Warren Buffett: Tax the Rich; Pat Buchanan: Send the check

stolen from another public comment on another site, seemed to sum it up well for me:

The poor and middle class in this country have been so captivated and entranced by visions of wealth--think of the conspicuous consumption you see at every turn on TV and in the movies--and brainwashed to believe that the "American dream" is simply to become wealthy and gross, and systematically taught not to challenge the ruling/wealthy class for fear of losing their jobs and their shot at wealth, that they've actually been enlisted to fight FOR THE OTHER SIDE. Over and over again, the poor, middle class and retired folks vote for policies favoring the plutocracy, under the guise that we have to protect the precious "job creators," because eventually the scraps will fall from their table and we won't be hungry anymore. It's insidious. And effective.

Just like that, the new discussion will be driven by, "Okay, so, it's a given that exactly 51 percent of the populace doesn't pay taxes, so..." It's a fallacy. That just means that exactly the majority of people in this country don't even make enough goddamn money to contribute more than they take out in benefits. We should be ASHAMED of that--not ashamed of the 51 percent, but ashamed of the fact that we've allowed wealth to migrate so obscenely to such a small portion of the populace. This remains an incredibly wealthy country--it's just that a smaller and smaller number of people benefit from that wealth. Until we truly see that for the obscenity it is, nothing will change.

 

Yep

 

Butt we have the lottery to make our dreams come true.

 

Is that a Che quote?

Americans are filthy rich. Go into the inner city ghetto of Detriot and then realize that every one of the welfare ticks is better off that 99% of the Marshal Islands residents. Go to Haiti once.

As to allow look at many of the 'rich' that are first generation. I guess I will 'allow' you to keep your money when you invent something or work 80 hour weeks or are extremely talented (funny how the hollyweirdos and sports folks are always left of the 'rich' list). How many of you are better off than your folks were?

Sorry for the rant must be maple syrup deprivation... what's the next Che post?

 

So I'm reading some article on Yahoo! where several wealthy people basically call out WB for his position AND Obama's newly proposed "Buffett Rule". For those who may not know, the new rule as explained from Wiki:
A White House statement released in January 2012 defined the rule as part of "measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30%... implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule

So here's a question for the supporters of the Warren Buffett tax code philosophy / Obama's "Buffett Rule" proposal, assuming this 'rule' goes forward if Obama wins this year.......what will Mr. Buffett NOW pay in income taxes under this new rule? A percentage would be fine.

 

Its all a shell game.... whats the definition of 'income'? Because until there is a major tax reform 'income' is still a vague and ever moving number for everyone.

 

That's a good question, do they consider capital gains as part of your 'income' now?

If not and it remains that way, then Buffett's 'income tax percentage' will be unaffected by this proposed rule since he only pays himself $100K/yr.....which is my point in kicking this thread up again. How amusing it would be if it went down that way.



Thought some of you may enjoy this guys rant also....http://obamashlamadama.com/YT-embed/are-you-kidding-me.html

 

it would be unfortunate if that was the case and it was done in his name... i think buffet's point from the beginning was that capital gains, carried interest, etc., should be taken into account when determining income.

edit: just to be clear, i don't think warren specifically said "make these changes to get this desired end result," he just said "people that make this much money should pay an effective rate of 30%" and left it up to the lawmakers to figure out how to achieve it.

 

Isn't the top tax bracket already 35%

 

Here's what depresses the fuck out of me: we've got some cock-stranglers (I'm not naming names, here, but I'm looking at you, genius) that can't figure it out when they post it themselves. Fuck me running.

I've re-arranged it to have you answer yourself. You're welcome. Maybe it was the order that threw you.

Which words didn't you understand?

Uh...what?

Look, you're not cut out for this. I could explain it to you (again), but you wouldn't get it then, either.

No, I have no desire to read anything hosted on a URL with that name. I suspect you need an I.Q. in the double digits to read it without getting a headache, and I don't want a headache.

Wait. I just walked of for a bit and had another mint julep, then I re-read your posts. I get it. Holy shit, it's like the Rosetta Stone up in here. I believe three drinks may be the level of impairment necessary to speak B-Tard. I just got your question. Mother. Of. God.

In the future, I promise only to read your posts slightly drunk. I'll, uh, answer your question tomorrow or something. First I have to go call my mother-in-law. I think we may finally be able to have a meaningful conversation (she's still got her 'Rush Is Right' sticker on her car, by way of explanation), and I don't want to miss the opportunity, I mean, I'm banging her daughter. A lot. She hates that.

Jesus Christ, how did I miss this before? Motherdamnmotherdamnmotherdamn.

 

Better stop now before your head explodes.

 

WOW ,I wish I had all the money you guys worry about I would'nt have to work ! I'm just a poor fucker tryin to get in track time on the little bit of $ I make ! I guess I am lucky to not have to worry about having lots of money then I would have to figure out a way to fuck the GOVT into not taking 27% of my 36 K I make ! Whew I am lucky !!!!!

 

Welcome back, Scott!

 

Nope just everyone else

 

B-B-But is a debit a loss???

 

Seriously, is Scott a bonafide alcoholic?
Someone check up on his wife and kids, God help them.



If I am incorrect about capital gains NOT being considered as 'earned income' then fine correct me, less the drunken rant.

Back to my complaint, since WB pays himself much less than a million dollars annually, technically, he wouldn't be affected. If capital gains IS included, disregard. LOL!

 

No, Scott rarely if ever drinks, which is clearly how I missed this breakthrough for so long. The cognitive impairment of alcohol is needed to grasp the 'reasoning' of the B-Tard. Someone call the Nobel committee.

