Warren Buffet: Stop Coddling the Super Rich

[tommieharris91]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2

[StoopTroup]

The Senate needs to pay attention. I'd like to think the House could but they think they are on a mission that the American People have sent them on. :rolleyes:

[OutlandTrophy]

if he feels like he doesn't pay enough, he's free to chip in a little extra if he wants to.

[NormanPride]

How much would this really increase federal revenue, though?

[sappstuf]

if he feels like he doesn't pay enough, he's free to chip in a little extra if he wants to.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Send him that link... I'm sure that is the only thing keeping him from giving the government billions of his own money..

[dwarthog]

The Senate needs to pay attention. I'd like to think the House could but they think they are on a mission that the American People have sent them on. :rolleyes:

The Senate that didn't pass a budget for 800+ days?

Not very likely if real action is involved. However I have no doubt that rhetoric will reach a fever pitch.

[Veritas]

When he backs it up by writing out a $10M check and sending it to the feds then I'll listen. Until then he's just a preacher.

I swear Buffet is going senile.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I saw this on fark this morning. Buffett is really starting to rub me the wrong way with these articles. My favorite part was the job growth from 1980-2000 where a good chunk of those jobs were created from 1998 to 2000 after they lowered the capital gains rate.

[Breadburner]

I wish he would hire me to go to work for the railroad.....

[TheHumanAlphabet]

if he feels like he doesn't pay enough, he's free to chip in a little extra if he wants to.

I like what Pat Buchanan said yeaterday. If he is so much for it, why doesn't he write a check to the U.S. Treasury for $5Billion and put his money where his mouth is. As much as I respected him, this crap and him not following through is losing it fast. Love hoe the lefty libs keep spouting off, but they do absolutely nothing to back up their sentiment. It is for all the "other" (dare I say, "little") people...

[soonerscuba]

I like how Warren Buffett is a lefty lib now.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I like what Pat Buchanan said yeaterday. If he is so much for it, why doesn't he write a check to the U.S. Treasury for $5Billion and put his money where his mouth is. As much as I respected him, this crap and him not following through is losing it fast. Love hoe the lefty libs keep spouting off, but they do absolutely nothing to back up their sentiment. It is for all the "other" (dare I say, "little") people...

Its no different than Kerry/Pelosi talking about it. The problem is that no tax code is going to be able to root out all of their tax exemptions. The only way you are going to get rich people to donate money to the government is if you start naming crap after them (The Warren Buffet Lincoln Memorial).

There are a couple of interesting nuggets in there

1) I'd make a good investment regardless of the tax consequences. This is kind of odd in that he's known as the master of estimating future cash flows which have taxes figured into them. Maybe he is talking about his personal tax rate instead of the corporate one, but anyway.

2) The part about the rich not paying payroll taxes. I think if municipal/capital gains/dividends were counted as eligible for FICA it would be a good thing.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I like how Warren Buffett is a lefty lib now.

Is is possible that his agenda (IE getting more people to donate to charity) just happens to be promoted by a Democrat agenda (IE tax the rich)?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When he backs it up by writing out a $10M check and sending it to the feds then I'll listen. Until then he's just a preacher.

I swear Buffet is going senile.Heck, he should voluntarily send a lot more than that, considering how much money he has.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I love all of you guys who are defending the poor downtrodden super rich. :rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I love all of you guys who are defending the poor downtrodden super rich. :rolleyes:against a constantly more aggressive govt., you should too.

[badger]

He seems a little bit difficult to personally deal with, like all of those in the Jerry Jones suite that uneasily sits around him as his Cowboys repeatedly crumble, worried that if they open their mouths, they'll get disinherited.

I've stopped caring about rich people. They have a lot farther to fall than I do if the economy tanks.

[mgsooner]

Hate to tell you guys, but ultimately we will all have to pay higher taxes. It's only a matter of time.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I love all of you guys who are defending the poor downtrodden super rich. :rolleyes:

I'm not defending him at all. I'm just stating that given the realities of the current system we have, this is just more political grandstanding.

1. Congress makes tax levies
2. Congress is inhabited by rich people
3. Rich people tend to want to keep their money.

I mean holy crap, John Kerry's average tax rate is like 3% because his wife's wealth is all in municipal bonds. Do you think there is a snowball's chance of making municipal bond interest taxable getting through the Senate?

[LosAngelesSooner]

against a constantly more aggressive govt., you should too.Hey, it's working for me. I pay less taxes than you do because of how much my Republican reps in Congress are protecting my rich ***. I love it.

All you suckers can keep paying more in taxes than me so I can keep paying less. And you can keep protecting me, too.

Thanks for that, by the way. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm not defending him at all. I'm just stating that given the realities of the current system we have, this is just more political grandstanding.

1. Congress makes tax levies
2. Congress is inhabited by rich people
3. Rich people tend to want to keep their money.

I mean holy crap, John Kerry's average tax rate is like 3% because his wife's wealth is all in municipal bonds. Do you think there is a snowball's chance of making municipal bond interest taxable getting through the Senate?
Nope.

But I'm totally in favor of taxing the **** out of the super rich. And raising the taxes of the moderately rich, too.

And all of this "DON'T RAISE OUR TAXES!!!" bull**** that the current crop of Republican hopefuls are touting is just them taking care of their super rich super donors. Thanks, Citizens United, you ****ity **** of a ****ing anti-American decision. ****.

:)

[OutlandTrophy]

Nope.

But I'm totally in favor of taxing the **** out of the super rich. And raising the taxes of the moderately rich, too.

And all of this "DON'T RAISE OUR TAXES!!!" bull**** that the current crop of Republican hopefuls are touting is just them taking care of their super rich super donors. Thanks, Citizens United, you ****ity **** of a ****ing anti-American decision. ****.

:)

could you let us know where "super rich" begins?

Are you taxing income or wealth?

Please do the same for your term of "moderately rich".

TIA

[LosAngelesSooner]

could you let us know where "super rich" begins?

Are you taxing income or wealth?

Please do the same for your term of "moderately rich".

TIARead Buffett's article. It's defined in there.
YWIA

[OutlandTrophy]

thanks!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Okay...bye, all! Gotta get back to work. Just wanted to drive by and stir the big ol' "we all think the Red-State-Same" pot a bit. ;)

[Turd_Ferguson]

So now we go from rich, to SUPER RICH...and leave Nope out of this...

[OutlandTrophy]

Okay...bye, all! Gotta get back to work. Just wanted to drive by and stir the big ol' "we all think the Red-State-Same" pot a bit. ;)

rats, he's leaving before he can tell us what those rates should be.


I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more

[Turd_Ferguson]

I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more and/or are a member of the 1000 yard marksman group.

LAS will not be happy...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Hey, it's working for me. I pay less taxes than you do because of how much my Republican reps in Congress are protecting my rich ***. I love it.

All you suckers can keep paying more in taxes than me so I can keep paying less. And you can keep protecting me, too.

Thanks for that, by the way. ;)


Nope.

But I'm totally in favor of taxing the **** out of the super rich. And raising the taxes of the moderately rich, too.

And all of this "DON'T RAISE OUR TAXES!!!" bull**** that the current crop of Republican hopefuls are touting is just them taking care of their super rich super donors. Thanks, Citizens United, you ****ity **** of a ****ing anti-American decision. ****.

:)

I've never seen someone prove a an opposing point of view faster than LAS.

