Tea partiers not smart enough...

[Toro]

Correct. Well that and his MASSIVE charitable contributions, huh?

I'm not sure exactly how much he donates every year, but until he pledged his fortune to the Gates Foundation, Buffett was well known for being extremely stingy with charity. So at least before his big donation, his giving wouldn't have affected his taxes much. And I think that he hasn't given much to the Gates Foundation yet. I think he has just pledged it, but I could be wrong on that.

Ah. So perhaps his expert ability to game the tax code to his ability while not sharing with others could be taken into account when he proclaims that tax rates should be increased right? I mean if he was really looking out for the best interests of the government wouldn't he at least lead by example? The guy is literally giving billions of his own dollars away! Why doesn't he give it to the government if he truly believes that the government needs more money?

Ever think about that?

Berkshire Hathaway already is one of the largest payers of income tax in the United States.

But that's not really the point. Buffett could give his fortune to the government and it would make a small dent in the deficit. Buffett is worth ~$50 billion. The deficit is $1.4 trillion. There has to be major structural reform. Buffett's point was merely to illustrate that there was something wrong with the system in which he pays a smaller share of his income than his receptionist, implying that the whole system has to be reformed.

 

[uscitizen]

With a pure flat tax on personal income think of how much we could save on the IRS and tax supported parasitic industries like HR Block.

 

[asterism]

A pure flat tax on all personal income. No exceptions, no deductions.

At what rate?

got me, we would have to figure that out. Perhaps as low as 10%?
The needed rate could be figured out from SS pay records.

I think 15% would maximize government revenues, but 10% would be more in line with how much power the government should have. Of course we'd need to ramp down to that to avoid too much shock to the system and work out the problems. Both would make the current $4 Trillion government look tiny, IMO. I think we should start with the 30% FairTax and go from there.

 

[asterism]

With a pure flat tax on personal income think of how much we could save on the IRS and tax supported parasitic industries like HR Block.

Not to mention the efficiency gained by having businesses focused on what they do best instead of having to operate on a basis of how it affects their tax bills. Progressives hate this idea because the current tax code is their primary tool for social engineering.

 

[HUGGY]

Not smart enough to realize they are working against their own self interest.

The right wing agenda is pure capitalism. That's great for capitalists, bad for almost everyone else.

Oh, you say, you're a capitalist? Really, you make all of your money from interest and dividends? If you produce a service or goods for a fee, or for a salary or for hourly wages, then you are labor. It doesn't matter what color you collar is, you are labor. It doesn't matter if you don't see it that way, the capitalists do. Trust me, that is how they see you and they are determined to have you work for less.

So, go ahead and vote for the RepubliCONs, everything they have done for the last thirty years has worked out great, right?

So what if before Reagan's economic "theories" were tried we were the greatest producer of finished goods in the world and now we are the greatest importer of finished goods. So what if we were the greatest crediter nation and now we are the greatest debter nation.

Oh, this "conservative era" that Reagan brought in, it's been great for ordinary Americans. It just takes two incomes to raise a family now, and of course we can't afford to put our kids through school, we can't save for retirement, can't afford healthcare... Oh it's been great!

Go ahead tea partiers, vote for the RepubliCONs!

Reagan had nothing to do with it. The world wanted American quality and style. Blue jeans baby..LEVIS. They were selling for a hundred bucs a pop in Moscow. We produced the best textile and cheap. Jap cars still had a bad reputation. Lee Iacoca took personal responsibility at Chrysler. Boeing was the only aircraft manufacturer that delivered planes on time. Ford pickups outsold all others combined. There was a strong middle class earning family supporting living wages. Reagan in fact raised taxes. We had the only information systems on the planet. Texas Instruments had the only microprocessor game on the planet. Then dumbass Reagan and Bush senior had the bright idea to sell off and outsource everything that was worth anything to foreign interests. The gov wasted hundreds of billions on the military on stupid pipe dreams like "Star Wars". Reagan got the big britches and refused to bargain with the air traffic controllers which had a chilling effect on unions nation wide. The Japs economy tanked thanks to the world bank which started the collapse of our exports. Gas was reasonably cheap still but the oil companies were playing Reagan for a sucker. They were creating low supply and we had long gas lines at the pump.

These people that gather around and reminisce about Reagan are idiots. They spout pure capitalism but don't have a clue about what it leads to. Monopolies after the big fish destroy the little fish and it all winds up as fascism with the big fish owning the government and charging the American consumer whatever the hell they want to..

They only sane capitalism is well regulated capitalism.

 

[uscitizen]

At what rate?

got me, we would have to figure that out. Perhaps as low as 10%?
The needed rate could be figured out from SS pay records.

