PDA

View Full Version : Will cons do the RIGHT thing?


Sugar Ron
08-15-2011, 04:49 PM
Or are they too beholden to some con piss ant named Norquist???


Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances … I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Courtesy of the GREAT Warren E. Buffett

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp

bigmack
08-15-2011, 05:05 PM
That's odd. I could have sworn BO just extended tax rates in Dec '10 for two years.

Also, how is it the Buffett's & Larry David's of the world don't voluntarily give more loot to the feds? Is someone stopping them?

DJofSD
08-15-2011, 05:10 PM
Mackie, you know the answer to that one: it is do as I say, not, do as I do.

ArlJim78
08-15-2011, 05:10 PM
Instead of an op-ed why doesn't Buffett write out a big fat check to the government, and quit his whining about taxes? Nobody is preventing him from paying his fair share. If he thinks $6 million isn't enough, why doesn't he chip in another $10 or $20 million and show himself to be a real gutsy leader? Until he does he has no credibility in my view.

then go get some other billion and millionaires to go along with him. get Spielberg, Hanks, Damon, and others to do the same. show me the money.

DJofSD
08-15-2011, 05:14 PM
Instead of an op-ed why doesn't Buffett write out a big fat check to the government, and quit his whining about taxes? Nobody is preventing him from paying his fair share. If he thinks $6 million isn't enough, why doesn't he chip in another $10 or $20 million and show himself to be a real gutsy leader? Until he does he has no credibility in my view.

then go get some other billion and millionaires to go along with him. get Spielberg, Hanks, Damon, and others to do the same. show me the money.
Ask and ye shall get: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tax-fortune-please-why-warren-buffett-volunteer-pay-191814147.html?sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

ArlJim78
08-15-2011, 05:25 PM
step 1 - raise taxes on the wealthy.
step 2 - ?
step 3 - jobs come back, the debt crisis is solved and the economy grows.

I want to know what step 2 is because just doing 1 will not lead to 3 but the left only wants to talk about 1 like it is the single most important thing we can do.

Sugar Ron
08-15-2011, 05:32 PM
Also, how is it the Buffett's & Larry David's of the world don't voluntarily give more loot to the feds? Is someone stopping them?

Perhaps Warren is planning to do just that.

I'm more concerned about super wealthy people like the Koch Sisters and Tubby Limbaugh.

Could you see them making voluntary donations to Uncle Sam?

PaceAdvantage
08-15-2011, 05:34 PM
Perhaps Warren is planning to do just that.

I'm more concerned about super wealthy people like the Koch Sisters and Tubby Limbaugh.

Could you see them making voluntary donations to Uncle Sam?Why the hell should they? Maybe Uncle Sam should get better at managing the money THEY ALREADY SUCK from everybody's wallets.

You're pointing the finger (as usual) in the wrong direction.

There is so much waste, fraud and GREED in Washington D.C., and you want to give them MORE MONEY... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

(I know how much you guys LOVE emoticons)

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

DJofSD
08-15-2011, 05:38 PM
Perhaps Warren is planning to do just that.

I'm more concerned about super wealthy people like the Koch Sisters and Tubby Limbaugh.

Could you see them making voluntary donations to Uncle Sam?
How about Oprah? Is she on that list?

DJofSD
08-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Mike, they got to pay for those new buses some how.

mostpost
08-15-2011, 06:20 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.

Mike at A+
08-15-2011, 06:33 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.
If any of those terrible millionaires and billionaires are BREAKING THE LAW, you could be sure the IRS would have caught them by now. Buffet is a jerk. He wants to dictate what OTHERS should do but he won't step up and do it himself first. If he's really that concerned that the government isn't collecting enough money, he should STEP UP. What liberals don't seem to understand is that if tax rates are increased, unemployment will either increase or stay near 9 or 10%. Rich liberals always want to hurt the financial class directly below them, especially if they're conservatives. Just like the lower class Obama supporters don't give a rat's ass if the middle class gets screwed. Misery loves company.

DJofSD
08-15-2011, 07:09 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.
You could tax 100% of the holdings of the wealthy and not come anywhere close to paying for the debt. That's ridiculous.

Admit it. You just want what you can't have. And you want to use the force of the federal government to get it.

HUSKER55
08-15-2011, 07:17 PM
i am curious. A man works smart and earns $10M a year. I am guessing that is somewhere in the range of most CEO's. How much money should he be allowed to keep? Who died and made him responsible for you? How about an entraupeneur who makes that much money? How much should he be allowed to keep?

newtothegame
08-15-2011, 07:35 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.

