| Author |
Message |
    
Dennis_c
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 03:08 pm: | 
|
The wealthy paying higher taxes hurt the job creators thats what the RNC said I think thats a bunch of BS my self. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 03:22 pm: |
|
The wealthy paying higher taxes hurt the job creators thats what the RNC said I think thats a bunch of BS my self.
I understand you THINK it's BS, but my question is how specifically would higher taxes help you or anyone else find a job?
Where would that job come from? |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 - 04:06 pm: |
|
It should read "Warren Buffet puts his ass where his mouth is." |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 12:00 am: |
|
Its cool for some to work the system depending who is in office.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044 62704575590642149103202.html |
Buellathebuzzer
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 08:42 am: |
|
Buffet's point is that capital gains SHOULD be taxed like salary income and not on a different rate. The activities generating
Capital gains does little to bolster the rest of the economy so arguing that you're taxing the job creators is false.
And I love this argument that Buffet wants to make it harder for others to become like him. DO THE MATH! Middle and low income Americans out number people in his income bracket by a huge number. It is extremely unlikely that most Bad Web members, I'd venture a guess all, will ever make it into that income bracket.
And as far as class warfare is concerned. STFU, the GOP has been waging class warfare for decades. Their attacks on public education ARE class warfare. They have been trying to destroy public schools since the 70s. Destroy public education, create a middle and lower class that can't perform even the simplest of critical analysis, get free reign to convince them to vote against their own self interest with red herrings like abortion and "special rights" gays. When was the last time a straight person was fired BECAUSE THEY WERE STRAIGHT!
There, I'm done ranting. (for now) |
Buellathebuzzer
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 09:20 am: |
|
and Ft_bstrd: The people who created the Job Creator/Tax link was the GOP and tea party darlings like Michelle (don't get me off my script because I'm not smart enough to speak extemporaneously) Bachmann. Yet again another red herring to get the poor to vote against their own self interest.
now I'm done. for a while. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 09:47 am: |
|
Capital gains does little to bolster the rest of the economy so arguing that you're taxing the job creators is false.
Sure, these companies would be able to hire just as many employees with or without the money that's being invested in their companies. Who are you trying to kid?
And as far as class warfare is concerned. STFU, the GOP has been waging class warfare for decades. Their attacks on public education ARE class warfare.
The Teachers union and Dept. of Education have done a marvelous job of destroying our educational system on their own.
The people who created the Job Creator/Tax link was the GOP and tea party darlings like Michelle (don't get me off my script because I'm not smart enough to speak extemporaneously) Bachmann.
Perhaps if you had been better educated by the Dept. of Education you would know that this goes back at least as far as Lincoln. I'm sure it goes back much farther than that too, but off the top of my head I'm not sure of a firm example. |
Alchemy
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:16 am: |
|
"Sure, these companies would be able to hire just as many employees with or without the money that's being invested in their companies. Who are you trying to kid? "
There is a difference between the process of becoming a public company through an IPO process in one of the public stock markets (which provides cash to the company looking to grow) and the taxing of long term capital gains.
There is no need to have tax incentives for investing as it is a basic risk/reward proposition.
Favorable tax rates on long term capital gains is a whopping gift to the wealthy and a nice thing for the middle class but not of significant value since only a small portion of their income gets the benefit.
If you want to help the middle class it might be equally helpful to cut the tax on dividends. This helps nearly everybody and dumps cash into the economy more quickly.
One of the candidates has a proposal to eliminate/reduce favorable long term capital gains tax handling for those with incomes over 200K. That is an interesting proposal that might get some traction.
Buffet is a very wise fellow that has proven over and over that his understanding of the creation of wealth is very sharp. It pays to listen closely when he see a problem so serious that he puts his own cash on the line to get attention on the problem. |
Buellathebuzzer
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:28 am: |
|
Sifo: Some of the US most prosperous periods, with prosperity spread across the economic spectrum, have been when the effective tax rate was highest on the highest income earners. At best, there is no relationship between higher taxes on the extreme wealthy and job creation.
The only place that capitol gains drives job creation is in venture capitol. And venture capitol can create jobs. But the bulk of capitol gains is not venture capitol and does little to create jobs or drive the economy. For people like Buffet, who earn the bulk of their money on capitol gains income, particularly on investments that do not create domestic jobs, why shouldn't it be taxed like every dollar you and I earn. (assuming you're not in that top 1%, I know I'm not) |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:39 am: |
|
There is no need to have tax incentives for investing as it is a basic risk/reward proposition.
Why do you consider a "tax incentive"? The implication is that the government owns your money and anything they allow you to keep is an incentive. That's just plain wrong. The simple reality is that any tax is a disincentive. No I'm not making an argument to abolish all taxes, but the real baseline to work from is zero taxes. That's what you would have in a truly free market system. Sorry it's just a pet peeve of mine every time I hear the term tax incentive. It's like being happy because the guys that looted your house left the stereo.
On to the real issue... The higher the tax rate the less the reward. It's that simple. The less the reward, the less investment you will see, less working capital to grow the business, therefor less employment. This isn't rocket science.
