Guru Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm also seriously getting tired of people, who otherwise seem pretty smart, thinking that "Just write a check Warren!!" is anything more than a childish and useless answer to Buffett's proposal. Given that WEB's proposal revolves around the fact that in order to get its fiscal house in order, the country will soon be enacting policies that will inflict some serious pain on sections of the population, take for example retirees who will undoubtedly see their social security and medicare benefits take a serious hit; and WEB's point is that since you're asking all those people to bear the pain of balancing our finances,why not ask the richest of us like him to shoulder some of that pain and pay more than 16% in taxes. If you all allow me, I would suggest that WEB offers this as a rebuttal to those idiotic "write a check Warren!!" arguments: "Since you want to make it the country's policy that, I will shoulder some of the pain of righting the American fiscal ship only on a voluntary basis, I will go ahead and write a check to Geithner that will take my taxes from 16% to 30% ONLY if you also make it that the coming cuts to social security and medicare are on an "opt-in" basis! Meaning retirees will have to voluntarily opt-in for their social security payments to be cut." I wonder how that would go... ::) +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Who spends what they don't have? Both parties do. How many times have people called the pre-collapse years a "false prosperity"? Pull back the veil of prosperity, tax receipts plunge, unemployed ranks swell, voila! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysinvert Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~conniec/GroupThink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "Dammit you beat me to it. I will answer the question, no. Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." -Myth, Thank you for tracking my comments, I did not know you were interested. I notice that you did not mention the answer I gave, if one of those ideas I mentioned were originally yours, I thank you, and my family does as well. The US TREASURY does as well, unfortunately i am paying the most taxes in one year I have ever paid in 2011! CHEERS to my secret follower! ;) -To Ericopoly, You posted a graph comparing Bush spending to Obama spending. Silly! I was not at all happy about the Bush (aided by Congress) spending habits, but that is not really an argument for Obama. It is an argument which says take spending levels back to 2008, even 2006 levels (even 2000 levels??), and then I would gladly talk about higher (Clinton era) tax rates for the wealthy. But cut the spending first! Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. exactly anybody who believes the repubicans are any better at spending then demos just isn't paying attention. Yup! They all cater to their constituency and their lobbyists. Once they are out of office, who the hell is going to hire them...their constituency and their lobbyists! It's rare for a politician to actually stand up and do the right thing, rather than for those that pay or support their campaign. For example, 5 Super PAC's account for 85% of the money raised so far for the Republican party. Whose interests are these candidates representing? It's no different for the Democrats. The politician's nose is led by a fish hook! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rranjan Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I would gladly talk about higher (Clinton era) tax rates for the wealthy. But cut the spending first! This line of thinking does not make sense to me. Right now the situation is where a Bilionair pays less tax than a middle class person. You want this situation to continue till spending gets cut? Buffett argument is not about increasing tax for everyone. Buffett argument is not about increasing tax for some one making even millions in salary. His argument was not about having higher capital gain tax for middle income family. His argument was to make sure that people who earn millions by pushing money should not pay less tax than a person working in mines under harsh conditions. Nothing more , nothing less. Now if you says that precondition for rectifying this stupid situation is reducing the spending then I have nothing more to say. I don't have any opinion about tax rate but I strongly feel Billionairs can afford to pay at least same tax rate as a peson working in mines. By the way, Buffett did advocate reduction in spending. I don't see media highlighting that. But reduction in spending is a seperate issue. I will undertand if reduction in spending is tied to a tax issue which impacts everyone but reduction in spending should not be linked with Buffett's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." Ben Graham has been banned to the abyss! The other guy knows he will get hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he gets out of line. ;D I didn't realize until I attempted to ban Ben Graham, but when I looked on the "ban" administrative panel, he had some 20 IP addresses he was using to post from. I've banned them all, and will try to feret him out if he attempts to re-register. