Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super rich

[mirage62 0]

Quote

But the way out of this problem is to cut spending drastically and raise taxes drastically.

Nope.

The FIRST thing that has to happen is that the people that are "rich" who are being ask to pay EVEN MORE have to believe that the new taxes will be used to pay down the debt.

This could be done two ways:

Put in the spending cuts THEN raise taxes, but they have to be spending cuts on the current budget NOT the raises that are built in.

Balanced budget admendment.

I know it's the chicken before the egg....but who believes in the gov ability to cut spending. I would be glad to pay more taxes IF I thought it would really make a difference.

It won't so therefore I don't want to give them more of my money.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Taxable income for millionaires and billionaires last year was a little over 600 billion. Even if they take all of it, it's not going to solve Obama's USA's spending problem. The federal government has a spending problem, big time.

STRAWMAN. No-one suggested it would solve the USA's spending problem.

...

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

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

like a baby discovering its toes, Congress has discovered the deficit. And the plain fact is that unless you want to commit political suicide and cut Medicare to the bone — as Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., budget plan would do — the best way to seriously address long-term deficits is to get control of health care costs through a single-payer plan.

In 2008, when health care costs amounted to "only" 16 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, Great Britain was spending 8.7 percent of its GDP on health care, and Canada was spending 10.4 percent. Both nations have single-payer plans. Quality of care scores in both nations are at least comparable, and in most cases, better.

Eventually, the United States will have a single-payer plan. But we'll waste a lot of money and time getting there.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/14-3

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 2,998]

>Nope. The FIRST thing that has to happen is that the people that are "rich"
>who are being ask to pay EVEN MORE have to believe that the new taxes will
> be used to pay down the debt.

?? They won't. Even a massive tax increase will only zero out the deficit; that's why they are needed. It will take an economic recovery to start paying off the debt.

>This could be done two ways:
>Put in the spending cuts THEN raise taxes, but they have to be spending cuts
>on the current budget NOT the raises that are built in.

That's happened; we just passed a bill that cuts over $900 billion in spending over ten years. So I imagine you are OK with a similar bill that raises future taxes over ten years?

>Balanced budget admendment.

That's a mistake as currently proposed. Revenues go down when the economy falters, and goes up when the economy does well. An amendment that would require taxes to be increased during poor economic times, and only allowed cuts during boom times, would worsen the severity of recessions.

Keep in mind that we got here because we cut taxes too much and spent too much during the "good times" - and now that the economy is bad, we can't easily raise them again (and cutting stimulus will of course slow the recovery.) A balanced budget amendment would force us to do that.

>It won't so therefore I don't want to give them more of my money.

OK. And the other side says "I don't want any cuts in critical programs until I see the rich willing to help out the country that allowed them to be rich." Until one side moves, nothing will change.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Taxable income for millionaires and billionaires last year was a little over 600 billion. Even if they take all of it, it's not going to solve Obama's USA's spending problem. The federal government has a spending problem, big time.

STRAWMAN. No-one suggested it would solve the USA's spending problem.

They fail to realize that a dollar begins with one penny, then another, and another, and so on... The only way to get to the goal of a dollar is to not spend more pennies than what is coming in. If you get only two pennies a day, you do not spend three pennies a day. You can spend one penny a day and still reach the goal of a dollar and be solvent. Now, a penny is not much, yet to reach the goal of a dollar, every penny counts. To forget about the penny, we'll never reach the goal of solvency.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[lawrocket 3]

Can you imagin how it would be if there were more millionaires and billionaires to tax at a lower rate?

If the problem is not enough moneu from the wealthy then shouldn't we be trying to help create more wealthy people? I would imagine that the dreamdancers of the world would hate that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

But but but....rich people BAAAAAAD!!!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Channman 2]

Quote

>One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying
>enough but want do a damn thing about it.

Better. IMO, than a cheese eating weasel who wants to benefit from all the US has to offer - but doesn't want to pay for any of it.

I 100 percent agree with you. Now if we could get the other 48-51 percent of those who pay nothing to share in the scrifice as the rest of us...we would all have skin in the game as the big O would say.

[billvon 2,998]

>Now if we could get the other 48-51 percent of those who pay nothing to share in the
>scrifice as the rest of us...

Well, they do of course pay taxes (property, sales, gas etc etc.) But if you mean federal income taxes, sure, that's fine, tax em a few percent. It won't do anything, of course; 2% of $12,000 is $240, and if even 50% of the taxpayers out there pony up the additional money that's about $16 billion, or about 1.2% of our deficit.

But if it will make right wingers feel better that they're sticking it to those low income people, and if it actually enables them to make rational compromises - then go for it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But if it will make right wingers feel better that they're sticking it to those low income people, and if it actually enables them to make rational compromises - then go for it.