Basically, what you see in these 2 posts is the following:

1. I'm taking advantage of these tax breaks and "I LOVE IT"
2. I want to raise taxes on anyone but myself

Its this mentality that makes "shared sacrifice" a farce. Btw, the first time I ever heard this phrase was for a church building fund that was way more extravagent than was needed ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He seems a little bit difficult to personally deal with, like all of those in the Jerry Jones suite that uneasily sits around him as his Cowboys repeatedly crumble, worried that if they open their mouths, they'll get disinherited.

I've stopped caring about rich people. They have a lot farther to fall than I do if the economy tanks.BUSTED...AGAIN. You don't have to apologize this time. Prayers, my dear.

[badger]

BUSTED...AGAIN. You don't have to apologize this time. Prayers, my dear.

Stop busting me Rush. It's getting old. So I'll occasionally say things that don't sound Republican. BFD, man.

[Midtowner]

against a constantly more aggressive govt., you should too.

More aggressive? They are paying the lowest taxes they've paid ever. In 1980, they paid 70% on amounts over $250K. No one is talking about anything close to that.

Some historical perspective would be nice.

[3rdgensooner]

I wouldn't mind being eligible for some coddling.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Why can't we just tax everyone at the SAME rate? I mean I don't feel like Buffett should be paying 40% because he is smart. I also don't feel like Mrs. Teacher should pay 5% because she makes less. Everybody pays 20% or whatever. And if I was a billionaire, there is no WAY in hell I would write them a check to pay off part of the debt. Have you seen how stupid they are with our money!

[NormanPride]

I wouldn't mind being eligible for some coddling.
I'm sure there are any number of wealthy Bruces on this board that will be happy to coddle you.

[Midtowner]

Taxes are going up on the middle class via entitlement cuts and inflation due to corrupt federal policies. The super-rich really aren't affected, and those who live off of investment portfolios only pay at a 15% marginal rate.

We need revenue enhancement across the board.

A new higher margin for amounts over $1MM and $250K, get rid of the child tax credits and dependency exemptions, we ought to also do away with the mortgage interest rate deduction. While we're at it, we could lower the marginal rate on corporations, but get rid of all of their tax incentives at the same time. GE ought to pay taxes. We also should not be in the business of having our tax code subsidize overseas relocation of American jobs. Raise tariffs while you're at it. Some economic nationalism would be nice.

Those things would raise a lot of money, and yes, we'd have shared sacrifice.

[3rdgensooner]

Stop busting me Rush. It's getting old. So I'll occasionally say things that don't sound Republican. BFD, man.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/gen3sooner/pigtails.jpg


I'm sure there are any number of wealthy Bruces on this board that will be happy to coddle you.
I'd rather be coddled because I'm super rich.

[NormanPride]

Well, I'm sure you could rope yourself a super-rich boy toy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why can't we just tax everyone at the SAME rate? I mean I don't feel like Buffett should be paying 40% because he is smart. I also don't feel like Mrs. Teacher should pay 5% because she makes less. Everybody pays 20% or whatever. And if I was a billionaire, there is no WAY in hell I would write them a check to pay off part of the debt. Have you seen how stupid they are with our money!Could this be your BEST POST EVAR?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Taxes are going up on the middle class via entitlement cuts and inflation due to corrupt federal policies. The super-rich really aren't affected, and those who live off of investment portfolios only pay at a 15% marginal rate.

We need revenue enhancement across the board.

A new higher margin for amounts over $1MM and $250K, get rid of the child tax credits and dependency exemptions, we ought to also do away with the mortgage interest rate deduction. While we're at it, we could lower the marginal rate on corporations, but get rid of all of their tax incentives at the same time. GE ought to pay taxes. We also should not be in the business of having our tax code subsidize overseas relocation of American jobs. Raise tariffs while you're at it. Some economic nationalism would be nice.

Those things would raise a lot of money, and yes, we'd have shared sacrifice.

Some of these are going to be fairly debilitating on the lower class (although the EIC needs to be barred from reducing tax liability to below zero). Some things I agree with, but others are meh.

Second, "Shared Sacrifice" should mean that public sector workers take a monster hit as well. For every dollar that the population gives in extra taxes, there should be a dollar cut in expenditures on them.

[StoopTroup]

When he backs it up by writing out a $10M check and sending it to the feds then I'll listen. Until then he's just a preacher.

I swear Buffet is going senile.

Maybe he just doesnt want to spend an eternity in hell because of the moral gray areas he and many others seem to take advantage of that deep down in his heart, he knows he's probably violated most of them and if he could get maybe 4 or 5 others like himself to change before their time on Earth has expired they will be forgiven in a manner that might allow them to feel proud of what they acheived in their last days?

Maybe it's just a tumor though too ? :D

[Midtowner]

Some of these are going to be fairly debilitating on the lower class (although the EIC needs to be barred from reducing tax liability to below zero). Some things I agree with, but others are meh.

Absolutely. ANY tax credits which can reduce liability below zero ought to be done away with. Maybe let people bank 'em for 5 years, but that's it. The days of the IRS cutting big checks to people or companies for some activity favored by lobbyists should be over.


Second, "Shared Sacrifice" should mean that public sector workers take a monster hit as well. For every dollar that the population gives in extra taxes, there should be a dollar cut in expenditures on them.

As long as the quality of their services don't suffer. A top-to-bottom examination of what the federal government actually does could probably use a look. Certain agencies could probably be done away with or folded into other entities (e.g., the ATF or ABLE at the state level could be folded into the FBI or OSBI respectively).

I don't think that amounts to much though compared to the lobbying culture in Washington. A government of bought and paid for insiders probably can't be trusted to bite the hand that feeds 'em and that's precisely what must be done here.

[pphilfran]

He is a lying sack of chit...

Somebody needs to show me how you pay 36% in taxes...The highest possible rate is 35%...you would have to make over 200k without any deductions to get to 35% (including SS)...and 200k might not get you there...

Some lib needs to show me how someone gets to 36% in taxes...dare ya...

You can find rates here to help with your calculations...http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Buffett is including payroll taxes in his equations (either 7.5% or 15%) however, they shouldn't influence the amount on taxes that much since 12% phases out after 100k.

[pphilfran]

Buffett is including payroll taxes in his equations (either 7.5% or 15%) however, they shouldn't influence the amount on taxes that much since 12% phases out after 100k.

If they are "employees in his office" they are paying half of payroll taxes...

No way in hell someone in his office is paying 36% in taxes including SS/Med...

He is lying out his azz...

[pphilfran]

Someone making 200k would pay something like the following...I will include NO deductions...no personal exemptions...no nuttin...a single person...

First 17k at 10%
17k to 69k at 15%
69 to 139k at 25%
139k to 200k at 28%

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Someone making 200k would pay something like the following...I will include NO deductions...no personal exemptions...no nuttin...a single person...

First 17k at 10%
17k to 69k at 15%
69 to 139k at 25%
139k to 200k at 28%

Well, he never explicitly says how much they made. Also, they could be getting hammered by the AMT which is easy as crap for him to loophole his way out of.

[Midtowner]

Someone making 200k would pay something like the following...I will include NO deductions...no personal exemptions...no nuttin...a single person...

First 17k at 10%
17k to 69k at 15%
69 to 139k at 25%
139k to 200k at 28%

You said "in taxes," right? Federal income tax is one thing; state income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes are another things entirely. Add those together for your typical middle class person and 40% is a pretty conservative estimate.

[pphilfran]

You said "in taxes," right? Federal income tax is one thing; state income taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes are another things entirely. Add those together for your typical middle class person and 40% is a pretty conservative estimate.

If that is the case then Buffet is paying more than what he is claiming...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If that is the case then Buffet is paying more than what he is claiming...