I think 15% would maximize government revenues, but 10% would be more in line with how much power the government should have. Of course we'd need to ramp down to that to avoid too much shock to the system and work out the problems. Both would make the current $4 Trillion government look tiny, IMO. I think we should start with the 30% FairTax and go from there.

Fair tax? You mean the sales or VAT tax?

I disagree a flat income tax with no deductions.
That way taking money out of the country or hoarding it would not get you out of taxes.
If you made the money in the USA you pay tax on it.

 

[asterism]

Correct. Well that and his MASSIVE charitable contributions, huh?

I'm not sure exactly how much he donates every year, but until he pledged his fortune to the Gates Foundation, Buffett was well known for being extremely stingy with charity. So at least before his big donation, his giving wouldn't have affected his taxes much. And I think that he hasn't given much to the Gates Foundation yet. I think he has just pledged it, but I could be wrong on that.

You are. He pledged most of his money and he opened up with the largest single contribution ever recorded in 2006.

Warren Buffett's Charity Work, Events and Causes

Berkshire Hathaway already is one of the largest payers of income tax in the United States.

Irrelevant since Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffet. He owns a very small part of that entity.

BRK-A: Major Holders for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Common - Yahoo! Finance

But that's not really the point. Buffett could give his fortune to the government and it would make a small dent in the deficit. Buffett is worth ~$50 billion. The deficit is $1.4 trillion. There has to be major structural reform. Buffett's point was merely to illustrate that there was something wrong with the system in which he pays a smaller share of his income than his receptionist, implying that the whole system has to be reformed.

Buffett has always been good at making money. What in the world makes you think he isn't just interested in making more of it? We can plainly see what he wants to do, and giving it to the government isn't it. He knows how to game the system. Instead of harping on the ease by which he's able to do that, he talks about the "fairness" of it all to make a political statement and advocates that those much less wealthy than he should pay up.

I understand the emotional appeal progressives think they have, but rather than do what Buffett says, I'd rather do what he does.

He has also not commented one bit on the methodology progressives use in their view of the economy as a static entity (tax rate cuts cost money). Have you ever wondered why?

 

[asterism]

They only sane capitalism is well regulated capitalism.

Correct. Well regulated, not micromanaged and encumbered by wealth distribution scams.

 

[asterism]

got me, we would have to figure that out. Perhaps as low as 10%?
The needed rate could be figured out from SS pay records.

I think 15% would maximize government revenues, but 10% would be more in line with how much power the government should have. Of course we'd need to ramp down to that to avoid too much shock to the system and work out the problems. Both would make the current $4 Trillion government look tiny, IMO. I think we should start with the 30% FairTax and go from there.

Fair tax? You mean the sales or VAT tax?

I disagree a flat income tax with no deductions.
That way taking money out of the country or hoarding it would not get you out of taxes.
If you made the money in the USA you pay tax on it.

Why tax prosperity? Tax consumption.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The tea party people are working in their own self-interest. They are smart enough to realize that.

The right wing agenda is not pure capitalism. It is more capitalist, but it is not pure capitalism anymore than the left wing agenda is pure communism.

The RW agenda is based on greed and envy.

How so? That seems to be the platform of both parties vying for control of the economic resources, just with different perspectives.

The RW is separate from the political parties; they are at best the fringe of the R party.

 

[asterism]

The RW agenda is based on greed and envy.

How so? That seems to be the platform of both parties vying for control of the economic resources, just with different perspectives.

The RW is separate from the political parties; they are at best the fringe of the R party.

Ah.

I know this tune, the "Club for Greed" line. Instead of refuting "Club for Growth" points, a simple replacement is made.

If we're so greedy, why are people like you demanding that we pay more for your pet causes? Just curious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How so? That seems to be the platform of both parties vying for control of the economic resources, just with different perspectives.

The RW is separate from the political parties; they are at best the fringe of the R party.

Ah.

I know this tune, the "Club for Greed" line. Instead of refuting "Club for Growth" points, a simple replacement is made.

If we're so greedy, why are people like you demanding that we pay more for your pet causes? Just curious.

I'm not demanding anything. History suggests what happens when the few control a substantial amount of a nations wealth, the result is both predictable and inevitable.

Time for me to hit the rack.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well Cecile,
You are good at spewing invectives, but you haven't explained why it is that since we have been living under the RepubliCONS agenda for thirty years it is not the RepubliCONs fault that all our good manufacturing jobs have gone over seas and the middle class hasn't had an increase in buying power and why RepubliCON presidents totalled over ten trillion dollars borrowed!

Well, assmunch, I will have an obligation to explain that to you just as soon as I assert that as my position. Until such time, I will thank you kindly not to even CONSIDER presuming to state my positions for me, since it's clear to me that I flush things with more brain wattage than you possess.

Next time, try ASKING me what I think, and THEN ask for the explanation. It works better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecile
Do you think it fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secratary?