Nice spin - it's the DEMS that want to put the tax increases in.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Now if we could get the other 48-51 percent of those who pay nothing to share in the
>scrifice as the rest of us...

Well, they do of course pay taxes (property, sales, gas etc etc.) But if you mean federal income taxes, sure, that's fine, tax em a few percent. It won't do anything, of course; 2% of $12,000 is $240, and if even 50% of the taxpayers out there pony up the additional money that's about $16 billion, or about 1.2% of our deficit.

But if it will make right wingers feel better that they're sticking it to those low income people, and if it actually enables them to make rational compromises - then go for it.

Right Winger, sticking it to low income people. Damn, about 30 years ago I was one of them Low income people.

16 billion, thats a good start. Now we help them low income familys up the ladder of success, and we can double that for ya in about 5 years or so. (Win, Win)

Even a Lefty/Righty can see the benefits of helping their fellow man...oops sorry, I forgot us righties only stick it to em...damnit just once I thought I was on to something.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

?? They won't. Even a massive tax increase will only zero out the deficit; that's why they are needed. It will take an economic recovery to start paying off the debt.

Wrong. If we seriously addressed the issue and made cuts/changes to all (including the golden cows) we could balance the budget with spending cuts alone. This should be our goal.

Quote

>Balanced budget admendment.

That's a mistake as currently proposed. Revenues go down when the economy falters, and goes up when the economy does well. An amendment that would require taxes to be increased during poor economic times, and only allowed cuts during boom times, would worsen the severity of recessions.

Keep in mind that we got here because we cut taxes too much and spent too much during the "good times" - and now that the economy is bad, we can't easily raise them again (and cutting stimulus will of course slow the recovery.) A balanced budget amendment would force us to do that.

Perhaps as currently proposed it is, but if they were to add the ability to put a certain percentage of surpluses into trusts for long term projects it would make sense.

The stimulus is not helping recovery. All programs like cash for clunkers or increasing depreciation on assets do is concentrate sales into a smaller period, it doesn't stimulate new growth. The economy has not recovered yet because the government won't stop messing with it so it can actually heal for once, not just be pumped up so it can sorta function as in the past.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

>Now if we could get the other 48-51 percent of those who pay nothing to share in the
>scrifice as the rest of us...

Well, they do of course pay taxes (property, sales, gas etc etc.) But if you mean federal income taxes, sure, that's fine, tax em a few percent. It won't do anything, of course; 2% of $12,000 is $240, and if even 50% of the taxpayers out there pony up the additional money that's about $16 billion, or about 1.2% of our deficit.

But if it will make right wingers feel better that they're sticking it to those low income people, and if it actually enables them to make rational compromises - then go for it.

Right Winger, sticking it to low income people. Damn, about 30 years ago I was one of them Low income people.

16 billion, thats a good start. Now we help them low income familys up the ladder of success, and we can double that for ya in about 5 years or so. (Win, Win)

Even a Lefty/Righty can see the benefits of helping their fellow man...oops sorry, I forgot us righties only stick it to em...damnit just once I thought I was on to something.

Gotta love his numbers game. Minimum wage is 15k/year, that comes out to $565 owed in taxes after the standard deduction and 1 personal exemption (single rate). His 12k salary person would *ALREADY* be liable for $265 in federal income tax before the mythical 'Republican tax hike'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But if it will make right wingers feel better that they're sticking it to those low income people, and if it actually enables them to make rational compromises - then go for it.

it would be more akin to getting them skin in the game, like a 3% downpayment on a house rather than 100% financing.

If you don't pay income taxes, why would you care if the government ran a deficit? On the payroll taxes side, these are the only people who come out ahead in benefits. There's a bit of a problem if a significant portion of the public have no incentive to support a (fairly) balanced budget. No reason to oppose wars fought by volunteers.

Specific to that topic, we need to start paying wars on a as you go basis again - a war tax. And again, people's support for that would be better measured by their willingness to pay for it, and that can't exclude 40-50% of the people.

[billvon 2,998]

>Damn, about 30 years ago I was one of them Low income people.

Yeah, me too. I was below the poverty line for the first six years I worked, even though at one point I had three jobs.

>16 billion, thats a good start.

Like I said, it's about 1% of our deficit. But again, if it gets the right wing to be willing to work at a solution, it's a good start.

>Even a Lefty/Righty can see the benefits of helpingtaxing their fellow man...

Yep. Although it is indeed ironic that the right wing now thinks that taxing people helps them. But hey, again, if it means a shift in the "all taxes are evil" thinking, then that's progress.

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Damn, about 30 years ago I was one of them Low income people.

Yeah, me too. I was below the poverty line for the first six years I worked, even though at one point I had three jobs.

