In the name of fiscal responsibility, I’d like to say I would support a Warren Buffett candidacy for president.
(Note, as cool as it would be I don’t think a Warren Buffett Jimmy Buffett ticket would be a good idea, Warren is 77 after all, and we don’t really need our president floating around on a sail boat in the Caribbean.)
Warren Buffett is completely retarded and not believable when it comes to tax policy. Buffett’s tax policy is akin to Buffett going to Africa and, seeing some poor starving villages, saying it’s not worth him donating a few million bucks to fix the problem unless everyone else is forced to chip in, too.
If Buffett wants to pay more in taxes, he’s free to donate from his own wallet.
We’ve gone from limousine liberals to Lear Jet liberals. Wonderful.
Very seriously. What is so difficult to understand about lower tax rates driving faster economic growth and thus leading to higher tax revenues in out years? The data is blindingly obvious in this regard.
Buffett is like the Bill-Gates / John Edwards annoyingly superrich liberal who thinks it’s ok to set policies that soak lower upper class and middle class folk of cash year in with 1/3 - 1/2 of their cash income. They know their billions will never be effectively confiscated by the government so they speak as if government should go after more private wealth.
seriously, how is higher tax burdens on the rich justified in a free society ? doesn’t it make you want to throw up that the government takes 40 cents out of every dollar over what, anything over 50,000 you make ?
What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes? Between tax shelters, foundations, stock ownership, SS tax payments cutting off before $100K of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income into taxes than some dude making $45K a year. That hardly seems fair.
As for spurring economic growth, seems to me European business does just fine with higher taxes.
“seriously, how is higher tax burdens on the rich justified in a free society ?”
Because living in a free society gives you the opportunity to be rich. If you want to maintain that free society through defense, education, law and order, infrastructure, etc., you should help pay for it.
What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes?
Nothing. Of course, it very much depends on what you mean by “fair share.” I think the top 5% of wage earners paying over 50% of the country’s federal income tax and the top 10% paying almost 70% is plenty fair.
Really, I’d don’t given that the 5% you mentioned are responsible for something like 90% of the wealth in this country, they really should be responsible for something like 90% of the taxes they should be responsible for more than half the tax burden… Math is kind of a funny thing like that… It’s rather obvious that those that make more will (assuming anything approaching fairness in the tax code pay more in taxes as an overall percentage of the tax burden… That’s really a rather childish argument Joe. And it is also disingenuous… Also recall that in the early years of the income tax the poor paid nothing and the rich were taxed at near confiscatory levels. And yet, some how, this country’s economy did better through the period in question… Or business use to be taxed at nearly 50% during the 50’s and 60’s… A time when business experienced some really tremendous growth in this country. Again, stupid short sighted argument…. Finally reality: if you want to fight the war in Iraq you need to pay for it. The only way to pay for it is with tax revenue. The only way to increase tax revenue is to bring in more tax revenue (duh) which will require a tax increase. Otherwise you are behaving like an irresponsible college student that just got their first credit card and charged way more than they can pay off and hopes that mommy and daddy will bail them out… So your choices, raise taxes or pull out of Iraq. That’s, seriously, what this comes down to.
“We already do. The top half of wage earners in this country already pay over 95% of all federal income tax.”
They also control 95% of the wealth. Making sure a guy making $2 million is paying a similar percentage to someone making $60K isn’t an undo burden on the guy making $2 million.
A & A - I don’t think I advocated no taxes whatsoever. How does your statement “help pay for it” justify a progressive tax system ? much more, you forgot to mention how much of the tax burden is imposed for government wealth redistribution programs. I am sure the wealthy are happy to pay for decent roads and missles that can keep their money-pins safe from the beagle boys, but that’s not why we tax 40% of higher-than-average income earner’s dollars is it ? You almost seem to be arguing from a premise that “everyone else is paying for it, the rich should too.” Um no. I think it’s the other way around.
