Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super rich

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not as many as benefit the wealthy, who bought and paid for the legislatures.

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you?

Do you?

Maybe he takes advantage of the carried interest loophole.

The top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, but the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to reduce the deficit they so hypocritically deplore.

Paulson is a Democratic supporter mostly, its all public info. Most rich people who live in West Chester, Greenwich and Bergen County are. Whats the motivation of the GOP to aid people who support the wrong party?

Anecdote != data

The carried interest loophole is defended by the GOP, and benefits a relative handful of super wealthy individuals who use it to pay tax at a far lower rate than most middle class Americans.

...

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

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not as many as benefit the wealthy, who bought and paid for the legislatures.

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you?

Do you?

Maybe he takes advantage of the carried interest loophole.

The top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, but the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to reduce the deficit they so hypocritically deplore.

Paulson is a Democratic supporter mostly, its all public info. Most rich people who live in West Chester, Greenwich and Bergen County are. Whats the motivation of the GOP to aid people who support the wrong party?

Anecdote != data

The carried interest loophole is defended by the GOP, and benefits a relative handful of super wealthy individuals who use it to pay tax at a far lower rate than most middle class Americans.

ok, you just repeated what you said numerious times but didnt answer my question. why would the GOP want a law to benefit people who dont support them? its not an anecdote, Paulson donates to the democratic party mostly. its all public info. so do most rich Wall Street people who live in solid Democratic areas. So why protect the rich who donate to the opposite party?

for the record i support an adjustment to the tax code so hedgefund managers pay a higher tax on the earnings from their funds comingled with outside investors.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

why would the GOP want a law to benefit people who dont support them? its not an anecdote, Paulson donates to the democratic party mostly. its all public info. so do most rich Wall Street people who live in solid Democratic areas. So why protect the rich who donate to the opposite party?

Because they're pandering to the larger number of rich donors who do support have bought their party.

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not as many as benefit the wealthy, who bought and paid for the legislatures.

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you?

Do you?

Maybe he takes advantage of the carried interest loophole.

The top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, makes more hourly than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, while paying a lower tax rate. This is an egregious loophole, but the GOP refuses to consider it as part of a deal to reduce the deficit they so hypocritically deplore.

Paulson is a Democratic supporter mostly, its all public info. Most rich people who live in West Chester, Greenwich and Bergen County are. Whats the motivation of the GOP to aid people who support the wrong party?

Anecdote != data

The carried interest loophole is defended by the GOP, and benefits a relative handful of super wealthy individuals who use it to pay tax at a far lower rate than most middle class Americans.

Your anecdote about Paulson != data, either.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not as many as benefit the wealthy, who bought and paid for the legislatures.

so you don't actually know the numbers, do you?

Do you?

It was YOUR CLAIM. Apparently pulled out of your ass, much like so many facts around this debate.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Anecdote != data

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument?

BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

Bush tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

Even assuming your numbers are correct, $80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99 so your own data don't support your claim.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

He has a hard time forgetting his disproved talking points

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

He has a hard time forgetting his disproved talking points

Seems like you missed something?

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Anecdote != data

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument?

BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it.

The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

He has a hard time forgetting his disproved talking points

Seems like you missed something?

Not at all sir

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

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anecdote != data

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument?

BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it.

The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich.

there is no special low rate reserved for anyone. every single person who pays taxes will have their capital gains taxed at the same rate as the super rich. as is their ordinary income. you dont like it, fine. then say that but dont pretend there is a different rate when there isnt. the law is the law.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

Bush tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

Even assuming your numbers are correct, $80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99 so your own data don't support your claim.

I refer you back to your own *MANY* mentions of Willie Sutton.

Nice attempt at a misdirect, although I pity your students if you believe that 80 billion > 3 TRILLION.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich.

That is your opinion, not reality. We tax income in a variety of ways. It does appear that Romney's campaign has shined a light back on the fact that hedge fund income is classified as capital gains, which is hard to justify for the fees part of the manager's compensation. It is a bit fuzzy if he immediately puts those fees into the fund as an investor, but I don't think it's unfair to treat the salary the same as everyone else. You'd still complain about him earning a billion dollar salary, of course.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

Bush tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

Even assuming your numbers are correct, $80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99 so your own data don't support your claim.

I refer you back to your own *MANY* mentions of Willie Sutton.

Nice attempt at a misdirect, although I pity your students if you believe that 80 billion > 3 TRILLION.

Do you need lessons in reading, converting percentages to decimals, or in division of one number by another?

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anecdote != data

any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument?

BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it.

The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich.

there is no special low rate reserved for anyone.

Oh yes, there is. It's called carried interest and it allows some wealthy individuals' fees to be treated at preferential rates.

The Dems tried to eliminate it in 2007, but were blocked by the GOP.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich.

That is your opinion, not reality.

Yes, reality is that the very wealthy have opportunities for paying tax at lower rates than the middle class. My opinion is that this is wrong.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

Bush tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

Even assuming your numbers are correct, $80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99 so your own data don't support your claim.

I refer you back to your own *MANY* mentions of Willie Sutton.

Nice attempt at a misdirect, although I pity your students if you believe that 80 billion > 3 TRILLION.

Do you need lessons in reading, converting percentages to decimals, or in division of one number by another?

ANOTHER lame misdirect attempt?

Go ask Willie Sutton if 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, and get back to us.

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

GOP tax cuts OVERWHELMINGLY have benefited the wealthy.

Tax the rich: 70 billion gain
Supposed cost of the tax cuts: 3 trillion (Recall TK claiming this number, anyway)

Looks like the numbers don't support the claim.

Bush tax cuts this year will give the richest 1 percent of Americans a bigger tax cut than the other 99 percent will receive in average income:
The average Bush tax cut in 2011 for a taxpayer in the richest one percent is greater than the average income of the other 99 percent ($66,384 compared to $58,506).

Even assuming your numbers are correct, $80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99 so your own data don't support your claim.

I refer you back to your own *MANY* mentions of Willie Sutton.

Nice attempt at a misdirect, although I pity your students if you believe that 80 billion > 3 TRILLION.

Do you need lessons in reading, converting percentages to decimals, or in division of one number by another?

ANOTHER lame misdirect attempt?

Go ask Willie Sutton if 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, and get back to us.

Well, I gave you 2 attempts to fix your error.
Apparently reading comprehension is your problem.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well, I gave you 2 attempts to fix your error fall for my attempt to misdirect.
Apparently reading comprehension is your problem.

Speaking of errors, fixed that for you. Apparently the ability to make an honest argument is your problem.

Let us know what Willie says about that 70 billion, 3 trillion thing.

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

[billvon 2,991]

Last warning. Both of you cut it out.

[rushmc 23]

The Dems tried to eliminate it in 2007, but were blocked by the GOP.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Well, I gave you 2 attempts to fix your error fall for my attempt to misdirect.
Apparently reading comprehension is your problem.

Speaking of errors, fixed that for you. Apparently the ability to make an honest argument is your problem.

Let us know what Willie says about that 70 billion, 3 trillion thing.

What was written was
$80B/0.01 >> $3T/0.99

1% is 0.01, 99% is 0.99

So 80B/0.01 = 8T
3T/0.99 = 3.03T

8 > 3.03

So the 1% made way more out of the tax cuts than the 99%

In fact, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99%

There is no doubt at all that the Bush tax cuts heavily favored the 1%.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So the 1% made way more out of the tax cuts than the 99%

In fact, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99%

There is no doubt at all that the Bush tax cuts heavily favored the 1%.

No surprise here. The Clinton tax increases also heavily 'favored' the 1% and the 10%.