Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy class does NOT harm the economy

[bedowin62]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

 

[bedowin62]

We haven’t heard much from Mr. Buffett’s investing partner Charlie Munger, since 2010, when he said, “So I think when you have troubles like that you shouldn’t be bitching about a little bailout. You should have been thinking it should have been bigger.” And for those not doing so well in the downturn, the 86-year old Munger says “suck it in and cope.” (Click here for more on this story from the Christian Science Monitor.)
“Suck it in and cope.” That’s what Buffett, Munger, Berkshire Hathaway shareholders and all the bankers should have done after the meltdown of 2008. Instead, people like Buffett used their influence and power to debase the dollar with massive money printing for bailouts that helped cause the credit rating of the United States to be cut. Mr. Buffett’s actions define him. If he really wants to look like a statesman instead of a bagman, he should forget the Buffett Rule hypocrisy and stop the Buffett bailouts!

 

[bedowin62]

why doesnt Dad2three admit he is being used as a shill by both the far-left and some of the richest hypocrites on earth?

 

[Dad2three]

From that same letter written by Jefferson:

The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards.

Sound familiar?

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Reagan understood this.

"Reagan understood this."


Yet created today's system where almost ALL gains go to the top 1%. Weird

 

[bedowin62]

gotta love a left-winger being used as a tool by both ends of the spectrum!!

Buffett is in a league of rich on his own; his musings on policy are self-serving

 

[g5000]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

 

[bedowin62]

President Barack Obama, eager to bash Republican businessman Mitt Romney without actually coming across as anti-business, recruited multibillionaire Warren Buffett as his supporter. Obama liked Buffett's "Buffett Rule," which held that millionaires and billionaires should pay more as a percentage of their income than the middle class.
No one really disagreed with Buffett's rule, but Obama beat Romney over the head regarding tax "unfairness." Obama wanted the rich to pay a higher share of their income, and after he won election in 2012, the Bush tax rates for the highest income earners expired.
Fast forward to today. Buffett is helping Miami-based Burger King finance a purchase of Canada-based Tim Hortons. Tim Hortons is a major Canadian doughnut-and-coffee shop that is more popular than hockey.
It's also more profitable than Burger King.
So the $10 billion deal will need help. In comes Warren Buffett and his Berkshire Hathaway company. For choice stock, they will offer $3 billion in financing. Pretty standard stuff.
Except, get this: Once Burger King seals the deal with Tim Hortons, the burger chain will "invert" itself. That means, they will declare their headquarters to be in Oakville, Ontario, where Tim Hortons is based -- not Miami.

 

[Dad2three]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

Why is their so many ignorant fools on here in history?

Again you moron it's not 1950. Not 1960...


Europe and Asia were coming out of WWII

We didn't have the regulations we have now We didn't have the Competition we have now...

An high tax rate won't work.....

Looks like the job creators are doing a fine job of killing the middle class all by themselves.

Tell us some more about the job killing regulations.



EFFECTIVE TAX RATES

1.Take your charts and shove them up your ass

2. Pick up a history book

3. Stop your stupid ass left wing taking points the year is 2015 who the he'll benefits with a higher tax rate?


In 2015 no one will benefit people will just keep their money and say

Fuck you and retire...it's that simple...

Oh right, sorry in the right wing "reality" a guy just takes his money and moves to Randansitan to hide his money under his pillow!

 

[bedowin62]

Day-to-day, it means nothing. No stores will close. But it means the corporate tax that BK pays will be cut, because those Canadians have been lowering their corporate rate for years. No more U.S. corporate rate.
The corporate tax rate in the United States is one of the highest in the world, and the highest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations.
It's 39.1 percent. Canada's corporate rate is 26.3 percent.
Buffett preached that the U.S. rich pay their fair share, but is now helping Burger King headquarters flee to Canada. The inversion appears to be one the main reasons that BK decided to buy Tim Hortons.
It's odd too. Usually Canadians head to Miami. Now Miami types head to Ontario, Canada. That is the power of taxation.

