|
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.
And you think grunt/sweat labor is the sum definition of hard work. I suppose you also think a garbage worker (I appreciate them; just making a point) should make the same amount of money as a doctor? The doctor's need to have gone to school for a long period of time, mass large sums of debt, undergo all kinds of hard work to become a resident, and continue research while working in a high stress situation full of liability is all moot? Because the garbage worker sweats more in his 8 hour shift?
Not only did it take Warren Buffet a great amount of work and massed knowledge to get to the position he's in, but it takes ALOT of work/stress to stay that way. Especially through all the financially unstable times in the US and the world.
|
|
|
Is that really what passes as journalism? That's the equivalent of a forum troll's "NO U"
|
On August 19 2011 15:06 Ympulse wrote:Is that really what passes as journalism? That's the equivalent of a forum troll's "NO U"
wow that article was sad.
I hate the argument that 'well this would be a drop in the bucket compared to what the national debt is, 1.2 trillion if you take all their money.' Warren never makes the claim a fair tax on the extreme wealthy would cure the national debt, all he's calling for is the super rich pay the same % as the average person. WHAT IN THE FUCK IS SO WRONG WITH THAT?
|
United States7483 Posts
That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously.
His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending?
|
|
|
It isn't just overhyped, it's an outright lie. Lowering taxes in general gives people NO incentive to hire more workers, especially in a climate where lots of money in the right place will make even more money. Sure, we might get some high skill level jobs out of the whole ordeal, but we won't get the average US Citizen back to work.
On the other hand, if you begin taxing these people on income and specific kinds of investments, while simultaneously lowering payroll taxes and adding incentives to hire full-time workers, maybe their "hate" for the government will guide them to spend their earnings on employees instead of themselves.
|
On August 19 2011 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On the other hand, if you begin taxing these people on income and specific kinds of investments, while simultaneously lowering payroll taxes and adding incentives to hire full-time workers, maybe their "hate" for the government will guide them to spend their earnings on employees instead of themselves.
"The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
|
On August 19 2011 17:03 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On the other hand, if you begin taxing these people on income and specific kinds of investments, while simultaneously lowering payroll taxes and adding incentives to hire full-time workers, maybe their "hate" for the government will guide them to spend their earnings on employees instead of themselves. "The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
So nothing should ever be done about complex systems ?
|
On August 19 2011 15:18 Whitewing wrote:That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously. His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending?
lol, you fail at reading comprehension.
His point is that raising taking every penny from households above $250k wouldn't even cover this year's $3.7 trillion budget, let alone the $14 trillion debt. Where do you get that it would cover the debt? Are you just stupid with numbers, or with everything else too?
|
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
He's actually a part of a group of billionaires in the USA that plans to donate over half of his money to charity at the time of his death. I've heard a bunch of stories about how he doesn't tip well, and a bunch of other stuff like that, but considering that he's going to be giving billions away when he dies, I don't really have a problem with that.
My biggest issue with the rich and taxes is that they don't really pay taxes. If you look at most of them they find every single loophole and don't end up paying anything. While I think that is okay for families that are poor and don't make hardly anything, I don't think it is right that the super rich can get away with that.
Not only are the tax rates for the super rich at one of the lowest rates in American history, some of them don't even have to pay because of these loopholes.
While I do agree that there has been rampant spending for years, we simply haven't been taking in enough taxes either. And I'm afraid that I have to agree with Mr. Buffet, that we have to stop coddling the rich.
The argument that it should go up for everyone is frankly asinine. I personally make around 10-15k a year. I work about 35 hours a week (all I can get), I'm single, share an apartment with friends, and I'm saving up to go to college. As of right now I pay no taxes, other than sales tax on various items. If taxes were to be raised, I simply couldn't afford them. I work hard, and am working to go to college and get a good job. Taking money away from hard working low income people such as myself leaves no opportunity for us to go to college to get the better pay jobs. All it does is keep the poor people poor, and keep the rich people rich.
|
On August 19 2011 17:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 15:18 Whitewing wrote:That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously. His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending? lol, you fail at reading comprehension. His point is that raising taking every penny from households above $250k wouldn't even cover this year's $3.7 trillion budget, let alone the $14 trillion debt. Where do you get that it would cover the debt? Are you just stupid with numbers, or with everything else too?
And Warren Buffet's point is that the burden of reducing the deficit should be shared among all income levels, and not consist of spending cuts alone. Nowhere in his piece did he claim that taxing the rich would fix the $3.7 trillion defect, or the $14 trillion debt. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but don't misrepresent his views.
