Stop Coddling The Super Rich

[taichiliberal]

Warren Buffet is a VERY successful capitalist.
Warren Buffet is an American.
Warren Buffet points out the FACT that the rich folk have used their bucks to lobby down their fair share of the comparative tax revenue in this country DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE STILL MAKING MILLIONS BEFORE THE TAX CUTS, BREAKS AND LOOPHOLES.

Neocon/teabagger/libertarian parrots and toadies regurgitate the assinine mantras fed to them by the people Buffet points out is screwing them....DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE TAX BREAKS AND TAX CUTS AND LOOPHOLES GIVEN THE WEALTHY HAVE NOT RESULTED IN JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY.

NO ONE ON THIS THREAD CAN LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY REFUTE OR DISPROVE WHAT BUFFET STATES IN HIS ARTICLE.

Irrational hatred for Obama, liberals, progressives or anyone perceived as "them" has once again led people to support the very entities that are diminishing their country and their society's financial situation....those who outsource, downsize and off-shore without giving a damn about the middle and working class in America....so long as they are serving them.

 

[Oddball]

blablablablablabla...

Why does Buffet take full advantage of the "loopholes" available to him, if he's so incensed about the allaged unfairness of the tax code?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warren Buffet is a VERY successful capitalist.
Warren Buffet is an American.
Warren Buffet points out the FACT that the rich folk have used their bucks to lobby down their fair share of the comparative tax revenue in this country DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE STILL MAKING MILLIONS BEFORE THE TAX CUTS, BREAKS AND LOOPHOLES.

Neocon/teabagger/libertarian parrots and toadies regurgitate the assinine mantras fed to them by the people Buffet points out is screwing them....DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE TAX BREAKS AND TAX CUTS AND LOOPHOLES GIVEN THE WEALTHY HAVE NOT RESULTED IN JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY.

NO ONE ON THIS THREAD CAN LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY REFUTE OR DISPROVE WHAT BUFFET STATES IN HIS ARTICLE.

Irrational hatred for Obama, liberals, progressives or anyone perceived as "them" has once again led people to support the very entities that are diminishing their country and their society's financial situation....those who outsource, downsize and off-shore without giving a damn about the middle and working class in America....so long as they are serving them.

mantras fed to them by the people Buffet points out is screwing them...

How is Buffet's 15% capital gains tax rate screwing me or anyone else?

 

[Londoner]

The rise of Reagan was, partly, a response to 40 years of liberals over-investing in the middle class *.

So the GOP spent 30 years of altering tax codes, regulations, and laws in order to remove the government imposed obligation capital had to the middle class. There was one unforeseen consequence: they undermined middle class demand, which depended on high wages, benefits, programs, and entitlements.

*Middle class demand was bolstered through a dense tapestry of government programs which aimed at giving the middle class an affordable cost of living (centered around things like transportation, housing, energy, education, food, and health care) along with higher wages, benefits, & insurance, as well as a number of incentives/laws which kept jobs in America. In essence, capital, through tax and labor laws, was forced to share more of its profits with average workers, which profits those workers pumped back in the economy in the form of vibrant consumption - which consumption lead to even more jobs and innovation. It was a virtuous cycle.

The American economy depended on a working class with actual money to spend (unlike China which depended more on exports)

Question: what happens when Social Security and Medicare frees up money in middle class families? What happens when a worker has higher wages and benefits? What happens when workers are not squeezed by medical and education costs? Answer: they have more money to buy things. And the more they buy, the more the capitalist is forced to add jobs. This is why the postwar years - a time of high taxes and government intervention on behalf of the middle class consumer -- saw so much economic growth. When demand is high, the economy booms. When demand is low, the capitalist has no incentive to add jobs regardless of tax cuts.

When government stopped taking care of middle class demand, the Reagan Revolution tried to make up the difference with debt vehicles like credit cards and a whole array of lending products. [Remember: something needed to be done to maintain consumption in the face of falling wages and benefits. Debt was a better option than watching all those shopping malls crumble] Put simply: America went on a 30 year borrowing binge to make up for the fact that money wasn't trickling down. (Corporations loved it because that credit was used to buy their products. When the economy blew up, they floated away with unprecedented wealth as the middle class drowned in debt)

How did we fall for it? Why did we turn to debt?