 

[Dad2three]

You all probably remember Dick Cheney saying during the 2000 campaign that Reagan taught us "deficits don't matter".

That is not what Reagan taught us.

What Reagan taught us was as long as GDP growth matched or exceeded the growth in the deficit, then we would be fine. And for the most part, Reagan held the deficit to GDP growth.

Clinton did not. Not even close.

And neither did Bush/Cheney.

Which makes Cheney a fucking asshole. And Bush.

Sure

NOTE HOW UNDER CLINTON IT WENT DOWN, BUT NOT FOR RONNIE RAYGUN?

 

[bedowin62]

It's too bad for the Democrats, reports the Wall Street Journal. They had been hoping to make an issue of "inversions" in the 2014 elections.
But now the richest Democrat in the nation will finance one. And the other high-profile inversion of late involved the daughter of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.
Heather Bresch is Manchin's daughter. She is also the CEO of Mylan, a generic drug company. Mylan wants to escape the high corporate tax rate, and is inverting the company into the Netherlands.
Manchin didn't take it well. In July, he told National Journal that what Mylan did should be illegal.

 

[bedowin62]

Note how Clinton had a Republican-majority Congress and one Ronald Reagan had a Democrat-majority congress to work with

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

Sometimes, it's all just too much to take.
The president himself has admitted, if not in so many words, that the so-called Buffett Rule is little more than a gimmick. Bringing in $4.7 billion per year won't do much to solve $1.4 trillion dollar deficits. And, the administration concedes, this latest attempt at soaking the rich does little to spur growth.
But what's especially galling for those with a bull's-eye on their back is the pious specter of Messrs. Obama and Buffett demanding higher taxes while deliberately ducking -- albeit legally -- the tax man themselves. Just how is it you make a moral argument about "fairness," all the while eschewing your self-described moral obligation?

 

[bedowin62]

In the last couple of years, it appears that Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett and President Obama have had effective income tax rates of 15.4 percent, 17.4 percent and 20.5 percent, respectively. All took sizable advantage of charitable deductions, which taken together with other taxpayers costs the Treasury $52 billion annually.
This pales in comparison, however, with the tax code's biggest loophole, the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income. According to the Congressional Research Service, that amounts to more than $164 billion per year in foregone federal revenue, barely surpassing another middle-class tax break, tax-deferred pension contributions.
[iframe style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;" id="google_ads_iframe_/7932/website/web_opinion/web_opinion_commentaries/inline_article_2" height="60" marginHeight="0" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
So why then is the president so obsessed with the Buffett dodge? True, when not preaching to the rest of us, the Oracle of Omaha has studiously kept his corporate salary at a minimum (i.e., less than his secretary's), thus avoiding a 35 percent top rate on ordinary income.
By deriving the bulk of his annual wealth from his investments, Buffett enjoys the lower 15 percent rate for capital gains and dividends. But the "rule," levying a 30 percent rate on any income for folks like Romney, Buffett and Obama, represents a massive new tax on investment and ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35 percent before any gain is realized and even after any dividend is distributed.

 

[Dad2three]

Every penny from those making $500,000 or more only 6 months? Oh you mean WITHOUT keeping existing tax revenues TOO?

Since taxing ONLY the top 1% at DOUBLE today's EFFECTIVE rate (23%) would wipe out the current deficit?

Yep, ONLY a 46% EFFECTIVE tax rate for the top 1% and we go back to a surplus like Clinton had US at!

The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

Right Reagan GUTTING the treasury by almost 3% of GDP didn't matter NOR Dubya gutting it by 5%+ of GDP, it was ONLY the spending increases (3% under Reagan, 2% under Dubya) by the GOPers that was the problem *shaking head*


Hint taking US from 20% of GDP like Clinton had US to under 15% of GDP WHILE DUBYA EXPLODED THE CREDIT CARD CHARGES, CREATED THIS SITUATION (along with his ponzi scheme)

I will never forgive George Bush and the mock GOP Congress for taking the conservative movement so far off the reservation.