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. exactly anybody who believes the repubicans are any better at spending then demos just isn't paying attention. Yup! They all cater to their constituency and their lobbyists. Once they are out of office, who the hell is going to hire them...their constituency and their lobbyists! It's rare for a politician to actually stand up and do the right thing, rather than for those that pay or support their campaign. For example, 5 Super PAC's account for 85% of the money raised so far for the Republican party. Whose interests are these candidates representing? It's no different for the Democrats. The politician's nose is led by a fish hook! Cheers! This is also telling: Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent. The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda. Moochers Against Welfare http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?scp=7&sq=Krugman&st=cse EDIT: Perhaps the residents of the 10 most Conservative states can give back their excess welfare and "shut up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I would gladly talk about higher (Clinton era) tax rates for the wealthy. But cut the spending first! This line of thinking does not make sense to me. Right now the situation is where a Bilionair pays less tax than a middle class person. You want this situation to continue till spending gets cut? Buffett argument is not about increasing tax for everyone. Buffett argument is not about increasing tax for some one making even millions in salary. His argument was not about having higher capital gain tax for middle income family. His argument was to make sure that people who earn millions by pushing money should not pay less tax than a person working in mines under harsh conditions. Nothing more , nothing less. Now if you says that precondition for rectifying this stupid situation is reducing the spending then I have nothing more to say. I don't have any opinion about tax rate but I strongly feel Billionairs can afford to pay at least same tax rate as a peson working in mines. By the way, Buffett did advocate reduction in spending. I don't see media highlighting that. But reduction in spending is a seperate issue. I will undertand if reduction in spending is tied to a tax issue which impacts everyone but reduction in spending should not be linked with Buffett's argument. Buffett's argument is that he pays less tax than his secretary, which is absurdly false. Buffett pays a higher income tax rate than his secretary. Buffett uses an incomplete set of facts to arrive at a faulty conclusion. As other forums on here have detailed, he ignores medical benefits being untaxed, attributes both halves of payroll taxes to the employee (conveniently transferring the hit from him to his Secretary), uses taxable income instead of salary in order to make the payroll tax % seem significantly higher, ignores that his Secretary will get back all those payroll taxes and more if she lives to normal life expectancy, ignores the corporate taxes he indirectly pays, ignores the payroll taxes that he as a business owner pays, etc. Even using Buffett's selected facts, Buffett's lifetime tax rate is multiples of his Secretary's. And that is comparing a Secretary to a man who structured his life to minimize taxes throughout his lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 I didn't realize until I attempted to ban Ben Graham, but when I looked on the "ban" administrative panel, he had some 20 IP addresses he was using to post from. I've banned them all, and will try to feret him out if he attempts to re-register. Cheers! The good news is that he could be registered under any name, but we'll all know it's him as soon as he posts :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 you're muddying up the issue with grover norquist produced talking points. the fact is Buffett is taxed at the 15% rate on the vast majority of his income. he wants the CG rate to go up and the people who have income derived from CG to pay more. it's quite simple. but the more the neoCONS muddy the waters the less simple it seems, which is their desire. I guess that the fact that nobody who says they oppose Buffett here is actually addressing his points, but rather they try to turn it into something else completely, is kind of equivalent to conceding the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 you're muddying up the issue with grover norquist produced talking points. the fact is Buffett is taxed at the 15% rate on the vast majority of his income. he wants the CG rate to go up and the people who have income derived from CG to pay more. it's quite simple. but the more the neoCONS muddy the waters the less simple it seems, which is their desire. Sorry I have never read Norquist's talking points. I know facts are stubborn things but they only muddy things up for those who can't think it through. For the rest of us they are no problem to resolve. Answer me this. Who paid a higher income tax rate in 2010, Buffett or his Secretary? Unless Warren gave her a large raise in the last few years, the answer is not his Secretary. If corporate taxes don't matter business owners must be idiots. They could incorporate and have the corporation pay all the corporate taxes, and just pay out dividends to themselves and magically lower their tax rate to 15%. Why don't they do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 you're muddying up the issue with grover norquist produced talking points. the fact is Buffett is taxed at the 15% rate on the vast majority of his income. he wants the CG rate to go up and the