Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary

Quote from neophyte321:

the dude is calling for higher taxes, plain and simple. what's the motive behind that? Patriotism? Fuel the Federal Beast More?
More...
Actually nothing in his comments (as quoted) suggests that he believes total government tax receipts should increase. I'm sure he does, as do I, but that's not what he actually said.

I'm calling for the government to stop encroaching upon every aspect of my life, stop its recklessly spending, AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.
More...
Leave you the hell alone to drive to work on roads funded by tax dollars, benefit from medical research funded by tax dollars, send your kids to schools funded by tax dollars, collect a salary funded at least in part by federal spending, etc.

Everybody wants the benefits of government without paying the price. We're happy to take everything we get for granted, but of course every penny we pay in taxes is like blood from a stone.

In the pit of hypocrisy that is the conservative movement, the starve-the-beast tax rebels are the absolute nadir.

Unless, of course, you're living off the land in a cabin in the woods, in which case more power to you.

Martin
 
Leave you the hell alone to drive to work on roads funded by tax dollars, benefit from medical research funded by tax dollars, send your kids to schools funded by tax dollars, collect a salary funded at least in part by federal spending, etc.

Everybody wants the benefits of government without paying the price. We're happy to take everything we get for granted, but of course every penny we pay in taxes is like blood from a stone.

In the pit of hypocrisy that is the conservative movement, the starve-the-beast tax rebels are the absolute nadir.

Unless, of course, you're living off the land in a cabin in the woods, in which case more power to you.

Stupid argument.
In Eastern Europe government was everything. Were we better off because we had everything "provided" for???
By your non-sense logic it should have been a paradise. I guarantee you it wasn't. I'd rather be abused by corporation than by the state.

Just following the logic of your argument, nothing more.
 
No, you're not following the logic of my argument. I did not suggest larger government or more services. I just think we should pay for the services we already have, and stop pretending that our government does nothing of value for us.

In any case, Eastern Europe is a terrible analogy. Here are some differences from the United States:

1) They were vassal states to an imperial power
2) They were utterly undemocratic
3) They lacked individual freedoms
4) They had command economies

Can you come up with a better analogy? Let's see, are there any first world, free market, democratic countries with much larger public sector spending than the US? How about Sweden? Denmark? Holland?

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of Scandinavian style government myself, but they're a far cry from Soviet Eastern Europe.

Martin
 
Quote from Sparohok:

In any case, Eastern Europe is a terrible analogy. Here are some differences from the United States:

1) They were vassal states to an imperial power
2) They were utterly undemocratic
3) They lacked individual freedoms
4) They had command economies
More...

hey, you forgot to list the differences. :p
 
george will deserves the final word on this issue ....


i]




Conservatives, liberals and reality

By George Will

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Conservatism's recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals — freedom and equality.


Today conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.


Liberals tend, however, to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes. Hence liberalism's goal of achieving greater equality of condition leads to a larger scope for interventionist government to circumscribe the market's role in allocating wealth and opportunity. Liberalism increasingly seeks to deliver equality in the form of equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things on government.


Hence liberals' hostility to school choice programs that challenge public education's semimonopoly. Hence hostility to private accounts funded by a portion of each individual's Social Security taxes. Hence their fear of health savings accounts (individuals who buy high-deductible health insurance become eligible for tax-preferred savings accounts from which they pay their routine medical expenses — just as car owners do not buy insurance to cover oil changes). Hence liberals' advocacy of government responsibility for — and, inevitably, rationing of — health care, which is 16 percent of the economy and rising.


Steadily enlarging dependence on government accords with liberalism's ethic of common provision, and with the liberal party's interest in pleasing its most powerful faction — public employees and their unions. Conservatism's rejoinder should be that the argument about whether there ought to be a welfare state is over. Today's proper debate is about the modalities by which entitlements are delivered. Modalities matter, because some encourage and others discourage attributes and attitudes — a future orientation, self-reliance, individual responsibility for healthy living — that are essential for dignified living in an economically vibrant society that a welfare state, ravenous for revenue in an aging society, requires.


This reasoning is congruent with conservatism's argument that excessively benevolent government is not a benefactor, and that capitalism does not merely make people better off, it makes them better. Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Conservatism challenges liberalism's blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government.