According to whom? Warren Buffet or the IRS?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pale Rider
You should pay a little more attention. We are not spending to cut the debt, we are spemding to keep the economy from grinding to a halt. I understand that the RepubliCONs want the economy to come to a stop so they can convince you it's because of that socialist, communmist, statis, nazi, lefty, pinko, President Obama.

Like I said, the Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interest.

Yes, because it's GOVERNMENT spending that keeps the economy running.

Dear GOD, you are such an ignorant shitstain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pale Rider,
I'm just telling you what Warren Buffet said!

Warren Buffet is a disingenuous sack of shit with an agenda that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him. Try something a bit more substantial, because he can SAY any fucking thing he wants, and it proves nothing except that he has an adequate vocabulary. I could SAY I'm Queen Elizabeth II of England, but that ain't gonna get me into Buckingham Palace, now is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boedicca

You can't say whether a person who is one of the wealthiest people in the world should pay a higher tax rate than his own secretary.

I rest my case, Tea Partiers are just not smart enough to know they are working against their own self interests.

YOU can't say for fucking certain that he isn't. All YOU can say is that you'll believe any goddamned thing you're told as long as it fits the worldview you subscribe to.

I rest my case, leftists are gullible, self-deluding mouthbreathers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

boedicca,
How can you get my meaning so ass backwards? Oh I know, you're trying to!

If Warren Buffet admits that he pays a lower tax rate than his secratary you don't want to know? People who make all their money by collecting interest and dividends deserve a lower tax rate?

So you're going to bat for all those poor "middle class" people who are making over 200K?

Boy if that's the middle class I am definetly not middle class any more.

Judging by the degree of class-envy you have, I'm guessing that you're in the income bracket that pays Zero taxes.
The 200k+ earners you hate so much are the job providers.
To raise taxes for anyone, during this spiraling economy, is asinine.

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) means that we have been taxed enough by BOTH parties. Not just Dems.
Yes, the Repugs supported TARP. That's why their heads are on the proverbial block, also.
Everyone will be held accountable in November.

Now lets compare how much TARP cost us compared to the sum of GM, Stimulus, and Healthcare and look at who has cost us MORE.

You keep throwing around this "30 years" number.
I guess you're not counting Clinton's 2 terms or how many years the Dems controlled the legislative branch, hunh?!

Okay, so you hate the Tea Party.
Cool.
But, like Cecille said, don't stride in here and think you can impose your version of shit on the rest of us.



BTW, PaleRider, that chart you posted (I've used it also) needs updated.
CBO's numbers, released today, holds it steady at 1.45T through 2013

My guess is you don't have any friends or acquaintances who earn even $100,000. I may be wrong, but I play golf and poker with a group of guys who all earn at least $250 k, and not one of them hires or employs anyone. Two are attorney's, one is a medical doctor; at the table we add two engineers. btw, the doctor is the best putter and has the lowest handicap (3).

Really? You know two attorneys, one doctor, and two engineers who don't provide employment and income to ANYONE else? How, pray tell, do they manage that? They answer their own phones, do they? Do their own research? Clean their own fucking bedpans? Or are they retired?

I call bullshit.

 

[Toro]

Irrelevant since Berkshire Hathaway is not Warren Buffet. He owns a very small part of that entity.

BRK-A: Major Holders for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Common - Yahoo! Finance

Buffett owns, or at least owned until the Burlington transaction, 23% of the class A stock of BRK. The stock he has donated to the Gates Foundation he runs in a trust for the foundation. It appears that he owns ~12% of BRK pre-Burlington. That makes him one of the largest owners of any company in the world.

Buffett has always been good at making money. What in the world makes you think he isn't just interested in making more of it? We can plainly see what he wants to do, and giving it to the government isn't it. He knows how to game the system. Instead of harping on the ease by which he's able to do that, he talks about the "fairness" of it all to make a political statement and advocates that those much less wealthy than he should pay up.

I understand the emotional appeal progressives think they have, but rather than do what Buffett says, I'd rather do what he does.

He has also not commented one bit on the methodology progressives use in their view of the economy as a static entity (tax rate cuts cost money). Have you ever wondered why?

Buffett is a well-known progressive. There aren't many people who know more about business and the economy than he.

 

[asterism]

The RW is separate from the political parties; they are at best the fringe of the R party.

Ah.

I know this tune, the "Club for Greed" line. Instead of refuting "Club for Growth" points, a simple replacement is made.

If we're so greedy, why are people like you demanding that we pay more for your pet causes? Just curious.

I'm not demanding anything. History suggests what happens when the few control a substantial amount of a nations wealth, the result is both predictable and inevitable.

Time for me to hit the rack.

How many is "few" in this scenario? How do you think the current climate compares with the 1950s?