people who have income derived from CG to pay more. it's quite simple. but the more the neoCONS muddy the waters the less simple it seems, which is their desire. I guess that the fact that nobody who says they oppose Buffett here is actually addressing his points, but rather they try to turn it into something else completely, is kind of equivalent to conceding the issue... What do you think is Buffett's point? I have addressed his NY Times editorial here and it is available at other forums (Value Investing Letter). Buffett says he is being coddled and implies it is at the expense of the middle class. Yet statistics show the middle class has seen their overall tax percentages fall for thirty years, and at a greater rate than the 1%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." Ben Graham has been banned to the abyss! The other guy knows he will get hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he gets out of line. ;D I didn't realize until I attempted to ban Ben Graham, but when I looked on the "ban" administrative panel, he had some 20 IP addresses he was using to post from. I've banned them all, and will try to feret him out if he attempts to re-register. Cheers! If Ben Graham comes back I think we'll notice him. Luckily for us, he has a very distinct WRITING 8) STYLE given to HIM by the GLORIOUS value investing GODS !!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" -Anyone? -And in regards to the Krugman article, it is old news about certain states which trend Republican receive more Federal largesse. I do not defend those states, but I will also not take seriously an opinion writer who writes that the Republicans are conducting a war against contraception. TOO FUNNY! I was just in a drug store this morning, Elaine from Seinfeld would have no problem finding several different methods to use! (Krugman :-[ ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 but I will also not take seriously an opinion writer who writes that the Republicans are conducting a war against contraception. TOO FUNNY! I was just in a drug store this morning, Elaine from Seinfeld would have no problem finding several different methods to use! (Krugman :-[ ) Krugman is probably not referring to the free choices we have today under the current government, but rather commenting on the stated ambitions of the front-running Republican party hopefuls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanMaestro Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 And in regards to the Krugman article, it is old news about certain states which trend Republican receive more Federal largesse. I do not defend those states, but I will also not take seriously an opinion writer who writes that the Republicans are conducting a war against contraception. TOO FUNNY! I was just in a drug store this morning, Elaine from Seinfeld would have no problem finding several different methods to use! (Krugman :-[ ) Ad hominem? Very bad. Very very very bad troll. Please don't feed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 If Ben Graham comes back I think we'll notice him. Luckily for us, he has a very distinct WRITING 8) STYLE given to HIM by the GLORIOUS value investing GODS !!!!!!!!! LOL... That dude was just bizarre man... I'm sorry, I mean : THAT dude was just bizarre 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" -Anyone? Ericopoly? Plan Maestro? ad hominem - appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think PlanMaestro, Isn't observation part of thinking? I don't think you are using that phrase correctly. I would fight AGAINST any party or person who would look to ban contraceptive methods. I would also fight AGAINST any party or person who thinks some of those methods should be given out for free, or without consent of a parent (if the person is a minor). RADICAL! Ericopoly, Yes, Republicans seek to vote for a candidate who will institute a ban on contraception. They will also tell you which doctor to go to, they will then tell the doctor how much to charge. They will also tell the doctor if they are allowed to perform certain procedures, depending on the age of the person, or their mental state, or physical state. All of these decisions will be rendered by a 15 member board, completely chosen by the Executive Branch without consent of the governed. Their decisions will be FINAL! Yes, this is what Republicans want. Any passing resemblance to a FEDERAL program some call OBAMACARE is totally unintentional. I still look forward to hearing from those who disagree with my premise posted 3X (it is just a few lines up, take a look). CHEERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 What do you think is Buffett's point? I have addressed his NY Times editorial here and it is available at other forums (Value Investing Letter). Buffett says he is being coddled and implies it is at the expense of the middle class. Yet statistics show the middle class has seen their overall tax percentages fall for thirty years, and at a greater rate than the 1%. Do you think it is fair that someone who makes 80k/year in income pays 30% in taxes while someone making 80 million/year in income from capital gains pays 15%? Buffett doesn't think it's fair. That's his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "Do you think it is fair that someone who makes 80k/year in income pays 30% in taxes while someone making 80 million/year in income from capital gains pays 15%? Buffett