuff like that.
|
On August 18 2011 23:14 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up? Blaming and punishing a small group of people is a ploy from politicians and socialists to divert the masses attention away from excessive uncontrollable government spending.
Ding Ding Ding, we have an idiot! Go ahead, ignore all credible statistics on the incredible and ever widening disparity between the rich and the poor. Because without people like you, who would defend the defenseless rich, they are oh so vulnerable!
|
On August 18 2011 23:14 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up? Blaming and punishing a small group of people is a ploy from politicians and socialists to divert the masses attention away from excessive uncontrollable government spending.
Americas public sector is 15% of GDP. By no means "excessive".
|
On August 19 2011 02:37 Brotkrumen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:14 Tien wrote:On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up? Blaming and punishing a small group of people is a ploy from politicians and socialists to divert the masses attention away from excessive uncontrollable government spending. Americas public sector is 15% of GDP. By no means "excessive".
To be exact it's:
15.7% Federal transfer payments (technically "government" payouts, but non-government consumers actually decide how/when to spend the money, like in social security or medicare)
8.2% Federal spending minus transfer payments
11.1% State and local governments
When I think of "government spending", I think of the latter two categories - and in this context, only the federal part. 8.2% seems tiny.
(Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/mitt-romney/romney-says-government-has-grown-27-percent-37-per/)
|
On August 18 2011 12:39 jacosajh wrote:
Even this is a broken logic. Just making a point, that the issue isn't increasing taxation. Decreased spending could help some too? As Americans, are we really that selfish to think we're entitled to anything at all? So even though our financial system is poor, we think the answer is to make taxes higher so we don't have to give anything up?
Seems pretty good to me - pay some more and not have the country fall to pieces. The problem is quite simple, pay more or get less. (Or do a bit of both). Either way I'm not actually sure what you are arguing for in your post.
|
Flat Tax = Evil because it unfairly taxes the poor.
Graduated Tax = Evil because it unfairly over taxes the rich.
Complicated Tax System = Evil because loopholes and lobbying will eventually corrode and corrupt the system.
Flat Tax with tax breaks for the poverty stricken/those unable to comfortably survive with taxes in their pay = Not evil because it taxes all who CAN pay taxes without paying through the nose, and creates such a simple system that tax evasions are blatant and easy to prove/punish.
Of course there would be tax breaks for charitable donations... People who offer any of the first three items are obviously thinking in the wrong direction/idealistic direction. If there're any other alternatives to the above four that are feasible and usable, then please say them. Also.. please stop misconstruing my original post where I say just about the same thing...
|
Shouldn't we consider taxing the rich until they are poor? and seeing what dynamic plays out that way.
|
On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already?
Keep in mind that while the richest people pay the greatest sum (meaning largest dollar amount), they pay some of the lowest percentages of their income in taxes.
|
On August 19 2011 02:04 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:31 targ wrote:
Actually, when the argument is raised that the rich have worked hard and so deserve their money, I completely agree.
If they could not pass it on the next generation, that is.
If everyone in a country started from the same point at birth, I would have no qualms about letting the tax rate be flat. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There's a massive inheritance tax I believe, although there are many tax laws to get around a lot of it. When the wealth goes down, government gets a huge portion. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but I believe trusts can work around them and stuff like that.
As a potential member/inheritor/something of a trust, I can tell you right now that trusts are the primary way to get around estate taxes, inheritance taxes, and other various ways meant to keep wealth from (unfairly) passing from one generation to the next.
|
On August 19 2011 03:02 ShamTao wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? Keep in mind that while the richest people pay the greatest sum (meaning largest dollar amount), they pay some of the lowest percentages of their income in taxes.
They also OWN the largest portion of the wealth.
|
On August 18 2011 02:48 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 02:45 Evilmystic wrote:On August 18 2011 02:01 leveller wrote:
So there are people out there who think its a bad idea to make multi-gabillionaires pay a little more taxes to help out everyone? I dont see why americans hate their governement, where is your compassion for your fellow man? Some people act like they would rather let poor people starve to death in a ditch than each chip in and help out. Look at yourselves monsters. If someone is poor, it's his very own problem, not somebody else's. You get what you earn, that's the only fair and sustainable condition. Rich people deserve to be rich because they worked for it, (even if they were born that way). Poor people deserve to be poor because they didn't work to rise above it, (regardless of the environment, community, or school district into which they were born.) Again please have a look at some of these numbers: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graphThe CEO of verizon makes roughly $55,000 per *day*. And he's throwing a hissy fit because his workers, (who make roughly that every year) are refusing to give up their health benefits. Does he really deserve that much goddamn money?
