Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

What Warren said....Follow

#1 Aug 17 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
Billionaire Buffet has gone on record saying that the super-rich need to be taxed more.
Warren Buffet wrote:
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.


There has been much criticism of this simple statement from both sides of the aisle maintaining that a personal income tax hike on the wealthy will further inhibit economic growth.

But if Bill, Warren, and Wally each kicked in a few billions we could shore up the deficit a bit.

What says you?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Aug 17 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The deficit is in trillions so a few billion from three people wouldn't make much of a dent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Aug 17 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Cut spending and raise taxes blah blah blah same song and dance for twenty pages.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Aug 17 2011 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The deficit is in trillions so a few billion from three people wouldn't make much of a dent.

Ten percent would make a dent - though I wasn't really serious. However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 4:04pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#5varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 8:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#6 Aug 17 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Aug 17 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Buffet is worth about 40billion so if he feels like leading by example and gives up half his wealth voluntarily then I'd change my opinion.

I'm sure Buffet is deeply concerned about how you feel about him.

Your demand is the same lazy thinking as the tired "If you support the war, why haven't you enlisted yet?" remarks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Aug 17 2011 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.

My god, $42 whole billions? So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

NICE!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#9varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 9:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#10 Aug 17 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
That's because you don't support the war.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Aug 17 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,356 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.

My god, $42 whole billions? So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

NICE!


By your logic someone paying the minimum on their credit card bills might as well quit their job because they money they bring in isn't enough to cover the whole thing
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#12 Aug 17 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Olorinus wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.

My god, $42 whole billions? So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

NICE!


By your logic someone paying the minimum on their credit card bills might as well quit their job because they money they bring in isn't enough to cover the whole thing

No, by my logic someone not making enough to cover the money they spend should stop spending so much instead of mugging people with nice watches in the park.

Also, you're a f'ucking dumbass. Perhaps you and the library should get better acquainted before you start trying to chime in when grown folks is talkin'.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#13 Aug 17 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

Good thing I made a point of saying it wasn't a singular solution or else you'd look dumber than usual.

Oh.

Of course, that's about 10% of the deficit then, right? We could make the rest in cuts! I'm sure a 1:10 ratio of tax increases to cuts would be acceptable to conserv...

Oh.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 11:04am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Aug 17 2011 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Something tells me that Mr. Buffet is full of ****. My dad has worked his entire life at a company owned by Warren, and over the past few years it's been one employee benefit cut after another. Overtime options, giant cuts in insurance coverage, removal of cost of living wage increases, etc. I think his "Let's share our wealth" line is just total ******** when he's been significantly cutting back the way he pays the people who actually work for him.
#15 Aug 17 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
However, does this go to say that raising taxes on the upper income brackets wouldn't help with budgeting issues?

The lost revenue from the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy is $42b annually which is a fair sight more than $6bil. It's certainly not a singular fix but it's more significant than three guys passing a hat around.

My god, $42 whole billions? So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

NICE!


By your logic someone paying the minimum on their credit card bills might as well quit their job because they money they bring in isn't enough to cover the whole thing

No, by my logic someone not making enough to cover the money they spend should stop spending so much instead of mugging people with nice watches in the park.


But the gal at the pawn shop is a cutie... Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Aug 17 2011 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Buffet is worth about 40billion so if he feels like leading by example and gives up half his wealth voluntarily then I'd change my opinion.


I thought he was already giving most of it away. Smiley: confused

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Aug 17 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Buffet is worth about 40billion so if he feels like leading by example and gives up half his wealth voluntarily then I'd change my opinion.


I thought he was already giving most of it away. Smiley: confused



He is, though to charity.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#18varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 10:48 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Guenny,
#19 Aug 17 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Guenny,

Quote:
Something tells me that Mr. Buffet is full of sh*t. My dad has worked his entire life at a company owned by Warren, and over the past few years it's been one employee benefit cut after another. Overtime options, giant cuts in insurance coverage, removal of cost of living wage increases, etc. I think his "Let's share our wealth" line is just total bullsh*t when he's been significantly cutting back the way he pays the people who actually work for him.


