Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super rich

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Yes, property tax is effectively a wealth tax, but you're grossly overstating the significance of that. Even in California with ridiculously high real estate prices, this tax would only represent about 10% of my tax burden from last year. And it would be less than a third of my state tax bill.

Right, which means the argument that a tax on assets which have been paid with money that has already been taxed is unfair, is disingenuous at best. It already exists.

hardly. Maybe if you're reaching with Dr. Farnsworth's finglonger.

It's a tax on local property owners to run the community, has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about the federal budget. And you don't have to be a property owner, can make a million a year and pay nothing to this.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I can't even believe people are still talking about this wealth tax nonsense. There are so many holes in it, it is not even funny. Most people who have any sort of net worth do NOT keep currency in their mattresses. Most don't even keep that many funds in their bank accounts. Most are tied up in investments. You know real estate, stocks, bonds, automobiles, airplanes, boats, precious metals, art, etc, etc, etc. In order to pay the government the wealth tax these assets must be sold. But the market would be flooded with assets to the point where the prices would tank. You know lots of supply and no demand. Would the government demand their taxable assets valued before or after the markets tanked? On top of that it would not promote people to be fiscally responsible with their finances. Who would want to pay off their debts if that meant having to give the government more money in the form of wealth taxes? More people than even exists today would be living paycheck to paycheck and a loss of income would result in more foreclosures resulting in more real estate flooding the market with little to no demand.

How about severely controlling government spending, close some loop holes in the existing tax laws and maybe some modest increases to consumption taxes? Not so high to drive people to the underground economy, but high enough to help a little with the revenue side. Of course without cuts to the bloated governments at all levels, no amount of new taxes will ever stop the bleeding.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

The next person to argue over who said "income" and who said "taxes" is getting some time off. Time to move on.

you appear to be losing the plot billvon...

(perhaps time for you to move on)

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

[mirage62 0]

I think this may be a record for "Your only warning" It might be easier for Bill to just write YOW

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It's a tax on local property owners to run the community, has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about the federal budget.

The discussion was about preferences between wealth tax and income tax. The argument was made that wealth tax was unfair, because it would tax assets paid with money that had already been taxed. All I did was point out such a tax already exists. Tax is tax is tax, whether it is federal or state or municipal. The narrowing to only federal tax was a construct made by you and your cohorts after finding the error in your argument.

Quote

And you don't have to be a property owner, can make a million a year and pay nothing to this.

Right. Just like you can make a million a year and not have any assets.

If you think about it, that was the crux of kallend's argument. Somebody who loses $60,0000 in a year, but still has a billion dollars in assets is richer than somebody who made $100,000 but has no assets.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The discussion was about preferences between wealth tax and income tax. The argument was made that wealth tax was unfair, because it would tax assets paid with money that had already been taxed.

well, there were a lot of complaints about the concept, the most damning being Canuck's question of WTF will the money come from? If all the rich are selling x% of their assets each year, who is going to buy them? You have only the foreigners, and they would be able to buy America bit by bit at a substantial discount. Great policy!

Kallend ignored all of the questions regarding the problems with implementing such a tax scheme, while you hid behind the property tax.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

well, there were a lot of complaints about the concept, the most damning being Canuck's question of WTF will the money come from? If all the rich are selling x% of their assets each year, who is going to buy them? You have only the foreigners, and they would be able to buy America bit by bit at a substantial discount. Great policy!

That outcome simply isn't supportable by evidence.

Quote

Kallend ignored all of the questions regarding the problems with implementing such a tax scheme, while you hid behind the property tax.

If that is hiding, at least I am not hiding behind fallacies.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

well, there were a lot of complaints about the concept, the most damning being Canuck's question of WTF will the money come from? If all the rich are selling x% of their assets each year, who is going to buy them? You have only the foreigners, and they would be able to buy America bit by bit at a substantial discount. Great policy!

I am glad someone is seeing the problems with this wealth tax.