Ever.

I'm curious, do you support social welfare programs and maintaining them? Where do you stand on social security? Military spending?

I'm a retired vet, so I believe in a strong defense. However, there is no reason which explains why we are spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, as much on defense today as we were in WWII. We are not in a world war. We are not under an existential threat like we were in the Cold War.

I support Social Security and Medicare, but I believe we should have raised the eligibility age to 70 a long time ago, and indexed it to 9 percent of the population. We are living longer, we should be working longer. Common sense.

Only 5.4% of the population was over 65 when Social Security was established. 9% were over 65 when Medicare was established. Today, 14% are over 65. This is unsustainable.

We need to go back to 9%.

Food stamps? Yes, I believe we should provide for the poor. Absolutely. This in no way means I think it is okay for someone to buy alcohol and steaks with an EBT card. I just don't believe it happens anywhere near the scale the gullible haters do.

SS UNSUSTAINABLE?

Right when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 40% to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich that created $2.8 TRILLION in excess trust fund payments 1987-2010, which NOW need to be paid back? Weird how by doing that he not only hid the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, but ALSO put a burden on the current pay as you go system right?

Just a coincidence conservatives fought SS that keeps half of seniors out of poverty AS they tend to support programs that burden the programs?

 

[bedowin62]

The point remains that we don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

Right Reagan GUTTING the treasury by almost 3% of GDP didn't matter NOR Dubya gutting it by 5%+ of GDP, it was ONLY the spending increases (3% under Reagan, 2% under Dubya) by the GOPers that was the problem *shaking head*


Hint taking US from 20% of GDP like Clinton had US to under 15% of GDP WHILE DUBYA EXPLODED THE CREDIT CARD CHARGES, CREATED THIS SITUATION (along with his ponzi scheme)

I will never forgive George Bush and the mock GOP Congress for taking the conservative movement so far off the reservation.

Ever.

I'm curious, do you support social welfare programs and maintaining them? Where do you stand on social security? Military spending?

I'm a retired vet, so I believe in a strong defense. However, there is no reason which explains why we are spending, in dollars adjusted for inflation, as much on defense today as we were in WWII. We are not in a world war. We are not under an existential threat like we were in the Cold War.

I support Social Security and Medicare, but I believe we should have raised the eligibility age to 70 a long time ago, and indexed it to 9 percent of the population. We are living longer, we should be working longer. Common sense.

Only 5.4% of the population was over 65 when Social Security was established. 9% were over 65 when Medicare was established. Today, 14% are over 65. This is unsustainable.

We need to go back to 9%.

Food stamps? Yes, I believe we should provide for the poor. Absolutely. This in no way means I think it is okay for someone to buy alcohol and steaks with an EBT card. I just don't believe it happens anywhere near the scale the gullible haters do.

SS UNSUSTAINABLE?

Right when Ronnie increased SS taxes by 40% to hide the REAL costs of tax cuts for the rich that created $2.8 TRILLION in excess trust fund payments 1987-2010, which NOW need to be paid back? Weird how by doing that he not only hid the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, but ALSO put a burden on the current pay as you go system right?

Just a coincidence conservatives fought SS that keeps half of seniors out of poverty AS they tend to support programs that burden the programs?

YAWN

still babbling bout the dead guy?


grow up

 

[bedowin62]

how does an excess need to be "NOW paid back" leftard?

 

[Dad2three]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Yep, bailing out the US after the GOP's great depression, Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Asian/Latin America debt crisis and now Dubya's subprime bubble, socialism bailing out capitalism!

Pretty sick. Perhaps decide conservatives policy sucks?

 

[g5000]

 

[bedowin62]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Yep, bailing out the US after the GOP's great depression, Ronnie's S&L crisis, Clinton's Asian/Latin America debt crisis and now Dubya's subprime bubble, socialism bailing out capitalism!

Pretty sick. Perhaps decide conservatives policy sucks?

obama voted for the "Bush" bailout you idiot

you're embarrassing yourself