As a side note Buffet realises, unlike many investors, that the time to buy something is when it's cheap, not when it's expensive.
|
I think we should focus on saving money every where we can no matter how small. Every little bit helps and there certainly will be no single method to fix everything easily. Not without massive consequences. If the super rich are basically saying go ahead and tax, then do it. Why is this even up for debate.
1."I make a billions dollars and I wouldn't mind paying a bit of a higher tax"
2."Thank you, but if we tax you, you will kill us all"
1."No, I really don't mind"
2."BULLSHIT, get away from me money devil!"
|
On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu 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 Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US.
also for the fact that they have like no medicare, no insurance, basically no benefits for their workers like how the US was back in the industrial age ^^
plus look at how much they pay their workers ...
but yes the cost of business is ridiculously high here plus all the regulations.. its safety for jobs.. and money D:
|
On August 19 2011 17:33 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 17:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 19 2011 15:18 Whitewing wrote:That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously. His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending? lol, you fail at reading comprehension. His point is that raising taking every penny from households above $250k wouldn't even cover this year's $3.7 trillion budget, let alone the $14 trillion debt. Where do you get that it would cover the debt? Are you just stupid with numbers, or with everything else too? And Warren Buffet's point is that the burden of reducing the deficit should be shared among all income levels, and not consist of spending cuts alone. Nowhere in his piece did he claim that taxing the rich would fix the $3.7 trillion defect, or the $14 trillion debt. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but don't misrepresent his views. As a side note Buffet realises, unlike many investors, that the time to buy something is when it's cheap, not when it's expensive.
What view am I misrepresenting? He wants to increase taxes. I ask what benefit would that give us?
Stanek's fourth point is also interesting: assuming he's right and the rich aren't paying their fair share (which is not true, but for the sake of argument, let's let that go for now) why doesn't he advocate lowering the tax burden on the not so rich?
Is it because half of US households pay no income tax, so it's literally impossible to lower it? Is it because Buffet wants his buddies in government, who gave some of his companies money and helped him get where he is, to get more of the people's money, rather than have the government take away less of the poor's money? Because Buffet realizes, unlike many investors, it's good to have the government on your side when making investments.
Probably a little bit of column a and a little bit of column b.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1257 Posts
On August 19 2011 17:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:
What view am I misrepresenting? He wants to increase taxes. I ask what benefit would that give us?
Yes, because if you can't pay ALL your debts in one go, then clearly it is not worth taking steps to try and change the status quo that results in accruing more and more debt every year.
Do you seriously not see the flaw in that logic? Yes even taxing the rich 100% of their income won't even cover the yearly debt. Noone, least of all buffet has claimed that it will. He is merely suggesting one of many ways in which the US could take to at least try to bring their budget closer to being in the black. Clearly other steps will be required in addition to this to even begin to pay back some of the massive debt, but pretty much no one reasonable change would do it by itself.
There may or may not be other reasons why taxing the rich more might be a bad idea, but to say it's a bad idea merely because it doesn't automatically stop the accrual of debt by itself is inherently... retarded?
|
On August 19 2011 17:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 17:33 ControlMonkey wrote:On August 19 2011 17:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 19 2011 15:18 Whitewing wrote:That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously. His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending? lol, you fail at reading comprehension. His point is that raising taking every penny from households above $250k wouldn't even cover this year's $3.7 trillion budget, let alone the $14 trillion debt. Where do you get that it would cover the debt? Are you just stupid with numbers, or with everything else too? And Warren Buffet's point is that the burden of reducing the deficit should be shared among all income levels, and not consist of spending cuts alone. Nowhere in his piece did he claim that taxing the rich would fix the $3.7 trillion defect, or the $14 trillion debt. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but don't misrepresent his views. As a side note Buffet realises, unlike many investors, that the time to buy something is when it's cheap, not when it's expensive. What view am I misrepresenting? He wants to increase taxes. I ask what benefit would that give us? Stanek's fourth point is also interesting: assuming he's right and the rich aren't paying their fair share (which is not true, but for the sake of argument, let's let that go for now) why doesn't he advocate lowering the tax burden on the not so rich? Is it because half of US households pay no income tax, so it's literally impossible to lower it? Is it because Buffet wants his buddies in government, who gave some of his companies money and helped him get where he is, to get more of the people's money, rather than have the government take away less of the poor's money? Because Buffet realizes, unlike many investors, it's good to have the government on your side when making investments. Probably a little bit of column a and a little bit of column b.