Seriously, dude, I'm sorry. Really. What today looks like a convoluted jumble of spittle and embarrassment (your posts) last night achieved...clarity. I'm not kidding. I actually felt you made sense. I think communication between the smart people and your kind can only improve things, and if it takes temporary brain damage to get there, well...I'll try and take one for the team from time to time.

My wife and kids are fine. Nice of you to ask.

Of course, I'm having to fight saying, "your wife and my kids are fine, too!", but I know you haven't been able to sucker something into hooking up with you yet, and I don't want to rub salt into the necrosis on your palm.

That wasn't a drunken rant, that was just me finding myself slightly more humorous than I usually do.

To put it really simply (meaning don't one of you other marginally-informed retards trying to help out your fellow waterhead here pick nits): the beef Buffet has is that capital gains income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, maxing out at 15%.

Salaries are subject to the typical progressive income tax scale, maxing out at 35%. Meaning (for a simple example, again, chillax waterheads) the first $10,000 is not taxed at all (a 0% rate), the next $20,000 is taxed at 10%, the next $50,000 above that is taxed at 20%, and so on in gradated levels until you get to the top marginal rate, where all income over $300,000 is taxed at 35%. If you make way, way, waaaaaaaaaaay over $300,000 (like $15 million), arithmetic forces your total income tax rate to actually approach 35%

The way private equity guys (Buffet, Romney, et al) make money is by buying a company, then selling it later, like you buying a bike and selling it at a profit. Or more to the point, you buying some stock and selling it later at a profit. The gain from that transaction is held by P.E. guys to be a capital gain (just like you selling a share of stock at a profit), and is subject to a maximum tax rate of 15%. The term used for this income is 'carried interest' (so when you hear that term, that just means they're referring to the profit a private equity company receives on a deal).

Now, most P.E. shops don't pay their guys 'salaries' in the usual fashion, at least not like you get a salary from your night shift at Fountains of Wayne (what, you want me to pass up on this stuff?). Instead, they hold virtually all their income to come from the carried interest on a deal, meaning their maximum tax rate is 15%.

The argument is that they go someplace every day for a year, and are compensated $5,000,000 for their efforts, and that sounds like a 'job', and wage income from a job is taxed under the normal income tax rates. Their response to that is that they don't have a job, or wages, they buy and sell stuff, and that generates a capital gain, which rightly or wrongly is taxed at a lower rate.

This is why you (might have) heard all the wailing a few weeks ago about Romney's income tax rate. Since substantially all his income is derived from carried interest, he paid at the highest capital gains rate, 15%. Jason Bay, by contrast (you seem like you'd be a Mutts fan) paid a blended rate probably closer to 27% - 28% on the salary he made last year, because his income was deemed to be wages. Basically, it's an accounting trick--Romney is calling his income 'special' income and paying about half what he should be paying because of it.

The 'Buffet Rule' proposes to eliminate that lower rate for people making more than $1,000,000 a year, apparently. So if you make more than that amount, you're subject to the normal income tax rates (just like everybody else), no matter the source of the income.

Warren Buffet would be affected by the proposed 'Buffet Rule'. So would Mitt Romney, and a huge hunk of serious Republican Super-PAC donors. This will effectively double their income tax rate. Thus, it's been promulgated down to the Republican underclass (you) that this is a horrible and unfair idea, and you need to scream about it, now. Bad black Kenyan, bad!

My advice to you is to completely ignore this issue until you are in a position to make a million dollars a year from the buying and selling of companies or their associated financial instruments. Until then, this will have absolutely no effect on your life except that your federal government will slightly better-funded. That will be a benefit to you, even if that benefit is not immediately obvious.

Jesus. That really was a shock. It was like getting glasses. All of a sudden it all snapped into focus. I feel like I've...grown, or some damn thing. C'mon, man, let's hug.

 

It was transcendent. She grunted, and I understood. We goin' to the Famous Amos this weekend and we goin' talk 'bout how she feels. Doo dah.

I'm just a figment of your imagination. Move along, nothing to see here.

A debit is not a loss, Barfy, now quit being a barfield (to quote the staff in my office, who have no idea where that comes from, just that they don't want the label ). I didn't try reading any of your posts last night--the stuff to make those intelligible is illegal in this country.

 

I beg to differ.

Buffet's beef is that his name hasn't been in the paper enough.

It's a well-documented fact that he avoids taxes (legally) through a compensation package designed to do just that. He's a hypocrite of the highest order. I don't care what the tax rates are on what form of income, to decry the tax "loopholes" you're currently enjoying is the epitome of "fucking duh".

Uhh...cite?

You're telling me that none of the massive money being funneled to His Near-Blackness (since you're going to play the race card...poorly, I'll at least make it amusing ) doesn't come from donors under the same income structure? Methinks your DNC-issued biodegradable hempfoil hat is a bit too tight.

How is a "better funded" federal government a good thing? Will they begin to pay down the debt my daughter got saddled with a month ago ($44,250, according to the latest per capita debt figures, IIRC)?

It's also kinda optimistic, don't you think, to believe that taxing those "evil rich" will actually result in increased tax seizure by the IRS. Hasn't ever worked sustainably, historically, maybe this time will be different.

Lysergic acid is a bitch, bro. Don't eat the brown dots, man. :tut:

 

What about all those employed by companies that currently receive or are looking for PE funding? By pulling 15% of available capital out of that market, you'll have less available for investment. Which 15% of those businesses should be shuttered? At least the good news for those who loose their jobs is that they can now collect unemployment for 99 weeks.

This has much greater ramifications than just taking money from the "rich".