As much as I dislike Buffets politics it's Obama's and the Dems fault this is happening to your father. LMAO. Stupid whores like yourself really just want to blame 'the corporations' as an excuse to ignore what an abject failure you and your father are.


Today I feel as though calling women who peruse this board 'whores' isn't acceptable.

Tomorrow I may feel differently.



Edited, Aug 17th 2011 7:47pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#20varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 11:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#21varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 11:49 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) dp
#22 Aug 17 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
varusword75 wrote:
dp

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 1:49pm by varusword75

Smiley: lol

Jittery?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#23varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#24 Aug 17 2011 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.

Good thing I made a point of saying it wasn't a singular solution or else you'd look dumber than usual.

The point is that not only is it not a singular solution, it isn't necessary or right. The federal government should stop looking in to the pockets of people who are productive to hand out vote-buying freebies to those that aren't. Warren Buffet could write a check to the G for 99.9% of his entire net worth and still have more money in the bank than 99.9% of American's will earn in their entire lives. His comments about who should and shouldn't pay more are just as, if not more so, meaningless as people who pay no federal income tax.

Jophiel wrote:
Of course, that's about 10% of the deficit then, right? We could make the rest in cuts! I'm sure a 1:10 ratio of tax increases to cuts would be acceptable to conserv...

Oh.

The problem, and you know this, is that the Democrats want their taxes now, their spending now and their headlines now, but they don't want to give up their cuts until after the next election or in to the next decade. I am almost positive that if you had a Democrat proposal to raise $42b in taxes in the 2012 budget, and cut $420b from spending (not make an expected increase smaller, not hold to 2011 levels, cut the budget, meaning we would spend $420b less in 2012 than we did in 2011) that you would see a GOP controlled congress pass it.

Then you could talk about the 2013 budget, and what you were willing to cut out of 2012 spending levels to get your next tax increase.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#25 Aug 17 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
The point is that not only is it not a singular solution, it isn't necessary or right.

Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

Quote:
I am almost positive that if you had a Democrat proposal to raise $42b in taxes in the 2012 budget, and cut $420b from spending (not make an expected increase smaller, not hold to 2011 levels, cut the budget, meaning we would spend $420b less in 2012 than we did in 2011) that you would see a GOP controlled congress pass it.

Right, right. Just like Gbaji is sure that the GOP would take a couple years tax increase for some long-term cuts.

Let me know the very moment one of those GOP Congresscritters comes out with this proposal they're just sure to love, ok? I mean, this is so good and acceptable to them, I bet they're working on it right now!

Don't worry... I won't stay up waiting. A panel full of raised hands tells me I'd be better off getting some sleep tonight.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 12:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#27 Aug 17 2011 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
We don't need tax increases, any of them. You sell that sh*t to your bed wetting liberal buddies.

Thanks for the support Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Aug 17 2011 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

It does, actually. Talking about $40b is stupid. Suggesting it's part of a solution while leaving the other 90%+ unaddressed is stupid. Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.
Jophiel wrote:
Right, right. Just like Gbaji is sure that the GOP would take a couple years tax increase for some long-term cuts.

gbaji's a tool. And I'll show you the GOP plan just as soon as the Democrats write their first budget in nearly 3 years.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#29varusword75, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Moe,
#30 Aug 17 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

It does, actually. Talking about $40b is stupid. Suggesting it's part of a solution while leaving the other 90%+ unaddressed is stupid. Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.


It is, by definition, part of a solution.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#31 Aug 17 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.

I didn't realize I was writing legislation here. Because I've a list of other revenue increases if you're demanding a complete list before any select line item can be discussed.

