Take from the rich...

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by guido911


There has been several posts in this thread that the rich should be willing to pay more basically to avoid getting killed by angry mobs of poor people. Where does that come from? Stop the baseless fear-mongering, pre-Napoleonic France crap.

Hyperbole much?

Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

"Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent"

Umm, that's only $814,200.00 in taxes. Buffett's a cheapskate. I bet USRUF and Chicken Little paid that much.

But in order to get to that 17.7% rate, what is he doing in deductions?  And how much of those deductions are going to charity?  I'll bet far more that that $814K.

[Conan71]

Buffet was paying tax on what mostly amounts to dividends which were already taxed once as corporate taxes through Berkshire-Hathaway and subsidiary companies it owns.  He's right that his tax rate was somewhere around 17.5% but the gov't likely got in the neighborhood of 50% all together between corp. taxes and his personal taxes.

The Buffet analogy is one reason the wealthy liberals in Congress don't have a problem raising taxes for those making over $200K per year.  A lot of them recieve dividends from passive business interests which are taxed at roughly 15%, so they really don't care, because the higher tax rate will not affect them.  Their salary is what, $168K?  

Liberals in no danger of makindg $200K per year either don't seem to give a crap about it.  I'm not worried about making $200K per year, but I'm still pretty miffed about this re-allocation of wealth.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


The reason Buffett, Woods and Gates would take THEIR social security is because it is THEIR social security.  I saw an interview with Buffett once who joked about himself getting social security (what a joke it was, that is.... all his money and the government will give him more), but he never said he would decline it.

Social Security was put in place many years ago when the average life expectancy was 63, yet you could start collecting at 65.  The life expectancy is now at 77, yet you still collect at 65.

It was also promised that social security would be optional, that the tax would never go above 1%, .........

Never go beyond 1%.  Yeah well the government lies. []

Wilbur, all understood, trust me I'm incredibly fiscally conservative, but I honestly don't see the point in the wealthiest retirees withdrawing a pittance from the system when they don't need it.  

By your logic, why not remove the cap and allow Tiger Woods to get a huge check when he retires, as his larger contribution to the trust will help the growth of the trust as a whole and could help offset the present costs of benefits for others presently elligible for benefits.  I mean it would be his property.

How do you feel about people who have never paid into the Social Security system drawing disability payments from it?  Is it their property?  Is it okay that people can draw out far more than they ever put in, accounting for the growth of the money in the trust?

Social Security was designed as a way to provide benefits for those with disabilities which prevent them from working, survivor's benefits for the families of those who die an untimely death, and for those who are too old and broken down to continue to work.  SSI was enacted when America was still very much a manufacturing/industrial economy.  

What is noble about drawing a monthly income from it when you've set yourself up to where you don't need it?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

"Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent"

Umm, that's only $814,200.00 in taxes. Buffett's a cheapskate. I bet USRUF and Chicken Little paid that much.

LOL.  There you go again...
Buffett's not a cheapskate...
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

George Kaiser was accused of being one for the river tax... but I've argued what he did was the equivalent of somebody offering to put down a huge down payment on a new car for ya... to have Tulsans complain that the car is the wrong color or has too many features or isn't as eco-friendly as they'd like just sounds like the actions of a spoiled brat... if you don't want it, you don't want it.  Tulsa has a shrewd philanthropist in Kaiser... too bad we don't have a shrewd politician to match... []

You know, money/finances is probably the only catagory I figure I'd qualify as a "have-not"-- yet I'm still happy with what I've achieved moneywise of late ("regrets, I've had a few...")... I've had to attend and sing in enough opera galas over the years to see the usual suspects... I don't covet their money, as nice as it'd be to have a back bay condo in Boston, etc... I do question the choices of anti-tax rheteric made by certain "social climbers" and the wanna-be rich who really do COVET what others have...