BTW ... I wonder how many Americans are aware that under the current laws, US citizens must file an income tax return every year regardless of where they live in the world. There is a big kerfuffle right now north of the border as the IRS has been hounding a number of people for money who were not aware of this law. If a wealth tax was to replace the income tax would the IRS still demand all US citizens file some sort of wealth return? which of course would result in the US Government confiscating more assets from people who do not even live in the US. Kallend's famous argument is that the wealth tax is to pay for the USA's new just society, but these people do not even live in the USA.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

well, there were a lot of complaints about the concept, the most damning being Canuck's question of WTF will the money come from? If all the rich are selling x% of their assets each year, who is going to buy them? You have only the foreigners, and they would be able to buy America bit by bit at a substantial discount. Great policy!

I am glad someone is seeing the problems with this wealth tax.

BTW ... I wonder how many Americans are aware that under the current laws, US citizens must file an income tax return every year regardless of where they live in the world. There is a big kerfuffle right now north of the border as the IRS has been hounding a number of people for money who were not aware of this law. If a wealth tax was to replace the income tax would the IRS still demand all US citizens file some sort of wealth return? which of course would result in the US Government confiscating more assets from people who do not even live in the US. Kallend's famous argument is that the wealth tax is to pay for the USA's new just society, but these people do not even live in the USA.

Fascinating that you have already figured out the details of the implementation.

...

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Fascinating that you have already figured out the details of the implementation.

Oh please educate us oh mighty one, great indoctrinator of young and impressionable minds on how your wealth tax will work. Will the wealth tax only apply to the ever so hated 1% of the population? or would it apply to everyone on some sort of scale? If it does not apply to everyone, then it is clear the whole goal is a simple transfer of wealth scheme. You are the one who is lobbying for this wealth tax, the floor is yours professor. Tell us inferior minds how it will work. Tell us how ample supply and little demand can be ignored.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,991]

>Will the wealth tax only apply to the ever so hated 1% of the population?

In places where it is implemented it typically works that way. In Norway it's around .4% on every kronor over NOK 700,000 that a person owns.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Fascinating that you have already figured out the details of the implementation.

Oh please educate us oh mighty one, great indoctrinator of young and impressionable minds on how your wealth tax will work. Will the wealth tax only apply to the ever so hated 1% of the population? or would it apply to everyone on some sort of scale? If it does not apply to everyone, then it is clear the whole goal is a simple transfer of wealth scheme. You are the one who is lobbying for this wealth tax, the floor is yours professor. Tell us inferior minds how it will work. Tell us how ample supply and little demand can be ignored.

I just threw out an abstract idea for discussion, based on the fact that 1% of the population owns some 40% of the wealth but pays only some 30% of the cost of running the country despite a supposedly progressive tax system.

You decided how it was to be implemented and why your implementation of it wouldn't work.

Ever heard the expression "trial balloon"? I guess not.

PS have you checked your blood pressure recently?

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

>Will the wealth tax only apply to the ever so hated 1% of the population?

In places where it is implemented it typically works that way. In Norway it's around .4% on every kronor over NOK 700,000 that a person owns.

Wow, in Norway everything must be owned by foreigners.

[billvon 2,991]

>Wow, in Norway everything must be owned by foreigners.

Well, heck, some of em don't even speak English.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>Will the wealth tax only apply to the ever so hated 1% of the population?

In places where it is implemented it typically works that way. In Norway it's around .4% on every kronor over NOK 700,000 that a person owns.

Wow, in Norway everything must be owned by foreigners.

Norway still has a rather substantial income tax. The wealth tax did not replace it. It also has a VAT tax at a whopping 24% for most items (food is cheaper at 12!)

Since you're failing to figure it out, let me explain - if the wealth tax replaces the income tax, the rate gets higher. Much higher. And in an economy the size of the US, we're talking about a lot of assets that someone has to buy.

BTW, it's worth noting that 700k Kroner is not very much money - in the ballpark of 125k USD. So it affects anyone with a inadequate retirement plan.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ever heard the expression "trial balloon"? I guess not.

more like rhetorical ICBM.

