Exactly. Buffet is magnanimously saying "tax my dividend at a higher rate" while his billions in stock holdings will NEVER be taxed unless he sells which he seldom does. Buffet's a smart guy. His mantra is obviously "tax my crumbs not my bread".....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Spread the Wealth
- Thread starter wjk
- Start date
Exactly. Buffet is magnanimously saying "tax my dividend at a higher rate" while his billions in stock holdings will NEVER be taxed unless he sells which he seldom does. Buffet's a smart guy. His mantra is obviously "tax my crumbs not my bread".....
To think you probably hammered that post out without even an edit or rewrite. You're awesomely talented, bro. Small wonder you go ballistic over McCains inept debate performances....
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Rather than debate this stuff with you endless and fruitlessly, let me just put forth a couple of principles. One, I think the purpose of the tax system should be to fund the government with the least possible harm to the economy. We end up with suboptimal tax schemes when we start trying to punish one group or reward another using the tax system. If the objective is to cause the least harm to the economy, at least everyone is focused on the same goal and we can debate the methods rationally rather than get caught up in demagoguery. Of course, democrats object to this principle because for them, the purpose of the tax system is to buy votes and make class envy appeals.
Two, I agree with liberals that vast and persistent wealth disparity is a potential problem. But statistics can hide as much as they reveal. Is there mobility between income strata? That is a good thing. If we are constantly adding poor people at the bottom of the ladder through immigration, etc, then we will always have a "statistical" problem, but if they are able to rise over generations, then it is much less of a social problem. The way to address this issue is to limit immigration by poor and unskilled people and make it easier for wage earners to accumulate capital. Current policies do the opposite. We allow unchecked immigration but our tax system penalizes savers. Obama would make it worse.
Three, taxes should be spread over as wide a base as possible. Obama has famously claimed to "unite us", but his tax policies, like the rest of his policies, would do the opposite. He pits one class against another and had the audacity to criticize a working man for not "sharing the wealth." When a significant percentage of the population pays little or nothing in taxes, they have every incentive to want lavish government programs. After all, they're not paying for them. While a vast expansion of goverment and dependency on government are exactly what democrats want, it is clearly not in the interests of the country. We need only look at other countries that pursue such policies, such as in latin america, and we see social division, tax fraud on a vast scale with all the corruption it engenders and dysfunctional government. Obama seemed to be quite comfortable in the pervasive corruption of chicago machine politics, but most of us aspire to something better for our country.
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Exactly. Buffet is magnanimously saying "tax my dividend at a higher rate" while his billions in stock holdings will NEVER be taxed unless he sells which he seldom does. Buffet's a smart guy. His mantra is obviously "tax my crumbs not my bread".....
So this will take money from Buffett and others with great wealth, to help with the economy and make it more fair.
What you are saying Pabst is that it is easy for Buffett and others with huge wealth to say..."Ok tax me more, I should put in my fair share.".. because they still keep most of their wealth tax free?
But if Buffett has $46 billion of dividend that will be taxed higher, that is still a huge amount of moneys for the country to use, and will help give middle class a tax break because the money the middle class save on taxes is put back with higher rates on people like Buffett. And it does not hurt Buffett or other very wealthy people like him.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Your ideas about taxes are so confused it's hard to unravel them. You continually confuse the concepts of wealth and income. One is taxed and one isn't.
People making $50k certainly pay next to nothing in income taxes, and they pay far less on a percentage basis than someone in the max marginal rate. I wouldn't call them middle class either, unless maybe they are living in a very low cost area. The rest of your comments about "wealth trickling down" and "income being redistributed to the wealthy" make even less sense than Obama's "spread the wealth" philosophy.
Rather than debate this stuff with you endless and fruitlessly, let me just put forth a couple of principles. One, I think the purpose of the tax system should be to fund the government with the least possible harm to the economy. We end up with suboptimal tax schemes when we start trying to punish one group or reward another using the tax system. If the objective is to cause the least harm to the economy, at least everyone is focused on the same goal and we can debate the methods rationally rather than get caught up in demagoguery. Of course, democrats object to this principle because for them, the purpose of the tax system is to buy votes and make class envy appeals.
Two, I agree with liberals that vast and persistent wealth disparity is a potential problem. But statistics can hide as much as they reveal. Is there mobility between income strata? That is a good thing. If we are constantly adding poor people at the bottom of the ladder through immigration, etc, then we will always have a "statistical" problem, but if they are able to rise over generations, then it is much less of a social problem. The way to address this issue is to limit immigration by poor and unskilled people and make it easier for wage earners to accumulate capital. Current policies do the opposite. We allow unchecked immigration but our tax system penalizes savers. Obama would make it worse.
Three, taxes should be spread over as wide a base as possible. Obama has famously claimed to "unite us", but his tax policies, like the rest of his policies, would do the opposite. He pits one class against another and had the audacity to criticize a working man for not "sharing the wealth." When a significant percentage of the population pays little or nothing in taxes, they have every incentive to want lavish government programs. After all, they're not paying for them. While a vast expansion of goverment and dependency on government are exactly what democrats want, it is clearly not in the interests of the country. We need only look at other countries that pursue such policies, such as in latin america, and we see social division, tax fraud on a vast scale with all the corruption it engenders and dysfunctional government. Obama seemed to be quite comfortable in the pervasive corruption of chicago machine politics, but most of us aspire to something better for our country.