When I earn three times the $$$ as somebody struggling to get by, I don't expect them to pay the same percentage of their wages as I do.  And I don't see a new tax bracket being created here... just a 4% surcharge on wages over 200K in addition to the 35% rate... kinda creates its own, new mini-tax bracket...

Let's get real.  This is close, but it is NOT a return to the Clinton tax code.  I'd be willing to do that though, if it would get us closer to a balanced budget.  After all, Bush's 2003 tax cuts were specifically proposed because there was a budget surplus.  Those cuts lowered everyone's taxes by a few percentage points... lowering the top rate of 39.6% to 35%... then we got a Republican president and congress that should have been able to pass balanced budgets by cutting spending... but did they?... heLL no.

The well-funded republican think tanks have spared no expense in poisoning the "shared sacrifice" tax well... back in my college days, Mondale was going to raise everyone's taxes and said as much... and we all know how Fritz-n-tits did in that election.  So the dems are just going to go the easy route... accuse the repubs of being the party of the rich, and then raise taxes on high-wage earners a few percentage points to tame the deficit... in contrast to what congress did in the 80s when in the middle of my school year, Gramm-Rudman cuts caused a few of my classmates to have to drop out, and forced me to work graveyard shifts at a pancake house to make up the difference... so no, I'm not really very empathetic towards your plight...

Don't hate the playazz, hate the game... []

But then again, y'all think Bill Clinton's a communist anyway... while spoon wraps himself in the flag, spouts partisan talking points from the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and pretends Reaganomics would actually function without huge deficits...

[Conan71]

Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is.  I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants.  He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.

The Republican control of the White House and Congress from 2001 through 2006 has been a huge disappointment from a fiscal stand-point.  It's just proof that legislators no longer control the houses of the legislature, lobbyists do.

I don't think anyone in Washington views the Federal budget as their own money anymore.  They are spending someone else's money all for the sake of keeping that 168K per year paycheck and all the attendant perks which come with it.

Actually Reaganomics works when you don't have Congressmen spending money like drunken liberals, you don't have unprecidented natural disasters and you have a president with little patience for asshat dictators.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...

You are not going to win any arguments by twisting people's words, Guido.  I did not say that heads would roll unless the rich paid more, I said that if we, as in all of us as a society, choose to let enough people slip through the cracks, there will be trouble.

That's not hyperbole, that's history.  Employment riots and "bread riots" used to be common before the "New Deal" reforms.

And, I'll repeat what USRufnex said again while you recalibrate the part of your head that wants to ignore the parts of this conversation that you don't like.  Buffet isn't giving his fortune to his kids; he believes that this kind of hereditary power is bad for America.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...

You are not going to win any arguments by twisting people's words, Guido.  I did not say that heads would roll unless the rich paid more, I said that if we, as in all of us as a society, choose to let enough people slip through the cracks, there will be trouble.

That's not hyperbole, that's history.  Employment riots and "bread riots" used to be common before the "New Deal" reforms.

And, I'll repeat what USRufnex said again while you recalibrate the part of your head that wants to ignore the parts of this conversation that you don't like.  Buffet isn't giving his fortune to his kids; he believes that this kind of hereditary power is bad for America.

Great list CL.  I especially like the trend in the 21st century as prosperity increased in the US there are no riots associated with anything other than a sporting event or a bunch of students following a dumb@$$ idea.

Would be fun to corrilate with http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

I'm just waiting for the Liberal Riot of 2008.  When the market hits 20k and quality of life in United States becomes so high that Liberals march in the streets demanding that the {please insert favorite cause from list below} is/are being destroyed and we must abandon {please insert favorite evil concept from list below}.

Causes:
Country
Economy
Environment
Deep Ocean
Public Education
Coastline
Polar Bears
Polar Ice Cubes
Welfare System
Medicare System
Ozone Layer
California
Dennis Kucinich's Mind
Liberal Voting Base

Evil Concepts:
The United States
The Constitution
Technology
Capitalism
The Representative Republic
The Automobile
The Wheel
Air Travel (except private jets!)
Private Medicine
Private Business
Individual Rights
Accountability
Reason
Lessons of History

It's coming. . .

