Warren Buffet the Marxist

[_Who Knows]

That doesn't make any sense. Sally doesn't have any wealth to give up.

Ding ding. Now we can see how the current system is unfair for lower income, and favors higher income individuals.

It isn't about giving wealth.

Well, it's called the 'income' tax. But it's definitely about giving up wealth. And it's much harder on sally the school teacher to give up a big portion of her wealth, than it is on bill gates to give up less than 1% of his wealth.

We are taxed on our incomes not our wealth.

Heh, you don't need to tell me how the current system works.

You're talking about flip flopping the system for the "purposes of fairness" without any consideration of its economic ramifications.

No, I'm not seriously talking about flip flopping the system. Hopefully though, I can get people to look at the current progressive tax system in a new light, and realize that it isn't quite as unfair to the wealthy, as some would have us believe.

Again - i agree that the government spends too much. But at the same time, i believe it should be as 'painful' for bill gates to pay taxes, as it is for sally the schoolteacher. That's the only point i'm trying to make.

[_dartagnan]

Ding ding. Now we can see how the current system is unfair for lower income, and favors higher income individuals.

But Sally doesn't have wealth because she chose not to create it herself. How is that my fault? Sally has the opportunity in this country to study hard, finish school, get a job in whatever field she chooses, apply herself, and put herself in a position where she can negotiate her terms of income, and then later create wealth according to her own level of responsible choices. Why should she get to forgo all that hard work and opt out while those who did it, fork over their earnings to Sally? What's "fair" about that?
And keep in mind, that if government takes the money, the chances of Sally seeing one dime of it is minute.

Well, it's called the 'income' tax. But it's definitely about giving up wealth.

Only if you have wealth to begin with. Sally pays income tax at a lower rate than those with higher incomes. The rich are already financing our government's reckless spending habits. Now it want sto take more while ignoring the economic repercussions it would have on the economy.

And it's much harder on sally the school teacher to give up a big portion of her wealth, than it is on bill gates to give up less than 1% of his wealth.

Well is Sally retarded? Did she not know that becoming a school teacher pays squat? This was her choice. Why should others have to pay for her mistakes? Was she operating under the hope that one day a messiah would become President and give her all the money she didn't earn herself?

No, I'm not seriously talking about flip flopping the system. Hopefully though, I can get people to look at the current progressive tax system in a new light, and realize that it isn't quite as unfair to the wealthy, as some would have us believe.

I think fairness is a word that needs to be thrown out of the equation. We're talking in economic terms right? So let's deal with what's best for the economy. Now if we know that by increasing taxes on the rich, the poor won't benefit (they never have before), then why are we pretending they will? If we know that by taxing the rich, federal revenues will likely decrease, then why pretend they will increase?

Again - i agree that the government spends too much. But at the same time, i believe it should be as 'painful' for bill gates to pay taxes, as it is for sally the schoolteacher. That's the only point i'm trying to make.

Then there is no longer a reward in success, and there goes the fundamental incentive that drives the American dream. Since not everyone can be rich and happy, you'd have us all be miserable. I mean that way we're all equal, right? No more incentive to strive for success. I mean why the hell bust your ass, invent, take risks, implement, invest, etc, if in the end, all your success just means you did all that work for nothing, and ultimately you're supposed to be just as miserable as a school teacher?

Incidentally, the Public School System is a joke. Throwing money at things don't make a difference, and welfare recipients are no exception. The schools that average the highest federal income per student are often the worst schools in the nation. Government doesn't know how to solve problems. Democrats running it only know how to throw money at them.

[_antishock8]

Dart,

That's just it. These guys are the most racist and sexist people on earth. They don't think that Sally or someone else has the innate ability to be a Bill Gates. They're inherently disadvantaged.

You are the true equal opportunist.

They're the true bigots because they think Sally and others aren't capable... And that nature put them in a position to be exploited by more capable people.

That's bigotry in its purest form.

What a shame.

[_Who Knows]

Why should others have to pay for her mistakes? Was she operating under the hope that one day a messiah would become President and give her all the money she didn't earn herself?
...
Then there is no longer a reward in success, and there goes the fundamental incentive that drives the American dream. Since not everyone can be rich and happy, you'd have us all be miserable. I mean that way we're all equal, right? No more incentive to strive for success. I mean why the hell bust your ass, invent, take risks, implement, invest, etc, if in the end, all your success just means you did all that work for nothing, and ultimately you're supposed to be just as miserable as a school teacher?

