Stop Coddling the Super Rich- Warren Buffett

If you argue against a policy, should you always be expected to act in accordance with YOUR ideals rather than acting in accordance with the current policy, lest ye be called a hypocrite?

If you think this is hypocritical, what do you think of Congressmembers who argued against the stimulus in its entirety (for one example), but then argued for those funds in their district?
 
If, and that is a huge if, BO would actually propose something concrete that included an increase in capital gains rates on income over $1 M, that included at least some tax rate for everyone (a national sales/gas tax are the best) and real spending reductions, if by some freak of nature the president would do what he was elected to do, the measure would pass in a heartbeat.

But, as usual, he just talks and talks and won't make a stand on anything.

The tea party folks would get voted out of office if they refused to sign on to a deal as described above. However, they are going to continue to oppose until there is a plan that includes BOTH shared sacrifice by everyone and real spending cuts.
 
My personal take on the ecomony and taxes is that they should be treated as seperate entities.

I do not know enough about the tax code to speak intelligently on the business side but I will throw something out there anyway. There should be a straight tax on businesses with no loopholes; set thresholds on the percentages a business would pay, e.g. Business 1 makes 100,000 in profits pays 5% of that in taxes. I have already done a thread about personal income taxes and shown with real numbers how implementing a progressive flat tax i.e. if you make over a set amount you pay a set percentage over that amount, will increase our revenue. I used 20% for my flat tax and I increase the revenue by 34% I believe (too lazy to search the board for that thread to link it but if you do you can see my math). Now, that proposal eliminates all loopholes and tax credits, except charitable donations. So, that means that I would have to pay instead of receiving money back--and I am good with that. I think most Americans are good with that and recognize that the gravy train is running out of steam.

As far as the economy is concerned, I have no clue on how the economy works so I have no ideas on how to improve it. I certainly don't buy the rights arguement that increasing taxes or lowering taxes has a huge influence on job creation or loss of jobs. I think about in a simplistic way. If company A has a product and more people buy that product, then a job is created to produce more of the product. Explain to me how increasing or decreasing the tax code changes that position. I mean if taxes were increased today for me then I am only losing a few more dollars a month. Certainly not enough to change my spending habits and the same can be said if my taxes were lowered. Great I get another $50 dollars to spend at H.E.B for the month, which equates to a little over a $1 per day, yeah I just paid for a new employee???


Help me understand without political views forming you basis.
 
As a staunch conservative, I agree with much of what Buffett says - the entire tax system should be revamped, including closing the loopholes and eliminating corporate welfare. I agree that 17% is less tax than is likely appropriate for high income earners, but it's not just a matter of ratcheting up the rates as Obama and most libs want to do, it's a matter of taking out all the favors that politicians of both stripes have doled out.

However, if we don't fix the spending, it's all irrelevant. If Buffett and the rest of the super rich paid ALL their income to the government, it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. IT'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!

Buffett would have more credibility if he said that he believes so intensely that he and his peers should pay more tax that he's voluntarily giving another 17% to the government, his message would be much more powerful. Just sayin' ...

And as to why Buffett is willing his money to the Gates Foundation rather than to the government, it's because in all his money-making wisdom, he knows that the foundation would do more good with it. We're trying to do way to much with the government that charities should be doing. They would do it more efficiently and more effectively.

I have more to say, but I'll just tee these up for now.
 
Buffett is promoting the idea of a flat based tax system. Reagan did something very close in the 80s by eliminating many loopholes. It's a great idea, but the very people who should be on your side (people like you and me) are manipulated by rich influential media personalities funded by extremely rich moguls.

Marx warned that democracy would fail due to the masses being easily manipulated by the powerful through the media. When ideas of getting money out of politics arise, the media machinery rolls to tell people that giving money to politicians is “free speech”. When the government attempts to pass media-fairness regulations similar to what was around for 50 years until Clinton’s time, we are told that infringes on “free speech.” These media personalities are very charming and excellent debaters, so the majority of people will follow them. Politicians are at the mercy of their constituents, so they do what the media tells them to do.

I’m all for cutting spending without raising taxes, but I don’t think there is a realistic political way to do it. If you cut defense, the conservative media will claim you are to blame for the death of soldiers. If you cut entitlements, the liberal media will claim you are to blame for grandma not getting her medicine. There’s no way out. I think we are in trouble. A people who are constantly investing in the old and war are not putting the money in the best places.
 
Ask Warren if he'd be OK with getting rid of all those tax breaks he uses to keep that bill down and go with a flat 25-percent tax on income. I'm betting he doesn't go for it.
 
Let's ignore the fact that it is the spending that got us to this point, without the ludicrous levels of spending, you don't require the ludicrous amount of "revenues" to close the gap.

It is high time for people like Buffet, Gates, Gore to put their money where their mouth is and start sending their incomes in to the Treasury. There is a publicly available mailing address for just this, and I'm sure they would be more than happy to receive their 10 or 11 figure checks.

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of them backing up their rhetoric. For some reason they never seem to do it though.
 
So.

The liberal-lovin' NYT chose to (patronizingly) add this Op-Ed piece.

How is Buffets' stance even relevant to the modern day zeitgeist?

Here we have a fine member of the greatest generation; people who passionately value the shear luck of winning the ovarian lottery by simply being born in one of the most unique societies of the world. And have the sentimentalist nature that compels them to give back, thru taxes, to the government of that society.

[sigh] By the week-end, his idea will forgotten by 4/5th of the nation.

BTW, Charlie Rose interviewed him on monday (last) night. He stuck pretty much to his published talking points, but with other poignant thoughts... replayed easily at charlierose.com
 
How is Buffets' stance even relevant to the modern day zeitgeist?

It's fairly obvious:

Buffett is one of the uber rich, and he's saying they should be taxed more.
 
Didn't Buffett set up Berkshire Hathaway in such a way tto avoid paying taxes and keeping as much of the profit to do with as he and the board want as possible?
 
I wish Buffet would have talked more about the limit the taxes should change. I agree with him that an increase in capital gains on incomes over $1M might not hurt much by way of the economy. There really aren't too many folks in that category anyway.

I'd like Buffet's opinion on the possible affect on the economy and investing if the tax rate was set at $250K versus $1M as BO wants. Right now Buffet is advocating a plan that no one is really looking at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top