I also missed these complaints from you when the GOP was trying to "save money" by cutting the negligible dollar amounts of NPR and PP funding.
Quote:
And I'll show you the GOP plan just as soon as the Democrats write their first budget in nearly 3 years.

Well, no, you won't because the GOP doesn't have and will never have such a "plan" much less will the GOP House push for any sort of legislation. Whatever valid complaints you have about the (non)existance of a Democratic budget doesn't change that simple fact.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Aug 17 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Moe,
Quote:
gbaji's a tool
Obviously you speak from experience. Go back to f*cking sheep.

Varus has a BOY-friend! Varus has a BOY-friend!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Aug 17 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Guenny wrote:
Something tells me that Mr. Buffet is full of sh*t. My dad has worked his entire life at a company owned by Warren, and over the past few years it's been one employee benefit cut after another. Overtime options, giant cuts in insurance coverage, removal of cost of living wage increases, etc. I think his "Let's share our wealth" line is just total bullsh*t when he's been significantly cutting back the way he pays the people who actually work for him.


And another funny point. Buffet always complains that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. But he fails to mention that the reason he pays so little as a percentage of earnings is because the holding company he manages is specifically designed to reduce tax burden on earnings. He set it up that way. Berthshire Hathaway does not pay dividends. All gains are rolled back into the fund. The only way anyone who's invested in it earns money is if they sell off some of their assets in the fund, meaning that barring a really stupid accounting mistake, they'll pay 15%. Always.

That was a choice he made. What's funny is that the kind of monetary manipulation is what liberals usually attack big business for engaging in, yet they love Buffet. And in some bizarre twist they use his statements about how things should be to attack other companies who don't engage in those sorts of things. Most corporations do pay dividends and they do pay corporate taxes on them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Aug 17 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

It does, actually. Talking about $40b is stupid. Suggesting it's part of a solution while leaving the other 90%+ unaddressed is stupid. Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.


It is, by definition, part of a solution.

No, it really isn't. That's pretty much the point. The solution is cut spending, cap the budget at a reasonable percentage of GDP and pass a constitutional amendment requiring congress pass a balanced budget annually. That solution is sitting on Harry Reid's desk and can be considered just as soon as he gets the stick out of his *** against compromising.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#35 Aug 17 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
varusword75 wrote:
Moe,

Quote:
gbaji's a tool


Obviously you speak from experience. Go back to f*cking sheep.


Fuck ewe?
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#36 Aug 17 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

It does, actually. Talking about $40b is stupid. Suggesting it's part of a solution while leaving the other 90%+ unaddressed is stupid. Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.


It is, by definition, part of a solution.


More to the point, Moe tossed out an erroneous number in the first place. The deficit last year was not $400B, but was $1,371B. So eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich would have just reduced that to $1,329B. We're not talking about a 10% solution. We're talking about something that would only generate 3% of the needed deficit reduction. It's a complete drop in the bucket.


I really do think some of you still don't quite grasp the absolutely monumental amount of spending increases that have gone on in the last couple years. It's not something we can fix by just undoing some minor tax rate changes on one tax bracket. It really isn't a choice between doing that *or* cutting spending. It's not even a choice between the hypothetical "10 dollars of cuts for every dollar of tax increase" solution. The amount of taxes you'd have to raise to address even a reasonable portion of the current deficit would by necessity affect everyone and would be very very painful.


Is spending on all that new stuff we never spent money on before really worth it? I don't think so. Not even close. But that's what you're fighting *for* when you demand tax increases to pay down the deficit. You are arguing that we should keep the new spending and make the taxpayers pay for it. And yet, most of you probably don't even know where all that money is going. Ridiculous!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Aug 17 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.

I didn't realize I was writing legislation here. Because I've a list of other revenue increases if you're demanding a complete list before any select line item can be discussed.

I also missed these complaints from you when the GOP was trying to "save money" by cutting the negligible dollar amounts of NPR and PP funding.