Conservatism argues, as did the Founders, that self-interestedness is universal among individuals, but the dignity of individuals is bound up with the exercise of self-reliance and personal responsibility in pursuing one's interests. Liberalism argues that equal dependence on government minimizes social conflicts. Conservatism's rejoinder is that the entitlement culture subverts social peace by the proliferation of rival dependencies.


The entitlement mentality encouraged by the welfare state exacerbates social conflicts — between generations (the welfare state transfers wealth to the elderly), between racial and ethnic groups (through group preferences) and between all organized interests (from farmers to labor unions to recipients of corporate welfare) as government, not impersonal market forces, distributes scarce resources. This, conservatism insists, explains why as government has grown, so has cynicism about it.


Racial preferences are the distilled essence of liberalism, for two reasons. First, preferences involve identifying groups supposedly disabled by society — victims who, because of their diminished competence, must be treated as wards of government. Second, preferences vividly demonstrate liberalism's core conviction that government's duty is not to allow social change but to drive change in the direction the government chooses. Conservatism argues that the essence of constitutional government involves constraining the state in order to allow society ample scope to spontaneously take unplanned paths.


Conservatism embraces President Kennedy's exhortation to "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country," and adds: You serve your country by embracing a spacious and expanding sphere of life for which your country is not responsible.


Here is the core of a conservative appeal, without dwelling on "social issues" that should be, as much as possible, left to "moral federalism" — debates within the states. On foreign policy, conservatism begins, and very nearly ends, by eschewing abroad the fatal conceit that has been liberalism's undoing domestically — hubris about controlling what cannot, and should not, be controlled.


Conservatism is realism, about human nature and government's competence. Is conservatism politically realistic, meaning persuasive? That is the kind of question presidential campaigns answer.
More...
 
Quote from Capablanca:

Again I don't understand what you are trying to say. First off you are attacking Buffett not his argument. Regarding his argument you don't seem to be saying much.

Regarding Buffett you are implying he has less than noble motives for expressing his views. As has been stated sparohok, he's as rich as just about anyone out there and he's set to donate the greater part of his fortune to charity. Moreover he's in his late seventies and one would think more concerned with his legacy rather than making another buck. What are these base self interested motivations that you think are driving him? You refer to Howard Hughes, are you saying what drove Howard Hughes is what is driving Buffett? Aside from their wealth that seems like a dead end comparison.

Next you attempt to assail Buffett's competence saying in effect his success is a statistical aberration. Are we supposed to believe skill had nothing to do with his success? It was just luck?

Forgive me if I think Buffett is generally competent and speaking what he genuinely thinks would better the nation.
More...

Attacking buffet? didnt i say he had skills and abilities that would have driven lesser folk to their grave before time?
Actually, there was nothing in the article to suggest he wasnt in favor of LOWERING his secretaries taxes.
Legacy-hes made heaps of people very rich via birkshire hathoway, that a good legacy for a start.

A glorified business manager-that doesnt imply incompetence i would have thought, results speak for themselves.

Im saying, he has vast amounts of power, the "issue" i referred to is how people examine, or think about the actions or motivations of such powerfull people, not necessarily their actual agenda or motivation.

Actually, i always got the impression he was a horrible killjoy scrooge-mc-duck workaholic type, maybe im way off i dont know-but having re-read his comments on rebublicans, i like him a lot more now
:D
 
Cesko. How long will it take, you dumbfuck to realize what a patsy you are? If it takes you more than 10 years, you are one real dumbfuck, you know? This country brings in idiots like you from all over the world, to use you, work you and suck off your dumb idealism of the "American dream", which is in reality a big nightmare. If it takes you longer than 7-10 years, it just shows how stupid you really are. You still think you can get rich trading and "defending" the low taxes and the american way, right?
Bwwaaaaaahhaaaaa !! I love it!
Let you in on a "secret" ok? Dems and Gop is the same fucking party. How do you like that for democracy, stupid? The force that is running the nation is the multinationals, you know the fortune 500. They are making national security decisions for us, like open border policy to keep the slave labor freeflow coming and to keep fucking over practically every facet of the working middle class forever. They have fixed the political scene that it is practically impossible to run as a third party candidate who has not sold out to these traitorous multis. Compared to this picture the EU is in pretty good shape, still.
Quote from Cesko:

Leave you the hell alone to drive to work on roads funded by tax dollars, benefit from medical research funded by tax dollars, send your kids to schools funded by tax dollars, collect a salary funded at least in part by federal spending, etc.