Before I respond: I always tell you when I think your posts are shitty, so its only fair that I say that this post is fantastic.
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Exactly. Buffet is magnanimously saying "tax my dividend at a higher rate" while his billions in stock holdings will NEVER be taxed unless he sells which he seldom does. Buffet's a smart guy. His mantra is obviously "tax my crumbs not my bread".....
The paper value of his holdings do absolutely nothing to enhance his standard of living until the time at which they are sold and used for an alternate (consumptive) purpose. 'Bread' is without real utility unless it is actually consumed. So, your point misses the mark, as the concern here is not of paper profits, but of living standards.
A genuine issue of fairness does arise when one questions why capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than the marginal income of a married person making as little as 65,100. Why should "sitting on your ass income" be given preferential treatment to "working" income? ('Conservatives' habitually spew an abundance of ill-conceived "answers" to this query.) Warren Buffet is unusual in the world of rich white guys in that he interconnects this question to a wide public audience.
The amount of progressivity in the income tax system could be attenuated by recognizing a simple mathematical truism: $1=$1, regardless of the origin. Of course, that would mean raising cap gains & dividend taxes...but, fair is fair & $1=$1.
Weirdly I have no problem with progressively taxed capital gains. I look at at this way. Most asset appreciation-unlike wages-is CAUSED by the government via inflation. Hence duking the G on ones portfolio gains is as close to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's as we ever get......
Quote from BlindLemonBoosh:
The paper value of his holdings do absolutely nothing to enhance his standard of living until the time at which they are sold and used for an alternate (consumptive) purpose. 'Bread' is without real utility unless it is actually consumed. So, your point misses the mark, as the concern here is not of paper profits, but of living standards.
A genuine issue of fairness does arise when one questions why capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate than the marginal income of a married person making as little as 65,100. Why should "sitting on your ass income" be given preferential treatment to "working" income? ('Conservatives' habitually spew an abundance of ill-conceived "answers" to this query.) Warren Buffet is unusual in the world of rich white guys in that he interconnects this question to a wide public audience.
The amount of progressivity in the income tax system could be attenuated by recognizing a simple mathematical truism: $1=$1, regardless of the origin. Of course, that would mean raising cap gains & dividend taxes...but, fair is fair & $1=$1.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Rather than debate this stuff with you endless and fruitlessly, let me just put forth a couple of principles. One, I think the purpose of the tax system should be to fund the government with the least possible harm to the economy. We end up with suboptimal tax schemes when we start trying to punish one group or reward another using the tax system.
That seems true. But lets be fair, the middle class can be punished JUST as much as the top percentiles.
If the objective is to cause the least harm to the economy, at least everyone is focused on the same goal and we can debate the methods rationally rather than get caught up in demagoguery.
Thank you! Is this not what I have been saying? If the facts change then my mind will change with it. Unlike most of you, who if are wrong will remain so until you die.
Of course, democrats object to this principle because for them, the purpose of the tax system is to buy votes and make class envy appeals.
I doubt you want debate the dems ethical standards vs the republicans.
Two, I agree with liberals that vast and persistent wealth disparity is a potential problem. But statistics can hide as much as they reveal. Is there mobility between income strata? That is a good thing.
From middle class to the top 5%? not really.
If we are constantly adding poor people at the bottom of the ladder through immigration, etc, then we will always have a "statistical" problem, but if they are able to rise over generations, then it is much less of a social problem. The way to address this issue is to limit immigration by poor and unskilled people and make it easier for wage earners to accumulate capital. Current policies do the opposite. We allow unchecked immigration but our tax system penalizes savers. Obama would make it worse.
I'm not an advocate from the immigrants. I'm not talking about income difference of some mexican who jumped the border and a dentist, I'm talking about the middle class as a whole versus those you actually hole all the wealth.
Three, taxes should be spread over as wide a base as possible. Obama has famously claimed to "unite us", but his tax policies, like the rest of his policies, would do the opposite.
could be true, but who is that different than the tax policies of today?
He pits one class against another and had the audacity to criticize a working man for not "sharing the wealth." When a significant percentage of the population pays little or nothing in taxes, they have every incentive to want lavish government programs.
About time you came back to your usual banter. By working man I assume you mean a standard middle class man. He is sharing the wealth. HE IS SHARING TOO MUCH OF IT. Thats why he dropping taxes on the middle class. Whats so hard to swallow about that?
After all, they're not paying for them. While a vast expansion of goverment and dependency on government are exactly what democrats want, it is clearly not in the interests of the country.
Oh and obviously the answer is the Bush/ republican policies we've had for the last 8 years or so of less and less government. WAKE UP! IT HASN'T WORKED. ITS NOT WORKING.
We need only look at other countries that pursue such policies, such as in latin america, and we see social division, tax fraud on a vast scale with all the corruption it engenders and dysfunctional government.
We are already there. Are most respected companies have been shown to be corrupt. You keep saying "Obama is going to cause our country to recess, the economy is going to melt down" Wake up! Its already fucking happening! The shitty scenarios that you think Obama will incur are already present right now TODAY. Using your methods!
You guys are just to idealist for your own (and our country's good). Nothing will ever change your mind, no matter how wrong you are. Even in the face of your policies failing in an epic way you still cling to your ideals. Wake up, look around...It didn't work.