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

Answer 1: they were about to be laid off anyway.

Answer 2: taxing P.E. principals won't suck that capital out of the acquired company--if it did, that capital would be there now, not in the P.E. guy's bank account. Did Mitt, for example, plow all that back into Staples...or was it his take-home pay?

It was his take-home pay.

But if you wanted to get all academic about it, the government will spend that additional revenue (and create more jobs with it) far faster than a few hundred P.E. guys, and it'll spend it domestically, too.

Tax revenue isn't always a panacea, but it's not always the boogeyman, either. Anyone that thinks at either spectrum should be shut out of the conversation.

It really doesn't.

 

My head just exploded.

:crackhead:

Well, that excludes you and me. Wanna talk about MTV?

 

Fair enough. I really have no idea what goes on in his head. But since he's a flipping genius, I don't really care. I also agree with him on this.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy here. He's paying what he owes (as is Mitt). I can't fault him for that. It's just good business (as Mitt said) to pay what you owe and no more. That doesn't preclude you from pointing out that the tax code tends to be unfair in this regard.

As well, I'm more than willing to pay more--as a group. It's like me saying, "if you think invading Iraq is a good idea, grab your tacticool gear and head over there...without the Army." Some things only work as a collective effort, and tax policy is one of them. I appreciate Republicans have spent 30 years brainwashing the weak-minded not to believe that, but it doesn't make it any less true.

I'm sure there are some P.E. guys that donate Democratic. I'm willing to bet that population skews heavily Republican, though. You don't think?

It's running a deficit.

And that's why you don't want it to.

Yes, my preference is that it would use the additional revenue to eliminate deficits and then debt.

Well, sort of.

Those are your words. I quite like rich people.

I'll bite. Do tell.

 

The U.S. government is currently operating like a single mom making $15,000 a year. Anything it gets, it spends. We want that money in circulation, domestically.

Someone making $20,000,000 a year is investing the vast majority of that, or spending it on luxury goods, a lot of which aren't made here.

Is that a sustainable idea, long-term? I don't think so. But for the time being, we are a consumption-based society. When we flip back (or if we flip back, I guess) to an investment-based economy (assuming we ever actually were one), then I'll feel differently.

I'd rather bang my head against the wall to see if I can understand B-Tard again. Besides, I'm very reasonable. Ask anyone.

 

We can agree on that one. Using the system that is in place to the best of your ability is not in and of itself evil.

When it comes to funding the collective millitary exactly how many of those weak minded Republicans have spent their time stripping it of it's funding?

So you are ok with letting them continue to not be able to do basic math when it comes to running the Federal buget. Spending more than you take in is bad ok...I'm sure you with all your self professed brilliance can grasp that simple conept.

Letting them swipe more from your pocket to keep feeding their inability to touch anything that doesn't cost 5 times more than it should is not what I would call a smart plan.

Until they are ready to address the ridiculous amount fo waste that has been created in the name of buying another vote nothing will change except for the amount they want to steal out of your pocket.

 

Lots of them. But that's not the point I was trying to make.

That's right. And since the populace has said repeatedly and often that they're not interested in reducing the outflow, the only solution is increased inflow.

But, sure, if we could convince people to forego Social Security and Medicare, then yeah, I'm all for it. Or shrink defense spending somewhat, anything, really.

I completely agree the government spends too much money. I just don't think that's going to change any time soon. The focus needs to me on at least bringing in as much as we're spending, like you said.

 

And if I thought for a second that any increase in revenue through taxation would actually go towards reducing the deficit I'd be all for it. However you and I know that's not what will happen. We'll be 4 more years down the road..with less in our pockets, a 20 trillion dollar debt ceiling with little positive movement in reducing the deficit because someone will need to buy votes to get re-elected.

 

You really think Buffet does not help out the gov't?? when he gave Goldman sachs 3billion that was to help out govt and or economic and financial situation...same with BAC he gave money to ...but NO he did not just give it away he is a business man so he loaned it to them at a nice interest rate...

But trust me this country needed that help whether you see that as helping the govt or not.... and Why shld anybody who as worked their arse off just give their money away.... ye she pays a lower % than his secretary but he is not a hypocrite by not writng a bigger check....he is following the rules as they are written...he has said for the tax law to be re written and he woul dbe fine paying more....

