|
On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote:
Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
This is the stupid, simple-minded shit that's being fed to most kids in Econ 101. This is not how the economy or the world works at all. The middle and working class CARRY the economy on their bent backs. They are the one who are working in terrible environments for shit wages. The entire fucking system depends on them delivering basic services for very low wages, whether it is washing dishes for McDonalds or picking fruit for you to eat. Why the fuck do you think the Feds keep lowering interest rates on savings to near ZERO? Because they WANT you to spend every fucking penny you make. That's how the economy gets "stimulated" and how you get "growth".
Are you really going to blame the poor for spending money they earned? Seriously?
|
On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote:
Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
You do realize that the market is driven largely by consumer confidence. Look at the reports on the confidence index and compare it to the ups and downs of the stock market. Consumption is the backbone of the american economy, not stock market investments, derivative products or capital gains in general.
When the rich save money, they save money by investing in bonds, stocks etc. When the poor save money they spend it on things like food, clothing and rent. One reduces the flow of money in the system, the other increases the flow of money. Can you guess which is which?
And finally i hope you realize that is through government spending that we have this wonderful internet thingy. And highways. And gas to fill your cars. Satellite tv. Private companies don't spend on long term foundational research (most of them anyways), DOE, DOD, NSF, NIH, NASA does.
|
On August 20 2011 09:51 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 15:15 crms wrote: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? There is nothing wrong with that. Warren Buffet is just not telling you the complete truth. he gets most of his money from capital gains which is taxed at 15% and he has his own business so he can write off as much of his expenses as possible. Every person in america over the age of 18 can own their own business, even if it is just a name, by doing so you can make most of your expenses tax free and that is the other big break for people like warren buffet. You should get a business license and start investing in the stock market, then you can reduce your tax rate to below 17.4% simply by being in a different tax bracket.
Okay.
On August 14 2011 Warren Buffet wrote:
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains.
Emphasis mine. He is not trying to pull a fast one with public opinion. He notes that a notable proportion of his peers get income only from investments.
|
Capitalism (the economic system) thrives on the systematic exploitation of wage labor by the bourgeoisie. Macrosociology 101 teaches that, no matter what perspective you're being taught from.
|
The middle and working class CARRY the economy on their bent backs.
is it their cars or televisions that is causing so much back strain?
anyway im unconvinced that government would not find a way to spend even more no matter what the level of taxation on any class.
asking us to "stop coddling" the rich is just a smokescreen to create the impression that raising taxes on the rich will solve our problems, we'll be able to get the deficit in order and pay for the experiment of obamacare if those plutocrats give their "fair" share.
it's not true of course, the only way to keep spending at a moderately reduced rate from current levels is to raise taxes on the middle class.
if you want to soak just the rich and not have trillion-dollar deficits, obamacare and big chunks of the welfare state would have to disappear. soak everybody and you can keep it up a while longer. not forever of course.
|
|
|
Watch these videos for the next 11 months and learn something about the actual facts here. Or don't, and continue getting your "information" from murdoch.
Doesn't Jon Stewart like to say he's a comedian not a political pundit
Oh well it's all the same anyway politics is theater
Anyway soak the rich and watch the wealth fly like the wind out of the country. China and India and others will love to take the money and spend it to improve their countries with a profit for the investors. John Galt is an investor with friends in Shangai and New Delhi.
|
On August 20 2011 10:24 chenchen wrote:
Guys, guys . . .think of it this way . . .the rich invest or save a much much larger share of their income and wealth . . providing capital to create new wealth.
If you cut taxes on the poor, they'd just end up spending it.
This shit has to be like . . calculated out to ensure the best possible economic health of the country and the government.