I believe my complaint with the NPR & PP funding cut was that it was not enough and should go much deeper, including a lot of other spending done by the Federal Government.
[/quote]
Quote:
And I'll show you the GOP plan just as soon as the Democrats write their first budget in nearly 3 years.

Well, no, you won't because the GOP doesn't have and will never have such a "plan" much less will the GOP House push for any sort of legislation. Whatever valid complaints you have about the (non)existance of a Democratic budget doesn't change that simple fact.[/quote]
Kinda like the Democrats don't have and will never have a "budget" much less will the Democrats in the house push for a budget. Whatever speculation you may have about the (non) existence of a GOP plan doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are clueless about solving our economic crisis. They'd rather be on auto-pilot.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#38 Aug 17 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a complete drop in the bucket.
This comment always makes me laugh.
Guess, the answer is actually funny wrote:
Now that I've taken command, we'll be redoing the entire building, to the tune of $52,000. Considering the cost of operations here, it's just a drop in the bucket. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Aug 17 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which explains why you immediately started yelping about the dollar amount.

It does, actually. Talking about $40b is stupid. Suggesting it's part of a solution while leaving the other 90%+ unaddressed is stupid. Trying to cover yourself with the equivalent of "but hey, it's a good step!" is stupid.


It is, by definition, part of a solution.

No, it really isn't. That's pretty much the point. The solution is cut spending, cap the budget at a reasonable percentage of GDP and pass a constitutional amendment requiring congress pass a balanced budget annually. That solution is sitting on Harry Reid's desk and can be considered just as soon as he gets the stick out of his *** against compromising.


Oh, is that the point you were trying to make? Perhaps you should have actually, you know, made it then.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#40 Aug 17 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
I believe my complaint with the NPR & PP funding cut was that it was not enough and should go much deeper, including a lot of other spending done by the Federal Government.

So... it wasn't a singular fix? Jinkies!

Quote:
Kinda like the Democrats don't have and will never have a... blah, blah, blah

Good thing I'm not sitting here swearing that Democrats would totally go for some imaginary plan that they'd never actually touch with a 10' pole but... oh, if only!! Then they'd really accept it, honest!

But then when you point out that my remarks are complete bullshit, I'll start talking about some other thing to change the subject.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 17 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not something we can fix by just undoing some minor tax rate changes on one tax bracket.

You conservatives must get a GREAT deal on straw for as much of it as you guys go through.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Aug 17 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Something tells me that Mr. Buffet is full of sh*t. My dad has worked his entire life at a company owned by Warren, and over the past few years it's been one employee benefit cut after another. Overtime options, giant cuts in insurance coverage, removal of cost of living wage increases, etc. I think his "Let's share our wealth" line is just total bullsh*t when he's been significantly cutting back the way he pays the people who actually work for him.


And another funny point. Buffet always complains that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. But he fails to mention that the reason he pays so little as a percentage of earnings is because the holding company he manages is specifically designed to reduce tax burden on earnings. He set it up that way. Berthshire Hathaway does not pay dividends. All gains are rolled back into the fund. The only way anyone who's invested in it earns money is if they sell off some of their assets in the fund, meaning that barring a really stupid accounting mistake, they'll pay 15%. Always.

That was a choice he made. What's funny is that the kind of monetary manipulation is what liberals usually attack big business for engaging in, yet they love Buffet. And in some bizarre twist they use his statements about how things should be to attack other companies who don't engage in those sorts of things. Most corporations do pay dividends and they do pay corporate taxes on them.


Most people with money and reasonable intelligence (Or again, enough money to hire people who have reasonable intelligence) engage in those techniques. I have orders of magnitude less wealth than he does. I still situate my finances to have minimal taxes and the lowest interest rates on debt. Abusing mechanics does not preclude someone from saying those techniques are abusive and the system and needs to be built better.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#43 Aug 17 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
I believe my complaint with the NPR & PP funding cut was that it was not enough and should go much deeper, including a lot of other spending done by the Federal Government.