I'm sorry, you didn't misrepresent his views. I shouldn't have jumped on the OMG STRAWMAN bandwagon. but I do believe you are not getting his point. Near the end of his piece Buffet says that the first job to fix the deficit is to cut spending, and as most money goes to the poor, this is the same as raising taxes on the poor, at least from an economic/financial standpoint. He then says that the rich should pay more tax.
Sure the main point of the article is that the rich should pay more taxes, but he does so in the context of shared burden in deficit reduction. He doesn't propose tax hikes on the rich as a quick fix, he does so as a part of a larger deficit reduction plan.
As for his hypocrisy in taking advantage of the government during the 2008 crisis, if you had a mortgage in the last 40 years on the US then is was backed by the government. It's not as though only the rich benefited from the bailout, it was everyone who owns a home.
As for my personal opinion on the debt? As I'm not American I don't really have an opinion. But as a general rule high spending should be accompanied by high taxes and if those taxes are unacceptable then cut your spending along with hour taxes.
|
On August 19 2011 17:10 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 17:03 Sumsi wrote:On August 19 2011 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On the other hand, if you begin taxing these people on income and specific kinds of investments, while simultaneously lowering payroll taxes and adding incentives to hire full-time workers, maybe their "hate" for the government will guide them to spend their earnings on employees instead of themselves. "The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences So nothing should ever be done about complex systems ?
Would be a good idea when it comes to the economy. The worst thing is politicians trying to fix things.
|
On August 19 2011 18:36 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 17:10 mcc wrote:On August 19 2011 17:03 Sumsi wrote:On August 19 2011 16:05 aksfjh wrote:On the other hand, if you begin taxing these people on income and specific kinds of investments, while simultaneously lowering payroll taxes and adding incentives to hire full-time workers, maybe their "hate" for the government will guide them to spend their earnings on employees instead of themselves. "The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system always creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences So nothing should ever be done about complex systems ? Would be a good idea when it comes to the economy. The worst thing is politicians trying to fix things.
Yea, interfering with monopolies and injecting money to save markets are definitely things politicians have screwed up on. I mean, TARP cost us billions, and GM is as good as bankrupt these days, all because of those politicians trying to fix things! OH WAIT, those things actually worked really, really well.
I will concede that there are times when inaction is more desirable in order to gauge the success or failure of programs. However, that's about the only time you should take that stance.
|
On August 19 2011 17:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 17:33 ControlMonkey wrote:On August 19 2011 17:18 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On August 19 2011 15:18 Whitewing wrote:That article is so entirely stupid I can't even believe people would take that seriously. His first point is that raising taxes would cover the debt, therefore you should not do it, then one of his later points is that we could instead lower taxes on other people so that he pays more in comparison? Then he asks why Mr. Buffet doesn't waive his tax breaks (as if Mr. Buffet is every billionaire and could make the decision for all of them). Is the writer of this article a TOTAL RETARD or just pretending? lol, you fail at reading comprehension. His point is that raising taking every penny from households above $250k wouldn't even cover this year's $3.7 trillion budget, let alone the $14 trillion debt. Where do you get that it would cover the debt? Are you just stupid with numbers, or with everything else too? And Warren Buffet's point is that the burden of reducing the deficit should be shared among all income levels, and not consist of spending cuts alone. Nowhere in his piece did he claim that taxing the rich would fix the $3.7 trillion defect, or the $14 trillion debt. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but don't misrepresent his views. As a side note Buffet realises, unlike many investors, that the time to buy something is when it's cheap, not when it's expensive. What view am I misrepresenting? He wants to increase taxes. I ask what benefit would that give us? Stanek's fourth point is also interesting: assuming he's right and the rich aren't paying their fair share (which is not true, but for the sake of argument, let's let that go for now) why doesn't he advocate lowering the tax burden on the not so rich? Is it because half of US households pay no income tax, so it's literally impossible to lower it? Is it because Buffet wants his buddies in government, who gave some of his companies money and helped him get where he is, to get more of the people's money, rather than have the government take away less of the poor's money? Because Buffet realizes, unlike many investors, it's good to have the government on your side when making investments. Probably a little bit of column a and a little bit of column b.
Are you really that dense, it was said many times already. He wants to increase taxes to lower the deficit. Lowering it is better than not in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
