Warren Buffet the Marxist

[_asbestosman]

Well Dart, I take the bus to work daily to avoid buying another car and save on gas. I usually sit with my fellow engineers (some of whom happen to be minorities (Asians). If I take another bus, I end up with skaters and college kids, but not many minorities.

As that blogger noted, people like Soros and Buffet love the death tax because it allows people like them to come in and buy foreclosed properties at pennies on the dollar.Why? Because Joe Blow, who makes 30k/year, who happens to inherit a million dollar mansion, isn't able to pay the the death tax upon his father's death. So the only winner here is the government and/or other millionares who swoop in and "invest" in these properties at rock bottom prices. Now what seems more honorable? I think it would be more honorable to allow a dying man to provide for his family without having to worry about them getting hit with a whammy of a tax upon his death. There is nothing "fair" about the death tax.

I'm not convinced. Couldn't they still shop around for the best price? Furthermore, if time is the real issue with the estate tax, couldn't we ammend the tax to give more time to get a good price (and maybe get the govt. more taxes on the sale)? Couldn't the rules also take into account how liquid the various assets are (cash, stock, real estate, etc.)? Must it be all or nothing?

Regarding Buffet:

2- Does Warren Buffet believe that the ultra-rich deserve the money they make? (A: No, Buffet thinks that they don't--that the pie is not distributed according to what each party deserves, but rather according to what they can negotiate. The wealth must be redistributed so that the people who got the biggest benefits from society give the most back. This is a Marxist way of looking at things, and it is the way Warren Buffet looks at things.)

Well, I'm not convinced. I don't agree with how the market allocates funds for sports, but I believe it reflects supply and demand. If you're not getting paid what you're worth, then find someone else who demands your skills, or attempt to be an entrepreneur. Find what the market does want, don't insist that it is underpaying you. My $.02. Of course, I also realize that changing professions is not always that easy, and people do need to eat.

I could hardly care less that Bill or Warrren make and have far more than I ever will. I have sufficient. However, I also realize that not everyone has sufficient so I do hope for some change.

[Anonymous]

So what? Buffet doesn't do willingly what Obama proposes to force others to do....

Since he is giving almost all of his wealth back to society, he does do willingly do what Obama proposes. And he supports being subject to the laws that Obama recommends.

Here are a few more points in response to your rambling rant.

First, you come across as being extraordinarily ignorant regarding the basic facts of the estate tax. You said, “His reasoning is that he doesn't like the idea that some people will inherit a financial empire. But these people are only a tiny minority of those involved in estate taxes. What about the man who makes less than 100k/year all his life and manages to save a few hundred thousand for his kids and grandkids when he dies. He pays taxes on all his property and income all his life and then when he dies, the government taxes it all again in one large swoop."

That just isn’t true. The death tax is about people inheriting exuberant sums of money. In your example, if somebody leaves a few hundred thousand to his kids, the estate pays zero in estate tax. That is because the first two million isn’t taxed. Nobody is arguing that a meager estate of a few hundred thousand should be taxed, or even that an estate of a couple million dollars should be taxed. The estate tax doesn’t even kick except for amounts larger than that.

So when the kid who makes $30,000 a year inherits a $1,000,000 mansion, he pays zero in estate tax (he probably wouldn’t be able to afford the property tax and wouldn’t be able to keep the house anyway, but that is a different issue).

Second, there is a difference between literally being a Marxist and having ideas that are similar to some of Karl Marx’s ideas. In reality, Obama and Buffet have some Marx-like ideas, but they both fundamentally believe in American capitalism. You said, “ And again, the only other option is to think [the wealthy’s money] isn't their money, but rather money the government is just letting them use until it decides they've used too much of it, at which point it can arbitrarily take it away. Genius!” The sarcastic genius should be directed at your own idiotic comment. The fact that you think that the only other option is that it is the government’s money proves that you don’t even know what Marxism even is. Karl Marx didn’t say that the bourgeois “deserves” the riches they make, but he certainly didn’t say that the money was the government’s. In your either-or paradigm, true Marxism is excluded! The irony!

The fundamental Marxist insight is that it is the combination of labor and capital that creates wealth. You said the poor rely on the rich, not vice versa. You are wrong; the wealthy absolutely do need the poor. If the poor disappeared, then there would be nobody to work at Wal-Mart. With nobody working at Wal-Mart, the value of Wal-Mart stock goes to zero, and suddenly the Walton family aren’t billionaires anymore.