Just read your recent post. I just can’t believe this so-common disposition. Who are you to decide what an “undue burden” is on the 2 mill. owner ? It makes me so sick that liberals presume that they can decide a person makes “too much” or “enough” so that they should have to pay more for the enjoyment of government than anyone else. much less, that at some point they make so much that they are not entitled to keep as much of that dollar as the person making 5,000 less. Where does it end ?
Ohhhh, it’s not an undue burden, he still has a MILLION dollars after we’re done taking our 50%. He’s stiiillll rich. We’re not evil even though we just took half is income away. cause he’s stillll rich. Who cares about his interest in providing for his grandchildren’s education, and their children’s - we have government dependents to care for ! He should be their father first before he uses his wealth and success to care for his own. Free society not I think.
Really, I’d don’t given that the 5% you mentioned are responsible for something like 90% of the wealth in this country, they really should be responsible for something like 90% of the taxes they should be responsible for more than half the tax burden… Math is kind of a funny thing like that… It’s rather obvious that those that make more will (assuming anything approaching fairness in the tax code pay more in taxes as an overall percentage of the tax burden… That’s really a rather childish argument Joe. And it is also disingenuous…
First of all, I never said that those making more should pay less in taxes as an overall percentage than they currently do, so I don’t know what “childish” and “disingenuous” argument you’re referring to. I merely pointed out the burden various segments of wage earners are currently carrying in response to the vapid argument that “the rich” should pay “their fair share.” You do not dispute those numbers, but instead go off on a tangent about Iraq and that “if you want to fight the war in Iraq you need to pay for it.” FWIW, I would sleep much better at night knowing that all my tax dollars are going towards the war in Iraq rather than, say, Hillary’s Woodstock museum.
We could all learn something about being “childish” and “disingenuous” here. I’d love to opine some more, but I have to get back to work so I can fund your coerced generosity.
A & A “What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes? Between tax shelters, foundations, stock ownership, SS tax payments cutting off before $100K of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income into taxes than some dude making $45K a year. That hardly seems fair.”
Funny thing, though, with how much money (and it really is boatloads) the rich pour into charities, museums, scholarships, public universities, and the like, you would wonder why so much of the confiscations from the wealthy should go to the same purpose, on the same premise that you use to argue for higher tax burdens disengenously for the war (as if the rich deserved to be P’wned for Iraq exclusively because it’s THEIR war) - the federal government did not decide to steal 1-3 - 1/2 of paychecks to fund a war, they’ve been doing that for decades, war or no. The federal government steals this money to redistribute it in favor of pork spending and poverty entitlements (which, as it so happens, entrenches poverty in generational cycles of dependence by failing to provide natural disincentives to non self-sustainable procreation, creating the need for more poverty entitlements, and the need to condition future liberal minds to morally justify greater poverty entitlements). Anyway, I gotta get back to work. steal away.
I have no problem with a flat tax on income. I just don’t think it is realistic that Congress would ever give up that kind of power.
4-7-
I might agree with you if wealthy people actually paid 40% in taxes. Because of all the tax-sheltering devices built into the tax code, they don’t pay anything near that on real income.
As for your charitable giving argument, all the charitable giving in the U.S. in a given year probably doesn’t amount to 10 percent of the annual Federal deficit. Plus, much of that money goes to perpetuating wealth for the wealthy. I could give a rat’s ass if some rich dude gives $50 million to Cornell so they can put his name on a building.
Yes, building new wings on hospitals is nice. But this could also be accomplished if hospitals and doctors received adequate compensation from a fully funded Medicare program.
A & A. You just haven’t been around enough, friend. I haven’t been around that much either, then again. You ought to do some research into how many children have had heart surgery that they could never ever afford because of the charitable work of a hospital that has sufficient private endowment to pay super specialist doctors 600k a year.
Also, your use of the term “tax-sheltering” makes me think that you consider “the rich” as people who make enough to afford tax attorneys. What about your guy who makes 100k a year (no kids). Your family of 2-4 that has a combined income of 200 k ? Not exactly poor by any stretch of the imagination and probably a lot better than middle class, but I guarantee you they don’t have the money to “shelter” their income any more than an HR Block or Turbo Tax can do for them. I include such people as “rich” because they are affected by our progressive tax structure 10X more than your Warren Buffets and John Edwards (who truly do have the people sheltering their income for them). I think it is criminal and disgusting that a family loses 40 cents off the dollar (this is an approximation, I haven’t been in a tax classroom in 2 years) on every dollar over 100k that they make (approximation) to the government.