Dude lol, people spending money is exactly what makes the economy run. If people dont spend, how will businesses make money? Economics 101, spending/consumption allows businesses to bloom. Investing can mean businesses get the capital to expand, but whats the point of expanding if people dont spend money on their services/products? Both investing and spending are key to economic growth
|
On August 20 2011 14:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Watch these videos for the next 11 months and learn something about the actual facts here. Or don't, and continue getting your "information" from murdoch. Doesn't Jon Stewart like to say he's a comedian not a political pundit Oh well it's all the same anyway politics is theater Anyway soak the rich and watch the wealth fly like the wind out of the country. China and India and others will love to take the money and spend it to improve their countries with a profit for the investors. John Galt is an investor with friends in Shangai and New Delhi.
Yes, but whatever he says he is, if hes speaking the truth its best not to ignore it.
Dont only judge the source, judge the content as well
|
On August 20 2011 14:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Watch these videos for the next 11 months and learn something about the actual facts here. Or don't, and continue getting your "information" from murdoch. Doesn't Jon Stewart like to say he's a comedian not a political pundit Oh well it's all the same anyway politics is theater Anyway soak the rich and watch the wealth fly like the wind out of the country. China and India and others will love to take the money and spend it to improve their countries with a profit for the investors. John Galt is an investor with friends in Shangai and New Delhi.
Ah yeah the same old Fox meme. Stewart is a comedian and his breath of knowledge (and his writer's) is a 100 times better than Fox news. And apparently a billion times better than yours.
Or you know you could listen to Buffet, who is an actual investor. Or perhaps Krugman who has a nobel prize in economics. But lets instead listen to Ann Coulter, because clearly she is a genius.
|
Dude lol, people spending money is exactly what makes the economy run. If people dont spend, how will businesses make money? Economics 101, spending/consumption allows businesses to bloom. Investing can mean businesses get the capital to expand, but whats the point of expanding if people dont spend money on their services/products? Both investing and spending are key to economic growth
the point is consumer spending alone isn't going to save the economy there is not much investment in the kinds of enterprises that create middle-class jobs outside of the medical-tech behemoth. low-cost consumer spending - walmart, fast food - isn't going to do the job.
people with capital dont want to spend it in a new enterprise in a shaky economy when the mega ultra rich like warren buffett talk about raising taxes. warren buffett could have a 200% income tax rate and never be able to spend all his money still, he'd shift his assets around and keep his yearly income relatively small. "rich" people making 200K to 1 million a year trying to support businesses - not investment portfolios - cant afford warren buffett offering their money to the gubbiment.
Yes, but whatever he says he is, if hes speaking the truth its best not to ignore it.
Dont only judge the source, judge the content as well
i do judge it against what i think are the fundamental truths of the situation and jon stewart doesnt scour, the numbers we're talking about are so gigantic that no amount of pathos can cover it.
Ah yeah the same old Fox meme. Stewart is a comedian and his breath of knowledge (and his writer's) is a 100 times better than Fox news. And apparently a billion times better than yours.
Or you know you could listen to Buffet, who is an actual investor. Or perhaps Krugman who has a nobel prize in economics. But lets instead listen to Ann Coulter, because clearly she is a genius
well that just seems to be some kind of angry generalization based on tribal identification
[insult about MSNBC here]
just take a look at the numbers and tell me the government can fix its books just by soaking the rich and that doing so wont cause a contraction in businesses not hooked up to the government gravy train. that's no way to build a modern middle class.
|
On August 20 2011 14:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
warren buffett could have a 200% income tax rate and never be able to spend all his money still, he'd shift his assets around and keep his yearly income relatively small. "rich" people making 200K to 1 million a year trying to support businesses - not investment portfolios - cant afford warren buffett offering their money to the gubbiment.
"rich" people is a strawman, Buffett constantly talks about the "mega-rich" or "super-rich." He specifically mentions people bringing in over $1 and $10 million a year, while giving a break to the middle class. He suggests raising more than the income tax with respect to that group (since it's not as relevant); that is, he wants to farm what their income actually is, not suggest an income tax that will obliterate the middle class.
|
Why would you think I would care about an insult to MSNBC. Maybe if you said Democracy Now, I might take notice. I would insult MSNBC right alongside you. They are a bunch of whackjob nutless corporate shills. They fired the only honest person on their channel (Cenk) and replaced him by someone who promised never to criticize the president. Corporate shills for democrats or corporate shills for wacko fox news, one is a little bit better, but its like the difference between dog shit and goat shit. They both stink.
|
just take a look at the numbers and tell me the government can fix its books just by soaking the rich and that doing so wont cause a contraction in businesses not hooked up to the government gravy train. that's no way to build a modern middle class.