Once you understand that it is a combination of labor and capital that creates wealth, then you realize that the creation of wealth is a partnership between the people with the capital and the people who perform the labor. Once you understand that wealth comes from this partnership, the logical question is how the wealth created by the partnership should be divided among the partners who created it. Classical economists have models where in the “long run”, the invisible hand guarantees that people earn exactly what they deserve. Karl Marx and Warren Buffet don’t have this faith in the invisible hand. It is only in that sense that Buffet and Obama are Marxists. They believe that the workers don’t make what they fairly deserve, but rather make what they can negotiate. Since the people with the capital have a much stronger negotiating position, they can, and invariably do, negotiate for themselves a disproportionate piece of the pie.

So what should be done about this situation? Buffet and Obama part company with Marx at this point. Marx would argue that the bourgeois class should be eliminated because the value that it contributes is merely providing capital, but the capital it contributes was ill-gotten in the first place. With no bourgeois class, the capital is owned and control by labor, and the wealth that society generates is shared fairly among the people whose labor actually produced the wealth. Buffet and Obama vehemently disagree with this facet of Marxism. Obama and Buffet correctly note that the capitalist system is extraordinarily valuable to society because it provides not only strong incentives to work and to innovate, it also adds a tremendous amount of value by causing resources to be allocated most efficiently. All they ask is that the rich pay a little more in taxes to promote the well-being of the society upon which their wealth depends.

Oh, and about those non-Caucasians riding the LYNX. Maybe they don’t pay enough in taxes to pay for their own ride, but they probably work for people who do. Those employers wouldn’t be able to earn their good incomes without their employees, so they should be happy to have financed a way for their employees to get to work.

[_Jason Bourne]

I disagree with Buffet's poor reasoning for maintaining the estate tax, as do many other educated economists. His reasoning is that he doesn't like the idea that some people will inherit a financial empire. But these people are only a tiny minority of those involved in estate taxes. What about the man who makes less than 100k/year all his life and manages to save a few hundred thousand for his kids and grandkids when he dies.
He pays taxes on all his property and income all his life and then when he dies, the government taxes it all again in one large swoop. Why? Because he died, and it doesn't think it is "fair" for the children and grandchildren to receive the fruits of their father and grandfather's labor.

The estate tax currently does not kick in until the the estate is 3.5 Million and above. McCain wants to raise the to 5 Million. Obama would hold it at 3.5 Million. Actually it is 2 Million until the end of this year then goes to 3.5 Million. by the way the estate tax raised little revenue. Something like 30 billion a year. But it sure keep a lot of estate tax attorneys in business!

[_dartagnan]

Since he is giving almost all of his wealth back to society, he does do willingly do what Obama proposes.

But Obama doesn't propose to let people give willingly. Obama proposes to force people to do it against their will. And you miss the point that giving money to charitable foundations is a safer bet than giving it to the federal government. If Buffet really thinks it is such a great idea to dump money into the government, then why isn't he just paying higher taxes instead of giving it to private charitable organizations? Because Buffet probably knows government mismanages money like no other business in the world. So I think it is silly for him to insist other be forced to do something he isn't doing himself.

And he supports be subject to the laws that Obama recommends.

Well he can afford to, he's the richest man in the world for cryin' out loud. But his reasoning isn't sound. He doesn't like the idea that some people are born into rich families. Well that's life. Some people are born into poor families. It isn't up to Obama nor is it up to Buffet to arbitrarily decide what's fair. That is what my problem is. Their standard seems tobe equality. Well, in our society, there has to be rich, and there has to be poor. Both will always exist. To howl at the moon or to try to manipulate the system to the point of "socio-economic equality" where no poor exist, well this will constitute nothing short of an overthrow of our capitalistic free market system. Now if that is what they want, then fine. Just be clear about it and don't beat about the bush.

That just isn’t true. The death tax is about people inheriting exuberant sums of money. In your example, if somebody leaves a few hundred thousand to his kids, the estate pays zero in estate tax. That is because the first two million isn’t taxed. Nobody is arguing that a meager estate of a few hundred thousand should be taxed, or even that an estate of a couple million dollars should be taxed. The estate tax doesn’t even kick except for amounts larger than that.

OK, well that's interesting. I didn't realize this. I feel better about it already. I'm not near death so I haven't looked into the details of the death tax. But I still disagree with the philosophy behind it.