PS - one reason we have a deficit - SPENDING. You want to help me see that this SPENDING is because of missle production over the last 50 years and not entitlements and federal involvement light years beyond the commerce clause (Cf. education, foodstamps), I’m listening. Like I said, I’ll be happy to pay federal taxes on the common good - what protects both you and me in interstate travel; and those taxes should be fair - I might compromise on a flat percentage tax or tax ceilings, but progressive taxes are socialist. But federal taxes to fund other american’s lives or interests are premised on the theft of property. You have to believe you have a right to another’s property to justify our modern tax code - and you don’t have the right to legitimately obtained property. Enter your white-man-stole-from-native-not-entitled, anti-capitalist argument here if so enclined. But a boy who grows up to earn a decent household and a couple mill in stocks without stealing from anyone shouldn’t be stoled from.
Look at the liberals contempt for the rich - it belies his reasoning. “I couldn’t give a hoot for a guy who gives 50 mil to put his name on a building”. It doesn’t really matter, does it, truly, WHY richie rich gives the money to cornell. 1000+ Poor kids are going to be attending school in that building and earning business degrees because of that money, and no one had to be stoled from. The more money in private hands the better. The government is a beast hungry for love and money is its pheramone.
I like your suggestion also that nice hospital wings could also (read better) be accomplished by better funded medicare and medicaid. So, with the alternative of private entreprenurial self-interested-building-branding wealth funding beautiful, clean hospitals, versus the same hospital made beautiful and clean by Government money taken from free citizens, you want the Government to be paying ?
Here’s a fun exercise. Do 10 minutes of research, 5 per hospital. Google “Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta” and the Google “Grady Hospital”. One is Government run, the other private (not-for-profit). Which one is almost in the tank due to corruption, mismanagement, and lack of diligence in collections, and which one is the crown jewel of healthcare in the south ? Private concerns succeed because they have to or they will be killed by the market. Government lives on votes and confiscations. Ahh, incentives.
dcl and A&A, you completely miss the point. Examine the economic numbers and you’re led to something called The Laffer Curve, which shows that when taxes are too high, the economy is stifled and stops growing, and when taxes are less, the economy grows fast enough over a moderate period of time to replace the near-term lost revenue from taxes being lowered. It also shows that when taxes are too low, the stimulating effect of lower taxes on economic growth do not get the same “bang for the buck”. If I remember the numbers correctly, most analysis shows the optimum level of government spending as a percentage of GDP is around 16-17%, whereas we typically run closer to 19-21% (I’m likely wrong on the specifics here but the principle is the same). Thus, we’re best off lowering tax rates and gov’t spending by whatever amounts to achieve that optimum balance, and watch our economy explode with growth.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:02:48 am
At the very least he would make a great Secretary of the Treasury. Wonder if the Feds could pay him enough?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:17:50 am
Irony be thy name….
Cop killed in a donut shop…
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/01/officers.shot.ap/index.html
A book on “Conquering All Media” sells less than 300 copies in a month….
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2007/11/01/shocker-blogs-fans-eschew-dead-tree-tie-in
November 1st, 2007 at 11:51:05 am
If being a great investor automatically made one right about public tax policy, then I would agree.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:12:29 pm
Apparently being a piss-poor oilman makes you a great President, right Joe Mama?