If you want to help the middle class it might be equally helpful to cut the tax on dividends. This helps nearly everybody and dumps cash into the economy more quickly.
Given that dividends are almost universally automatically reinvested why would you say that this dumps cash into the economy more quickly. That's just false. On top of that, dividends are by definition, new money to the payee, therefor regular income. I'm all for lower tax rates, but your reasoning is flawed. I do however agree that lower tax rates will get cash into the economy more quickly though. I just disagree with how it works.
On top of that, it seems to be quite a conflict to say that lower taxes on dividends will lead to more investment, but lowering tax rates on capital gains will not lead to more investment. Both will increase the reward for investing, therefor increase investments. |
Ulyranger
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:43 am: |
|
It's NOT just the Warren Buffets of Amerika that pay Capital Gains taxes....
Increasing Capital Gains taxes WILL hurt many, many middle income Americans' pocket books directly. The Warren Buffets of the world will always have an army of tax avoidance professionals guiding, protecting their money to their benefit. If he truly wanted to pay more, be charitable he could, w/o any fanfare or propaganda.
Warren Buffet may be wise, but he is also manipulative. If you think he has the best interests of the little guy in America as a guiding motive here I want what you are smoking........or not. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 10:48 am: |
|
Sifo: Some of the US most prosperous periods, with prosperity spread across the economic spectrum, have been when the effective tax rate was highest on the highest income earners. At best, there is no relationship between higher taxes on the extreme wealthy and job creation.
The fatal flaw in your argument is that those periods of high tax rates also had ridiculous tax loopholes that allowed the rich to avoid taxes. Only the very foolish ever actually paid those tax rates. We still suffer from this style of taxation with examples like GE making huge profits while paying zero taxes. It's a failed system designed to provide benefit to the rich as a reward for political support for the crooks in charge.
The only place that capitol gains drives job creation is in venture capitol. And venture capitol can create jobs. But the bulk of capitol gains is not venture capitol and does little to create jobs or drive the economy. For people like Buffet, who earn the bulk of their money on capitol gains income, particularly on investments that do not create domestic jobs, why shouldn't it be taxed like every dollar you and I earn. (assuming you're not in that top 1%, I know I'm not)
If that were true then all private investors could pull their money out of the stock market on Monday morning and not cause any disturbance in the operation of the companies. You are simply wrong. |
Rsh
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 02:12 pm: |
|
If Warren Buffet is so bothered by his lack of tax liability, why doesn't he just write out a big ol fat check to the government instead of just talking about matching Republicans contributions.
He's just another hack like all the rest that should STFU. |
Two_seasons
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 03:58 pm: |
|
Buell.a.t.b., are you as stupid as you sound/look?
First off, capital gains are paid AFTER someone has risked capital. Some win, some lose. All pay taxes/offset taxes on that risk. The largest shareholder today = middle-class America.
Second. Michele Bachmann can't talk off the cuff! Don't be so pious there...I recall BHO talking via a teleprompter to a bunch of grade-school children!!!!!
Third. Regarding class warfare, are you kidding me. Take any major US city that is or used to be a manufacturing hub and is/has been run by Democrats over the years/decades and all you see is decay. Detroit, Philly, Gary, Dayton, E. St Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Rochester, Toledo, Rockford, Buffalo. Driven through these cities lately? All were manufacturing hubs that made this country great. All had great middle class jobs! Most don't exist there anymore. Why, because the public schools were/are crap, those teachers/administrators that care and expect better are/were ushered out! Remember D.C.'s superintendent? ENOUGH is/was never enough when it comes/came to taxes and sticking it to the man!
This is where we are today! Those that produce and those that don't but want what I've produced and rightfully earned to become theirs. If they bankrupt me, where do they get their cheese? Chavez, Ahmadinejad????? After several TRILLION dollars WASTED on the program started by LBJ et al called the "war on poverty", how come we don't have zero poverty in this country? Our gov't does more venture capital today via OUR TAX MONEY than all the private venture capitalist projects combined! Geesh, talk about picking the winners and losers!!!!!
Is this all the better we can do for Republican candidates with over 300M to pick from? If it's not about the power, why then isn't there any from the Democrat party that want to run against the empty suit known as BHO? |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 07:50 pm: |
|
Remember D.C.'s superintendent?
Are you talking about the one who got kicked out of Rochester, NY? (Clifford Janey) Part of the deal with his leaving... with his money... was the school system couldn't badmouth him. So DC hired him. Suckers.
My letter for his resume would have read.
"If you hire Dr. janey I'm sure he'll find working for your district an enriching experience. His relatives may find it quite enriching too. Based on our experience of his work your students will set new records in the lowering of GPA's and graduation levels. Good luck, and let us know if you do Hire the good Dr., as wee will be sure to drop any local stocks form our portfolios."
On Warren.
I did notice that the President immediately stopped using "private jet ownership" as a curse AFTER Warren Buffet endorsed his neo-marxist class envy rhetoric. Buffet makes a lot of money on biz jets. A lot.