We're still dealing with the philosophy that says government officials have rights to one's assets, so long as those assets are worth an X amount of money. Do you not think it is conceivable that some inherit estates worth 2 million, and yet they are only making 40k and could never afford those taxes? I think the best argument is the moral argument. Why does the government have rights to those assets? It has been milking this individual all his life and upon his death they're going to really cash in again.

The person paid taxes on them all his life, and now he is going to be punished because he's dead? What if a grandfather plans to send all his grandchildren to Ivy League schools? Shouldn't he have that right? Suddenly a 2-4 million dollar estate doesn't seem that much. My brother's father-in law owns his own plumming company worth about 4 million. His home is probably arounjd 2 million. He has four children and seven grandchildren. Are they going to have to pay taxes if it is divided up among them, and the individual figures are less than 2 million?

So when the kid who makes $30,000 a year inherits a $1,000,000 mansion, he pays zero in estate tax (he probably wouldn’t be able to afford the property tax and wouldn’t be able to keep the house anyway, but that is a different issue).

OK, but I don't see too many "mansions" valued only at 1 million.

The fundamental Marxist insight is that it is the combination of labor and capital that creates wealth. You said the poor rely on the rich, not vice versa. You are wrong; the wealthy absolutely do need the poor.

I said they do not rely on them for the basic fundamental necessities of life. And this is true. The rich contribute the brunt of the revenues that fund government programs designed to provide the poor with education, clean water, transportation, housing, etc.

If the poor disappeared, then there would be nobody to work at Wal-Mart.

Not everyone working at Wal-Mart is poor. Entreprenuers are becoming less and less dependent on the lower class. Eventually Wal-Mart will be obsolete as internet pruchases continue to increase. Warehouse workers, Forklift operators, will still be needed for distribution, but they are those well above the poverty line. But I never denied that wealth is created with both labor and capital. Of course labor is required. But a good portion of the poor don't work at all. Not everyone who doesn't own their own business is poor.

Classical economists have models where in the “long run”, the invisible hand guarantees that people earn exactly what they deserve. Karl Marx and Warren Buffet don’t have this faith in the invisible hand. It is only in that sense that Buffet and Obama are Marxists. They believe that the workers don’t make what they fairly deserve, but rather make what they can negotiate. Since the people with the capital have a much stronger negotiating position, they can, and invariably do, negotiate for themselves a disproportionate piece of the pie.

I agree with this, but the problem is only exacerbated by illegal immigration. So whose fault is that?

All they ask is that the rich pay a little more in taxes to promote the well-being of the society upon which their wealth depends.

But this is also a failed system. It doesn't work. Taking more from the rich has never worked. It might make sense to a four year old thinking in Robin Hood terms, but in our economic reality, it simply doesn't work. Obama doesn't understand this. He even acknolwedged that by taxing the rich, he is only interested in a sense of fairness.

Again, I asked you to provide a single example where an increase in CG taxes resulted in higher federal revenues. The reason you cannot find an example is because no such example exists. It would be unprecedented for an increase in CG tax to reult in more money for the government, so it could relay it to the poor.

Oh, and about those non-Caucasians riding the LYNX. Maybe they don’t pay enough in taxes to pay for their own ride, but they probably work for people who do.

Sure, but the point is, the upper class is already paying for things that benefit only the lower class. The provide tehbasic essentials. Food, education, sanitation, transportation, health care, welfare, etc. I think the richest 10% provide 70% of all government revenues.

Those employers wouldn’t be able to earn their good incomes without their employees, so they should be happy to have financed a way for their employees to get to work.

You're generalizing all businesses together here. Most of those people riding the LYNX work at fast food restaurants.

Look, I agree that government should pay for certain things; things it has traditionally paid for. That isn't socialism in and of itself. But Obama wants to extend its duties, far from providing basic services, to guarantee what he prefers to call social justice.

What I am saying is that this idea that taxing the rich will somehow create economic justice is absurd. There is no evidence to support it. Instead of raising the poor out of poverty, it will result in dragging more of the upper classes down a notch. The poor will remain poor, but at least Obama will get some kind of sick sense of vengence, knowing that at least he was able to make some of the rich pay more than they were under Bush. That's not responsible economic planning, nor is it a philosophy I want running this nation. It is immaturity and ignorance that reflects his personal Marxist and BLT principles.

[_Who Knows]

...knowing that at least he was able to make some of the rich pay more than they were under Bush.

