Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett

[Ricter]

Quote from bone:

From a 2010 Morgan Stanley Fixed Income White Paper:

That paints a far rosier and more flattering picture about the upside potential for raising taxes than reality dictates.

From a 2010 Morgan Stanley Fixed Income White Paper:

"Debt/GDP therefore provides a flattering image of government finances. A better approach is to scale debt against actual government revenues (see Exhibit 2). An even better approach would be to scale debt against the maximum level of revenues that governments can realistically obtain from using their tax-raising power to the full. This is, inter alia, a function of the people’s tolerance for taxation and government interference. Seen from this angle, the US federal debt no longer compares quite so favorably with that of European governments."

The assumption here is that taxes are too high (for Americans). And yet nearly a three-quarter majority of the public thinks raising taxes should be a part of our deficit/debt solution. I think most people understand that if you want empire and all its advantages, then you have to pay for it. If you don't, and someone else does, you're screwed. Unless... you're willing to rely on alliances. With the French, for example.

 

[bone]

Again, you can take 100% of the gross income for the "super-rich" - and it would take 16 years to pay off just the existing debt. Add 20 % to their current tax rate and it would take 80 years to pay off the existing debt.

This is subterfuge to mask the real problem now at hand: our existing debt.

And Obama and MSNBC can bitch and moan all they want about the Tea Party - the debt deal doesn't touch anything until 2013, and even then it is like one-half of one percent of the annual budget.

This is the stupidest arguement ever and pure politics - the numbers do not lie; it is about the existing debt.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from bone:

Again, you can take 100% of the gross income for the "super-rich" - and it would take 16 years to pay off just the existing debt. Add 20 % to their current tax rate and it would take 80 years to pay off the existing debt.

This is subterfuge to mask the real problem now at hand: our existing debt.

And Obama and MSNBC can bitch and moan all they want about the Tea Party - the debt deal doesn't touch anything until 2013, and even then it is like one-half of one percent of the annual budget.

This is the stupidest arguement ever and pure politics - the numbers do not lie; it is about the existing debt.

That taxation would have to be applied directly to creating jobs, so that the multiplier effect on the economy, and so naturally revenue, would rise. You're right, merely applying the monies directly to the deficit/debt would do little good. But... applying monies to the big banks has done little to nothing for us, either. It's not enough to say "they paid it back", we lost out on the economic multiplier--they're sitting on the money.

 

[bone]

Quote from Ricter:

The assumption here is that taxes are too high (for Americans). And yet nearly a three-quarter majority of the public thinks raising taxes should be a part of our deficit/debt solution. I think most people understand that if you want empire and all its advantages, then you have to pay for it. If you don't, and someone else does, you're screwed. Unless... you're willing to rely on alliances. With the French, for example.

If this was such a quest for social justice - then why did not the Dems do anything about it when they had a fillibuster and veto-proof 'supermajority'? Dems could have done anything they wanted to with tax rates and deductions.

Speaking of fairness - is it fair that half of adult Americans now pay no federal income tax ?

The ultimate illustration here is the fact that Obama turned down Boehner's original offer - which included "revenue enhancements". It would have forever changed the political paradigm on that issue and put Boehner in quite the pickle. Another win for the Obama brain trust.

 

[bone]

Quote from Ricter:

That taxation would have to be applied directly to creating jobs,

The collapse in your arguement, of course, is that any government entity could create and manage anything.

Well, since the current administration spent somewhere between
$185K and $276K in order to create one job with the first "stimulus" package, that is surely throwing good money after bad.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/campa...use-nuh-uh-stimulus-jobs-only-cost-185k-each#

The Green Jobs Investments are going real well:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1358998&pos=breaking

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

That taxation would have to be applied directly to creating jobs, so that the multiplier effect on the economy, and so naturally revenue, would rise. You're right, merely applying the monies directly to the deficit/debt would do little good. But... applying monies to the big banks has done little to nothing for us, either. It's not enough to say "they paid it back", we lost out on the economic multiplier--they're sitting on the money.

besides they paid back a couple of billion and the bailout amounted to by one count 13 trillion.

The govt is subsidizing fha loans... which is a large percentage of the marketplace and worth over a trillion.

QE 1 and 2. Destroyed the value of americans savings to the tune of trillions.

There was also trillions of bad agency and second mortgages which were switched into bonds for china.

 

[wjk]

Quote from Ricter:

join the tax resisters.

Join the tax resisters and rub elbows with that elite group consisting of: Rangel, Daschle, Geithner, etc...

Sorry, Ricter, couldn't resist.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from bone:

The collapse in your arguement, of course, is that any government entity could create and manage anything.

Well, since the current administration spent somewhere between
$185K and $276K in order to create one job with the first "stimulus" package, that is surely throwing good money after bad.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/campa...use-nuh-uh-stimulus-jobs-only-cost-185k-each#

The Green Jobs Investments are going real well:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1358998&pos=breaking

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

WWII spending put our productive capacity at nearly 100% and dragged millions of formerly "underutilized" workers into the economy, which is why people say "we need another war". So it can be done. The WPA is another example. As is government backing of ARPANET (though I could be persuaded that the internet is eliminating jobs). Anyway, if you were in government it would automatically be more productive, on average, right? ; )

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Lucrum:

1) I got that quote from what YOU posted.

That was a fact checking article( correcting some of the lies the GOP candidates told during the debate)


What you quoted was Rick Santuriums quote(the lie),below that were the facts




"Since the 1970s, federal revenues have averaged nearly 19 percent of the U.S. economy. This year's revenues are expected to equal just over 14 percent of the economy, the lowest level since 1950."

 

[icarus618]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html

* * *

But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income * * *

Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.

"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said

"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."

It is apparent he is referring to raising the capital gains tax. I guess in his mind, preferential treatment of LTCG is coddling the uber-rich.

What an utterly stupid thing to suggest.

Nevermind the argument that taxing capital gains at all is inequitable. He says higher rates won't stymie investment.

This is the position of a person who has all that he wants in his life and getting more doesn't give him a hard-on. With one foot in the grave, he gets his thrills by holding court and being an attention whore.

If he were concerned about a fair tax system, he would be for abolishing tax on capital.

He needs to do humanity a favor and retire or kick the bucket already.

What an asshole.