Well, maybe not, are all of these high earners in Omaha? If they are in NYC, then its quite possible they could be paying that much. Its still distorting numbers like a pretzel...

[sappstuf]

Warren Buffett is worth about $50 billion.. If he cashed out and gave it all to the federal government to alleviate just deficit spending(not all federal spending), it would last 10-12 days...

That's it.

The rich cannot get us out of the hole we are in.

[Frozen Sooner]

I mean holy crap, John Kerry's average tax rate is like 3% because his wife's wealth is all in municipal bonds. Do you think there is a snowball's chance of making municipal bond interest taxable getting through the Senate?

While I'm sure the political will also isn't there, Congress cannot make municipal bond interest taxable. That's one of the results of McCollough, if I remember right. Then again, I could be completely off.

Sorry, the correct proposition from McCollough was that the state governments cannot tax branches of the federal government. That generally gets expanded to one level of government cannot tax another. The correct case for the proposition that the federal government is constitutionally unable to tax municipal bonds is Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. Which was actually overrruled. So you learn something new every day. My bad.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

While I'm sure the political will also isn't there, Congress cannot make municipal bond interest taxable. That's one of the results of McCollough, if I remember right. Then again, I could be completely off.

Sorry, the correct proposition from McCollough was that the state governments cannot tax branches of the federal government. That generally gets expanded to one level of government cannot tax another. The correct case for the proposition that the federal government is constitutionally unable to tax municipal bonds is Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. Which was actually overrruled. So you learn something new every day. My bad.

Not to mention this has no bearing on reality.

Municipal bond interest is taxable at both the city and state level. Treasury interest is taxable at the local, state and federal level.

[Frozen Sooner]

Not to mention this has no bearing on reality.

Municipal bond interest is taxable at both the city and state level. Treasury interest is taxable at the local, state and federal level.

I'm pretty sure that interest on treasury instruments is not taxable at the state or local level.

Otherwise, the Treasury Department is giving out some bad advice. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tbills/res_tbill_tax.htm

Morgan Stanley, too:

http://www.morganstanleyindividual.com/education/taxes/taxfree/lbp_tax102.html

[Whet]

Buffet is an Obama mouthpiece, always been a supporter of the progressives:
From the FEC reporting page:

SCHUMER, CHARLES E 10/26/1998 1000.00
BRADLEY, BILL 01/25/1999 1000.00
DINGELL, JOHN D. MR. 06/27/2002 1000.00
06/27/2002 1000.00
KLEEB, SCOTT MICHAEL03/24/2008 2300.00
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
03/13/2008 28500.00
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM 03/15/2000 1000.00
03/15/2000 1000.00
LAMM, DOROTHY 03/12/1998 1000.00
DURBIN, RICHARD J 11/17/2000 1000.00
CARNAHAN, MEL 02/18/2000 1000.00
HARKIN, THOMAS RICHARD 08/15/2002 1000.00
HOPEFUND, INC. 02/08/2005 5000.00
REID, HARRY 01/25/2010 2400.00
01/25/2010 2400.00
UDALL, MARK E 09/01/2008 2300.00
DORGAN, BYRON L 05/14/2009 2400.00
05/14/2009 2400.00
BOWLES, ERSKINE B 2/18/2003 2000.00
MOYNIHAN, DANIEL PATRICK03/31/1998 1000.00
VILSACK, THOMAS J 11/29/2006 2100.00
CLARK, WESLEY K 12/08/2003 2000.00
FEINGOLD, RUSSELL D
VIA PROGRESSIVES UNITED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
10/26/1998 1000.00
WHITE, BILL 09/28/2009 2400.00
THOMPSON, NANCY P 07/27/2004 2000.00
NELSON, E BENJAMIN 05/24/2011 2500.00
05/24/2011 2500.00
09/05/2005 2000.00
08/23/2006 10500.00
OBAMA FOR AMERICA 04/06/2007 2300.00
04/06/2007 4600.00
MATT CAMPBELL 08/09/2010 2400.00

[BU BEAR]

Taxes are going up on the middle class via entitlement cuts and inflation due to corrupt federal policies.




Entitlement cuts are not a tax increase. It is a subsidy decrease.

A tax hike means you get to keep less of YOUR money. A subsidy decrease means you keep less of SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

[jkjsooner]

When he backs it up by writing out a $10M check and sending it to the feds then I'll listen. Until then he's just a preacher.

I swear Buffet is going senile.

As rich as Buffet is, he knows that if he gave every single penny he has to the government it would only be a drop in the bucket.

He wants a solution to the problem (and yes I know this by itself cannot solve the problem).

And there's nothing wrong with saying that you will give extra as long as others do so as well.

[jkjsooner]

While I'm sure the political will also isn't there, Congress cannot make municipal bond interest taxable. That's one of the results of McCollough, if I remember right. Then again, I could be completely off.

Sorry, the correct proposition from McCollough was that the state governments cannot tax branches of the federal government. That generally gets expanded to one level of government cannot tax another. The correct case for the proposition that the federal government is constitutionally unable to tax municipal bonds is Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. Which was actually overrruled. So you learn something new every day. My bad.

I think it's fair to reason that the tax free benefit is offset by the higher demand / lower interest paid for municipal bonds. I think it's fair to make the argument that these people are essentially paying a tax to the local governments by accepting a lower interest rate than would otherwise be required.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Entitlement cuts are not a tax increase. It is a subsidy decrease.

A tax hike means you get to keep less of YOUR money. A subsidy decrease means you keep less of SOMEONE ELSE'S money.But...but...Social Justice...it's not someone else's money once the gubmit gets its sharp little claws on it.

[StoopTroup]

Once they get rid of entitlement spending and all of the really serious misuse of our taxes...they will drop our Tax rates to 1 or 2 % and the World will be cured of Liberals.

[Curly Bill]

Once they get rid of entitlement spending and all of the really serious misuse of our taxes...they will drop our Tax rates to 1 or 2 % and the World will be cured of Liberals.

This is change even I would believe in. Anyone who promises to get rid of all the libs and take less of my money, will certainly get my vote.

[Midtowner]

Entitlement cuts are not a tax increase. It is a subsidy decrease.

A tax hike means you get to keep less of YOUR money. A subsidy decrease means you keep less of SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

We're not paying for entitlements right now with taxes, at least not most of 'em, they're paid for with borrowed money which we're going to pay for some other way. And just wait--we won't be paying for this with a new tax bracket for millionaires or a 1/2% transaction fee on stock trades... nope. It'll be something like a removal of the mortgage interest deduction. We won't possibly stick it to the sector of the economy that's stuck it to the rest of us.

[StoopTroup]

This is change even I would believe in. Anyone who promises to get rid of all the libs and take less of my money, will certainly get my vote.

This is scheduled to happen around 10,000 years after you died.

[pphilfran]

To get out of this mess we will need to increase revenue...somewhere around 20% of GDP over a period of time...

But we will never get that revenue without a thriving economy....

S&P never said a word about short term spending....they realize that a higher rate of spending is going to happen during and shortly after a recession...their concern was with mid and long term debt and the infighting in Congress....they were looking for 400 billion a year and might have half of that reduction..

Over the short term I would probably run a higher deficit...increase infrastructure spending and try to get something moving...

Long term, as everyone agrees, we need to revamp the current tax structure...our goal should be to bankrupt H&R Block...drive their azz out of the return business...

As far as revenue sources...I get a sour taste in my mouth when we talk about raising LTCG rates...at least in certain cases...

I do agree with MT and others that there are far too many places to park large amounts of money to avoid taxation...