It's about time! They have not been paying their fair share. They are not paying taxes at the same rate as lower income individuals (as a percentage of their wealth).

[_dartagnan]

The richest 10% pay 70% of all taxes. How much does this have to warp into that direction until "fairness" is attained?

Who gets to decide that? If government gets to just take from people what is rightfully theirs, then isn't this a slippery slope to something more communistic?

And how is taxing the rich more going to help the poor?

Nobody here has explained this. It doesn't work this way and it never has. Giving money to the poor only results in more business for the local liquor stores, lottery tickets, etc. Nothing that really does anything to change the direction they're heading.

[_Who Knows]

The richest 10% pay 70% of all taxes. How much does this have to warp into that direction until "fairness" is attained?

Who gets to decide that? If government gets to just take from people what is rightfully theirs, then isn't this a slippery slope to something more communistic?

And how is taxing the rich more going to help the poor?

Nobody here has explained this. It doesn't work this way and it never has. Giving money to the poor only results in more business for the local liquor stores, lottery tickets, etc. Nothing that really does anything to change the direction they're heading.

Hey - i'm all for lower taxes, don't get me wrong. But i'm also about making it fair. If sally the school teacher has to give up 10% of her wealth every year, so should bill gates.

[_dartagnan]

That doesn't make any sense. Sally doesn't have any wealth to give up. It isn't about giving wealth. We are taxed on our incomes not our wealth. You're talking about flip flopping the system for teh "purposes of fairness" without any consideration of its economic ramifications.

Do you even know what those would be?

Also, I find it arrogant for Obama to insist other rich people be froced to give up what they earned where he and Biden don't give up anything to help teh poor. Biden contributes the least about of any other politician in congress and Obama has a brother in Kenya living off a dollar a month and a disabled aunt in Boston living in a housing project.

If he isn't even willing to care for his own family members, then how is he in a poition to order us to care for complete strangers?

And keep in mind, he hasn't even begun to substantiate his philosophy that taxing the rich would be better for the poor on any economic level.

[_Analytics]

Since he is giving almost all of his wealth back to society, he does do willingly do what Obama proposes.

But Obama doesn't propose to let people give willingly. Obama proposes to force people to do it against their will.

Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin who said nothing in life is certain other than death and taxes? When you criticize the government forcing people to give money against their will, aren’t you simply criticizing the government’s authority to tax? McCain believes in the government’s authority to tax too, you know.

Buffet and Obama agree that the tax rate for top earners should be a little higher. Buffet and Obama also agree that Bill and Melinda can do better things with his estate than the federal government could.

Comparing them to McCain, the difference is slight. All we are talking about here is a few percentage points of tax on income above $250,000.

And he supports be subject to the laws that Obama recommends.

Well he can afford to, he's the richest man in the world for cryin' out loud.

Isn’t that Obama’s point? People who make a lot of money can afford to pay a little more in taxes.

But his reasoning isn't sound. He doesn't like the idea that some people are born into rich families. Well that's life. Some people are born into poor families. It isn't up to Obama nor is it up to Buffet to arbitrarily decide what's fair. That is what my problem is. Their standard seems to be equality….

You are battling a straw man here. If Buffet didn’t like the idea of people being born into rich families then he wouldn’t have had any kids. It isn’t about fairness. They have no problem with people working hard, growing responsible businesses, becoming rich, and enjoying the fruits of their labors. They have no problem with such people giving their kids great lives. They just think there needs to be a basic safety net for people who utterly fail at the game so that they aren’t dying on the street, and they think steps should be taken so that everybody at least has the opportunity for a respectable working-man lifestyle.

They don’t believe in fairness in the Robin Hood sense, as in take from the rich and give to the poor. Fairness is only used in the realization that like it or not, the government needs money, and that it is fair to ask that the people like Buffet who have benefited the most from society and are most able of paying, to pay a little more.

That just isn’t true. The death tax is about people inheriting exuberant sums of money. In your example, if somebody leaves a few hundred thousand to his kids, the estate pays zero in estate tax. That is because the first two million isn’t taxed. Nobody is arguing that a meager estate of a few hundred thousand should be taxed, or even that an estate of a couple million dollars should be taxed. The estate tax doesn’t even kick except for amounts larger than that.

OK, well that's interesting. I didn't realize this. I feel better about it already. I'm not near death so I haven't looked into the details of the death tax. But I still disagree with the philosophy behind it.