So... it wasn't a singular fix? Jinkies!


They where not the sole solution proposed either Joph. Those two things are just the ones the Left choose to make the biggest stink over out of a very very large list of things the GOP wants to cut.

Meanwhile, the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved. And you wonder why the American people don't see them as part of the solution?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Aug 17 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Most people with money and reasonable intelligence (Or again, enough money to hire people who have reasonable intelligence) engage in those techniques. I have orders of magnitude less wealth than he does. I still situate my finances to have minimal taxes and the lowest interest rates on debt. Abusing mechanics does not preclude someone from saying those techniques are abusive and the system and needs to be built better.


It's not about "abusing" the system though. As I said, lots of corporations generate profits through their economic activities and pay their investors in the form of dividends (for which they must pay corporate income tax on the total 'profit' taken in that form). It's a choice (and a rare one) for a corporation (holding company actually) to never claim any profits or pay any dividends to their stock holders.

For Buffet to use that incredibly unusual case to argue that taxes on "the rich" are too low is silly. Unless you think he's only arguing that long term capital gains taxes should be raised and *not* corporate tax rates or top marginal income tax rates or alternative minimum rates then the argument is fallacious, right? Even if he's unspecific but his words are used by others to push for increases in rates on those other things, then it's a false argument.


He's not paying corporate taxes. He's not paying personal income taxes. He's not paying alternative minimum taxes. No statement he makes about how little he pays in taxes can be used to support an argument in favor of raising any tax rates other than capital gains. Can you say that this is all anyone is talking about when they refer to him saying that "the rich" need to pay more taxes? I'm betting no.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 17 2011 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They where not the sole solution proposed either Joph. Those two things are just the ones the Left choose to make the biggest stink over out of a very very large list of things the GOP wants to cut.

Right! And no one complaining about them claimed they were the sole solution either. But advocates were talking up how great it would be to cut the budget by eliminating them without saying "Even though they're largely insignificant amounts of money".

Quote:
Meanwhile, the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved

Even more straw? Seriously? Are you guys trying to clean out the barn or something?

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 7:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Aug 17 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Most people with money and reasonable intelligence (Or again, enough money to hire people who have reasonable intelligence) engage in those techniques. I have orders of magnitude less wealth than he does. I still situate my finances to have minimal taxes and the lowest interest rates on debt. Abusing mechanics does not preclude someone from saying those techniques are abusive and the system and needs to be built better.

This is what I was thinking. Buffet is saying that he does this because he can; it's perfectly cromulent. Perhaps if there were some kind of regulations that prevented these kinds of loopholes...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#47 Aug 17 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They where not the sole solution proposed either Joph. Those two things are just the ones the Left choose to make the biggest stink over out of a very very large list of things the GOP wants to cut.

Right! And no one complaining about them claimed they were the sole solution either. But advocates were talking up how great it would be to cut the budget by eliminating them without saying "Even though they're largely insignificant amounts of money".


Huh? You're not making any sense Joph. Did you just seriously argue that conservatives not going out of their way to state that cuts to NPR and PP would represent insignificant amounts of money means anything? I'm sorry? I can't even follow your illogic anymore. It's like watching a crazed monkey spazzing out or something and spewing random words on the screen and hitting "post".

Let's step back here. Conservatives want to cut spending. They propose large amounts of spending cuts (initially somewhere between 60 and 100B). Included among these cuts were funding for things like NPR and PP (and a whole **** of a lot of other stuff). Strange that you aren't making hay about conservatives not talking about each of the hundreds of other on-the-table items and pointing out that they were "insignificant" cuts as well. Why is that?

So, when I go hiking, I should stop and point out that each step I take is just an insignificant portion of the total journey. Maybe I should just not take this one? Hmmm... Sounds like a great way to never make any progress at all, doesn't it?


Quote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved

Even more straw? Seriously? Are you guys trying to clean out the barn or something?