It isnt the cons who arent paying ANYTHING...you might want to look that up again lol. We have gone down this road several times and you wind up dissappearing only to show up in another thread with the same ole rhetoric....
But no worries mosty...I am sure you or cap can pull some graph from your glutes showing these facts...right?

dartman51
08-15-2011, 07:39 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.

If Mr Buffet is WILLING to pay more, WHY does he have his tax attorneys, find every loop hole possible, so he pays less taxes than his secretary?? He has stated that FACT himself, but since he is a proponent of higher taxes, the msm, doesn't ask him that question. If the Govt. just closed all the loopholes, so Mr. Buffet had to pay the full 35%, he might not be so vocal about higher taxes. You see, as long as you can afford the best tax attorneys to find all the loop holes, you don't really care what the tax rate is. In his position, it's real easy to be noble and say, "I'm willing to pay more taxes". A bit disingenuous to be honest. :ThmbUp:

lsbets
08-15-2011, 08:09 PM
Bigmack, Arljim78 and DJof SD are all here suggesting that Warren Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes. Just as it has been suggested many times that anyone who thinks that some people are not paying enough, should send a check directly to the government. This of course is a ridiculous idea.

All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.

You do realize that if it were the same percentage, the person earning 10 mil would pay 50 times more,correct.

Your argument that he should pay a higher percentage is ridiculous. Go with a flat tax with no deductions and we would have the fairest system there is.

Tom
08-15-2011, 08:33 PM
Warren Buffet is willing to pay more, but he is not willing to be played for a fool by some one who will not pay anything.

Who pays nothing?

1. 47 of all people
2. GE - HUGE OBama supported and part of his economic team


Let's start there and then talk again, once THEY are paying their fair share.

Saratoga_Mike
08-15-2011, 08:35 PM
All that it does is to ensure that the scofflaws will continue to avoid paying their share. At present, a person earning $10M in a year pays only 2% more in taxes than does a person earning $200K. He earns 50 times more, yet pays 2% more. And chances are very good that he doesn't pay that 2% anyway,

.

This is wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates. In 2010, someone who had taxable income of $200k would have paid $51,117 in federal taxes, equaling an effective tax rate of 25.6% ($51.1k/200k). In 2010, someone who had taxable income of $10 mm would have paid $3.48 mm in federal taxes, or an effective tax rate of 34.8%. The difference between between 34.8% and 25.6% is 9.2 percentage points.

I do agree with Buffet on carried interest, which is taxed as a capital gain.
John Smith runs a hedge fund. He charges his clients 1 and 20, meaning a 1% fee for assets under management (this revenue is taxed as ordinary income) and a 20% fee on any gains. If the gains are long term, John pays a 15% rate on this, which is the long-term capital gains tax rate. It isn't his capital!* It's his clients capital. It's ordinary income.

*John may have some of his own money in the fund, and that gain should treated as a long-term capital gain, not ordinary income.

Tom
08-15-2011, 08:38 PM
Perhaps Warren is planning to do just that.

I'm more concerned about super wealthy people like the Koch Sisters and Tubby Limbaugh.

Could you see them making voluntary donations to Uncle Sam?

How about the $4.2 million Rush Limbaugh, gave to the children of Marines and law-enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. I refresh your memory that he challenged Dingy Harry Reid to match him but as usual, Harry only spends other peoples money. this was done lie, on the radio.

Mike at A+
08-15-2011, 08:44 PM
Obama puts foot in mouth again as Ben Stein just pointed out. Obama was telling the crowd that Warren Buffet only paid 17% in federal income taxes. He then said "I bet most of you out there pay more than that". WRONG Barry. 51% of Americans pay NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA! And they all support YOU so they can continue to SUCK AMERICA DRY. In other words, YOU BUY THEIR VOTE by taking money from successful people who played by the rules and made a good life for themselves.

benzer
08-15-2011, 09:18 PM
The fair tax method of taxation is sounding better all the time.

Valuist
08-15-2011, 09:42 PM
Or are they too beholden to some con piss ant named Norquist???


Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances … I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Courtesy of the GREAT Warren E. Buffett

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp

Maybe Buffet was "great" at one time. BTW, how are those GS warrants doing that he got in late 2008? Answer: barely in the money. This after the market rocketed in 2009 and 2010 yet as recently as the past week they were under water.

mostpost
08-15-2011, 09:46 PM
What liberals don't seem to understand is that if tax rates are increased, unemployment will either increase or stay near 9 or 10%.

