|
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.
You know that the guy you quoted and agreed with said the exact opposite ? 
|
On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least.
You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes.
Not as a percentage of total taxes paid.
|
This guy is not an imbecile.
No, he's just a presumptuous ass.
He can send money above and beyond what he's charged in taxes if his poor widdle heart feels that he's not being forced to give enough already.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/screw-the-rich-heres-how/2011/08/16/gIQA9fOXIJ_print.html
Then I figured it out. As I wrote then, the super rich won’t mind at all if we “tax the rich” as it’s currently defined. That’s because people who are super rich don’t really pay taxes. They pay taxes on this year’s income, and capital gains on accumulated wealth. But the only “tax” that can ever touch what they’ve already made is inflation.
That’s why a man worth $47 billion dollars can pay just $6,938,744 in federal income taxes and not be accused of a crime. In fact, he can boast about how little he pays, and ask to be charged even more.
That man is Warren Buffett. And his article in today’s NY Times, titled “Stop Coddling The Super Rich” is a huge pile of manipulative garbage.
The super rich love to talk about higher taxes on the rich because it’s a competitive barrier protecting them from competition. If the people making a lot of money today have to pay much higher taxes, they probably won’t ever accumulate enough wealth to be “super rich."
Warrent Buffett would love income taxes to be raised on the "rich" because most of his "income" can't be touched by the "income tax." Oh look at him he's so patriotic and willing to sacrifice for his country! No, not really. He's willing to make you think what a fine selfless fellow he is and get even more chummy with the current Administration than he is. So much for government and corporations (like Berkshire-Hathaway) not being in bed together.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Warren-Buffett-Stands-to-Gain-from-Higher-Taxes-on-the-Rich/(comment)/191203
Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports
Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.
Buffett Profits from Government Spending
Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.
If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
Nouveau riche and crony capitalist don't even begin to describe men like Warren Buffett.
|
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.
Yeah... and look at all the pollution, corruption, etc. that exists in China. Most of the Chinese population continues to live in poverty and where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer....
|
the lack of disrespect for Mr. Buffet and Gates is disturbing...
:/
|
On August 17 2011 07:02 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx 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 Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. 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. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL 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. whether you find his actions good or not, do you think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment? That's what this thread is about...
I don't think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment. The top 1% currently pays about as much as 95% of the population. The over-under fluctuates from year to year, in 2008, they paid more than 95% of the population. So, my point is, how much is enough ? What exactly is their fair share ? We simply can't ever answer that question because there is currently no limit to government spending. As long as politicians get in there with a blank check mentality, and in fact gain power with their constituents by spending even more, then government spending will spiral out of control. So, the answer is always to have the rich pay more ? That's just stupid. How much is enough ? There should be some concept of a limit on how much the government should be spending, and it should be based on a % of GDP or whatever measure ties it to the strength of the economy. Then, and only then, can we figure out who should pay how much. Until then, simply raising taxes on the rich is not an acceptable solution because the politicians will simply spend even more and we'll need to raise taxes more.
|
On August 17 2011 07:04 Rybka wrote:
1980-2000, possibly the best era of financial and business prosperity in the United States, covers 4 administrations.
1 year of Jimmy Carter (20 days)
8 years of Ronald Regan (8 years)
4 years of George Bush Sr. (4 years)
8 years of Bill Clinton. (7 years, 345 days)
In total, that's 8 years of Democrats and 12 years of Republicans.
I find it interesting how you have morphed that analysis into an argument against the Republican establishment. It's not at all, and I'm amazed that you call 2 op-ed pieces "firing back." When arguably the most successful investor in the history of the world takes a bold and controversial stance on the major issues of the day, people can and will weigh in.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. I agree with Buffet, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but let's not stick this to one party. The Dems have just as much to do with the current situation we are in (financial crisis, exploding executive reimbursements, shaky banks) as the GOP.
P.S. Buffet has already pledged away many of his billions of dollars upon his death. In the meantime, he will continue to manage this money because (honestly) nobody else can do it better.
You're entirely correct. I did not mean to spare the Democrats any contempt. If anything, I only highlighted the Republicans because they were the party of my youth and the party whose social policy seemed to be more in line with my own. So I felt betrayed when I realized the truth, and my bitterness toward them for that is pretty strong.
|
On August 17 2011 06:57 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:50 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote: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? He has pledged to give away roughly $30 billion dollars when he dies. Do a little research before you talk please. Most of that will be tax free. That means he is cheating the government in billions of dollars in estate taxes by giving it to a charity. The proper question is, if Buffet feels that his taxes are too low, why doesn't he just donate the proper amount to the IRS?
What the fuck is the point of this? How the fuck does this make any sense at all? HE IS GOING TO BE DEAD, NOT EVADING TAXES.
I'll never understand shit like this..
I see this way too often on TL lately..someone airs an opinion or side of a debate and the responses frequently "Then why don't YOU do...!" "Then YOU don't have to..."
It's moronic. It isn't groundbreaking thought that hasn't occured to Buffet, I'm sure, or any other person looking for DISCUSSION.
|
On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx 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 Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. 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.
Death taxes aren't avoidable through charity.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:02 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx 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 Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. 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. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL 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. whether you find his actions good or not, do you think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment? That's what this thread is about... I don't think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment. The top 1% currently pays about as much as 95% of the population. The over-under fluctuates from year to year, in 2008, they paid more than 95% of the population. So, my point is, how much is enough ? What exactly is their fair share ? We simply can't ever answer that question because there is currently no limit to government spending. As long as politicians get in there with a blank check mentality, and in fact gain power with their constituents by spending even more, then government spending will spiral out of control. So, the answer is always to have the rich pay more ? That's just stupid. How much is enough ? There should be some concept of a limit on how much the government should be spending, and it should be based on a % of GDP or whatever measure ties it to the strength of the economy. Then, and only then, can we figure out who should pay how much. Until then, simply raising taxes on the rich is not an acceptable solution because the politicians will simply spend even more and we'll need to raise taxes more.