Last edit: 2011-08-20 14:17:39
Take a look at the numbers and tell me that the government could do anything by not taxing the rich at all. Hmm I wonder who it was that caused this economic mess. Damn those poor people buying CDOs and CDS. And then marking the securities up as AAA and insuring them so that each dollar was insured for 10 times the amount. Damn you poor people!
Incidentally what business aren't hooked up to this mythical government gravy train. Media uses government funded infrastructure for broadcast or government funded backhaul for ip traffic. Oil companies use government subsidies for exploration as well as exploitation. Retail giants use government funded highways to move their goods around. IT business use government funded internet to move their bits around. Not to mention the government funded protection they get from hackers, thieves and terrorists. And government supported foreign deals that make them a bundle which the tax payers never sees a dime of.
Please tell me more about these mythical independent businesses?
|
"rich" people is a strawman, Buffett constantly talks about the "mega-rich" or "super-rich." He specifically mentions people bringing in over $1 and $10 million a year, while giving a break to the middle class. He suggests raising more than the income tax with respect to that group (since it's not as relevant); that is, he wants to farm what their income actually is, not suggest an income tax that will obliterate the middle class.
still not possible to finance all of washington's schemes on just the backs of the "mega-rich" or whatever classification you want to make. also no way to stimulate meaningful economic growth, government needs to spend money on infrastructure that invites people to gather economic activity utilizing it. which we are not doing. and we dont need trillion dollar deficits to build infrastructure and fund basic research
Why would you think I would care about an insult to MSNBC. Maybe if you said Democracy Now, I might take notice. I would insult MSNBC right alongside you. They are a bunch of whackjob nutless corporate shills. They fired the only honest person on their channel (Cenk) and replaced him by someone who promised never to criticize the president. Corporate shills for democrats or corporate shills for wacko fox news, one is a little bit better, but its like the difference between dog shit and goat shit. They both stink.
alright well to be honest what really stinks to me is this combination of technocracy and socialist political structure that is the "progressive" movement today.
i will say that holding the thought in your head that cleaning up government can be accomplished while expanding the purse and power of government simultaneously as possible is idealistic, at least.
Take a look at the numbers and tell me that the government could do anything by not taxing the rich at all. Hmm I wonder who it was that caused this economic mess. Damn those poor people buying CDOs and CDS. And then marking the securities up as AAA and insuring them so that each dollar was insured for 10 times the amount. Damn you poor people!
Government and business each did several things wrong that led to the financial crisis
Both promoted risky mortgages backed up by promises of air
Both were happy with their profits and home ownership levels respectively
But anyway your retort is meaningless talking about how the government couldn't do anything at all without taxes is irrelevant to me, I'm not talking about unreasonably low taxation in my view. I want reasonable taxation with reasonable spending, and the government is not entitled to higher taxation if its spending is not reasonable
Incidentally what business aren't hooked up to this mythical government gravy train. Media uses government funded infrastructure for broadcast or government funded backhaul for ip traffic. Oil companies use government subsidies for exploration as well as exploitation. Retail giants use government funded highways to move their goods around. IT business use government funded internet to move their bits around. Not to mention the government funded protection they get from hackers, thieves and terrorists. And government supported foreign deals that make them a bundle which the tax payers never sees a dime of.
Please tell me more about these mythical independent businesses?