Lots of people do disagree with it philosophically, and that is okay.

We're still dealing with the philosophy that says government officials have rights to one's assets, so long as those assets are worth an X amount of money. Do you not think it is conceivable that some inherit estates worth 2 million, and yet they are only making 40k and could never afford those taxes?

To illustrate how this works, if somebody inherits an estate worth $2,000,001, then they get the first $2,000,000 free and clear, and need to pay a tax on the one dollar above $2,000,000. That would be a total of something like 40 cents. He’d be okay only receiving an inheritance of only $2,000,000.60, would be able to vastly improve his standard of living, and would never have to work a day in his life again.

Alternatively, the man could have donated $1 to a charity and leave his son with the remaining $2,000,000. In that case, there would be no estate tax at all.

I think the best argument is the moral argument. Why does the government have rights to those assets? It has been milking this individual all his life and upon his death they're going to really cash in again.

This is a fair argument—you are addressing a real moral and philosophical issue at this point. Buffett’s response would be that there is no way this guy would have been able to accumulate millions of dollars without an incredible amount of help from society. Asking him to leave some of his exuberant wealth to the society which allowed it to happen isn’t punitive.

What if a grandfather plans to send all his grandchildren to Ivy League schools? Shouldn't he have that right?

He can give 10 Ivy League educations for $2,000,000. He can give 16 for $4,000,000. They’ll do all right.

My brother's father-in law owns his own plumming company worth about 4 million. His home is probably arounjd 2 million. He has four children and seven grandchildren. Are they going to have to pay taxes if it is divided up among them, and the individual figures are less than 2 million?

Switching from the $2,000,000 example I’ve been using to the $3,500,000 exception that Obama supports, when your uncle and his wife die, an estate of $6,000,000 would be taxed ($6,000,000 - $3,500,000) * .45 = $675,000. The family would get the remaining $5,325,000 as they pleased. They’ll be okay.

So when the kid who makes $30,000 a year inherits a $1,000,000 mansion, he pays zero in estate tax (he probably wouldn’t be able to afford the property tax and wouldn’t be able to keep the house anyway, but that is a different issue).

OK, but I don't see too many "mansions" valued only at 1 million.

That was your example.

If the poor disappeared, then there would be nobody to work at Wal-Mart.

Not everyone working at Wal-Mart is poor.

But you see my point; the rich need the working poor.

Classical economists have models where in the “long run”, the invisible hand guarantees that people earn exactly what they deserve. Karl Marx and Warren Buffet don’t have this faith in the invisible hand. It is only in that sense that Buffet and Obama are Marxists. They believe that the workers don’t make what they fairly deserve, but rather make what they can negotiate. Since the people with the capital have a much stronger negotiating position, they can, and invariably do, negotiate for themselves a disproportionate piece of the pie.

I agree with this...

You agree with Karl Marx?

All they ask is that the rich pay a little more in taxes to promote the well-being of the society upon which their wealth depends.

But this is also a failed system. It doesn't work.

Since FDR first implemented this philosophy, America has done very well; it does work. When I speak of promoting the well-being of society, I’m talking about promoting a strong public education system, a solid infrastructure, and an economy where everybody can find a job and where there is a broad middle class. America has problems in many parts, but for many of us over several generations, it has been proven to work.

Again, I asked you to provide a single example where an increase in CG taxes resulted in higher federal revenues. The reason you cannot find an example is because no such example exists.

Frankly, the reason I didn’t “provide an example” is because the very question belies an astonishing misunderstanding of Economics. First, the very first chapter of an Econ 101 textbook will examine the fallacy of post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It’s fallacious from the outset to think an example one way or the other is evidence, much less proof, of anything.

If what you say were true and lowering the capital gains taxes always results in higher tax revenue, why doesn’t McCain propose to eliminate the capital gains tax? Hell, why doesn’t he make it negative? If he drives it down low enough, he can balance the budget with nothing more than this single magic bullet!

Look, I agree that government should pay for certain things; things it has traditionally paid for. That isn't socialism in and of itself. But Obama wants to extend its duties, far from providing basic services, to guarantee what he prefers to call social justice.