History does not back up that statement.

I kept reading what you posted above from various people and wondered if it was indeed true. So I found a list of the top tax rates for each year. Then I found years in which the tax rate went up from one year to the next, and when it went down. Then I looked at the annual unemployment rates for the corresponding years. You are not even close to being right.

Since 1948 (the first year for which I could find unemployment rates), tax rates went up six times. Five of those years unemployment decreased; in one case by 2.6 points in another by .6 points. Only once did unemployment increase following a raise in tax rates.

On the other side of the coin, we lowered rates eleven times. Unemployment went down only three of those times. Unemployment went up eight times following a cut in tax rates.

Here is another interesting fact. The only time a raise in tax rates coincided with a raise in unemployment was from 1989 to 1998, under a Republican administration. To of the three times that unemployment dropped after a tax occurred during the Lyndon Johnson administration.

Of course I do not expect this recitation of the facts to change your opinion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tom
08-15-2011, 09:47 PM
mosite, it is NOT 1948. Duh.

Mike at A+
08-15-2011, 09:52 PM
Beat me to the punch Tom. We're in unchartered territory. It's obvious to anyone breathing that the threat of higher taxes and incendiary rhetoric regarding class warfare is not going to create any jobs. Businesses are sitting on their money for good reasons, mainly survival through 2012 when hopefully a president more concerned with job creation takes over from this failure of a president.

mostpost
08-15-2011, 09:52 PM
mosite, it is NOT 1948. Duh.
Duh yourself!!! 1948 was the starting point. My post include all tax changes up to and including the Bush tax cuts. Both of which resulted in an increase in unemployment.

Mike at A+
08-15-2011, 09:53 PM
Duh yourself!!! 1948 was the starting point. My post include all tax changes up to and including the Bush tax cuts. Both of which resulted in an increase in unemployment.
AGAIN, NO MENTION OF 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You DO know what happened right after 9/11, right?

mostpost
08-15-2011, 09:54 PM
Beat me to the punch Tom. We're in unchartered territory. It's obvious to anyone breathing that the threat of higher taxes and incendiary rhetoric regarding class warfare is not going to create any jobs. Businesses are sitting on their money for good reasons, mainly survival through 2012 when hopefully a president more concerned with job creation takes over from this failure of a president.

I just knew that you would not let the facts sway you from your opinion. :bang: :bang:

mostpost
08-15-2011, 09:55 PM
AGAIN, NO MENTION OF 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You DO know what happened right after 9/11, right?
There was no 9/11 the other times that unemployment went up following tax cuts.

cj's dad
08-15-2011, 09:57 PM
Tom, why are you and I wasting our time with this guy. He is clearly a government lackey posting talking points from his benefactor, the US Government. Check out how quickly his posts with charts and graphs appear after a post that is derogatory to BHO.

He didn't retire, he simply was reassigned. He is double-dipping.

mosite, it is NOT 1948. Duh.

mostpost
08-15-2011, 10:04 PM
If Mr Buffet is WILLING to pay more, WHY does he have his tax attorneys, find every loop hole possible, so he pays less taxes than his secretary?? He has stated that FACT himself, but since he is a proponent of higher taxes, the msm, doesn't ask him that question. If the Govt. just closed all the loopholes, so Mr. Buffet had to pay the full 35%, he might not be so vocal about higher taxes. You see, as long as you can afford the best tax attorneys to find all the loop holes, you don't really care what the tax rate is. In his position, it's real easy to be noble and say, "I'm willing to pay more taxes". A bit disingenuous to be honest. :ThmbUp:
Probably for the same reason that Uncle Mo won't stand in the starting gate for five seconds at the start of the Kings Bishop. His competition is playing by the current rules.

mostpost
08-15-2011, 10:16 PM
How about the $4.2 million Rush Limbaugh, gave to the children of Marines and law-enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. I refresh your memory that he challenged Dingy Harry Reid to match him but as usual, Harry only spends other peoples money. this was done lie, on the radio.

You're comparing Rush Limbaugh, who is in the middle of an eight year $400M contract to Harry Reid who has a net worth of $3M. I bet you would be equally impressed if Wilt Chamberlain challenged Willie Shoemaker to a dunking contest.