[brunoflipper]

the best thing about this is it gets rid of the AMT and then adds on the 4%... i'm all for it even if i pay more... the AMT sucks... u still have to do all the calculations and paper work but wind up back at the damn AMT, it is stupid...

the wife and i have been lucky and worked hard enough to wind up "haves"... anyone who knows me, knows that i (like everyone) hate paying taxes but we all have to and since the wife and i can afford more, we should pay more... it just makes sense...

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

That's not entirely true.  The preamble to our constitution clearly mentions that part of the duty of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare".  Whatever that means.

We're not talking about redistribution of wealth in the Marxist sense, and we're not talking about tax rates that are unheard of.  The top tax rates would have to be hiked 2 to 3 times to get to historic highs.  The system has been dismantled over the last few decades, it hardly resembles the old Progressive system.

And our system is far less reliant on some vague definition of "economic freedom", than it is flow of capital.  Those that espouse lower tax rates on wealthy people, are general the "Trickle-Down" types.  That theory is questionable at best, but it is for certain that if capital is fused into the low end of the economy, that it most definitely trickles up.

When that flow stops, so does the economy.  So far, all we're doing to keep money flowing, is inflating the currency.  That's completely unsustainable.

You can think of the economy as the bloodstream of a capitalist society.  Money injected into the top, bottom, middle "trickles" throughout the blood stream.  There is very little difference in Trickle-Down and Trickle-Up models except where the money is injected, and the speed at which it flows.

They have both been proven to produce positive effects on the economy.  

Here's the problem.  There are two ways you can inject money into the economy.

# 1. Is the closed system where you take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor.  This money eventually winds up back in the hands of the wealthy, but it stunts the growth of the economy in the process, because nothing is added to the system, and the incentive for growth is reduced.

# 2. In the open loop system, the restrictions on the growth of wealth for the poor, middle, and wealthy classes are relaxed (tax cuts), causing economic growth for all classes, and as a byproduct, increased tax revenue.  Yes, the wealthy become wealthier at a faster pace (duh! they have more to invest in the economy and already posses the knowledge and resources to invest it correctly), but that's just how things work.

The best way to promote the general welfare is to stop taking money from the general public.  Wealthy or poor, the only way to build prosperity is through open loop economics.  Wealth distribution is only good for political campaigns (buying votes).

There is no way for us to define what is "sustainable."  It's hard to measure VALUE and it's affects on prosperity over time in terms of currency.   Currency is simply a vehicle that must be adjusted in terms of VALUE.

Economic understanding from the 40's or 50's applied to todays economy simply cannot account for how we "sustain" economic growth.  I would argue that in the year 2040, today's economic understanding will be far obsolete and archaic.

Use of the terminology "sustainable" and "unsustainable" requires a vision we simply do not have.

[rwarn17588]

<Conan wrote:

Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is. I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants. He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.

The Republican control of the White House and Congress from 2001 through 2006 has been a huge disappointment from a fiscal stand-point. It's just proof that legislators no longer control the houses of the legislature, lobbyists do.

<end clip>

Well, the president has a lot of say on budgets and how the deficit will end up. You can't just blame it all on lobbyists.

In the matter of the last few weeks, I've read studies that show Bill Clinton is the most fiscally conservative president of the modern era.

Another study shows, by a conservative think tank, that George W. Bush is the least fiscally conservative (worse than LBJ, even).

It shoots that "fiscally conservative Republicans" and "spendthrift Democrats" stereotypes out of the water.

Sources: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/09/ranking-presidents-fiscal.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html

[cannon_fodder]

First, wow.  This continues as a viable discussion.  I'm impressed.

1) Clinton did well with the economy by having the good sense to stand away and let the good times roll.  He did not try to over tax the new found wealth and even signed tax exemption bills for IPs and Backbones to encourage tech growth.  And as revenue grew at amazing rates spending only grew at high levels (short of amazing).  Granting spending still grew too fast and as soon as anything hiccuped we were screwed again... but nonetheless.  