Well, this isn't close to what I've been talking about. Either I haven't been spelling it all out clearly, or you're misunderstanding me. So i'm not going to keep replying to words you're putting in my mouth.

[_Yoda]

Did she not know that becoming a school teacher pays squat?

Well, this is part of the problem, too, as far as the school system goes.

If we were recruiting the best and the brightest to teach our children, and paying them to make it worth their while, that would be the most significant change the public school system could make.

[_Tarski]

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

That is certainly the wrong way to look at it. What matters more is what percentage of their income they are paying. In fact, that still isn't they way to look at it. The whole reason we have a progressive system is because what matters is the relative value of money to those paying taxes. $50 has nearly infinite relative value to someone who needs it to keep from being evicted.
My son's wife's employer misinformed her about not taking enough taxes out of her paycheck (he had some loophole--he listed her as a temp). She ended up owing $900 in taxes. This may as well have been $10,000 since they can't even pay their bills. She was suicidal for weeks.

[_Analytics]

The issue is not whether government has the 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.

You are looking at this the wrong way. In a simplistic example, let’s pretend that the only two people in the economy are Warren Buffet and his receptionist. Last year he made a cool $1,000,000,000, and she made a respectable $100,000. He made that much because he won the game, which he couldn’t have even played without the invaluable gift of being born an American in this age. She isn’t jealous; she has a great life, and is trying to get by.

Last year, he paid $200,000,000 in taxes, which was 20% of his income. The receptionist paid $30,000 in taxes, which is 30% of her income. This is the total tax liability of each, which includes taxes on capital gains, dividends, food, gas, property, income, and social security. Thus, of the total $200,030,000 in tax revenue, Buffet is paying 99.99% while the receptionist is only paying 0.01%.

Unfortunately, the country that permitted them to generate $1,000,100,000 in wealth needs some help. The public schools need more money so that a top-notch mathematician who loves to teach and would inspire kids at math needs an income of $100,000 as a teacher, or he will go to the private sector. The roads are falling apart. They need to build up the infrastructure. They need more cops and more prisons. Most importantly, they need to invest in technology to become energy independent in a way that will help their county prosper in the new global economy.

A politician comes by and says that in order to pay for the programs that will help everybody, including the supper rich, the government needs more money. They suggest increasing Buffet’s taxes by 3%, and lowering the receptionists by 5%.

Would you respond that this would be totally unfair to ask Buffet to pay a little more, since he is already paying 99.99% of the taxes?

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?

I'm simply pointing out that when the most successful capitalist in the history of capitalism not only endorses Obama but advises him on taxes, maybe, just maybe, he isn't anti-captialism as you impute.

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.

Let me be clear on this. I don't have sympathy for people who make over $250,000 a year who can't afford to pay an extra 3% on their income that exceeds $250,000.

And it is in fact up to Congress to decide how much of our money we get to keep. That's America.

And their plan is.....? To tax the rich more and give it to the poor.

That isn't their plan.

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.

It isn't a "subtle yet profound truth". It is a misrepresentation of an economic theory. Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that theory, why should I think you are capable of understanding the criticisms of that theory and the empircal evidence?

Yes, I agree government should pay for these things too, but Obama wants to extend the hand of government by literally redistributing wealth.

No he doesn't.

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.

That just isn't true.

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.

Let's say I provided four strong examples whereby increasing taxes resulted in higher revenues. Would you admit that you have no damned idea what you are talking about?

[_Jason Bourne]

And it is in fact up to Congress to decide how much of our money we get to keep. That's America.

Bingo!!! So look here. Not everyone agrees that a progressive tax system is good or fair. And so now we get to go vote and see who wins. Then we will see how the law changes. For the past 6 years there have been cuts across the board. % wise the bracket cuts have been fairly equal ( on non cap gain and div income) but total dollar wise they have not been which in makes sense. You are not happy about this.

So you will vote for Obama and he agrees with you. If he wins we will see what happens with taxes.

My biggest problem though is something I told you before. I am not at the 250k level but not that far off either. But I would still pay more if I was confident that the budget would be balanced and the deficit paid down. Unfortunately I am not confident.

[_dartagnan]

Would you respond that this would be totally unfair to ask Buffet to pay a little more, since he is already paying 99.99% of the taxes?

