Increase my taxes, says Warren Buffett

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Buffett (and his buddy Gates) are in the process of giving billions of dollars away, much of it to eliminate deadly diseases in third world countries. This is very commedable. My question is why Warren, feeling as he does) doesn't give the money to the government for similar programs? I think it is likely that he does not think giving it to the government is anywhere near as efficient of a way to accomplish the same goal.

Also, for better or worse, he avoids paying taxes on his capital gains by transferring them to this trust.

I'll put more stock in what Warren says when he starts walking the walk.

So which of the big three (defense, socsec, medicare) do you think realistically can be cut? All the other "welfare" programs that the tea party idiots talk whine about amount to peanuts by comparison.

You missed the point entirely.

For the record, I'm in favor of cuts in all three areas.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

A tax hike creates $500 million in additional revenue.
Some congressional bozos use that increase as reason to push through a few expansions of existing programs and/or new programs which total $750 million.

What? this NEVER happens

we need to follow the professor's philosophy of "don't try, what's the point"

Instead of sniping, why not tell us where YOU would make the cuts that make additional revenues unnecessary? With actual numbers, not tea party hot air.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Buffett (and his buddy Gates) are in the process of giving billions of dollars away, much of it to eliminate deadly diseases in third world countries. This is very commedable. My question is why Warren, feeling as he does) doesn't give the money to the government for similar programs? I think it is likely that he does not think giving it to the government is anywhere near as efficient of a way to accomplish the same goal.

Also, for better or worse, he avoids paying taxes on his capital gains by transferring them to this trust.

I'll put more stock in what Warren says when he starts walking the walk.

So which of the big three (defense, socsec, medicare) do you think realistically can be cut? All the other "welfare" programs that the tea party idiots talk whine about amount to peanuts by comparison.

You missed the point entirely.

For the record, I'm in favor of cuts in all three areas.

You may be in favor of motherhood and apple pie too, but seem to have missed the critical adverb "realistically".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

we need to follow the professor's philosophy of "don't try, what's the point"

Instead of sniping, why not tell us where YOU would make the cuts that make additional revenues unnecessary? With actual numbers, not tea party hot air.

Did you not say you "realistically" can't cut these three areas?

I believe we can. and should. all three. we crack one, and then none of them are sacred cows any more.

Why don't you tell your friends here that you can't cut military and see if they support it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

we need to follow the professor's philosophy of "don't try, what's the point"

Instead of sniping, why not tell us where YOU would make the cuts that make additional revenues unnecessary? With actual numbers, not tea party hot air.

Did you not say you "realistically" can't cut these three areas?

I believe we can. and should. all three. we crack one, and then none of them are sacred cows any more.

Why don't you tell your friends here that you can't cut military and see if they support it.

So you don't have any real proposal, with numbers. Fine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

we need to follow the professor's philosophy of "don't try, what's the point"

Instead of sniping, why not tell us where YOU would make the cuts that make additional revenues unnecessary? With actual numbers, not tea party hot air.

Did you not say you "realistically" can't cut these three areas?

I believe we can. and should. all three. we crack one, and then none of them are sacred cows any more.

Why don't you tell your friends here that you can't cut military and see if they support it.

So you don't have any real proposal, with numbers. Fine.

Here's a thread with a link that lets one pick and choose some of the taxes and/or some of the gov't programs to cut or increase to see what effect it'd have on the debt.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3998173;page=unread#unread

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

no one is going to voluntarily send in their money

Warren Buffett seems to be willing.

Quote

the programs that the people need and want.

Maybe we should only have programs that are needed and not wanted. Everyone wants ice cream... The problem is when some people want only the "others" to pay for it.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Every other war in this nations history has had taxes raised to support it. By not doing so W and his boys screwed the pooch!!!

And now Obama and his boys did it. They kept the tax cuts, so now they own them.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I am AMAZED there are so many here in SC from the right wing that are so successful and are making in excess of $250K a year that they worry about all this over the top taxation they are are so jacked off about.

So the only people that should be for gay rights are gay people?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

no one is going to voluntarily send in their money

Warren Buffett seems to be willing.

No, he doesn't.

He sends all that money to charities and causes of his choice. He wasted all that money instead of donating to the US Treasury like he wants everyone else to do.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

No, he doesn't.

Well he "seems" to be willing. He says he should pay more. In practice he is not willing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

No, he doesn't.

Well he "seems" to be willing. He says he should pay more. In practice he is not willing.

He's a typical elite - (donning mind reading helmet here) he thinks that sending money to charities of HIS CHOICE is equivalent to making others send money to the government. ==> his false assumption is that the government will spend like he does and that his model is the correct one. Arrogance at its worst. "if only we could force all the wrong people to give it all to the government where it would get spent like I would - the right people"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

no one is going to voluntarily send in their money - that is why we need government to oversee the country and provide for (and fund) the programs that the people need and want.

Obviously this statement is untrue. Here we apparently have Warren Buffet voluntarily offering to send in his money. The truth is that there is incentive for people to voluntarily pay for the things they want and/or use. Do you want milk? Do we need the government to collect taxes and supply everyone with milk? What about anything else you might want or use? Most people will understand that when you are in the market for something (whatever that may be), you are more likely to get a better quality, price, or service, when there is competition for your business (consumption). Why is it that the products/services people rate as most important (health care, education, police, etc.) are the same ones that most people seem to think must be run by the government? Government limits competition, so you don't get the best quality, service or price. Take the police for example, their purpose is to solve crimes and catch criminals. The government has a monopoly on police services. Do you think you get the best quality, price, or service, form the current policing system? Currently the police get their funding based on crime levels; the more crime, the more money the police say they need. So there exists an monetary incentive for the police to have high rates of crime (but below the level to prevent public outrage). The police do not get paid/funding based on how well of a job they do solving crimes or catching criminals; they do not worry about losing market share to competition with private organizations because of government regulation.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

no one is going to voluntarily send in their money - that is why we need government to oversee the country and provide for (and fund) the programs that the people need and want.

Obviously this statement is untrue. Here we apparently have Warren Buffet voluntarily offering to send in his money.

uh, no, there is a difference between "offering" and actually doing it. He could easily do it on his tax return if he actually wanted to. He instead would rather send it to Gates Foundation where he has more say on what it gets spent on. Other billionaires just keep the money.