Reagan convinced the nation not worry about middle class demand. He said that if we lowered taxes and created friendlier regulations, the money would trickle down. He said we should unwind everything done for the middle class in order to give the richest Americans more tax cuts. He said the wealthy would use those tax cuts to innovate and create solid American jobs. Instead, they invested in hedge funds & derivatives (casino capitalism) and proceeded to ship jobs to 3rd world sweat shops. Now, a tiny fraction of Americans is sitting on over 80% of the wealth. The bottom 40% have less than 1% of the national wealth. This means that there are not enough consumers with actual money to spend. The American economy cannot survive if consumers don't have sufficient income to consume. The American economy was built on broad income distribution. If only one group of people have all the money, the real economy will starve.

The problem is not taxes. The wealthy are sitting on more money than ever. The problem is that money is stuck on top. It's not trickling down to consumers.

(This is what happens when you spend 30 years driving down wages and benefits in order to boost the profits of the few. You lose the consumption which was dependent on those wages and benefits. Without consumers, there can be no jobs)

Reaganomics got rid of the middle class consumer in order to make a small minority wealthy. We are lying in that bed.

 

[daveman]

I don't think that. I think extremely large crowds in the end of January are different from a few folks gathering in August.

Of course. The calendar. Has to be it.

August has different weather than January at 40 degrees north latitude.

So, if it's cold, it's okay to litter.

You really gonna go with that?

 

[daveman]

Not at all. I'm insisting that we all pay. Including myself.

So what's keeping you from sending in extra?

What difference will one person make? Honestly. If it was across the board, I know it would be impactful and I would be supportive.

Well, that's certainly one justification for being a hypocrite.

 

[Gadawg73]

Eliminate all deductions and credits and the problem goes away.
Forces the 50% that pay no income taxes to pay their fair share.

 

[Gadawg73]

Reaganomics: 30 years of altering tax codes, regulations, and laws in order to undermine middle class demand* in favor of upper class wealth accumulation (mostly in the form of tax cuts made possible by a cut in social spending).

*Middle class demand was bolstered through a dense tapestry of government programs which aimed at giving the middle class an affordable cost of living (centered around things like transportation, housing, energy, education, food, and health care) along with higher wages, benefits, insurance, as well as a number of incentives/laws which kept jobs in America. In essence, capital, through tax and labor laws, was forced to share more of its profits with average workers, which profits those workers pumped back in the economy in the form of vibrant consumption - which consumption lead to even more jobs and innovation. It was a virtuous cycle. The American economy depends on a working class with actual money to spend. It's not like China who is over-dependent on exports (-exports to Americans with credit cards)

Question: what happens when profits are diverted to the middle class? What happens when Social Security and Medicare frees up money in middle class families? What happens when a worker has higher wages and benefits. Answer: they buy things. And the more they buy, the more the capitalist is forced to add jobs. This is why the postwar years - a time of high taxes and government intervention on behalf of the middle class consumer -- saw so much economic growth. When demand is high, the economy booms. When demand is low, the capitalist has no incentive to add jobs regardless of tax cuts.

When government stopped taking care of middle class demand, the Reagan Revolution tried to make up the difference with debt vehicles like credit cards and a whole array of lending products. [Remember: something needed to be done to maintain consumption in the face of falling wages and benefits. Debt was a better option than watching all those shopping malls crumble] Put simply: America went on a 30 year borrowing binge to make up for the fact that money wasn't trickling down. (Corporations loved it because that credit was used to buy their products. When the economy blew up, they floated away with unprecedented wealth as the middle class drowned in debt)

How did we fall for it? Why did we turn to debt?

Reagan convinced the nation not worry about middle class demand. He said that if we lowered taxes and created friendlier regulations, the money would trickle down. He said we should unwind everything done for the middle class in order to give the richest Americans more tax cuts. He said the wealthy would use those tax cuts to innovate and create solid American jobs. Instead, they created hedge funds & derivatives (casino capitalism) and proceeded to ship jobs to 3rd world sweat shops. Now, a tiny fraction of Americans is sitting on over 80% of the wealth. The bottom 40% have less than 1% of the national wealth. This means that there are not enough consumers with actual money to spend. The American economy cannot be sustained if you have a concentrated flock of billionaires surrounded by an entire population with insufficient purchasing power. When Reagan created the conditions for cheap labor in America, he forgot that the American economy depended on those high wages for consumption.

The Reagan distribution scheme - by over-rewarding capital and devaluing labor - destroyed middle class demand. Attempts to rescue the middle class with fancy debt vehicles failed miserably.

Why are capitalists not adding jobs?

Because there are no consumers. Corporations will not invest a dime until there is money in middle class wallets to capture.

Reaganomics killed the American consumer in order to make a small group of people wealthy. We are now lying in that bed.