Buffet, and his half truths, don't make it any easier to educate the general public about the problems we face...

[EnragedOUfan]

I'm not understanding how people disagree with one of the richest men in the country asking for more taxes.

He is clearly debunking the right's "lower taxes" claim by asking for more taxes because he feels he's not taxed enough. He even claims his staff have higher rates than he does. Warren Buffett has lived through history, in my opinion I think he knows just a little bit, especially in respect to historical stuff.

He mentions to keep the payroll tax cuts in effect, while increasing the taxes for the wealthiest Americans. I can't understand why this is so bad nor can I understand how some people who don't have a pot to **** in are against taxing the rich. If low taxes meant more jobs, we wouldn't even be in this mess since the tax levels are quite low, historically.

We've also been in 2 wars, one beginning in 2001, with historically low tax rates simultaneously with government contractors ripping us dry...

[pphilfran]

I'm not understanding how people disagree with one of the richest men in the country asking for more taxes.

He is clearly debunking the right's "lower taxes" claim by asking for more taxes because he feels he's not taxed enough. He even claims his staff have higher rates than he does. Warren Buffett has lived through history, in my opinion I think he knows just a little bit, especially in respect to historical stuff.

He mentions to keep the payroll tax cuts in effect, while increasing the taxes for the wealthiest Americans. I can't understand why this is so bad nor can I understand how some people who don't have a pot to **** in are against taxing the rich. If low taxes meant more jobs, we wouldn't even be in this mess since the tax levels are quite low, historically.

We've also been in 2 wars, one beginning in 2001, with historically low tax rates simultaneously with government contractors ripping us dry...

Because income tax rate increases don't do chit...Clinton lost income tax revenue when he raised taxes...his cap gains revenue increased dramatically...a booming stock market with bubble attached help fuel the revenue increase...

Buffet is crying about three separate issues...cap gains rates, deductions and loopholes, and SS rate scale...

Each require a different solution...

To be honest, talking about raising taxes in this economy is foolish...

The priority ain't the debt limit...it ain't current spending...it ain't current taxation....

It is the economy...and if we don't get this thing moving it won't matter what tax rate you propose...it won't be enough...

[EnragedOUfan]

Because income tax rate increases don't do chit...Clinton lost income tax revenue when he raised taxes...his cap gains revenue increased dramatically...a booming stock market with bubble attached help fuel the revenue increase...

Buffet is crying about three separate issues...cap gains rates, deductions and loopholes, and SS rate scale...

Each require a different solution...

To be honest, talking about raising taxes in this economy is foolish...

The priority ain't the debt limit...it ain't current spending...it ain't current taxation....

It is the economy...and if we don't get this thing moving it won't matter what tax rate you propose...it won't be enough...

I agree with you on a lot of your post, but come on, most "average" Americans have roughly average median incomes of 40,000-80,000 dollars per year, and "average" probably makes up over 90 percent of the population of this country. Hell, most people are fortunate enough to even earn that much as a family with the amount of low paying jobs around. Yet the debate continues on whether or not a billionaire or millionaire should be taxed more. But even if they were taxed more, it wouldn't even put a dent in their income...

These people can afford to pay 40,000-80,000 dollars on a nice dinner or bottle of champaign, the cost of what an average American family earns to make a living. Why is there a debate here?

If the Repubs want to cut spending, fine, but what's the issue with raising taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans, when these people could spend in chump change what we make to raise/feed/provide shelter for our families??

[Midtowner]

If the Repubs want to cut spending, fine, but what's the issue with raising taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans, when these people could spend in chump change what we make to raise/feed/provide shelter for our families??

The problem is getting Americans to vote in their own interest.

[GKeeper316]

The problem is getting Americans to vote in their own interest.

yup. people buy into the american dream, in principle, without coming to the logical conclusion that they will never be "rich".

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The payroll tax break is a horrible idea. SS/Medicare are already massively underfunded and making them even more underfunded is just going to speed up the time til when we have to deal with the problem.

The second issue with Buffett's statement is that he's not talking about himself. He has so much wealth that if he decided not to pay taxes for the next millenia he could regardless of the tax code. What this is really about is all of the people who are on the verge of becoming rich. This is the pro athletes, the small businessman who is finally starting to turn a profit, the young startup wiz, the person who is retired and cashing out their 401k - those are the people his little scheme is going to hammer the crap out of (and that last one should scare the crap out of you).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I agree with you on a lot of your post, but come on, most "average" Americans have roughly average median incomes of 40,000-80,000 dollars per year, and "average" probably makes up over 90 percent of the population of this country. Hell, most people are fortunate enough to even earn that much as a family with the amount of low paying jobs around. Yet the debate continues on whether or not a billionaire or millionaire should be taxed more. But even if they were taxed more, it wouldn't even put a dent in their income...

These people can afford to pay 40,000-80,000 dollars on a nice dinner or bottle of champaign, the cost of what an average American family earns to make a living. Why is there a debate here?

If the Repubs want to cut spending, fine, but what's the issue with raising taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans, when these people could spend in chump change what we make to raise/feed/provide shelter for our families??

If you want to propose a VAT tax on luxury goods then I'm all for it. Of course, in 10 years it will be manipulated onto all goods and luxury goods will be excluded.

[Midtowner]

yup. people buy into the american dream, in principle, without coming to the logical conclusion that they will never be "rich".

Some people think that $250K/year is rich. It ain't.

This country is being controlled by an oligarchy for the oligarchs' own benefit and things are getting worse and worse. As wealth becomes more and more concentrated at the top, the tired Republican argument of "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" has historically had a negative outcome.

[sooner59]

I would feel pretty rich if I made $250K/year. Just sayin. When you grow up poor, that is a LOT of money. Although, over the years, I have learned what that will get you, and even though I would be very happy with it, I would also save and invest accordingly.

[pphilfran]

The payroll tax break is a horrible idea. SS/Medicare are already massively underfunded and making them even more underfunded is just going to speed up the time til when we have to deal with the problem.

The second issue with Buffett's statement is that he's not talking about himself. He has so much wealth that if he decided not to pay taxes for the next millenia he could regardless of the tax code. What this is really about is all of the people who are on the verge of becoming rich. This is the pro athletes, the small businessman who is finally starting to turn a profit, the young startup wiz, the person who is retired and cashing out their 401k - those are the people his little scheme is going to hammer the crap out of (and that last one should scare the crap out of you).

They are still funding it as though we paid the tax...instant debt...

[pphilfran]

I agree with you on a lot of your post, but come on, most "average" Americans have roughly average median incomes of 40,000-80,000 dollars per year, and "average" probably makes up over 90 percent of the population of this country. Hell, most people are fortunate enough to even earn that much as a family with the amount of low paying jobs around. Yet the debate continues on whether or not a billionaire or millionaire should be taxed more. But even if they were taxed more, it wouldn't even put a dent in their income...

These people can afford to pay 40,000-80,000 dollars on a nice dinner or bottle of champaign, the cost of what an average American family earns to make a living. Why is there a debate here?

If the Repubs want to cut spending, fine, but what's the issue with raising taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans, when these people could spend in chump change what we make to raise/feed/provide shelter for our families??

I have said that at some point we need revenue at 20% of GDP...though with an economy on the tipping point it is not wise to raise taxes at this time....

[diverdog]

To get out of this mess we will need to increase revenue...somewhere around 20% of GDP over a period of time...

But we will never get that revenue without a thriving economy....

S&P never said a word about short term spending....they realize that a higher rate of spending is going to happen during and shortly after a recession...their concern was with mid and long term debt and the infighting in Congress....they were looking for 400 billion a year and might have half of that reduction..