No, but our country isn't comprised of only two tax payers as in your scenario above. In our present reality, increasing Buffet's tax rate isn't going to create more revenue for the government. This was the point I was making before. Increasing taxes on the rich do not have the effect of increasing federal revenues. In today's reality, increasing taxes on business owners only give them pause to reevaluate their financial situation and decide how they can better offset that stumbling block. Options might include demoting or even firing Sally. In extreme instances, business consider moving overseas to find tax haven countries from which to base their operations. In the end, taxing businesses only means the consumer pays, one way or another.

I'm simply pointing out that when the most successful capitalist in the history of capitalism not only endorses Obama but advises him on taxes, maybe, just maybe, he isn't anti-captialism as you impute.

I think you're exagerrating Buffet's admiration of capitalism. He took advantage of it to be sure, but he is a minority in his group when it comes to favoring increased taxation on businesses.

Let me be clear on this. I don't have sympathy for people who make over $250,000 a year who can't afford to pay an extra 3% on their income that exceeds $250,000.

Your sympathy isn't the issue. The fact is many small business have a technical income of 250K but are taking risks in maintaining and expanding their business, in ways the non-bsuiness owner never has to worry about. Whether your sympathize or not, Obama's plan will make it more difficulty for them to stay in business. And let's not forget the fact that a struggling business relies on employees who are going to be making the 20-50K income range. Congressional crap rolls downhill, and if government makes it less profitable for business owners, they will simply take it out on the little guy running the cash register. More and more, you see family members running family businesses because they can't afford to hire outside.

And it is in fact up to Congress to decide how much of our money we get to keep. That's America.

And when Congress abuses that authority, all hell breaks loose. I'm simply saying it isn't right.

That isn't their plan.

Of course it is!

It isn't a "subtle yet profound truth". It is a misrepresentation of an economic theory. Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that theory, why should I think you are capable of understanding the criticisms of that theory and the empircal evidence?

If it is merely a theory, then why can't you provide precedent for rejecting it? The only theory I see here is the theory that it isn't really a fact. The theory that it might not always be teh case in all situations. Well, maybe not, but so far it has been. When has an increase in CG taxes resulted in higher revenues? If you can't name an example, then what does that say about the soundness of the theory? For a theory that is always right when applied, I'd say it is a pretty solid theory. I don't want a reckless President who ignores economic history and pretends an increase in CG taxes will miraculously, for the first time in history, provide more federal revenue!

No he doesn't.

Of course he does. Those were his own words: "Spread the wealth around." This suggests that something first exist in order for it to be spread about. Obama doesn't see wealth as a reward or something that needs to be generated by hard working Americans. He only sees it as something that always exists, and something that he as President, is in charge of redistributing.

Let's say I provided four strong examples whereby increasing taxes resulted in higher revenues. Would you admit that you have no f*****g idea what you are talking about?

CG taxes I said. Capital Gains taxes. But yes, income taxes were increased during WW1 and resulted in more revenue, but in recent times? Our economy is far different from what it was 50 years ago. Today the demand for low skilled workers has dropped dramatically. Taxing the rich doesn't result in anything except increased unemployment and lower wages.

Picking cotton? Forget it, we got machines to do that.

Assembling automobiles? Forget it, we got machines to do that.

Grocery store clerks? Forget it, we got self-check out computers for that.

Customer service agents? Forget it. We got Indonesians 8,000 miles away on standby willing to do the same thing for 2 bucks an hour.

[_Analytics]

dartagnan,

Above, you said "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."

I provided a simplified example to show why it actually is fair. I asked you if that was really unfair as you insisted it was. You responded:

No...

I accept your appology.

I think you're exagerrating Buffet's admiration of capitalism.

Uhh. This thread is entitled "Warren Buffet the Marxist". I may have said he has a realistic appreciation of the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism, but I never said he admires it.

That isn't their plan.

Of course it is!

In your sick little mind that ignores reality it is their plan, but in the real world it isn't!

It isn't a "subtle yet profound truth". It is a misrepresentation of an economic theory. Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that theory, why should I think you are capable of understanding the criticisms of that theory and the empircal evidence?

If it is merely a theory, then why can't you provide precedent for rejecting it?

You answer my questions first. Since you appear to be incapable of understanding that theory, why should I think you are capable of understanding the criticisms of that theory and the empircal evidence? If I provide precedent for rejecting it, would you admit that you have no f*****g idea what you are talking about?