November 1st, 2007 at 3:52:43 pm
No, graduating 59th out of 820 from Annapolis and being the physicist on a nuclear submarine makes you a great President.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:08:48 pm
I’d think it would make you a great sailor…
November 1st, 2007 at 4:19:36 pm
…so does getting plowed in the ass, but it also makes you angrier and angrier…
November 1st, 2007 at 5:08:42 pm
wow. Anti-gay jokes. We’re cookin’ with gas in here today.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:18:57 pm
That was anti-Angrier and Angrier.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:20:02 pm
Same thing.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:20:33 pm
true. We should stick to calling a&a a douchebag.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:03:12 pm
Warren Buffett is completely retarded and not believable when it comes to tax policy. Buffett’s tax policy is akin to Buffett going to Africa and, seeing some poor starving villages, saying it’s not worth him donating a few million bucks to fix the problem unless everyone else is forced to chip in, too.
If Buffett wants to pay more in taxes, he’s free to donate from his own wallet.
We’ve gone from limousine liberals to Lear Jet liberals. Wonderful.
Screw Buffett, I’d rather have Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond dictate our tax policy than him.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:31:24 pm
yes, because voodoo economics works so well… Andrew, seriously?
November 1st, 2007 at 9:37:01 pm
Very seriously. What is so difficult to understand about lower tax rates driving faster economic growth and thus leading to higher tax revenues in out years? The data is blindingly obvious in this regard.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:47:58 pm
because it’s bullshit and the numbers prove it. So yes, the numbers are blindingly obvious–it does not work.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:46:49 pm
Buffett is like the Bill-Gates / John Edwards annoyingly superrich liberal who thinks it’s ok to set policies that soak lower upper class and middle class folk of cash year in with 1/3 - 1/2 of their cash income. They know their billions will never be effectively confiscated by the government so they speak as if government should go after more private wealth.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:48:52 pm
seriously, how is higher tax burdens on the rich justified in a free society ? doesn’t it make you want to throw up that the government takes 40 cents out of every dollar over what, anything over 50,000 you make ?
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:39:18 am
Andrew-
What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes? Between tax shelters, foundations, stock ownership, SS tax payments cutting off before $100K of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income into taxes than some dude making $45K a year. That hardly seems fair.
As for spurring economic growth, seems to me European business does just fine with higher taxes.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:41:31 am
“seriously, how is higher tax burdens on the rich justified in a free society ?”
Because living in a free society gives you the opportunity to be rich. If you want to maintain that free society through defense, education, law and order, infrastructure, etc., you should help pay for it.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:45:19 am
What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes?
Nothing. Of course, it very much depends on what you mean by “fair share.” I think the top 5% of wage earners paying over 50% of the country’s federal income tax and the top 10% paying almost 70% is plenty fair.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:48:23 am
If you want to maintain that free society through defense, education, law and order, infrastructure, etc., you should help pay for it.
We already do. The top half of wage earners in this country already pay over 95% of all federal income tax.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:57:49 am
Really, I’d don’t given that the 5% you mentioned are responsible for something like 90% of the wealth in this country, they really should be responsible for something like 90% of the taxes they should be responsible for more than half the tax burden… Math is kind of a funny thing like that… It’s rather obvious that those that make more will (assuming anything approaching fairness in the tax code pay more in taxes as an overall percentage of the tax burden… That’s really a rather childish argument Joe. And it is also disingenuous… Also recall that in the early years of the income tax the poor paid nothing and the rich were taxed at near confiscatory levels. And yet, some how, this country’s economy did better through the period in question… Or business use to be taxed at nearly 50% during the 50’s and 60’s… A time when business experienced some really tremendous growth in this country. Again, stupid short sighted argument…. Finally reality: if you want to fight the war in Iraq you need to pay for it. The only way to pay for it is with tax revenue. The only way to increase tax revenue is to bring in more tax revenue (duh) which will require a tax increase. Otherwise you are behaving like an irresponsible college student that just got their first credit card and charged way more than they can pay off and hopes that mommy and daddy will bail them out… So your choices, raise taxes or pull out of Iraq. That’s, seriously, what this comes down to.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:17:41 am
Joe Mama-
“We already do. The top half of wage earners in this country already pay over 95% of all federal income tax.”
They also control 95% of the wealth. Making sure a guy making $2 million is paying a similar percentage to someone making $60K isn’t an undo burden on the guy making $2 million.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:25:19 am
Did A&A just come out for the flat tax?