You did get skydekker all hot and bothered.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Since you're failing to figure it out, let me explain - if the wealth tax replaces the income tax, the rate gets higher. Much higher.

Right, except I never said anything about replacing income tax with wealth tax. You make up examples and then explain why your own examples don't work. Imaginative, just not accurate.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

1. the sky didn't fall between 1992 and 2000 when Clinton was president and tax rates were higher. Unemployment didn't skyrocket either.

The tech boom (read: industry) was growing at such a rate that it created wealth. You must admit that the bust happened under Clinton as well... To include Bush inheriting a recession from Clinton.

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

Quote

2. welfare has already been reformed. That horse won't run.

Well the military budget has been looked at as well.... That does not mean it should never be done again.

Quote

3. if tax revenues were adequate we wouldn't have a deficit.

If spending was controlled we wouldn't have a deficit either.

Quote

4. to whom, exactly, have I indicated a wish to transfer wealth?

Anyone that reads your posts.

Quote

5. you can't get blood from turnips, or tax revenues from the destitute.

40k a year is not 'destitute'.

Quote

6. I TEACH ENGINEERING. The only indoctrination I do is.....

So you NEVER talk about ANYTHING else in class?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

1. the sky didn't fall between 1992 and 2000 when Clinton was president and tax rates were higher. Unemployment didn't skyrocket either.

The tech boom (read: industry) was growing at such a rate that it created wealth. You must admit that the bust happened under Clinton as well... To include Bush inheriting a recession from Clinton.

* The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000;

* The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000;

* The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000;

* Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000;

* Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and

* Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000.

Quote

2. welfare has already been reformed. That horse won't run.

Well the military budget has been looked at as well.... That does not mean it should never be done again.

Quote

3. if tax revenues were adequate we wouldn't have a deficit.

If spending was controlled we wouldn't have a deficit either.

Quote

4. to whom, exactly, have I indicated a wish to transfer wealth?

Anyone that reads your posts.

Quote

5. you can't get blood from turnips, or tax revenues from the destitute.

40k a year is not 'destitute'.

Quote

6. I TEACH ENGINEERING. The only indoctrination I do is.....

So you NEVER talk about ANYTHING else in class?

Everyone likes to blame Bush and he did have a hand in the economy, but he also inherited a financial mess from CLinton. But what I respect the most about Bush is that he never passed the buck or the blame that I heard. Bush was a stand-up guy with principles. Many did not like his policies but he at least lety the blame fall on himself. Obama always finds someone else to blame.

[billvon 2,991]

>But what I respect the most about Bush is that he never passed the buck or the
>blame that I heard.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

GWB: "Clinton reached a bilateral agreement that failed."

GWB: "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession."

GWB: "It wasn't all that long ago where [Clinton's] summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area."

GWB: "In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around."

FOX News from 2008: A senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>But what I respect the most about Bush is that he never passed the buck or the
>blame that I heard.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

GWB: "Clinton reached a bilateral agreement that failed."

GWB: "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession."

GWB: "It wasn't all that long ago where [Clinton's] summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area."

GWB: "In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around."

FOX News from 2008: A senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

sounds like facts not blame, he didn't say it was clintons fault.

[dks13827 3]

With the solar company scandal, the gun running to Mexico, and the memo to the Census workers that said: Stop sleeping on the job !!!
I just don't feel like paying more to those dopes up there !

[billvon 2,991]

>sounds like facts not blame, he didn't say it was clintons fault.

Ah! Then Obama is just stating the fact that he inherited a failed economy from Bush. Thanks for clearing that up.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>sounds like facts not blame, he didn't say it was clintons fault.

Ah! Then Obama is just stating the fact that he inherited a failed economy from Bush. Thanks for clearing that up.

but Obama is using that to cover his failures and push the leftist agenda. His ideas are not working and making things worse. things were much butter under Bush until the dems took over congress.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

things were much butter under Bush.

we all love butter...

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