doesn't think it's fair. That's his point." Fairness - I bet my salary/net worth is on the low end of the members/trolls who read this blog. How about we all pool our resources, that way we will all pay the same rate and same amount each year? Is that a good definition of this word?Should government policy have its foundation rooted in FAIRNESS?? One day, I want to be someone who pays 15% on my income from capital gains, and NOT have any other income. That would be sweet indeed. The things I could do with my time, the people I could help. That would be GREAT, no? Or would that be UNFAIR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." Ben Graham has been banned to the abyss! The other guy knows he will get hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he gets out of line. ;D I didn't realize until I attempted to ban Ben Graham, but when I looked on the "ban" administrative panel, he had some 20 IP addresses he was using to post from. I've banned them all, and will try to feret him out if he attempts to re-register. Cheers! Southern Yankee did have one post on investing. He asked what is a short sale. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Fairness - I bet my salary/net worth is on the low end of the members/trolls who read this blog. How about we all pool our resources, that way we will all pay the same rate and same amount each year? Is that a good definition of this word?Should government policy have its foundation rooted in FAIRNESS?? *sigh* As opposed to what? Unfairness? Yes, government should try to be as fair as possible. If you ask everybody to pay taxes, you should be fair about it and not give huge preference to a certain sub-group (and it's especially unfair if that group is the richest one to begin with). If you want to lower taxes, that's fine, but there's a fair way to do that too. Of course fairness is an ideal that can never be attained, but we should attempt our best, no? This applies regardless of whether you think government should be 1/100th the size of what it is now or bigger. One day, I want to be someone who pays 15% on my income from capital gains, and NOT have any other income. That would be sweet indeed. The things I could do with my time, the people I could help. That would be GREAT, no? Or would that be UNFAIR? Straw man. I would love to live off my investments too. That in itself isn't fair or unfair. But having a government that asks 15% of me while I make millions every year and asks 30%+ of people who make thousands of times less is unfair by almost any standard. Buffett's proposal is so damn un-radical that it's funny to see how much resistance there is to it. You could have 50 million bucks in the bank and earn 900k a year in income from investments and not even be targeted by Buffett's proposal, yet people feel these super-rich-investors need all the help they can get to defend themselves. Meanwhile, extremely regressive and plain crazy taxes and loopholes are currently on the books and not challenged by these same people. Anyway, this is boring and enough has been said on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 What do you think is Buffett's point? I have addressed his NY Times editorial here and it is available at other forums (Value Investing Letter). Buffett says he is being coddled and implies it is at the expense of the middle class. Yet statistics show the middle class has seen their overall tax percentages fall for thirty years, and at a greater rate than the 1%. Do you think it is fair that someone who makes 80k/year in income pays 30% in taxes while someone making 80 million/year in income from capital gains pays 15%? Buffett doesn't think it's fair. That's his point. I understand exactly what Buffett is trying to argue. He is wrong. He is selecting facts. For someone who used to calculate BRK's earnings on a look-through basis he should know better. He pays much more in taxes. He pays corporate taxes and as an owner, or part-owner, he pays half of the payroll taxes. He grossly understates his true tax burden. Meanwhile he grossly overstates his Secretary's tax burden. Unless her pay has suddenly spiked, she pays lower income taxes than Buffett's 15%. Her overall rate appears higher due to payroll taxes. That is because she has not hit retirement age. When she does her taxes will go to negative infinity. She will collect nearly 30k in benefits and pay zero. Buffett ignores that fact. Over her lifetime, Buffett's Secretary, assuming a normal life expectancy, will pay an overall rate of 2.5% and that includes income taxes and her half of payroll taxes less SS and Medicare benefits received in current dollars. Over Buffett's lifetime he will pay 5 to 6 times that rate and that is IGNORING all the corporate taxes and employee half of payroll taxes that he indirectly pays. For every dollar in dividends Buffett receives 25 to 35% in corporate taxes was already paid. His true lifetime tax rate including corporate taxes is 10 to 15 times the rate of his Secretary. Buffett is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "Southern Yankee did have one post on investing. He asked what is a short sale." -That is usually at the end of the summer, so department stores get ready for the Fall. See the knowledge I have gained from this forum. ;D Again, Many thanks! "Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)" Anyone? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now