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:06:10 am
interesting debate.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:41:21 pm
A & A - I don’t think I advocated no taxes whatsoever. How does your statement “help pay for it” justify a progressive tax system ? much more, you forgot to mention how much of the tax burden is imposed for government wealth redistribution programs. I am sure the wealthy are happy to pay for decent roads and missles that can keep their money-pins safe from the beagle boys, but that’s not why we tax 40% of higher-than-average income earner’s dollars is it ? You almost seem to be arguing from a premise that “everyone else is paying for it, the rich should too.” Um no. I think it’s the other way around.
Just read your recent post. I just can’t believe this so-common disposition. Who are you to decide what an “undue burden” is on the 2 mill. owner ? It makes me so sick that liberals presume that they can decide a person makes “too much” or “enough” so that they should have to pay more for the enjoyment of government than anyone else. much less, that at some point they make so much that they are not entitled to keep as much of that dollar as the person making 5,000 less. Where does it end ?
Ohhhh, it’s not an undue burden, he still has a MILLION dollars after we’re done taking our 50%. He’s stiiillll rich. We’re not evil even though we just took half is income away. cause he’s stillll rich. Who cares about his interest in providing for his grandchildren’s education, and their children’s - we have government dependents to care for ! He should be their father first before he uses his wealth and success to care for his own. Free society not I think.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:42:01 pm
Really, I’d don’t given that the 5% you mentioned are responsible for something like 90% of the wealth in this country, they really should be responsible for something like 90% of the taxes they should be responsible for more than half the tax burden… Math is kind of a funny thing like that… It’s rather obvious that those that make more will (assuming anything approaching fairness in the tax code pay more in taxes as an overall percentage of the tax burden… That’s really a rather childish argument Joe. And it is also disingenuous…
First of all, I never said that those making more should pay less in taxes as an overall percentage than they currently do, so I don’t know what “childish” and “disingenuous” argument you’re referring to. I merely pointed out the burden various segments of wage earners are currently carrying in response to the vapid argument that “the rich” should pay “their fair share.” You do not dispute those numbers, but instead go off on a tangent about Iraq and that “if you want to fight the war in Iraq you need to pay for it.” FWIW, I would sleep much better at night knowing that all my tax dollars are going towards the war in Iraq rather than, say, Hillary’s Woodstock museum.
We could all learn something about being “childish” and “disingenuous” here. I’d love to opine some more, but I have to get back to work so I can fund your coerced generosity.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:50:30 pm
A & A “What is wrong with wealthy people paying their fair share of taxes? Between tax shelters, foundations, stock ownership, SS tax payments cutting off before $100K of income, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income into taxes than some dude making $45K a year. That hardly seems fair.”
Funny thing, though, with how much money (and it really is boatloads) the rich pour into charities, museums, scholarships, public universities, and the like, you would wonder why so much of the confiscations from the wealthy should go to the same purpose, on the same premise that you use to argue for higher tax burdens disengenously for the war (as if the rich deserved to be P’wned for Iraq exclusively because it’s THEIR war) - the federal government did not decide to steal 1-3 - 1/2 of paychecks to fund a war, they’ve been doing that for decades, war or no. The federal government steals this money to redistribute it in favor of pork spending and poverty entitlements (which, as it so happens, entrenches poverty in generational cycles of dependence by failing to provide natural disincentives to non self-sustainable procreation, creating the need for more poverty entitlements, and the need to condition future liberal minds to morally justify greater poverty entitlements). Anyway, I gotta get back to work. steal away.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:31:16 pm
Joe Mama-
I have no problem with a flat tax on income. I just don’t think it is realistic that Congress would ever give up that kind of power.
4-7-
I might agree with you if wealthy people actually paid 40% in taxes. Because of all the tax-sheltering devices built into the tax code, they don’t pay anything near that on real income.
As for your charitable giving argument, all the charitable giving in the U.S. in a given year probably doesn’t amount to 10 percent of the annual Federal deficit. Plus, much of that money goes to perpetuating wealth for the wealthy. I could give a rat’s ass if some rich dude gives $50 million to Cornell so they can put his name on a building.