A fair share is a reasonable portion based on their total wealth/income, which everyone pays. Low and Middle class families pay a significant amount of their money to the government, rich people do not pay a significant amount of their money. That's not fair, that's coddling. Warren Buffett is 100% correct, and the fun fact is, that these rich people won't have a huge lifestyle drop as a result of increased taxes. They'll still be super rich.
|
On August 17 2011 07:10 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:02 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:00 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:48 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 06:43 xXFireandIceXx 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 Oh my god. He's donating his money already. And he's donating 99% of his wealth when he dies. He's talking about what he thinks would benefit the US as a nation. Stop acting like he's some selfish man, cuz he's not. 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. So your argument is that he's selfish because he's giving away 99% of his wealth? LOL 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. whether you find his actions good or not, do you think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment? That's what this thread is about... I don't think he has a point that rich people in the US should pay more taxes than they do at the moment. The top 1% currently pays about as much as 95% of the population. The over-under fluctuates from year to year, in 2008, they paid more than 95% of the population. So, my point is, how much is enough ? What exactly is their fair share ? We simply can't ever answer that question because there is currently no limit to government spending. As long as politicians get in there with a blank check mentality, and in fact gain power with their constituents by spending even more, then government spending will spiral out of control. So, the answer is always to have the rich pay more ? That's just stupid. How much is enough ? There should be some concept of a limit on how much the government should be spending, and it should be based on a % of GDP or whatever measure ties it to the strength of the economy. Then, and only then, can we figure out who should pay how much. Until then, simply raising taxes on the rich is not an acceptable solution because the politicians will simply spend even more and we'll need to raise taxes more.
Why not have everyone pay the same amount as a percentage of the money they earn? Whether it's income tax or capital gains or some other form of wealth. Isn't that fair?
|
On August 17 2011 07:04 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +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. Oh great, he gives all his money to other billionaire who is known to want to reduce population, supports the global warming scam and keeps all his money in a charity foundation so it can't be taxed. Ooo this Warren Buffett guy must be an angel in disguise, supporting Bil Gates another mega rich in his global warming scam and population reduction. I hate these hypocrites who put all their money in these supposed "charity" organizations and go on teach small children around the world about population control. And best of all, those billions of dollars can't be taxes since they've transferred all their money into tax exempt non profit organizations.
I don't totally follow, you're blaming Warren Buffett because he'll give more money to Gates' foundation, which helps the impoverished. What's wrong with population control? I don't think the answer to poverty is to keep reproducing with impunity so there are more people in suffering. According to Christopher Hitchens, the empowerment of women to stop being simple baby factories and have control over how many children they birth is a cornerstone of stopping the vicious cycle of poverty.
|
On August 17 2011 07:12 LEGAsee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:57 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote: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? He has pledged to give away roughly $30 billion dollars when he dies. Do a little research before you talk please. Most of that will be tax free. That means he is cheating the government in billions of dollars in estate taxes by giving it to a charity. The proper question is, if Buffet feels that his taxes are too low, why doesn't he just donate the proper amount to the IRS? What the fuck is the point of this? How the fuck does this make any sense at all? HE IS GOING TO BE DEAD, NOT EVADING TAXES. I'll never understand shit like this.. I see this way too often on TL lately..someone airs an opinion or side of a debate and the responses frequently "Then why don't YOU do...!" "Then YOU don't have to..." It's moronic. It isn't groundbreaking thought that hasn't occured to Buffet, I'm sure, or any other person looking for DISCUSSION.
You get taxed when you die.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid.
And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes.
|
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.
i can't believe people really believe that bullshit.
wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that.
|
On August 17 2011 07:12 LEGAsee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 06:57 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 06:44 Megatronn wrote: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? He has pledged to give away roughly $30 billion dollars when he dies. Do a little research before you talk please. Most of that will be tax free. That means he is cheating the government in billions of dollars in estate taxes by giving it to a charity. The proper question is, if Buffet feels that his taxes are too low, why doesn't he just donate the proper amount to the IRS? What the fuck is the point of this? How the fuck does this make any sense at all? HE IS GOING TO BE DEAD, NOT EVADING TAXES. I'll never understand shit like this.. I see this way too often on TL lately..someone airs an opinion or side of a debate and the responses frequently "Then why don't YOU do...!" "Then YOU don't have to..." It's moronic. It isn't groundbreaking thought that hasn't occured to Buffet, I'm sure, or any other person looking for DISCUSSION.
So I take it you're against the death tax?
|
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.
Lowering taxes does not mean the corporations will hire people here.
As technology progresses, less people are needed to do the same job. Plus, since it's becoming a global economy, Asia has an untapped market so they stay close to the consumer.
The fact of the matter is lowering taxes for corporations won't bring back jobs. We need to close tax loops and exploits in the system that will generate wealth for the US. Also fair trade and competitive wages around the world would also help.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 07:14 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:09 BuddhaMonk wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. You have some reading comprehension issues. As a percentage of what they earn, the rich pay the least amount in taxes. Not as a percentage of total taxes paid. And your point? We have a progressive tax system anyway so the richer you are the more you pay in taxes.
please read the article ...
warren buffet pays 17% taxes while people in his office (earinge less) pay on average 30% taxes.
Thats not progressive ... thats broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