Over the short term I would probably run a higher deficit...increase infrastructure spending and try to get something moving...

Long term, as everyone agrees, we need to revamp the current tax structure...our goal should be to bankrupt H&R Block...drive their azz out of the return business...

As far as revenue sources...I get a sour taste in my mouth when we talk about raising LTCG rates...at least in certain cases...

I do agree with MT and others that there are far too many places to park large amounts of money to avoid taxation...

Buffet, and his half truths, don't make it any easier to educate the general public about the problems we face...

Phil:

The pain is going to happen and several of our Tea Party friends are in for a rude awakening. The Pentagon has decided military pensions are unsustainable and the are looking at a civilian style system with a retirement age of 62. I am sure current folks will be grandfathered but those outsized COLAs will be gone. We are going see a lot of similar changes for federal employees. I think it will be interesting to see how hard they will fight for their benefits.

[pphilfran]

Phil:

The pain is going to happen and several of our Tea Party friends are in for a rude awakening. The Pentagon has decided military pensions are unsustainable and the are looking at a civilian style system with a retirement age of 62. I am sure current folks will be grandfathered but those outsized COLAs will be gone. We are going see a lot of similar changes for federal employees. I think it will be interesting to see how hard they will fight for their benefits.

I imagine they will fight tooth and nail...

Whoever wins next term is going to have just as hard a time....look at all the gnashing of teeth we had over this last budget...and it didn't address the most difficult problems....

Over the long term the Tea Party is not the answer...but over the short term they are giving us exactly what we need...they are changing the way business is to be done in DC...

My fear is that they will grow too strong and imo their stance on the economy is not good....incumbents are going to get slammed in the next election...so the TP will likely gain even more numbers...

[sappstuf]

Phil and DD,

if you haven't seen it, shoot me your personal email and I will send you the Defense Business Board Retirement Final Brief.

Pretty interesting. If I was 18, I would be all over it. Pick the hard duties and you will retire a millionaire.

[sooneron]

How bout we put a tax on any political donations? Seems like that would clean things up a bit.

[MamaMia]

Hey, it's working for me. I pay less taxes than you do because of how much my Republican reps in Congress are protecting my rich ***. I love it.

All you suckers can keep paying more in taxes than me so I can keep paying less. And you can keep protecting me, too.

Thanks for that, by the way. ;) Its people like you that don't pay their dental bills. The really rich, drive up in a truck and pay right then and there, and they never boast.

[Midtowner]

Its people like you that don't pay their dental bills. The really rich, drive up in a truck and pay right then and there, and they never boast.

The really rich have concierge dentists who come and set up shop in their homes or offices for routine dental work.

You're not describing rich people, you're describing miserly middle class people.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Soooo, just what is rich?

The famous 250K O'bummer keeps talking about, to me is middle class.

[StoopTroup]

Its people like you that don't pay their dental bills. The really rich, drive up in a truck and pay right then and there, and they never boast.

They also don't have to be anywhere important most days and if they ask for drugs and don't get them they just go somewhere else until they find them, then their Kids start figuring out there is an entire Pharmacy in the house and start dealing or giving them away for favors while the rest of America uses up the $1500 in insurance each year and get over charged because the rich will give you anything as long as you treat them like the Gods you think they are instead of pricks who put their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else. :D

But that's not everyone...some of us are wise enough to know when some quack did a lousy root canal and offer you to settle on it instead of sue the bejeezus out of you over $1,100 worth of work that ended up pulling the tooth. :D

But then. that's not everyone....just some folks....:D

[StoopTroup]

Soooo, just what is rich?

The famous 250K O'bummer keeps talking about, to me is middle class.

You are listening to the wrong Brother my Brother....:D

We are talking about the folks that own the color "Blue" :D

NSFW

4m37JkkGjAY&feature=related

[BU BEAR]

As long as Warren Buffet chooses to receive the bulk of his income from dividends which are taxed at 15% rather than salary which would be taxed at 30%+; then it will appear that Mr. Buffet lacks the conviction of his ideas.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

How bout we put a tax on any political donations? Seems like that would clean things up a bit.

Once again, not a chance of this ever passing. Just like passing a hard cap on political campaigns isn't going to happen.

[StoopTroup]

Once again, not a chance of this ever passing. Just like passing a hard cap on political campaigns isn't going to happen.

Oh yeah....something like 50% for when you give away 6,500 $30 tickets at the Iowa Straw Poll that get you 4,800 actual votes. I bet there wouldn't be any photo ops of you going down slow on a corn dog while riding around in a Golf Cart....lol

http://babyboomeradvisorclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Michelle%20Bachmann%20Eating%20a%20Corn%20Dog%20in %20Iowa.jpg

[StoopTroup]

I love Politics and I'm beginning to think that the dirty they are...the better. Nobody really wants to listen to some old dude with some decent answers....especially if they have anything to do with cutting Military Spending or going to War.

http://www.ronpaul.com/images/ron-paul-dont-steal-government-hates-competition.jpg

[okie52]

Some people think that $250K/year is rich. It ain't.

This country is being controlled by an oligarchy for the oligarchs' own benefit and things are getting worse and worse. As wealth becomes more and more concentrated at the top, the tired Republican argument of "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" has historically had a negative outcome.

As opposed the the tired old dem motto of "tax the rich".

[okie52]

The problem is getting Americans to vote in their own interest.

What would that be? A 100% tax on those making over a million?

[StoopTroup]

Years ago, the wonderful government determined that doctors couldn't deduct bad debt. Seems like everyone else gets to except doctors.

Add in my bad debt(essentially a tax) to my income tax and it is more than my take home pay. I am not in the super rich category, but I am one that Obama and the liberals think doesn't pay his fair share.

How is paying more than you take home not someone's fair share?

There is definitely problems with that. I hate how Doctors (A Well Honored Profession) have continually been told by Insurance Companies, Medicare, Social Security etc....what they can and can't charge for a Procedure yet when one of these guys comes up with a procedure that will help a patient maybe recover better or have less down time post surgery or reduce infection and the entire Medical Board agrees.....some of these other entities try to tell them they are wrong and their only real reason to say they are wrong is Power or Money or the Power over what Doctors can or can't do to make their profession and keep their Profession at the top of the game.

Even if it's being used in 20 other Countries Successfully and some Doctor thinks he can help a Patient....they'll say no and won't cover it via Insurance. Now if you are Wealthy you can just pay for it and it's maybe not OK but they probably won't do a damn thing about it.

There is so much BS involved that Doctors no longer can really focus on being the best at what they do. I've seen so many Team up and create these Specialty Hospitals now so they could actually do a little more in regards to cutting edge Technology where an administrator at another Hospital would frown on such a Surgeon and maybe even get the Staff to get him to stop.

Our Country still has bright and some of the best......but if they continue to play number 2 to Money they will eventually lose control of their profession altogether IMO.

That Tax deal you are talking about is just a warning shot off the port bow.

[OutlandTrophy]

exactly

[bigfatjerk]

Roughly 50% of the people don't pay fed taxes in this country. We need to change that before we can tax the rich to death.

[Midtowner]

What would that be? A 100% tax on those making over a million?

It used to be in the 90% range, so some sort of tax hike for money made in excess of $1MM wouldn't be unprecedented.

Getting rid of the capital gains tax would bring in a ton of money, so would imposing a transaction tax of 1/2% or so on stock transactions.

[badger]

Roughly 50% of the people don't pay fed taxes in this country. We need to change that before we can tax the rich to death.

