Elizabeth Warren Sez!

[Red Arrow]

did my "shorthand" in that one post confuse everyone or anyone??

You may call it "shorthand".  I call it sloppy use of the language.   It's either that or an intentional attempt to redirect or divert the real issue to a talking point.

[Conan71]

Should they pay more??   Maybe??    Really??   Are you serious??  You actually think it is ok for us to pay a much larger percentage than the richest amongst us??  Wow.   OK, if they should get away with heavily discounted rates, why shouldn't we get them too??  Because we are not rich??

Thank you!  I actually read your post word-for-word.  

I have a great job due to someone who is wealthier than myself and I'm able to sell large capital equipment every day because of business owners who have spare capital to re-invest in their business.  The owner of my company could probably afford to retire, sell off the company, and move some place where wealth isn't looked at with derision at any time leaving 12 other people without jobs.  The owner has no legal obligation to continue to reinvest in the business, but reinvest they do.

For some reason, you seem to believe that being able to retain wealth is un-holy.  I see it as an opportunity for someone to reinvest in the economy.  Is everyone doing that right now?  No.  There are some people who are very risk averse who are holding on to money due to economic uncertainty and they don't want to invest in a business which will have unknown compliance and tax costs in the coming years due to ever-changing tax codes and this whole healthcare deal.  Proposing penalizing them for holding onto wealth during uncertain economic times while government continues to metastasize and increase spending is not sound economic policy.

Also consider that even at your higher percentage rate of tax, you get a higher percentage of direct credits and deductions on your income than the vaunted Mr. Buffett does which reduces your tax rate.  I've done the math, with all the deductions, less payroll taxes, my federal tax rate is less of a percentage than Buffett pays.  If Mr. Buffett and other billionaires wish to pay more, they certainly can.  There is nothing stopping them from doing it now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Thank you!  I actually read your post word-for-word.  

I have a great job due to someone who is wealthier than myself and I'm able to sell large capital equipment every day because of business owners who have spare capital to re-invest in their business.  The owner of my company could probably afford to retire, sell off the company, and move some place where wealth isn't looked at with derision at any time leaving 12 other people without jobs.  The owner has no legal obligation to continue to reinvest in the business, but reinvest they do.

For some reason, you seem to believe that being able to retain wealth is un-holy.  I see it as an opportunity for someone to reinvest in the economy.  Is everyone doing that right now?  No.  There are some people who are very risk averse who are holding on to money due to economic uncertainty and they don't want to invest in a business which will have unknown compliance and tax costs in the coming years due to ever-changing tax codes and this whole healthcare deal.  Proposing penalizing them for holding onto wealth during uncertain economic times while government continues to metastasize and increase spending is not sound economic policy.

Also consider that even at your higher percentage rate of tax, you get a higher percentage of direct credits and deductions on your income than the vaunted Mr. Buffett does which reduces your tax rate.  I've done the math, with all the deductions, less payroll taxes, my federal tax rate is less of a percentage than Buffett pays.  If Mr. Buffett and other billionaires wish to pay more, they certainly can.  There is nothing stopping them from doing it now.

It's enlightened self interest.  As long as they stay in business, invest at appropriate levels for their business, they continue to be successful.  Sounds like your boss has read some Peter Drucker in the past.  If so, he understands what should be the relationship between society, the individual, and the corporation.

Nothing unholy about any of that at all.  A sentiment - not exact words - that I have expressed repeatedly.  What IS unholy is that those richest 1% get to pay much smaller percentages than the other 99%.  And as I have also expressed repeatedly, I am working hard to achieve similar status, so I too, can get by on only 15%.  (That is one of my ideas of heaven on earth - never have to worry about getting money together to pay a bill again - just write the check...)

You are saying you get by at less than 15%??  (Buffets rate.)  That implies a very low return to you for your effort.


And your boss got wealthy by the combined efforts of 12 people - not on his own.  I hope for your sake he appreciates and rewards that.  Sounds like he does.

[guido911]

How many wealth envy threads are there in this forum? For the umteenth time, the rich played no part in their achievements. They didn't take chances, they didn't innovate, and they didn't make good decisions. They were just lucky and those not-so-rich were unlucky. There, Conan. Quit complaining and be thankful that you were lucky enough to be among the whopping 50% that pay federal income tax.

[Conan71]

Checking the past three years, my net Federal income tax after all child tax credits, tuition credits, deductions, etc. was 7%, 11%, & 13%.  Last year was a brutal year, the national recession caught up with us and I took about a 1/3 hit on my income.  That does NOT include social security tax, medicare tax, or state taxes.  Buffett, et al all pay the same rate on Social Security tax as the rest of us do up to the required income limit.

IOW- average working people with kids in the middle class are not paying a higher tax rate than those who are paying a 15% rate on dividends.  Mr. Buffett is welcome at any time to pay himself a much higher salary instead of paying himself in dividends if he thinks it's so repugnant to be paying such a low tax rate.  But does he?  No.  That's why I say he's being disingenuous when he declares all the wealthy should be paying a higher tax rate.

Naturally, we all play a part in the success of the company, but if my boss had less capital to reinvest in more inventory for me to sell, I wouldn't make as much, my boss wouldn't, and we might have to do with a few less people in the office and shop.

[Townsend]

How many wealth envy threads are there in this forum? For the umteenth time, the rich played no part in their achievements. They didn't take chances, they didn't innovate, and they didn't make good decisions. They were just lucky and those not-so-rich were unlucky. There, Conan. Quit complaining and be thankful that you were lucky enough to be among the whopping 50% that pay federal income tax.

Don't read them.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Checking the past three years, my net Federal income tax after all child tax credits, tuition credits, deductions, etc. was 7%, 11%, & 13%.  Last year was a brutal year, the national recession caught up with us and I took about a 1/3 hit on my income.  

Condolences!  Truly!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt!

Hated every minute of it.

[Conan71]

Condolences!  Truly!

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt!

Hated every minute of it.

Fortunately, I've got a tendency to over-hoard in great years to account for the next year turning out to being leaner than expected.  Wasn't too much a disruption.  Several years of that might have hurt.  At least my boss considers me essential to the operation regardless of what the overall economic conditions are.  Not everyone is that fortunate.

[guido911]

Oh Snap.

Democratic frontrunner Elizabeth Warren took a shot at Mr. Brown this week, responding, "I kept my clothes on" when asked at a primary debate how she paid for college.

"Thank God," Mr. Brown said, when asked for a response on the Boston radio station WZLX.

[Emphasis added]. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/oct/6/naked-scott-brown-or-naked-elizabeth-warren/





Couldn't agree more.

[Teatownclown]

^ giddy up, Buster. I know, you need a progressive poster child to beat on....preferably female and/or a minority.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh Snap.

Couldn't agree more.

But it is ok for Brown to commit immoral acts, huh?  He does fit in well in the overall program.

[guido911]

But it is ok for Brown to commit immoral acts, huh?  He does fit in well in the overall program.

What did he do that was immoral? Believe me, I am no Scott Brown fan--other than he took the swimmer's place in the Senate.

[guido911]

^ giddy up, Buster. I know, you need a progressive poster child to beat on....preferably female and/or a minority.

Warren threw the first punch, and Brown countered. Is that a problem to you?

[heironymouspasparagus]

What did he do that was immoral? Believe me, I am no Scott Brown fan--other than he took the swimmer's place in the Senate.

He's a Republicontin.

No, actually, I am talking about his nude photos.

[guido911]

He's a Republicontin.

No, actually, I am talking about his nude photos.

Who knew you were such the prude?