>16 billion, thats a good start.

Like I said, it's about 1% of our deficit. But again, if it gets the right wing to be willing to work at a solution, it's a good start.

>Even a Lefty/Righty can see the benefits of helpingtaxing their fellow man...

Yep. Although it is indeed ironic that the right wing now thinks that taxing people helps them. But hey, again, if it means a shift in the "all taxes are evil" thinking, then that's progress.

Well, I was only thinking shared sacrifice so that everyone has skin in the game so to speak, that is the current talking point, or maybe it's change into something else. I don't think I've change my position on taxes if I even have stated a personnal position.

But if I have, it would be to limit taxes, expand opportunity to invest, develop and allow the private sector companies the opportunity to build businesses here in the US without placing unnecessary restrictions on them, allowing them to compete with China, India...

That might be a half ass position, I shall ponder this further, until then I must Ban myself for the evening, maybe even longer which is a good thing for all.

"Most successful men have not achieved their distinction by having some new talent or opportunity presented to them. They have developed the opportunity that was at hand." Bruce Barton

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Should we bring back war bonds? If threats was decent and they were tax sheltered I'd be Open to buying some.

not really a sacrifice then, though, is it? Rather than make you think long about the costs of war, it would bias you towards the hawkish side.

Iraq is this trillion dollar expense that no one paid for yet, save the veterans and their families. It's one reason it's still going on nearly 10 years later.

[billvon 2,998]

>Should we bring back war bonds?

Well, one big issue there, of course, is that our credit rating just got downgraded, so that's going to be harder to do. War bonds are just treasury bonds, but issued at a lower rate. People are cajoled into buying these lower-return bonds by appeals to their patriotism.

However, if people want to buy US Treasury bonds, they can do so. I think currently US citizens hold about 20% of our debt through their purchase of US securities.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying enough but want do a damn thing about it. Warren!!! write the dame check or Shut the Hell Up.

I am pretty sure Warren Buffett has given more money away to date than you will make in your lifetime.

He clearly states there have to be sustantial cuts to expenditures and future promises. Then, the focus must shift to revenues.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One thing I can't stand is a Cheese Eating Weasel who belly acks he's not paying enough but want do a damn thing about it. Warren!!! write the dame check or Shut the Hell Up.

I am pretty sure Warren Buffett has given more money away to date than you will make in your lifetime.

He clearly states there have to be sustantial cuts to expenditures and future promises. Then, the focus must shift to revenues.

He also supporte a large inheritance tax but, when he gave 30 mill to the gates foundation he stated he wanted it set up so it could not be taxed

( I actully think it was 30billion, not million)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

He also supporte a large inheritance tax but, when he gave 30 mill to the gates foundation he stated he wanted it set up so it could not be taxed

Makes sense, would leave more to give to charitable organizations and causes.

He is giving away after tax dollars. I think his argument is that he should have less of those to begin with since his tax burden should be higher.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

He also supporte a large inheritance tax but, when he gave 30 mill to the gates foundation he stated he wanted it set up so it could not be taxed

Makes sense, would leave more to give to charitable organizations and causes.

He is giving away after tax dollars. I think his argument is that he should have less of those to begin with since his tax burden should be higher.

And my point is we already have a time where he talked out of both sides of his face

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

when he gave 30 mill to the gates foundation he stated he wanted it set up so it could not be taxed

Why should the money he gives to charity be taxed twice? It was taxed when he made it (and he thinks that should be a higher tax). Not taxing the contribution would only serve to do more good.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

when he gave 30 mill to the gates foundation he stated he wanted it set up so it could not be taxed

Why should the money he gives to charity be taxed twice? It was taxed when he made it (and he thinks that should be a higher tax). Not taxing the contribution would only serve to do more good.

I am not arguing with you as I agree with your statement

However, HE stated he thinks the inheritance tax should be 50% or higher. Then he moves to NOT have his estate taxed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And my point is we already have a time where he talked out of both sides of his face

Well, not in the example you gave, maybe in other cases. People have been known to change their minds. Doesn't take anything away from his main point though. Billionaires have been extremely protected under the US Tax Code. As part of the whole strategy that is required to "right the ship", that needs to be looked at as well.

The problem in the US is that everybody is arguing about what one problem is to blame for your current predicament. As if solving one issue is going to change everything.

Sounds nice and simple, like a Fox news episode, or a quick session on 60 Minutes, something that could be summed up on Dateline, but quite frankly it just doesn't work like that.

The US needs a multipronged approach that dramatically cuts spending and increases taxation (revenue). Warren Buffet offered an option for one of the prongs on the increased taxation side. After clearly stating expenses and future promises need to be cut dramatically before even getting to his suggestion.