kmm1486 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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? No, I’m not that far off the grid. Sure, in my anarcho-capitalistic dreamland, I suppose it’d be something like that. But, I’m a realist. Taxes must exist to pay for essential services (we can argue what’s essential some other time), and I recognize the government’s right to claim them. It’s more about not just politicians, but other Americans, believing they’re entitled to other people’s money. Just because someone has something, in this case money, that other’s don’t, doesn’t mean they need to give it up for “the greater good.” That’s a philosophical point. Pragmatically, taxes/redistribution of wealth/whatever you want to call it, just doesn’t work. We could point to misappropriation, lack of any fiscal responsibility, sacred cow conception, general public sector suckage, etc. as reasons why it’s just not a good idea to give your money to the government. I could go on for 70 pages, but it doesn’t matter. Anyone that’s ever thought “oh the rich will never miss a few dollars here or there,” just doesn’t get and probably never will.
The whole thing seems a big hypocrisy to me. If Buffett is so supportive of taxing the super rich indeed, why did he DONATE almost all of his fortune to the Gates Foundation. That’s a big tax saving, isn’t it? I would take his argument more seriously if he, passes his fortune to his kids and pay that $$$$$$$ estate tax bill. Thoughts?
Buffet’s point is that the rich should give away more of their money to help society in general. It doesn’t matter if this is through charity or through taxes. (Though I guess the write downs from his charitable donations might negate the point about his low overall tax rate.)
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pragmatically, taxes/redistribution of > wealth/whatever you want to call it, just doesn’t > work. We could point to misappropriation, lack of > any fiscal responsibility, sacred cow conception, > general public sector suckage, etc. as reasons why > it’s just not a good idea to give your money to > the government. Again, nobody is claiming that giving your money to the gov’t is a “good idea.” And, yes, the gov’t most definitely is not the most efficiently run organization, but what’s the alternative? “Starving the Beast” clearly did not work.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s more about not just politicians, but other > Americans, believing they’re entitled to other > people’s money. Just because someone has > something, in this case money, that other’s don’t, > doesn’t mean they need to give it up for “the > greater good.” That’s a philosophical point. fair enough - i see what you are saying. but i think this article and certain people who call for tax reform aren’t necessarily talking about taking money/resources away from people who have it. i think it has to do with having the same framework applied to everyone. there are lot of things in the current tax code that favor people with greater resources (only because they are able to get lobbyists/influence decision makers). i don’t think people advocating higher taxes are doing it to improve the collective greater good (although that would be a positive externality) rather to ensure people who can afford lobbyists don’t have an unfair advantage by having laws/regulations tailored for them compared to those who can’t afford to influence decision makers. an argument can also be made that the current system of preferable tax treatment for certain people was designed to improve the greater good via job creation, higher gdp, etc. > Pragmatically, taxes/redistribution of > wealth/whatever you want to call it, just doesn’t > work. We could point to misappropriation, lack of > any fiscal responsibility, sacred cow conception, > general public sector suckage, etc. as reasons why > it’s just not a good idea to give your money to > the government. pragmatically you could also say that capitalism and democracy don’t also work. i am not promoting communism, i am trying to make the point that all forms of organizing our economic and political structure have flaws.
kmm1486 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would increasing taxes on rich people reduce lobbying? Wouldn’t this sort of policy increase incentives for rich people to pay lobbyists?
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, nobody is claiming that giving your money > to the gov’t is a “good idea.” And, yes, the > gov’t most definitely is not the most efficiently > run organization, but what’s the alternative? > “Starving the Beast” clearly did not work. The alternative? Pain. People would have to recognize and be willing to go deeper in recession. Can’t have the sweet without the bitter. God forbid people accept any change that could temporarily hurt them though, even if it meant long term stability/prosperity. Or we could go ahead and tax the hell out of the rich to help ease the pain now. Forget how incredibly myopic that is, and don’t worry about what happens with that faucet runs dry. We’ll be forced to make serious changes anyway, but this way everyone has less money. Awesome.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kmm1486 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Why would increasing taxes on rich people reduce > lobbying? Wouldn’t this sort of policy increase > incentives for rich people to pay lobbyists? i don’t think i said this would reduce lobbying. what i meant to say is that tax reform is required to remove certain rules that give an unfair advantage to people with greater resources resulting them in paying lower taxes. the reason lobbying was mentioned in argument was that these write-offs/loopholes were written into the tax code with the help of lobbyist, which only people with substantial resources can afford
- slash the shit out of corporate taxes 2) close foreign corporate tax loopholes 3) integrate your tax system so at the end of the day a dollar earned from any source will have been taxed at the marginal rate of the end recipient 4) reverse the bush tax cuts BAM, US tax problems solved with a nice boost to economic growth
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole thing seems a big hypocrisy to me. > > If Buffett is so supportive of taxing the super > rich indeed, why did he DONATE almost all of his > fortune to the Gates Foundation. > > That’s a big tax saving, isn’t it? > > I would take his argument more seriously if he, > passes his fortune to his kids and pay that > $$$$$$$ estate tax bill. > > Thoughts? Buffett went on CNBC a few weeks ago with Coke’s CEO and was talking about this in a little more detail. Just because Buffett is supportive of taxing the super rich doesn’t mean that he is just going to fork over some money to the government voluntarily.