You have a horribly uneducated viewpoint.
The poor are poor because they lack the backbone to rise above their circumstances. Meanwhile the poor are causing this fiscal crisis with all of their welfare mansions and food stamp banquets which, while they are only a tiny fraction of government spending that could easily fit into the annual 'defense' budget, are THE REAL PROBLEM.
You see, the poor people deserve to be poor. Do you know anybody on welfare? I have seen some of them. They spend what little money they have on weed and booze. They are too lazy to go and get one of the easily attainable white collar jobs and go buy a house in a decent neighborhood. Instead they choose to work at McDonalds and complain about their living conditions, when they should really go to college. The government even has programs that let you go to college for free*. Our working class just needs to be industrious to achieve the glory of the American Dream™.
And that brings me to the subject of black people: if they're not going to work and lead glorious idyllic american lives, they should row back to Africa! It's not like we forced them to come here or anything.
TL;DR
political satire
|
On August 19 2011 04:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 02:48 Haemonculus wrote:On August 18 2011 02:45 Evilmystic wrote:On August 18 2011 02:01 leveller wrote:
So there are people out there who think its a bad idea to make multi-gabillionaires pay a little more taxes to help out everyone? I dont see why americans hate their governement, where is your compassion for your fellow man? Some people act like they would rather let poor people starve to death in a ditch than each chip in and help out. Look at yourselves monsters. If someone is poor, it's his very own problem, not somebody else's. You get what you earn, that's the only fair and sustainable condition. Rich people deserve to be rich because they worked for it, (even if they were born that way). Poor people deserve to be poor because they didn't work to rise above it, (regardless of the environment, community, or school district into which they were born.) Again please have a look at some of these numbers: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graphThe CEO of verizon makes roughly $55,000 per *day*. And he's throwing a hissy fit because his workers, (who make roughly that every year) are refusing to give up their health benefits. Does he really deserve that much goddamn money? You have a horribly uneducated viewpoint. The poor are poor because they lack the backbone to rise above their circumstances. Meanwhile the poor are causing this fiscal crisis with all of their welfare mansions and food stamp banquets which, while they are only a tiny fraction of government spending that could easily fit into the annual 'defense' budget, are THE REAL PROBLEM. You see, the poor people deserve to be poor. Do you know anybody on welfare? I have seen some of them. They spend what little money they have on weed and booze. They are too lazy to go and get one of the easily attainable white collar jobs and go buy a house in a decent neighborhood. Instead they choose to work at McDonalds and complain about their living conditions, when they should really go to college. The government even has programs that let you go to college for free*. Our working class just needs to be industrious to achieve the glory of the American Dream™. And that brings me to the subject of black people: if they're not going to work and lead glorious idyllic american lives, they should row back to Africa! It's not like we forced them to come here or anything. TL;DR political satire
Read this in Stephen Colbert's voice for added effect :D
|
I read the links on the OP, the first few pages, and the last few pages of the thread.
I don't know what credentials some posters have to diss Buffet and Gates, whom most respect as self made billionaires and philanthropists.
As for Buffet's idea, I think it is a sensible one. Yes, increase in tax for the super rich won't solve the fix the deficit by itself, but it will be part of a solution. I think its safe to say that here is no single solution to the US' debt problem for the time being.
On another note, I'm amazed that US managed to accumulate 13trillion+ debt with one of the worst social security programs among the developed countries and a joke of an healthcare system. God bless America and the American dream.
|
On August 19 2011 08:19 RinesOnRx wrote:
I read the links on the OP, the first few pages, and the last few pages of the thread.
I don't know what credentials some posters have to diss Buffet and Gates, whom most respect as self made billionaires and philanthropists.
As for Buffet's idea, I think it is a sensible one. Yes, increase in tax for the super rich won't solve the fix the deficit by itself, but it will be part of a solution. I think its safe to say that here is no single solution to the US' debt problem for the time being.
On another note, I'm amazed that US managed to accumulate 13trillion+ debt with one of the worst social security programs among the developed countries and a joke of an healthcare system. God bless America and the American dream.
You know, "bringing democracy" to the poor and uneducated fools that waited all their life for this "democracy" costs money. The Iraqi and the Afgans are now so happy to be enlightened by the American Way, probably as much as the natives of South and Middle America were by the Spanish.
And Iran is so happy by what they see they are now waiting in line to learn how to live the American Dream...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