Ok. List the things that the Dems are willing to cut spending on Joph? Where's this vaunted compromise? And I don't want a speech from Obama. I want a list of actual specific programs and dollar amounts they will cut. Can you do this? We've been wrangling for 3/4ths of a year now over spending cuts. Yet, all we get from the Dems is talk about how they're willing to compromise, but never willing to put anything at all on the table. They talk a great game, but never deliver. They'll gladly pay us cuts on tuesday for a hamburger of tax increases today though!


Where's their forward looking plan Joph? Is there one? I see them talking a lot about how if we hadn't fought two wars, or funded plan D, or cut tax rates back in 2001, we'd be in great shape. And then they call for military cuts, and ending the Bush tax cuts (but only on the rich, or so they claim!), and we're supposed to buy that this isn't just political spin? You're kidding, right? The public is oh so tired of empty promises and false/misleading claims from Democrats Joph.


But that's all we get from them. It's not a strawman to point this out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 17 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
You're really going to demand a cite when you refuse to do so yourself? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Aug 17 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Huh? You're not making any sense Joph. Did you just seriously argue that conservatives not going out of their way to state that cuts to NPR and PP would represent insignificant amounts of money means anything? I'm sorry? I can't even follow your illogic anymore. It's like watching a crazed monkey spazzing out or something and spewing random words on the screen and hitting "post".

I'm sorry that words are hard for you Smiley: frown

Quote:
So, when I go hiking, I should stop and point out that each step I take is just an insignificant portion of the total journey. Maybe I should just not take this one? Hmmm... Sounds like a great way to never make any progress at all, doesn't it?

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh Thanks for arguing my point for me? Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Quote:
Ok. List the things that the Dems are willing to cut spending on Joph?

Wait.. this is your response regarding your claim that Democrats think this single tax change would result in "all our economic problems [being] solved"?

You made the claim, back it up. Don't backpedal and start demanding that I run some asinine gauntlet for you because you're praying everyone gets confused. Show me where Democrats are making this claim you insist is true.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 8:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Aug 17 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You're really going to demand a cite when you refuse to do so yourself? Smiley: dubious


Unequal comparison. Different threads. Different topics. Joph demanded a cite for something which is basic math in another thread. I'm asking for something, anything, which shows that the Dems are willing to actually put any significant spending cuts on the table.

An equal comparison would be demanding that I provide the same in the other direction. To which I could happily point you to the Ryan budget plan, or either of the two proposed deficit reduction plans the GOP provided. Those are not just speeches, but actual bills passed by the House and sitting in limbo in the Senate because the Democrats don't want to cut spending, but don't want to be too obvious about it by actually voting on it.


Which brings us right back to the same issue. The Dems keep claiming that they are willing to compromise, but they refuse to actually put anything in writing much less to a vote. Obama claimed to offer 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. Where's this in writing? It doesn't exist. It's vaporpolitics.


It's become abundantly clear that the Democrats want to appear to be willing to compromise with Republicans for purely political reasons, but without actually compromising anything. We saw this last spring with the discretionary budget debacle. The Dems kept hemming and hawing, and dragging their feet, and spinning the issue in the media, all to avoid having to actually cut anything that their own supporters actually care about. NPR and PP were just a couple examples of this that got a lot of attention. In the end, what happened? 30B in military cuts as agreed on, and pretty much nothing out of the discretionary budget. Certainly, nothing the Dem supporters cared about.


That's not going to do it though. At some point, hard decisions will have to be made, but the Dems keep acting like small children and refusing to take any action at all. They have no leadership, and no plan. All they have is a lot of political rhetoric to use to attack attack attack the GOP in the hopes that no one will notice that they're not carrying any of the load at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Aug 17 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unequal comparison.
You're right. You've blown off giving cites for your information far more often in far more threads on far more topics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 30 All times are in CST
ElneClare, Kavekkk, Samira, Anonymous Guests (27)