Buffett also isn’t telling us the other side of the story, which is that the majority of his income is from investment and is typically taxed twice. So I’m not sure his 17.3% rate is entirely accurate. Not entirely against tax increases, but I think hes saying this more for political reasons.
I would find all of these rich peoples babblings about them paying more in taxes more impressive if they sent their tax refunds back to the govt to pay down the debt or something. And as for Buffett’s estate, I believe, but not entirely sure, that almost all of his wealth is tied up in Berkshire holdings which will allow the money not going to charity to get a step up in cost basis anyway. Not saying he’s not way smarter than us or that he doesnt think he believes he should pay more in taxes but utilizing legal tax loopholes and statements sounds a bit hypocritical if you actually want the government to take more of your money then just give it to them. If Gates and Buffett went to the govt and said please set up a fund for everyone who thinks they should pay more in taxes so we can contribute and all the money that it takes in immediately goes to pay down the debt, I would think Congress would be interested. Just a thought.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one will want to be millionaires anymore if > they have to pay 39% of it as tax. It’s so > obvious. LOL
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kmm1486 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 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? > > No, I’m not that far off the grid. Sure, in my > anarcho-capitalistic dreamland, I suppose it’d be > something like that. But, I’m a realist. Taxes > must exist to pay for essential services (we can > argue what’s essential some other time), and I > recognize the government’s right to claim them. > > It’s more about not just politicians, but other > Americans, believing they’re entitled to other > people’s money. Just because someone has > something, in this case money, that other’s don’t, > doesn’t mean they need to give it up for “the > greater good.” That’s a philosophical point. > > Pragmatically, taxes/redistribution of > wealth/whatever you want to call it, just doesn’t > work. We could point to misappropriation, lack of > any fiscal responsibility, sacred cow conception, > general public sector suckage, etc. as reasons why > it’s just not a good idea to give your money to > the government. > > I could go on for 70 pages, but it doesn’t matter. > Anyone that’s ever thought “oh the rich will > never miss a few dollars here or there,” just > doesn’t get and probably never will. What about the fact that people have no choice about what family they are born into? If you are born into poverty and don’t get a good education etc you will likely stay on a low wage your whole life as opposed to someone born into a wealthy family who gets an Ivy league education and inherits a few hundred thousand. Certainly it is much harder to ‘make it’ if you happen to be born into poverty. Do you not feel there is an argument to be made that this is unjust and that the government redistributing wealth can alleviate that somewhat?
OMG! WARREN BUFFET IS A SOCIALIST!
Fair enough, but couldn’t one also argue that without the redistribution of wealth it empowers/forces those less well off to work harder to achieve…or at the very least do the socially/morally responsible thing and not have 5+ kids? “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Churchill
magicskyfairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OMG! WARREN BUFFET IS A SOCIALIST! He is also a hipocrite. If he is so for higher tax, why did he try to avoid the estate tax by giving up most of his fortune to Gates foundation? If he is so for helping the society and the economy, etc. Why not ask his 70 or so companines hire more workers? I do respect his investment return, but I still call him a hipocrite.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > magicskyfairy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > OMG! WARREN BUFFET IS A SOCIALIST! > > He is also a hipocrite. > > If he is so for higher tax, why did he try to > avoid the estate tax by giving up most of his > fortune to Gates foundation? This is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
^ Don’t be a jerk by dumping shit out of your month… Otherwise, I am gonna dye you into a PINK swan this Sunday. Banters aside, what’s wrong with expecting Buffett do what he says?
I’m just saying I don’t think a man giving up the majority of his fortune to charity means they are against taxation or that they are doing it solely to escape an estate tax. You can support both, but simply feel that the benefit to society in that case is greater through the Gates foundation. It’s also not fair to say that he did it to escape taxes. Maybe he did it because he believes the money is going to the best possible cause. Additionally, the fact that it is better used by the Gates foundation in Buffett’s mind does not mean that he does not support taxes. As in most cases people are not taking their tax savings and passing them on to charity, or even if they did they would quickly overwhelm the resources of charitable organizations. Instead on a societal level given realistic societal behaviors, higher taxation may be favorable as most people are not as charitable as Buffett has been.