About the only way this would work is a federal sales tax. When you say half of people don't pay taxes, some don't work, some work off the books, some cheat on their taxes, some don't make enough to be taxable.

Alas, prices on everything will go up overall. Already experienced this in jolly old England.

[bigfatjerk]

If you taxed millionaires and billionaires 100% you might get enough to cover most of the deficit. That's if all the millionaires and billionaires don't move and pay no taxes at all.

[bigfatjerk]

About the only way this would work is a federal sales tax. When you say half of people don't pay taxes, some don't work, some work off the books, some cheat on their taxes, some don't make enough to be taxable.

Alas, prices on everything will go up overall. Already experienced this in jolly old England.

Not if you let everyone keep their income tax and only have a federal sales tax. You could also have a flat tax were everyone pays about 10%.

[badger]

Not if you let everyone keep their income tax and only have a federal sales tax. You could also have a flat tax were everyone pays about 10%.

Yeah, that's probably not gonna happen.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

We're not paying for entitlements right now with taxes, at least not most of 'em, they're paid for with borrowed money which we're going to pay for some other way. And just wait--we won't be paying for this with a new tax bracket for millionaires or a 1/2% transaction fee on stock trades... nope. It'll be something like a removal of the mortgage interest deduction. We won't possibly stick it to the sector of the economy that's stuck it to the rest of us.

I actually agree with midtowner on something. I think cap gains above a certain threshold, say $1 mln or $5 mln should be taxed as regular income. Too many of these Wall Street and CEO types are getting off easy since most of their income comes on cap gains.

As far as Buffett goes, I find it interesting that when he decided to give away a large chunk of his fortune, he put it away for private charities rather than for the gov't. Does that give an indication of who he thought was more worthy?

[okie52]

It used to be in the 90% range, so some sort of tax hike for money made in excess of $1MM wouldn't be unprecedented.

Getting rid of the capital gains tax would bring in a ton of money, so would imposing a transaction tax of 1/2% or so on stock transactions.

Well Obama isn't for getting rid of the capital gains tax...he's for increasing it even when it shows tax revenues will be reduced when the tax is increased.

It was 90% with a lot of loop holes. Even JFK thought that was too high and reduced it.

I don't know what impact a 1/2% transaction tax would incur. If it doesn't retard growth then I would be all for it.

[LakeRat]

There is definitely problems with that. I hate how Doctors (A Well Honored Profession) have continually been told by Insurance Companies, Medicare, Social Security etc....what they can and can't charge for a Procedure yet when one of these guys comes up with a procedure that will help a patient maybe recover better or have less down time post surgery or reduce infection and the entire Medical Board agrees.....some of these other entities try to tell them they are wrong and their only real reason to say they are wrong is Power or Money or the Power over what Doctors can or can't do to make their profession and keep their Profession at the top of the game.

Even if it's being used in 20 other Countries Successfully and some Doctor thinks he can help a Patient....they'll say no and won't cover it via Insurance. Now if you are Wealthy you can just pay for it and it's maybe not OK but they probably won't do a damn thing about it.

There is so much BS involved that Doctors no longer can really focus on being the best at what they do. I've seen so many Team up and create these Specialty Hospitals now so they could actually do a little more in regards to cutting edge Technology where an administrator at another Hospital would frown on such a Surgeon and maybe even get the Staff to get him to stop.

Our Country still has bright and some of the best......but if they continue to play number 2 to Money they will eventually lose control of their profession altogether IMO.

That Tax deal you are talking about is just a warning shot off the port bow.

No insurance company has EVER!! EVER!!! EVER!!!! EVER!!! told a DR., mechanic, roofer, plumber, or a gardner what he can charge. Insurance companies tell the insured how much they will pay a DR. for a procedure when the insured purchases the policy. If the DR. charges more, it comes out of the insureds pocket.

The reason they don't charge more, is b/c that insured will go down the street and get it cheaper. DAMN capitalism sucks.

The health insurance companies aren't gouging people. Get this straight. You have 5 major players and all of them are with in a 5% margin. I guarantee your business has a bigger margin than that.

There is a reason why State Farm doesn't sell health insurance anymore. It isn't a profitable enterprise b/c of the regulations. Get the government out of it, and your bigger companies might actually start competing. Like, State Farm, AllState, Farmers, Progressive, Geico.

Those are some big insurance companies that sell every kind of individual insurance that you can think of, but none of them touch health insurance, b/c it isn't profitable.

Politicians have jacked up the insurance world.

Take your idealogical glasses off. Get educated on a subject. Then come bash somebody. Better yet, we are in America, GO BEAT THEM! And take all their profits.

[pphilfran]

Well Obama isn't for getting rid of the capital gains tax...he's for increasing it even when it shows tax revenues will be reduced when the tax is increased.

It was 90% with a lot of loop holes. Even JFK thought that was too high and reduced it.

I don't know what impact a 1/2% transaction tax would incur. If it doesn't retard growth then I would be all for it.

I think he means to get rid of the cg tax and taxing it at the personal income rate...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

About the only way this would work is a federal sales tax. When you say half of people don't pay taxes, some don't work, some work off the books, some cheat on their taxes, some don't make enough to be taxable.

Alas, prices on everything will go up overall. Already experienced this in jolly old England.

I think you'd be surprised at how much you can make and pay no income taxes. I've given several examples of people making 30K+ a year and getting a 3k refund from the federal government because of the Earned Income Credit. I didn't play with it to get the ceiling, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone making 45k a year could net zero taxes with a 1040EZ

[badger]

As far as Buffett goes, I find it interesting that when he decided to give away a large chunk of his fortune, he put it away for private charities rather than for the gov't. Does that give an indication of who he thought was more worthy?

Yeah. I think if we were all more wealthy, we'd prefer to give to charity instead of the government.

[Curly Bill]

Yeah. I think if we were all more wealthy, we'd prefer to give to charity instead of the government.

I don't think you're paying attention. It seems we have several posters on here who are all in favor of giving more to the government. I'm sure they'd still feel that way even if they were rich. ;)

[GKeeper316]

I LIKE THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MORE ABOUT FINANCIAL MATTERS THAN MULTI-BILLIONAIRE WARREN BUFFET... YOU GUYS ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT INVESTING YOU MUST ALL BE MULTI-BILLIONAIRES TOO!

[OutlandTrophy]

I LIKE THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MORE ABOUT FINANCIAL MATTERS THAN MULTI-BILLIONAIRE WARREN BUFFET... YOU GUYS ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT INVESTING YOU MUST ALL BE MULTI-BILLIONAIRES TOO!


what? are we talking about investing?

are you OK?

[tommieharris91]

It is official. This thread has now surpassed my expectations.

Thank you GKeeper.

[Sooner24]

I think you'd be surprised at how much you can make and pay no income taxes. I've given several examples of people making 30K+ a year and getting a 3k refund from the federal government because of the Earned Income Credit. I didn't play with it to get the ceiling, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone making 45k a year could net zero taxes with a 1040EZ

Not to mention their kids get a free college education in Oklahoma if they make under $50,000.

[okie52]

I think he means to get rid of the cg tax and taxing it at the personal income rate...

Ahh, if so, my bad.

[GKeeper316]

what? are we talking about investing?

are you OK?

TAXES AND **** TOO!!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I LIKE THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MORE ABOUT FINANCIAL MATTERS THAN MULTI-BILLIONAIRE WARREN BUFFET... YOU GUYS ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT INVESTING YOU MUST ALL BE MULTI-BILLIONAIRES TOO!