If I'm not mistaken charitable contributions are tax deductible.

dartman51
08-15-2011, 11:45 PM
You're comparing Rush Limbaugh, who is in the middle of an eight year $400M contract to Harry Reid who has a net worth of $3M. I bet you would be equally impressed if Wilt Chamberlain challenged Willie Shoemaker to a dunking contest.

If I'm not mistaken charitable contributions are tax deductible.


I would be totally impressed.......since both are DECEASED!!!!

And, as for Harry Reid, his net worth is closer to $4.6 million. Not bad for someone who by his own admission, was born poor. Not to mention the fact that his entire adult life, after college, with the exception of 2 years, has been spent in public service. Not to mention, putting 5 kids through college. How do you think he amassed his fortune??

ElKabong
08-16-2011, 12:16 AM
And, as for Harry Reid, his net worth is closer to $4.6 million. Not bad for someone who by his own admission, was born poor. Not to mention the fact that his entire adult life, after college, with the exception of 2 years, has been spent in public service. Not to mention, putting 5 kids through college. How do you think he amassed his fortune??

Go light on mostie on this one...Much of Harry's fortune came from union dues.

union members = open wounds that unions and politicians use to suck the life out of

Valuist
08-16-2011, 11:06 AM
History does not back up that statement.

I kept reading what you posted above from various people and wondered if it was indeed true. So I found a list of the top tax rates for each year. Then I found years in which the tax rate went up from one year to the next, and when it went down. Then I looked at the annual unemployment rates for the corresponding years. You are not even close to being right.

Since 1948 (the first year for which I could find unemployment rates), tax rates went up six times. Five of those years unemployment decreased; in one case by 2.6 points in another by .6 points. Only once did unemployment increase following a raise in tax rates.

On the other side of the coin, we lowered rates eleven times. Unemployment went down only three of those times. Unemployment went up eight times following a cut in tax rates.

Here is another interesting fact. The only time a raise in tax rates coincided with a raise in unemployment was from 1989 to 1998, under a Republican administration. To of the three times that unemployment dropped after a tax occurred during the Lyndon Johnson administration.

Of course I do not expect this recitation of the facts to change your opinion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mostpost-

Just out of curiousity, what was your take on the economy during the Carter administration? You can't have forgotten the stagflation, sky high interest rates and high unemployment.

Saratoga_Mike
08-16-2011, 12:04 PM
Mostpost-

Just out of curiousity, what was your take on the economy during the Carter administration? You can't have forgotten the stagflation, sky high interest rates and high unemployment.

I don't think Carter was a good president, but there's a little bit of a myth around unemployment during his tenure in office. When he came into office (Jan 77), the unemployment rate was 7.5%. And it was 7.5% when he left office (Jan 81). In Jan 83 and Jan 85, it was 10.4% and 7.3%, respectively.

Valuist
08-16-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't think Carter was a good president, but there's a little bit of a myth around unemployment during his tenure in office. When he came into office (Jan 77), the unemployment rate was 7.5%. And it was 7.5% when he left office (Jan 81). In Jan 83 and Jan 85, it was 10.4% and 7.3%, respectively.

7.5% unemployment is NOT good. It only seems good compared to now.

mostpost
08-16-2011, 03:36 PM
Tom, why are you and I wasting our time with this guy. He is clearly a government lackey posting talking points from his benefactor, the US Government. Check out how quickly his posts with charts and graphs appear after a post that is derogatory to BHO.

He didn't retire, he simply was reassigned. He is double-dipping.
Ignore me at your peril. I post charts and graphs because they prove my points. I post them quickly because i know what I am looking for and where to find it.
You and Tom on the other hand post nonsense without checking your facts. That is why it is so easy for me or Hcap or Robert Goren to shoot down your little theories. As they say, the facts have a liberal bias. Such as the higher taxes cause higher unemployment theory.

Tom
08-16-2011, 04:02 PM
What color is the sky in your world, mostie?

bigmack
08-16-2011, 04:17 PM
That is why it is so easy for me or Hcap or Robert Goren to shoot down your little theories.
Contact your MD and tell them you're experiencing vivid delusions. With meds, there's hope. :ThmbUp:

Saratoga_Mike
08-16-2011, 04:19 PM
7.5% unemployment is NOT good. It only seems good compared to now.

Well then to be consistent, you must believe there was high unemployment during Reagan's first term, correct?

Tom
08-16-2011, 07:37 PM
He inherited it from Carter.