WTF is "devaluing labor"?
How can anyone devalue your labor? Do you work and THEN negotiate your fee?
Dude, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

 

[Nosmo King]

Of course. The calendar. Has to be it.

August has different weather than January at 40 degrees north latitude.

So, if it's cold, it's okay to litter.

You really gonna go with that?

You assumed it's okay. I'm saying it's easier to pick up after yourself when you're comfortable and not freezing and encumbered by heavy winter garments.

And are you arguing that because a few folks gathered in August and presumably cleaned up after themselves that they are the true environmentalists while a huge crowd which gathered in January aren't interested in protecting the planet? Wouldn't a survey of what they drove to their respective events be as scientific as your assumptions?

And what have YOU done to preserve the environment? Ask me sometime! You'd be amazed and enlightened.

Would a Conservative or a Liberal be more in favor of mountain top removal mining? Conservatives realize mountain top removal may be cheaper in the short run. But since when are Conservatives interested in environmental protection? Even in the LONG run?

The kernel of the debate (long before you grabbed your own matador's cape and tried to lead us down some primrose path with this insipid "who cleaned up after themselves" crap) is: If you eliminate the EPA, would that make our environment cleaner than if you kept the agency? Conservatives love loosing the restrictions the EPA promulgate JUST so they can increase corporate profits. A short sighted view if there ever was one.

 

[Chris]

Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.

"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."

Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett - Yahoo! News

.

Buffett rocks.

Why do the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because we elected George Bush.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

"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."

Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett - Yahoo! News

.

Buffett rocks.

Why do the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

They don't.

 

[blu]

You people are nuts to think anyone with money is staying
StateSide while ya'll fight a class war.

LIAMD

its only class war when the poor people are rioting.

 

[Chris]

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

 

[Oddball]

Buffett rocks.

Why do the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because we elected George Bush.

It has nothing to do with GEORGE BOOOOOSH!, dickweed.


It's because guys like Buffet don't take their income form wages, salaries, bennies and bonuses...They get their incomes from cap gains, which aren't as heavily taxed.

But this has been 'splained to you numerous times and it has yet to permeate your cement head...Either that or you're just a bromide and yapping point regurgitating hack....Actually, it's both.

 

[MikeK]

blablablablablabla...

Why does Buffet take full advantage of the "loopholes" available to him, if he's so incensed about the allaged unfairness of the tax code?

How do you know he does? Or are you assuming that?

 

[Ame®icano]

Buffett rocks.

Why do the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because we elected George Bush.

It has nothing to do with GEORGE BOOOOOSH!, dickweed.


It's because guys like Buffet don't take their income form wages, salaries, bennies and bonuses...They get their incomes from cap gains, which aren't as heavily taxed.

But this has been 'splained to you numerous times and it has yet to permeate your cement head...Either that or you're just a bromide and yapping point regurgitating hack....Actually, it's both.

Stop wasting your time, Oddie...

He can't write anything else. Check this out: Summary

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

"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."

Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett - Yahoo! News

.

Buffett rocks.

Why do the Forbes 400 pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us?

Because we elected George Bush.

Thanks for the link.

The result: the top 5% of earners--those with an adjusted gross income of $153,542 or more--now pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 400

It appears you exaggerated.

 

[MikeK]

Eliminate all deductions and credits and the problem goes away.

Forces the 50% that pay no income taxes to pay their fair share.

You clearly are oblivious to what is happening all across America. The reason 50% of working Americans pay no income tax is their incomes have been pushed to or below the poverty level.

Union membership fell to a 70 year low last year http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html and wages in the private sector are at historic low levels Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise - USATODAY.com. To force the 50% of working Americans you've referenced to pay an income tax would force them below the poverty line making them either homeless and eligible for public assistance or scratching for survival. And these are not slackers. They are formerly productive people who are willing to work for a living wage but are victims of a manipulated economy.

Because you're doing okay don't assume that everyone else is. Plan For Homeless Tent City In Public Park Nixed - Orlando News Story - WESH Orlando Economically, the U.S. is analogous to a ship which is listing badly to starboard. If something isn't done to shift the cargo it is in very real danger of sinking. The cargo in this analogy is our national wealth resource.

 

[RDD_1210]

So what's keeping you from sending in extra?

What difference will one person make? Honestly. If it was across the board, I know it would be impactful and I would be supportive.

Well, that's certainly one justification for being a hypocrite.

Ha, you mean a hypocrite similar in the way you continue to make use of services provided by the evil federal government?

 

[Dot Com]

JUST STOP IT REPUBLICORP!!!