 

I'm not sure you're wrong, I just figure if Clinton could sucker the populace ten years ago into not noticing a surplus, maybe someone else can sucker them again.

The alternative in my mind is just a faster bankruptcy--there simply no way Social Security, Medicare, or military spending are going to be reduced. If we cut revenues, we're going tango uniform sooner rather than later.

What I wonder is how awful that'd be. The Road awful, or just Great Depression x10 awful? I have no idea. I've always been sure I didn't want to find out, but if we're going to...let's get it over with.

 

It's amazing how many people don't seem to get that nuance in their haste to brand Warren Buffett a hypocrite.

By the way, didn't you recently tell me that you were not going to return to the dungeon?

 

And didn't you triple-dog dare me to?

I can't resist a dare. And I'm a giver. That's what I do--I give.

(And I got bored. What can I say?)

 

Genius? Really?

He's leveraged. Exclusivity has its benefits.

He pays what he owes by structuring his income in a way to avoid the higher taxation of salary vs. capital gains. If he were so concerned with "paying his fair share", his compensation package would be structured in a fashion that would require him to pay a higher percentage than his secretary.

He's a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

Ad hominem. The mark of a truly brilliant debater.

Can I opt out of whatever group the government decides to fuck long and hard? Oh yeah...it's called expatriation.

I don't think you've offered anything but your unsubstantiated opinion on this one...

So stop spending more than you take in. Duh.

So let me write a check today for $88,500, and eliminate any claim the government has to my daughter and me.

No? That won't work? You mean it's not the debt that matters, it's the indebtedness? Welcome to the new slavery, same as the old slavery but without the great harmonizations.

Those are the words of that "group" you are so proud to be a member of... x2

Read, mi amore.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

You haven't figured out the folly of Keynesian economics yet? You still buy into that fallacious argument of "velocity"?

Currency moving from one hand to the other, with a not unsubstantial chunk seized by the government as a "handling charge", does not an economy make. Even moreso when the value of that currency is debased even faster than it can be circulated.

One thing that a horseshit monetary policy does do is prevent people from doing stupid shit like saving...makes for a great selling point for government dependency through Social (in)Security, MediCare(less) and food stamps.

It's none of your damn business what the guy who makes $20M per year does with money. IT'S NOT YOURS. Mind yer own fucking business, Gladys.

Long-term? You believe we *have* a long-term? You're either optimistic, or drunk again.

Reasonable people march into gas chambers. Boisterous assholes like me get shot. I'll take the bullet, thanks.

 

Okay, this is too long even for me. I think some of the B-Tard has stuck with me.

 

To the wet bar!

 

He lives off his dividends which are taxed at lower rate....it is that simple. His tax rate worked out to 17%

 

Thats the problem... they will spend what they get, and then some, faster and more frivolously than any sane person who knows how to handle a budget will do.

There isnt a single thing the Gov can do more efficiently, and thus costing less, than the private sector, yet you sound like you want so much gov the entire populace is working for it... how does that make any sense?

 

Look at them go creating jobs at a fevered pace...

Yet another failed "green" energy company.
http://thenewamerican.com/tech-main...nother-fed-backed-solar-company-goes-bankrupt

 

I've always had a couple of questions on this "more taxes on the wealthy" issue. One question is this; What tax rate would be "fair" on the wealthy? Are their taxes too low now or were their taxes in the past actually too high?

My second question is, when are the "tax the rich" advocates going to admit that taxing the rich is not going to help our deficit. There have been far too many economists say that increasing the taxes on the wealthy won't equal a drop in the bucket as far as the spending rate is concerned. Why does the left continue to ignore that?

Maybe those claiming that this whole "tax the rich" issue is nothing more than a "divide and conquer" method of class warfare. That sounds more logical.

 

"fair" depends on how you define it: set amount or percentage?

the highest marginal rate was 94% in 1944-1945:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

 

That sounds fair. You get to keep 6 cents out of every dollar you earn. Who could object to that?
But if, even under that tax rate, you manage to accumulate wealth, people will still be claiming that it should be taken from you and redistributed.
Of course, no one actually pays those inflated tax rates. They just put their money somewhere else.
You can't legislate away economic realities.