As a test, I let my 10 year old read the first couple of posts and asked her what the thread was about - she said Taxes.

tAOVkKWNfdo

[diverdog]

No insurance company has EVER!! EVER!!! EVER!!!! EVER!!! told a DR., mechanic, roofer, plumber, or a gardner what he can charge. Insurance companies tell the insured how much they will pay a DR. for a procedure when the insured purchases the policy. If the DR. charges more, it comes out of the insureds pocket.

The reason they don't charge more, is b/c that insured will go down the street and get it cheaper. DAMN capitalism sucks.

The health insurance companies aren't gouging people. Get this straight. You have 5 major players and all of them are with in a 5% margin. I guarantee your business has a bigger margin than that.

There is a reason why State Farm doesn't sell health insurance anymore. It isn't a profitable enterprise b/c of the regulations. Get the government out of it, and your bigger companies might actually start competing. Like, State Farm, AllState, Farmers, Progressive, Geico.

Those are some big insurance companies that sell every kind of individual insurance that you can think of, but none of them touch health insurance, b/c it isn't profitable.

Politicians have jacked up the insurance world.

Take your idealogical glasses off. Get educated on a subject. Then come bash somebody. Better yet, we are in America, GO BEAT THEM! And take all their profits.

Insurance companies have contracts with doctors on payment schedules.

Profit margin comparisons are worthless. Heath Insurance company ROE is very heathy.

[GKeeper316]

As a test, I let my 10 year old read the first couple of posts and asked her what the thread was about - she said Taxes.

tAOVkKWNfdo

I SAID TAXES, TOO, JKM, WHO MUST BE A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE BECAUSE HE KNOWS MORE THAN WARREN BUFFET!!!!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The tax code isn't difficult to comprehend. It is also not difficult to figure out that his numbers are wrong.

[GKeeper316]

The tax code isn't difficult to comprehend. It is also not difficult to figure out that his numbers are wrong.

HE'S A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE AND YOU ARE NOT!!

I THINK I WILL TRUST THAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT UNTIL YOU HAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS HIM, THEN I WILL TRUST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN HIM!!!!!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

HE'S A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE AND YOU ARE NOT!!

I THINK I WILL TRUST THAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT UNTIL YOU HAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS HIM, THEN I WILL TRUST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN HIM!!!!!

So is Ross Perot, did you trust him?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

ooo, so was bernie madoff, you trust him? you aren't even obvious troll, you are obvious uncreative troll

[GKeeper316]

BERNIE AND ROSS MADE EXPONENTIALLY MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, SO THEY MUST KNOW MORE ABOUT MONEY THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD!

THAT IS INFALLIBLE LOGIC!!!

[AlboSooner]

Poor rich people. :(

[LosAngelesSooner]

I've never seen someone prove a an opposing point of view faster than LAS.

Basically, what you see in these 2 posts is the following:

1. I'm taking advantage of these tax breaks and "I LOVE IT"
2. I want to raise taxes on anyone but myself

Its this mentality that makes "shared sacrifice" a farce. Btw, the first time I ever heard this phrase was for a church building fund that was way more extravagent than was needed ;)Learn to detect sarcasm.

[OutlandTrophy]

today's OpEd

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno-wsj

still not talking about investments, GKeeper.

[Sooner24]

I LIKE THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MORE ABOUT FINANCIAL MATTERS THAN MULTI-BILLIONAIRE WARREN BUFFET... YOU GUYS ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT INVESTING YOU MUST ALL BE MULTI-BILLIONAIRES TOO!


TAXES AND **** TOO!!


I SAID TAXES, TOO, JKM, WHO MUST BE A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE BECAUSE HE KNOWS MORE THAN WARREN BUFFET!!!!


HE'S A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE AND YOU ARE NOT!!

I THINK I WILL TRUST THAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT UNTIL YOU HAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS HIM, THEN I WILL TRUST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN HIM!!!!!


BERNIE AND ROSS MADE EXPONENTIALLY MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD, SO THEY MUST KNOW MORE ABOUT MONEY THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD!

THAT IS INFALLIBLE LOGIC!!!

If you will poke around on that Caps Lock key you just might fix it. :pop:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So does that mean Boone Pickens is the smartest man in Oklahoma ;)

[Midtowner]

So is Ross Perot, did you trust him?

He did turn out to be right about NAFTA being a disaster for American workers.

[EnragedOUfan]

After giving it some thought, I think higher taxes creates more jobs because companies need more workers to bring in more profit. The higher the taxes, the less the profit, so they bring in more employees to maximize productivity and profit in order to equal out/get ahead from the taxes.

But if less taxes, most people can probably get by with less employees because profits will be good with the lower tax rate.

Just my opinion....

[OutlandTrophy]

After giving it some thought, I think higher taxes creates more jobs because companies need more workers to bring in more profit. The higher the taxes, the less the profit, so they bring in more employees to maximize productivity and profit in order to equal out/get ahead from the taxes.

But if less taxes, most people can probably get by with less employees because profits will be good with the lower tax rate.

Just my opinion....
that's an interesting economic theory.

[tommieharris91]

After giving it some thought, I think higher taxes creates more jobs because companies need more workers to bring in more profit. The higher the taxes, the less the profit, so they bring in more employees to maximize productivity and profit in order to equal out/get ahead from the taxes.

But if less taxes, most people can probably get by with less employees because profits will be good with the lower tax rate.

Just my opinion....

The tax code would need a complete restructuring for this to be true. This thinking also leads to a ton of wasted man-hours.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Albert Haynesworth has made more money than anybody on this board. I can't wait for his op-ed about taxes so I can pay homage to his brilliance.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He did turn out to be right about NAFTA being a disaster for American workers.I don't remember him discussing the problems with unions, strangulatory regulations and taxation haha...and he wanted to hurt 41. Of course, it resulted in Schlick getting elected.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

After giving it some thought, I think higher taxes creates more jobs because companies need more workers to bring in more profit. The higher the taxes, the less the profit, so they bring in more employees to maximize productivity and profit in order to equal out/get ahead from the taxes.

But if less taxes, most people can probably get by with less employees because profits will be good with the lower tax rate.

Just my opinion....Are we to believe you're serious about this?(heh)

[GKeeper316]

After giving it some thought, I think higher taxes creates more jobs because companies need more workers to bring in more profit. The higher the taxes, the less the profit, so they bring in more employees to maximize productivity and profit in order to equal out/get ahead from the taxes.

But if less taxes, most people can probably get by with less employees because profits will be good with the lower tax rate.

Just my opinion....

except that business has enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks for the last decade and has done nothing but ship jobs to india.

[pphilfran]

except that business has enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks for the last decade and has done nothing but ship jobs to india.

So you would rather they keep the jobs in the US and be unable to compete due to the lower offshore labor costs and lower environmental standards that the offshore producers enjoy?

I guess we can keep the jobs here and lower the minimum wage to match the offshore wage scales...

[pphilfran]

He did turn out to be right about NAFTA being a disaster for American workers.

I had doubts about NAFTA...but all the talking heads sold me on the plan that we would buy their trinkets and in exchange sell them earth movers, high tech, and other big ticket items...

I f'd up when I bought in...

[StoopTroup]

Megyn Kelly evidently misses Obama a lot as she's on TV right now claiming how we all have just been abandoned by the POTUS while he's off at Martha's Vineyard.

I bet he's gonna come back to work tomorrow as she's pretty upset with him.

She's so funny....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/jon-stewart-megyn-kelly-maternity-leave_n_925255.html

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I had doubts about NAFTA...but all the talking heads sold me on the plan that we would buy their trinkets and in exchange sell them earth movers, high tech, and other big ticket items...