What I am saying is that this idea that taxing the rich will somehow create economic justice is absurd. There is no evidence to support it. Instead of raising the poor out of poverty, it will result in dragging more of the upper classes down a notch. The poor will remain poor, but at least Obama will get some kind of sick sense of vengence, knowing that at least he was able to make some of the rich pay more than they were under Bush. That's not responsible economic planning, nor is it a philosophy I want running this nation. It is immaturity and ignorance that reflects his personal Marxist and BLT principles.

As I’ve demonstrated on this tread, what you just described—punitively taxing the rich—is not a Marxist philosophy.

Further, I’ve shown that Obama’s philosophy on this is the same as Warren Buffet. It isn’t about “sick vengeance” against the rich. It is about balancing the budget by having those who have benefited the most from society paying a little bit more.

Given the fact that Warren Buffet's receptionist pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes that Buffet himself does, I don't think it is unreasonable or punitive to ask the well-off to pay a little bit more.

[_dartagnan]

Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin who said nothing in life is certain other than death and taxes? When you criticize the government forcing people to give money against their will, aren’t you simply criticizing the government’s authority to tax? McCain believes in the government’s authority to tax too, you know.

The issue is not whether government has teh authority to tax its citizens. The issue is whether government gets to implement warped standards for "purposes of fairness." There is nothing "fair" about making those who pay 70% of the revenues, fork up twice the percentage of their incomes, than those who pay less than 5% of the taxes.

Buffet and Obama agree that the tax rate for top earners should be a little higher. Buffet and Obama also agree that Bill and Melinda can do better things with his estate than the federal government could.

You still haven't justified your attempt to marry Obama and Buffet. So what if Buffet agrees? Does that mean Obama's philosophy should be adopted simply because Buffet agrees?

Comparing them to McCain, the difference is slight. All we are talking about here is a few percentage points of tax on income above $250,000.

But Obama has criticized the Bush tax cuts and he promises to end them whereas McCain wants to see them made permanent. When the time comes for Obama to remove the Bush tax cuts, he will have effectively been responsible for teh largest tax increase in history. He is only talking about increasing taxes on those making 250k for campaign purposes, but he has already said 200k and Biden recently said 150k. Once in office, they'll have free reign to do whatever they want. I mean it isn't like either one of these guys are known for keeping their promises.
I just cannot understand why we refuse to learn from history. The closest thing to our current mess is the great depression. What did Hoover do as a response to it? He increased regulation and taxes, and it made the situation worse. Obama wants to do the same exact thing! Amazing.

When Obama llows the Bush tax cuts to expire, the following will happen:

A single person making $30,000, will see Federal income taxes increase from $4,500 to $8,400. Married couples making $60,000 will see their taxes go from $9,000 to $16,800; married couples earning $75,000 will see their income taxes go from$18,750 to $21,000, and those making $125,000 will increase from $31,250 to $38,750. Those are middle-class income ranges.
In addition to the increase in income taxes, the marriage penalty will be restored. The difference between what you pay in taxes as a married couple and what you would pay as two single persons is often referred to as the marriage tax penalty. According to the Congressional Budget Office that penalty amounts to $1,400 per tax-paying couple.

Even more inscrutably, Obama advocates increasing the capital gains tax rate from the current rate of 15% to 20%, 25%, or even 28%, depending on which campaign speech you read. That means if you sell your home and make $100,000 on the sale, instead of paying $15,000 on the capital gains, you would pay $20,000, $25,000, or even $28,000 on the profit.

The same holds true for stock and mutual fund sales, which would affect over 60% of households. And if you receive dividends from your stock and mutual fund portfolios, the taxes you pay on those dividends will go from 15% back to a maximum of 39.6%. So instead of paying just $1,500 in taxes on $10,000 of dividends, you will be paying as much as $3,960 in taxes. There are other factors that may affect that rate, but for the sake of simplification and space limitations, I can’t address those here.
In light of this data, it is not only unconscionable for Obama to say he will not raise taxes on the middle class, but it is dishonest.

Isn’t that Obama’s point? People who make a lot of money can afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Not everyone who makes 250k/year can afford it. And my point is that it isn't up to Obama to decide how much of our money we get to keep.

They just think there needs to be a basic safety net for people who utterly fail at the game so that they aren’t dying on the street, and they think steps should be taken so that everybody at least has the opportunity for a respectable working-man lifestyle.

And their plan is.....? To tax the rich more and give it to the poor. Please, do tell, how in the hell this helps solve the problem of poverty. If they cannot provide sound reasoning that their proposed end will ever be met, then trying to justify the means is pointless.