2) Capital gains taxes are "only" taxed on the going out side at 15% because they are taxed as income by the corporation prior to that at a max bracket of 38%.  So REALLY dividends and other corporate earnings are taxed at 41.3%.  It doesn't matter which side of the equation pays the tax, employees only pay 6.2% for FICA but the employer matches it... clearly the matching 6.2% is worked into salaries already.

So the effective tax rate on Buffet's earnings is 41.3% and the effective rate on his lower employees is far lesser.  But stating it like that would not help make his point.  I admire Warren and hope he choses to keep donating his money to better causes than the government.

3) Trickle Down Economics.  Before anyone argues against it... think about this.  Even if you do not think the rich allow much wealth to trickle down, remember that without the creation of wealth there simply isnt money for anyone.  As a wise man once said, the great virtue of [a poor nation] is that all share equally in the misery.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is.  I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants.  He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.

"Actually Ruf, George Dubya's not spending like a drunken liberal, Laura "no child left behind" Bush is.  I think George W is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants.  He might even be a liberal morally, his youthful indiscretions of drugs, drinking and draft-dodging mirror that of a lot of prominent liberals as well...."

There, fixed your post.

Happy Halloween!



thanks, RW for the link where I found the cartoon...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

First, wow.  This continues as a viable discussion.  I'm impressed.

1) Clinton did well with the economy by having the good sense to stand away and let the good times roll.  He did not try to over tax the new found wealth and even signed tax exemption bills for IPs and Backbones to encourage tech growth.  And as revenue grew at amazing rates spending only grew at high levels (short of amazing).  Granting spending still grew too fast and as soon as anything hiccuped we were screwed again... but nonetheless.  

2) Capital gains taxes are "only" taxed on the going out side at 15% because they are taxed as income by the corporation prior to that at a max bracket of 38%.  So REALLY dividends and other corporate earnings are taxed at 41.3%.  It doesn't matter which side of the equation pays the tax, employees only pay 6.2% for FICA but the employer matches it... clearly the matching 6.2% is worked into salaries already.

So the effective tax rate on Buffet's earnings is 41.3% and the effective rate on his lower employees is far lesser.  But stating it like that would not help make his point.  I admire Warren and hope he choses to keep donating his money to better causes than the government.

3) Trickle Down Economics.  Before anyone argues against it... think about this.  Even if you do not think the rich allow much wealth to trickle down, remember that without the creation of wealth there simply isnt money for anyone.  As a wise man once said, the great virtue of [a poor nation] is that all share equally in the misery.

1)Yup, Clinton was Republican Lite.  And Hillary will be, too.  She's not my favorite candidate, btw.  If Bill Clinton's policies caused an economic "hiccup", then what do you call 'lil Bush's economic policies?  I'd call them a violent, toilet bowl hugging, vomit launch, the likes of which a frat house has never seen!  [xx(][xx(][xx(] Explain to me how a bad war, plus tax cuts for the rich, equals anything other than perpetual deficit.  'Guess he never were much for cipherin', huh?

And his civil liberties practices have amounted to a simultaneous pantscr*pping. [xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]  But, that's another topic.

2) I disagree with your analysis.  Berkshire Hathaway is, legally, somebody else.  Buffet disagrees, too, that's why he insists that he is taxed at a far lower rate than his secretary.  But, I'll give you this...why the heck is a man that rich paying his secretary only 60K a year?

3)  Okay, I've thought about it for a week, and I think trickle-down (a.k.a. supply-side) economics is still 'Horse and Sparrow Theory'.  I think the last seven decades or so indicate that we do pretty darn well as a society when everybody is building a little wealth.  Unfortunately, a great many Americans are not getting there fast enough, and many more just aren't getting there at all.  Instead, they're building debt, just like the government.