I f'd up when I bought in...Isolationism, including economic isolationism, not a good thing, except maybe in actual war.

[StoopTroup]

Isolationism, including economic isolationism, not a good thing, except maybe in actual war.

Except that our new strategy in Iraq was to be nice and not make it about oil. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :pop:

[FaninAma]

Warren Buffet is a liar and hypocrite. He once stated that derivatives are the weapons of mass destruction in regards to our economy yet his firm is a very large player in the derivatives market. In fact Berkshire Hathaway blamed low profits in their derivative trading as the reason they recently missed projected earnings.

The guy is starting to be the Wall Street equivalent of Jimmy Carter.

[pphilfran]

Isolationism, including economic isolationism, not a good thing, except maybe in actual war.

I never said a thing about isolationism...

I only spoke about unfair trade regulation...our US companies must abide by wage laws and environmental regs that many off shore companies do not have to deal with...

[Midtowner]

Isolationism, including economic isolationism, not a good thing, except maybe in actual war.

There's a stark difference between isolationism and a little economic nationalism. The U.S. is not putting its middle class interests first. It's writing the rules so that multinational corporations can have access to our markets and be able to produce products overseas or in Mexico in order to improve their profit margins.

Compare our tariffs with just about any country we trade with. We're getting screwed because our country is not looking out for its own best interests.

[StoopTroup]

Warren Buffet is a liar and hypocrite. He once stated that derivatives are the weapons of mass destruction in regards to our economy yet his firm is a very large player in the derivatives market. In fact Berkshire Hathaway blamed low profits in their derivative trading as the reason they recently missed projected earnings.

The guy is starting to be the Wall Street equivalent of Jimmy Carter.

You can't expect these big players to know what their subsidiaries are doing. They are big picture guys. :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FW-NEhC11CI/TIGGExk4nlI/AAAAAAAABOI/4JJJ9_ViGPE/s1600/rupert_murdoch_time.jpg

[StoopTroup]

http://www.becaudio.com/Shop/images/categories/WIRE2.jpg
http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/443/815tap.jpg

[pphilfran]

There's a stark difference between isolationism and a little economic nationalism. The U.S. is not putting its middle class interests first. It's writing the rules so that multinational corporations can have access to our markets and be able to produce products overseas or in Mexico in order to improve their profit margins.

Compare our tariffs with just about any country we trade with. We're getting screwed because our country is not looking out for its own best interests.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..............

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I never said a thing about isolationism...

I only spoke about unfair trade regulation...our US companies must abide by wage laws and environmental regs that many off shore companies do not have to deal with...THAT'S a can-of-worms in itself, worthy of another thread, that we have, no doubt, discussed at length before.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

except that business has enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks for the last decade and has done nothing but ship jobs to india.

There is a reason for that -> India's taxes are still cheaper.


So you would rather they keep the jobs in the US and be unable to compete due to the lower offshore labor costs and lower environmental standards that the offshore producers enjoy?

I guess we can keep the jobs here and lower the minimum wage to match the offshore wage scales...

I hate to break it to you, Wage to Wage offshoring jobs isn't cheaper than hiring someone stateside -> Productivity is less and on average, you will interview over 650 candidates in India to find a keeper, turnover, etc.

What makes offshoring so enticing are the structural tax/regulation savings.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Taxes and commerce-killing regulations. BABY, WE HAS 'EM!
YEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAA!

[NormanPride]

For us, at least, it is purely pay-related. Even if we go through 650 applicants, the four we hire to do the work of one onshore worker is cheaper. And if they all move to another company halfway through the project, there are 500 more waiting to do the same level of work for the same wage.

Without them we are not competitive. Of course, if nobody was allowed to do it, then everyone would be on the same playing field...

[pphilfran]

There is a reason for that -> India's taxes are still cheaper.



I hate to break it to you, Wage to Wage offshoring jobs isn't cheaper than hiring someone stateside -> Productivity is less and on average, you will interview over 650 candidates in India to find a keeper, turnover, etc.

What makes offshoring so enticing are the structural tax/regulation savings.

I was simplifying somewhat...overall costs are less...there is no tariff to make up the difference...

But.....

I spent some limited time in Goodyear Mexico City...all of the ex pats there went on and on about how great the work force was...and from what I saw with my own eyes they were correct...

I spent time with a PHD from China that was working with Goodyear...I spent a month and a half training...well, I was training him...lol....he talked chit about US waste and poor work habits...went on and on about how focused they are on waste and quality...when you got billions to feed you don't throw nuttin away....hell, with a toothpick he picked the meat out of the pinchers of a crawfish because he knew there was meat in there...

Jim Rogers, Mr. Bowtie, wrote a book about his world travels on his BMW bike...he was amazed at what he saw in China in the 90's...predicted they would own the world someday...

Don't shortchange that labor force overseas...

[pphilfran]

Oh, the most modern US tire plant produced tires at a cost $5 more than factory cost of a tire from Indonesia...and Indonesia was using our castoff machinery....

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

For us, at least, it is purely pay-related. Even if we go through 650 applicants, the four we hire to do the work of one onshore worker is cheaper. And if they all move to another company halfway through the project, there are 500 more waiting to do the same level of work for the same wage.

Without them we are not competitive. Of course, if nobody was allowed to do it, then everyone would be on the same playing field...

I've been in your industry for quite a while. The reason that American wages aren't competitive is that you have 6 guys latching onto 1 guys rate. If you make 100k you should be able to bill out at $100/hour and make a profit, but your bill rate is $250 an hour because there are 6 other guys latching on at $20/hour.

The reason that you can "compete" with an Indian team is because the quantity allows for better spread of your management cost recovery (two ways actually, less US Management and More billable resources).

[NormanPride]

I don't know that that's true, though... We bill the same rate even if there are no offshore resources on the project. But to a certain extent that's what is going on, especially with bigger projects.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I was simplifying somewhat...overall costs are less...there is no tariff to make up the difference...

But.....

I spent some limited time in Goodyear Mexico City...all of the ex pats there went on and on about how great the work force was...and from what I saw with my own eyes they were correct...

I spent time with a PHD from China that was working with Goodyear...I spent a month and a half training...well, I was training him...lol....he talked chit about US waste and poor work habits...went on and on about how focused they are on waste and quality...when you got billions to feed you don't throw nuttin away....hell, with a toothpick he picked the meat out of the pinchers of a crawfish because he knew there was meat in there...

Jim Rogers, Mr. Bowtie, wrote a book about his world travels on his BMW bike...he was amazed at what he saw in China in the 90's...predicted they would own the world someday...

Don't shortchange that labor force overseas...

Over the last decade I've worked with over 500 foreign nationals. Out of them, I hold 4 in high regard. Now 25-30 were good workers but their jacked up world view made them a severe liability on a project (mainly in their view of women managers). Most of them had to be given instructions on what to do and be given multiple tries to get it right.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't know that that's true, though... We bill the same rate even if there are no offshore resources on the project. But to a certain extent that's what is going on, especially with bigger projects.

Heh, you said you couldn't compete without offshore resources. :confused:

Remember, I've worked with most of the guys who were doing your SOWs even before they went to work for DC. Mr Paris, in particular, was the king of making himself 100% utilized doing nothing.

[pphilfran]

Over the last decade I've worked with over 500 foreign nationals. Out of them, I hold 4 in high regard. Now 25-30 were good workers but their jacked up world view made them a severe liability on a project (mainly in their view of women managers). Most of them had to be given instructions on what to do and be given multiple tries to get it right.

I am not talking management...floor workers....