Fairness is only used in the realization that like it or not, the government needs money, and that it is fair to ask that the people like Buffet who have benefited the most from society and are most able of paying, to pay a little more.

You keep ignoring the subtle yet profound truth that by increasing their taxes, the federal revenues decrease, thus undermining what you suggest is the whole point of the increase to begin with.

To illustrate how this works, if somebody inherits an estate worth $2,000,001, then they get the first $2,000,000 free and clear, and need to pay a tax on the one dollar above $2,000,000. That would be a total of something like 40 cents. He’d be okay only receiving an inheritance of only $2,000,000.60, would be able to vastly improve his standard of living, and would never have to work a day in his life again. Alternatively, the man could have donated $1 to a charity and leave his son with the remaining $2,000,000. In that case, there would be no estate tax at all.

Interesting.

This is a fair argument—you are addressing a real moral and philosophical issue at this point. Buffett’s response would be that there is no way this guy would have been able to accumulate millions of dollars without an incredible amount of help from society.

But this has to be a case by case basis. Not everyone relies on society to the same degree. Some don't seem to rely on it at all. What about the family business run by family members only? I see this all the time, especially with Indians running small grocery stores, and Chinese running Chinese restaurants. What "poor" people do they depend on except in the form of consumers? What do the poor do to make society allow them to run a business, especially those who do not work?

Asking him to leave some of his exuberant wealth to the society which allowed it to happen isn’t punitive.

It is if it is left to government to spend as it sees fit. The government is not taking care of the poor, it never has, and it never will. I think this is nonsense used by democrats to tax the rich. Again, if Obama really cares so much about the poor, then why is his brother living off a dollar a month in a grass hut and his aunt living in a housing project in Boston? Obama made nearly a million dollars last year. If he cares so little about his poor family members then why should I believe he gives a damn about the poor who are supposedly going to benefit from the taxes I will be forced to pay?

You agree with Karl Marx?

I only agree that you cannot rely on an invisible hand to create economic justice. I don't think economic justice can exist in our society, at least not to the extent that Obama wants. Only Communism can provide the kind of economic justice Obama is seeking.

I’m talking about promoting a strong public education system, a solid infrastructure, and an economy where everybody can find a job and where there is a broad middle class. America has problems in many parts, but for many of us over several generations, it has been proven to work.

Yes, I agree government should pay for these things too, but Obama wants to extend the hand of government by literally redistributing wealth. For Obama wealth is not something that is earned or created, it is simply something that is "there" and he thinks he has the right to distribute it as he sees fits. This doesn't work and it never has.

Frankly, the reason I didn’t “provide an example” is because the very question belies an astonishing misunderstanding of Economics. First, the very first chapter of an Econ 101 textbook will examine the fallacy of post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It’s fallacious from the outset to think an example one way or the other is evidence, much less proof, of anything.

Come on. I provide three strong examples whereby decreased taxes resulted in higher revenues. Surely you're able to come up with at least one example where increased taxes resulted in higher revenues. I mean if not, then on what bases are you holding out that Obama might be correct? I have history on my side here, that was my only point. Obama is ignoring history in preference to his personal "fairness" philosophy. It comes from the same corners of society that moan about big oil's "record profits."

If he wants to tax the rich, then be honest about it. Don't tell us it is because you want to help the poor because the fact is, history shows us that if he succeeds, he'll have less revenues to work with in order to do that.

If what you say were true and lowering the capital gains taxes always results in higher tax revenue

I don't know that it has, which is why I wanted you to provide an example to the contrary.

why doesn’t McCain propose to eliminate the capital gains tax?

Maybe he will eventually. He was originally against teh Bush tax cuts and now he wants to make them permanent. At least one of the candidates is willing to learn from past mistakes.

As I’ve demonstrated on this tread, what you just described—punitively taxing the rich—is not a Marxist philosophy.

But you agree Obama is Marxist to a degree. Semantics aside, I disagree with his presumption that he has the right to take money earned by individuals and distribute it as he sees fit. It is morally reprehensible, especially because he has no intention of helping the poor.

Given the fact that Warren Buffet's receptionist pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes that Buffet himself does, I don't think it is unreasonable or punitive to ask the well-off to pay a little bit more.

His receptionsit is probably "rich" by Obama's standard, and she doesn't pay a higher income tax rate. Buffet took his accumulative wealth in order to make this silly comparison. It is called an income tax, not a wealth tax.