Everybody wants the benefits of government without paying the price. We're happy to take everything we get for granted, but of course every penny we pay in taxes is like blood from a stone.

In the pit of hypocrisy that is the conservative movement, the starve-the-beast tax rebels are the absolute nadir.

Unless, of course, you're living off the land in a cabin in the woods, in which case more power to you.

Stupid argument.
In Eastern Europe government was everything. Were we better off because we had everything "provided" for???
By your non-sense logic it should have been a paradise. I guarantee you it wasn't. I'd rather be abused by corporation than by the state.

Just following the logic of your argument, nothing more.
More...
 
esko. How long will it take, you dumbfuck to realize what a patsy you are? If it takes you more than 10 years, you are one real dumbfuck, you know? This country brings in idiots like you from all over the world, to use you, work you and suck off your dumb idealism of the "American dream", which is in reality a big nightmare. If it takes you longer than 7-10 years, it just shows how stupid you really are. You still think you can get rich trading and "defending" the low taxes and the american way, right?
Bwwaaaaaahhaaaaa !! I love it!
Let you in on a "secret" ok? Dems and Gop is the same fucking party. How do you like that for democracy, stupid? The force that is running the nation is the multinationals, you know the fortune 500. They are making national security decisions for us, like open border policy to keep the slave labor freeflow coming and to keep fucking over practically every facet of the working middle class forever. They have fixed the political scene that it is practically impossible to run as a third party candidate who has not sold out to these traitorous multis. Compared to this picture the EU is in pretty good shape, still.

You stupid fuck you attack me for no reason, you low life piece of shit?? When I read you provided "trading services" I kept my mouth shut for one and one reason only, because you have the same history like me you garbage!!
This is for everybody to read, this stupid character proclaims trading is for suckers and, importantly, has been saying this shit for years.Here is one example:
IN poker when you lose, you cannot even write it off. Not to mention the uncertainty if you were colluded, cheated by a crooked dealer or just colluding players.
Both pursuits are for suckers in my humble opinion He is talking about poker+trading!!
Now think of it, this guy, at the same time, ventured into "trading advisory" services, here
if someone is bitten by the "trading bug" and wanted help, I provided that help, at one time. I never claimed outrageous results or promised the sky. I can sleep at night. Note, that I had a change of heart and I have stopped that business, I stand by what I say. Most ET folk are dreamy eyed suckers who either cannot find a job or work just plain stinks for them.

Logically if somebody sells anything,yet he thinks it's for suckers, what does it make him??
YOU ARE A CON YOU LOW LIFE. How about that "corporate fuckism" stupid?
You had a change of heart my ass. It's not easy to scheme suckers out of their money, is it pretentious idiot?
You call me stupid for being in this country JUST LIKE YOU you posing retard? Talk to me when you are back to Hungary(turning left little by little you will like it) and then when you say anything I might actually believe it cretin!
Again, you(while calling me stupid) say trading is for suckers. Why?? How do you know it asshole? Because YOU CAN'T MAKE IT??? What a retarded logic! I'll tell you what, trading is for stupid.If you had a tiny little brain at least, you would understand that and actually had a chance fucker!

Let you in on a "secret" ok? Dems and Gop is the same fucking party. How do you like that for democracy, stupid?
Thanks for the news, you don't even know what's my political standing simpleton.

What about all the people who paid money to you for coaching on how to be a better trader? Are they suckers? What about all the people that bought your implementation of the PGO trading system? Are they suckers? What about your website coach4traders dot com? Is it for suckers? (Poster Kwiatkowski)
Is he one of your "satisfied" clients?? Tell me when they inquired about "PGO trading system" did you tell them it's for suckers???
You know what you lefty scum? People call me stupid on this site, I call them stupid, I call myself stupid probably more often but you have no right to call me dumb because you are just fucking low.
Put me on "ignore" dumbass. I beg you.
 
Check Andrasnm's profile. "professional card player". So you are one of the suckers? GARBAGE

You are so stupid you say poker playing is for suckers yet you keep profile like that? No wonder you had a hard time to con other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top