http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html This forum is raving that taxing the rich would reduce investment…
Ultimately, doesn’t this amount to persecution of a minority population (rich people)? I mean seriously, normal US people are pretty rich. If you own an iPhone and XBox, you can probably afford to pay 2% higher taxes.
As much as I loved this article it will not happen any time soon. Politically it’s a non-starter especially given the House of Representatives. The worst part is a large portion of the people who would benefit the most support people who are steadfastly against it. ‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.’ -John Steinbeck What’s the over-under on FOX calling Warren Buffett a moron before today’s close?
No one will want to be millionaires anymore if they have to pay 39% of it as tax. It’s so obvious.
THere was an article about Japan. How we are basically in the same situation they were in before the lost decade. They raised taxes on the rich and everything flat-lined for the next decade. Don’t agree or disagree with it, just an interesting thought
this is embarrassing drivel. of course an increased CG tax rate would increase transaction costs and would affect investment. just look at the case where you buy, sell at an appreciated price (paying tax), and then reinvest. (you have less to reinvest because more of it when to taxes in the round trip, aka reduced investment.) he also doesn’t define “super rich”, so that part of the discussion is nebulous empty talk. (edit: grammar fail.)
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you own an iPhone and XBox, you can probably > afford to pay 2% higher taxes. This line of thought pretty much sums up what’s wrong with tax increase camp. People’s ability, or even willingness, is not the issue. IT’S NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY. Just because it’s possible doesn’t make it right. This is just like when people talk about “funding tax cuts.” You don’t fund a cut in taxes. You fund spending. Same train of thought as above. Major pet peeves of mine.
“John Boehner’s plan: no tax increases and a trillion dollars in cuts. Harry Reid’s paln: no tax increases, $2 trillion in cuts. This makes it very hard for the White House, because if the Democrats don’t stand up for what they believe in, how can Obama sell them out?” –Bill Maher
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This line of thought pretty much sums up what’s > wrong with tax increase camp. People’s ability, > or even willingness, is not the issue. IT’S NOT > THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY. Just because it’s > possible doesn’t make it right. Can I ask why you say it is ‘not right’?
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you own an iPhone and XBox, you can probably > afford to pay 2% higher taxes. Take a walk through the projects later today and I bet that you’ll see more iPhones and XBoxes than you’d see at a Best Buy.
Well, I guess since the government has the power to raise taxes, ownership of potentially taxable money is not the issue. For me, the problem is when people bring up taxes on “rich” people on the principle of fairness. That is, “take from the people who can most afford it”. The definition of “wealthy” has to be arbitrarily drawn at some point - it’s billionaires, millionaires, people who make over $250k, corporations above a certain size, or some other politically catchy level that is subjectively justified. Now, I would not mind paying a bit more in taxes if it would fix the US’s long term debt problems. However, I don’t see why only a small segment of the population should carry the tax increase. Everyone in the US is responsible for the debt-fueled consumption binge of the past couple of decades, so it’s not unreasonable to ask everyone to help with the problem. I mean seriously, the US can increase taxes significantly, and we would still have higher average after tax income than I don’t know… Canada? France?
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is embarrassing drivel. > > of course an increased CG tax rate would increase > transaction costs and would affect investment. > just look at the case where you buy, sell at an > appreciated price (paying tax), and then reinvest. > (you have less to reinvest because more of it > when to taxes in the round trip, aka reduced > investment.) > > he also doesn’t define “super rich”, so that part > of the discussion is nebulous empty talk. > > (edit: grammar fail.) Did you even read the article? He made very specific recommendations about how he would increase taxes. Basically he proposes increased capital gains taxes on whose with incomes over $1M, and a separate CG category for incomes above $10M. This won’t affect the precious “job creators” people are so worried about, because as is repeated ad infinitum, they all own businesses through s-corps and LLCs and would be hurt by an increase in marginal income tax rates. To anticipate: Nb4 “well Buffett didn’t’ handle the Sokol affair well so I can ignore him”. Nb4 “Why doesn’t Buffett just pay more himself if he’s so worried about it.”
kmm1486 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sweep the Leg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This line of thought pretty much sums up what’s > > wrong with tax increase camp. People’s > ability, > > or even willingness, is not the issue. IT’S > NOT > > THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY. Just because it’s > > possible doesn’t make it right. > > Can I ask why you say it is ‘not right’? Because it’s stealing. Worse in fact. Most theives just steal from you once. The government comes back every year. That’s the short answer. I could give you a much longer, seemingly more reasonable response, but ultimately it would come down to that.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He made very > specific recommendations about how he would > increase taxes. Basically he proposes increased > capital gains taxes on whose with incomes over > $1M, and a separate CG category for incomes above > $10M. that’s not in the article, which was poorly written as i said. he’s flat out incorrect about it reducing investment.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because it’s stealing. Worse in fact. Most > theives just steal from you once. The government > comes back every year. > > That’s the short answer. I could give you a much > longer, seemingly more reasonable response, but > ultimately it would come down to that. so the core of your argument is property rights. what you earn through your hard work and creativity is your property and the government (federal/local) has no right to claim any portion of it? am i in the ball park of your reasoning here?
Did he say anything in the article about budget cuts? I forget because I just started firing off posts here without actually reading the article.
justin88 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > He made very > > specific recommendations about how he would > > increase taxes. Basically he proposes > increased > > capital gains taxes on whose with incomes over > > $1M, and a separate CG category for incomes > above > > $10M. > > that’s not in the article, which was poorly > written as i said. > > he’s flat out incorrect about it reducing > investment. I deserve a little scorn here because I did not read the linked article; however, I did read the ACTUAL article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=me&ref=general I think we’re in agreement that you know more about how tax policy influences high level investment decisions than WB.
I don’t see it as a question of fairness – more at issue is raising enough taxes to fund gov’t operations with the least impact on economic activity. I see the low effective rates on the top earners as a hindrance of economic growth. As any small businessman knows, it’s hard enough to compete against people with a larger bankroll, but going up against competitors who pays half the effective rates that you do makes it extremely difficult. Also, why does everyone use the argument that raising capital gains taxes will low capital investment. Isn’t that painfully obvious? Raising any tax has consequence, increases in income, cap gains, payroll, property, sales, etc., all have negative effect on growth. The trick is finding the mixture that has the least influence on behavior. Is Buffett’s behavior going to change if you adjust the cap gains taxes on earnings over $1 million from 15% to 20%?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I deserve a little scorn here because I did not > read the linked article; however, I did read the > ACTUAL article from the NYT: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-cod > dling-the-super-rich.html?src=me&ref=general > > I think we’re in agreement that you know more > about how tax policy influences high level > investment decisions than WB. no worries, it’s just an internet forum. again, Buffett doesn’t actually say how much of an increase he suggests for the CG rate, but he does address spending cuts: “Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here.”
I love how some people on this forum like to spout about how they’re hearing from CEOs that Obama’s policies, taxation, or alignment of the planets (Obama’s fault) are causing them to invest less in the country, and now that a widely respected CEO actually speaks, they go crazy.