Obama makes a lot off W. Buffet. There was never a seconds danger that Warren would spend one tiny penny more in taxes than he absolutely has too, and in fact pays far less, for as long as his lawyers can delay. Billions less. |
Two_seasons
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2012 - 08:28 pm: |
|
Not that super...this super who resigned when the teachers were challenged and some fired. Best super they had in a very long time.
Here's an article on it...
http://btx3.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/dc-schools-su perintendent-resigns/
wiki entry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee
(Message edited by two_seasons on January 21, 2012) |
Benm2
| | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 - 09:40 am: |
|
quote:The ONLY way that the gains would not be treated as ordinary income is for the executive to put up his own capital, purchase the shares and hold those shares for two full years without the ability to sell or exchange those shares. This is all the while the stock is subject to market volatility.
That's right. I believe this happens with reasonable frequency. There is some risk of loss, but I see it like this: companies will either pay a divdidend, self-invest, or issue stock buybacks to increase the value of stock. You and I disagree about the frequency and likelyhood, but it does seem possible.
Generally though I agree that the method for taxing is crazy. If I were making that much money, I'd be doing everything I could to shield it from the 38% tax bracket. I think you're the one who said everyone should have skin in the game and I agree. 50% with no tax liability is the silly part, and taxing the "rich" isn't going to solve the problem.
The rest of the world - major manufacturers and growing companies - seem prepared to accept two things: Lean Manufacturing (more with less) and Innovate or Die (self explanatory). Our goverment seems to be missing those concepts to our detriment.
I wonder what the cost of operations versus revenue for the Post Office, for example, compares to UPS or FedEx... |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 12:14 am: |
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s -burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-reject ion-of-pipeline.html |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 12:46 am: |
|
The rest of the world - major manufacturers and growing companies - seem prepared to accept two things: Lean Manufacturing (more with less) and Innovate or Die (self explanatory). Our goverment seems to be missing those concepts to our detriment.
Worse. It means that corporations, existing and yet to be created, will be forced to outsource in order to even stay in business or be created.
Taxes do have consequences in spite of what people thing. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 09:23 am: |
|
Oh no, we can't build a pipeline from Canada to Texas!
Lets see, here's a partial map of existing lines.
http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/crude-pl.html
The new line would bring oil not only from Canada but from oilfields all across the north central US.
The companies involved in building this have spent millions on surveys, environmental impact statements etc. and it all went *poof* with one word from Obama. It is no wonder that businesses are deathly afraid to invest the trillions they're sitting on. They're shared shitless of what he'll do next. |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 11:02 am: |
|
>>>They're shared shitless of what he'll do next.
Investment . . in this crucify the successful era . . .is quieting slipping out of the USA.
We will be getting the same Canadian oil. We'll be buying it from the Chinese.
Better news today is that we exported a bunch of good old Texas Drilling Technology to a foreign government, didn't charge them and are, with Chinese financing, buy our oil from them.
When I grow up I am going to be a neighborhood organizer. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 11:17 am: |
|
And of course, I meant *scared* not shared. |
Phatkidwit1eye
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 02:09 am: |
|
If oil is sold on the open market, does it really matter where we buy it from? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 08:52 am: |
|
If oil is sold on the open market, does it really matter where we buy it from?
I don't know. You think the Chinese will sell it to us for the same price they bought it from the Canadians or do you think they'll charge more? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 09:13 am: |
|
The title of this thread is misleading. All talk, no action, and really lame talk at that. First because he's not had to put any money anywhere. If he thinks he ought to pay more taxes, then to "put his money where his mouth is" means nothing less than actually writing another big check to the IRS, period. Anything less is just grandstanding.
Second, an uber-wealthy person like Buffet risks very little relatively speaking in such a challenge. There are no BILLIONaire Republicans in congress let alone multi-BILLIONaire Republican congressmen. The truth is that all the Republicans in congress could hand over their entire net worth, and it wouldn't phase Buffet to match it; he'd still be a multi-BILLIONaire.
Third, why just challenge Republicans, who in general favor reduced spending and, reduced taxes? It is the Democrats who always want to take/tax more and redistribute more as they see fit. Of the ten wealthiest congressmen, seven are Democrats; of the eight wealthiest, only one is Republican.
So the truth is that Buffet hasn't in any meaningful sense at all "put his money where his mouth is."
Truth matters. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 11:38 am: |
|
If oil is sold on the open market, does it really matter where we buy it from?
Aside from the inevitable profit incurred as it changes hands, the matter of physically moving the oil all around the globe instead of straight across the US/Canada border is going to cost much more. It also just isn't green! |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 11:50 am: |
|
Moving the oil to China, and then back to the US makes no sense. It would cost more than the market value, and no one would buy it.
The person in physical possession of the oil does not set the price, the commodities market does. Also, when you see oil selling for $100 a barrel, that's for light sweet crude. This stuff is well below that. It is harder to refine, and doesn't have the same yield.
Refineries on the US Gulf Coast are already set up to refine low grade oil, because that's what we get from Venezuela. Wouldn't it be nice to send dollars to Canada, a liberal democracy, instead of Venezuela, a country rapidly descending into totalitarian Marxism/Communism?
In other words, if you are against the pipeline, you are a freedom hating communist!  |
|