The small companies that account for about half of national employment
It's a little ridiculous you say that it's mythical then talk about what industries are connected to it imo maybe that was a typo
crony capitalism isnt real capitalism and thats what got us into this mess
|
On August 20 2011 14:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +"rich" people is a strawman, Buffett constantly talks about the "mega-rich" or "super-rich." He specifically mentions people bringing in over $1 and $10 million a year, while giving a break to the middle class. He suggests raising more than the income tax with respect to that group (since it's not as relevant); that is, he wants to farm what their income actually is, not suggest an income tax that will obliterate the middle class. still not possible to finance all of washington's schemes on just the backs of the "mega-rich" or whatever classification you want to make. also no way to stimulate meaningful economic growth, government needs to spend money on infrastructure that invites people to gather economic activity utilizing it. which we are not doing. and we dont need trillion dollar deficits to build infrastructure and fund basic research
I don't think it is correct to assert that Buffett's suggestion is the one-and-only solution to the problem, but merely a piece of it. So I think you are right in that it would have to be a part of broader actions that take place from both the tax reform, and expenditure sides of the equation. In this case, I think oBlade was just pointing out that Buffet specifically mentioned the very wealthy, as an earlier post you made some assertion about taxing people beginning at the $200,000 mark. A number that seems to have been pulled from a hat, as I don't remember this number in Buffett's comments, but I agree it would be dangerous to decimate the middle class, if such a thing exists anymore.
|
He never said it was a comprehensive solution to all of everyone's problems, ever. Even if you didn't read Buffett's actual piece, you should have found it in the OP that he only talks about sharing the burden/shared sacrifice.
Other people in this thread have noted that fixing the debt is not something that need be attacked from only one end. That is, fixing the structure of taxes and fixing spending aren't exclusive.
|
honestly there is no single good answer for anything. hell, there are so many factors to the economy i doubt anyone really knows a definitive answer to our economic problems. democrats will propose tax hikes on the rich while republicans will say tax cuts and decreased spending are the key. Nothing is that simple, but politicians know that the average voter will only be able to process 10 second talking points
its unfortunate that most people dont care enough to do their own research
|
On August 20 2011 14:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +"rich" people is a strawman, Buffett constantly talks about the "mega-rich" or "super-rich." He specifically mentions people bringing in over $1 and $10 million a year, while giving a break to the middle class. He suggests raising more than the income tax with respect to that group (since it's not as relevant); that is, he wants to farm what their income actually is, not suggest an income tax that will obliterate the middle class. still not possible to finance all of washington's schemes on just the backs of the "mega-rich" or whatever classification you want to make. also no way to stimulate meaningful economic growth, government needs to spend money on infrastructure that invites people to gather economic activity utilizing it. which we are not doing. and we dont need trillion dollar deficits to build infrastructure and fund basic research
He doesn't say that we're going to balance the budget just on the backs of the super rich. Nobody has ever said that to my knowledge, and it's a common attack that doesn't make any sense. Of course we aren't going to balance the budget with just revenues, but to make only cuts without these revenues is stupid. Buffet is making the case that taxing the super rich needs to be part of the solution. Millionaires don't need hand outs. I do agree with the second part of your post, about government needing to spend money on infrastructure but not trillion dollar deficits. Military cuts will go a long way toward reducing those deficits, among other things of course.
|
He doesn't say that we're going to balance the budget just on the backs of the super rich. Nobody has ever said that to my knowledge, and it's a common attack that doesn't make any sense. Of course we aren't going to balance the budget with just revenues, but to make only cuts without these revenues is stupid. Buffet is making the case that taxing the super rich needs to be part of the solution. Millionaires don't need hand outs. I do agree with the second part of your post, about government needing to spend money on infrastructure but not trillion dollar deficits. Military cuts will go a long way toward reducing those deficits, among other things of course.
Millionaires don't need handouts - this isn't how the economy has ever worked, no major industry survives without significant help from the government, which is a problem but higher taxes isn't going to fix it
Military cuts are a fantasy unfortunately, not with China around
I also don't know how it doesn't make any sense since the number one promise from the president and men like warren buffett is that taxes on the middle class simply won't be increased
impossible to bring the deficit to bush 2 average levels and keep increasing spending without tapping the huge pool of middle class taxpayers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