Yes, building new wings on hospitals is nice. But this could also be accomplished if hospitals and doctors received adequate compensation from a fully funded Medicare program.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:24:29 pm
A & A. You just haven’t been around enough, friend. I haven’t been around that much either, then again. You ought to do some research into how many children have had heart surgery that they could never ever afford because of the charitable work of a hospital that has sufficient private endowment to pay super specialist doctors 600k a year.
Also, your use of the term “tax-sheltering” makes me think that you consider “the rich” as people who make enough to afford tax attorneys. What about your guy who makes 100k a year (no kids). Your family of 2-4 that has a combined income of 200 k ? Not exactly poor by any stretch of the imagination and probably a lot better than middle class, but I guarantee you they don’t have the money to “shelter” their income any more than an HR Block or Turbo Tax can do for them. I include such people as “rich” because they are affected by our progressive tax structure 10X more than your Warren Buffets and John Edwards (who truly do have the people sheltering their income for them). I think it is criminal and disgusting that a family loses 40 cents off the dollar (this is an approximation, I haven’t been in a tax classroom in 2 years) on every dollar over 100k that they make (approximation) to the government.
PS - one reason we have a deficit - SPENDING. You want to help me see that this SPENDING is because of missle production over the last 50 years and not entitlements and federal involvement light years beyond the commerce clause (Cf. education, foodstamps), I’m listening. Like I said, I’ll be happy to pay federal taxes on the common good - what protects both you and me in interstate travel; and those taxes should be fair - I might compromise on a flat percentage tax or tax ceilings, but progressive taxes are socialist. But federal taxes to fund other american’s lives or interests are premised on the theft of property. You have to believe you have a right to another’s property to justify our modern tax code - and you don’t have the right to legitimately obtained property. Enter your white-man-stole-from-native-not-entitled, anti-capitalist argument here if so enclined. But a boy who grows up to earn a decent household and a couple mill in stocks without stealing from anyone shouldn’t be stoled from.
Look at the liberals contempt for the rich - it belies his reasoning. “I couldn’t give a hoot for a guy who gives 50 mil to put his name on a building”. It doesn’t really matter, does it, truly, WHY richie rich gives the money to cornell. 1000+ Poor kids are going to be attending school in that building and earning business degrees because of that money, and no one had to be stoled from. The more money in private hands the better. The government is a beast hungry for love and money is its pheramone.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:30:11 pm
I like your suggestion also that nice hospital wings could also (read better) be accomplished by better funded medicare and medicaid. So, with the alternative of private entreprenurial self-interested-building-branding wealth funding beautiful, clean hospitals, versus the same hospital made beautiful and clean by Government money taken from free citizens, you want the Government to be paying ?
Here’s a fun exercise. Do 10 minutes of research, 5 per hospital. Google “Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta” and the Google “Grady Hospital”. One is Government run, the other private (not-for-profit). Which one is almost in the tank due to corruption, mismanagement, and lack of diligence in collections, and which one is the crown jewel of healthcare in the south ? Private concerns succeed because they have to or they will be killed by the market. Government lives on votes and confiscations. Ahh, incentives.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:33:51 pm
and as someone who grew up watching the building of Children’s Healthcare, I can assure you that it is not a hospital for rich kids alone.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:31:41 pm
dcl and A&A, you completely miss the point. Examine the economic numbers and you’re led to something called The Laffer Curve, which shows that when taxes are too high, the economy is stifled and stops growing, and when taxes are less, the economy grows fast enough over a moderate period of time to replace the near-term lost revenue from taxes being lowered. It also shows that when taxes are too low, the stimulating effect of lower taxes on economic growth do not get the same “bang for the buck”. If I remember the numbers correctly, most analysis shows the optimum level of government spending as a percentage of GDP is around 16-17%, whereas we typically run closer to 19-21% (I’m likely wrong on the specifics here but the principle is the same). Thus, we’re best off lowering tax rates and gov’t spending by whatever amounts to achieve that optimum balance, and watch our economy explode with growth.