Defending a raise on taxes is asking for a system that provides consistent revenues for infrastructure, qualification of the labour force and servicing the debt. It has nothing to do with charity.
@david52875 You misunderstood my comment. What I'm saying is that this "why don't you make a donation instead of defending tax raises" argument is nonsense. What you do with the tax revenues, that's a whole other issue.
Buffet is talking about income tax that we all share, not dividend income -which his secretary (meaning = lower 2/3 of America) has little of. Kinda missed the point. Average rates for people over 2 million$ has declined steadily since 1960 - Economic Report of President 2010.
@enverbatim You missed the opening of the show where he said that Buffet doesn't pay himself an income. He doesn't pay himself, as CEO of the company that he owns, any salary. So he can't be taxed an income tax. However, as the owner of his company, he pays a 35% corporate tax on all of his profit(after expenses) then he gets taxed on his dividend (the money he gets back from owning stocks in his own company) at 15%. So 50% of his combined income is taken back as taxes.
Right, but the upper classes earn most their income through dividends. So raising income taxes on them is pointless and will only fall on the lower classes.
The comments on this page are off the mark, because they are mixing balancing the governments' budget with stimulating the economy. If the government tries to balance its' budget, it may retard the economy. On the other hand, if the government tries to stimulate the economy, it may unbalance the budget. The reason the comments are off the mark is that people are trying to balance the budget and stimulate the economy at the same time. This may not be possible!
@loeghat He he. Well, you said it! It's a very long time since the free market has been allowed to work. It's a urban myth since most men want democracy and power over your neighboor and not their own production and body. Free Market is allways the end game. The buble has to burst. It's just life.
The logical conclusion from saying that Warren Buffet should donate, if he wants to raise taxes, is that only people who don't want taxes should not donate.
If people don't want taxes, and also don't want to donate, then since this is a democracy, then why not do away with all taxes, and resolve the argument?
Then everyone can pay fees for the military, law enforcement, road building, postal sevices, medical care, etc, etc.
@sampraki That's true. This is the logical conclusion from what he is saying. Those who don't want to pay taxes shouldn't pay taxes, as whoever don't want to buy CocaCola don't pay fort he CocaCola. Free market ftw.
That only works if your public sector is larger than your private sector. Neither of ours are, so the logic doesn't work.
Besides, private sector companies surely benefit from the loss of another private company, don't they? So surely using your logic you aren't "generating wealth" either, you are just taking from one hand and giving to another?
Increasing taxes means that less money is concentrated in fewer hands. The economy will be healthier when we realise that the majority of the rich are lying to us for a quick, easy buck.
Warren Buffett realises this and knows that it is in his interests to pay more taxes to increase the health of the economy which in turn will increase the quality of the investments that are available to him!
Buffett isn't a "get rich quick" kinda guy. He is willing to wait decades for decent returns.
@afro84 That's not true at all. Buffett is full of shit like Schiff pointed out. If he truly believed his bullshit, he would write a check to the Treasury Department. More so, increased taxes results in lower tax revenue, and this is a statistical fact. Christ, did you even watch the video? You sound like a fucking moron.
@kommisar Then show me the "facts" instead of insults!
People at the bottom are more likely to spend all of their money each month, so if you increase taxes on the bottom then you sap money from the economy that would otherwise be spent elsewhere. If instead you take taxes from the top then you impact the economy less, since this money will then be paid to a public sector worker and re-enter the GDP equation, whereas otherwise it would simple sit in a bank account/money market fund/stock/bond.
@afro84 You may have heard of the Laffer Curve, but whether or not you believe in that, the statistics cannot be dismissed. I am sure liberals such as you never bother looking at these, but here are a couple articles:
house [dot] gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct [dot] htm
american dot] com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
@kommisar The Laffer curve may have some weight, but in my country (the UK) we have recently raised the tax rate over £150k from 40% to 50% and backed it up with clamping down on tax avoidance. All of the evidence is pointing towards this having a positive impact on reducing our deficit (although we won't know for certain until the 10/11 tax returns are filed).
@afro84 At least half your reasoning is completely bogus. Saying money is better spent on a government employee than sitting in a stock, asset or bank account is just plain ignorant. The rich often buy up government bonds for one, but really the money does not necessarily just "sit" there unused. Often a wealthy person will use it to invest in, other than the things I aforementioned, businesses. The problem has a lot to do with tax code making the country business-unfriendly.
@afro84 The main problem with your logic is you have fallen for the myth that is spread throughout liberal and Keynesian dogma that spending from the government creates wealth. This is completely false. What creates wealth is saving, investment and innovation from the private sector. If there were any validity to your logic, the war efforts and huge military spending in general would be making us the richest, most financially solvent nation in the world by far. It doesn't though.
@kommisar Government can create wealth, just as any private entity can. The issue with what you mention has nothing to do with a public/private entity it is a debt/solvency issue.
All "generates wealth" means is that you are able to take $1 and turn it into goods worth > $1. If you ran a private entity with a budgetary deficit and financed it with more and more debt, then you wouldn't be generating much shareholder wealth, would you? It's exactly the same for governments.
No, it can't, because it can only get the capital from the producers in the private sector, and thus doesn't produce wealth. It's a matter of stealing from one hand and giving to the other.
Haha, the UK is in as much shit as the U.S. depending on the country. There are very few countries in Europe doing decent economically, and none include the UK. Even then, your argument is flawed because you can't say for certain the tax increases have a causative relationship with the lowering debt.
Warren Buffet owns a large interest in Moody's. Whenever he speaks keep in mind that he is an Obama administration mouthpiece. Do your own research and don't listen to the talking heads - they're lying to you.
BH is not Warren buffet it is a private company that is it's own person legally speaking. Warren buffet is commenting that his income is taxed less then the income of everyday earners. I think there is a difference in passive income and real earned income.
@davehlgrn your statement doesnt make any sense. BH is not warren buffet? WTF does that have to do with anything? he is the largest stock holder think think think
BH is not Warren buffet it is a private company that is it's own person legally speaking. Warren buffet is commenting that his income is taxed less then the income of everyday earners.
I am sorry but Buffet made great point about taxing the rich. This why don't you make any donations is stupid, because ALL OF THE RICH don't pay enough taxes! Get that we must tax the richest not only ask to donate plsss!!!
First of all, Berkshire Hathway's effective tax rate in 2010 was 31% not 35%, according to tax analysts website. But this number is probably much lower in the end since there are countless loopholes and also deferred tax payments.
Second, Berkshire does not pay dividends.
Third, your analysis on tax rates seems very very suspect, show me your calcs.
not all of his money is in BH. Theres a big reason why all these executives dont take their pay in payroll and rather take stock options. The payroll income would be taxed at a much higher rate than 15%. They aren't that dumb. Buffet is just dishonest and ignores the effect the corporate income tax on his stock options. The amount he gets from stocks is after the corp pays 35% in taxes, so his tax rate is truly a lot higher than 17%, he wouldve gotten more if corp tax was lower
WB doesn't have stock options in BH. He owns stocks. Learn the difference. By the way, he himself urged the government to raise the tax on dividends and similar incomes just the other day.
And no, not the lower tax is the incentive in stock options.
This guy does not know what he is talking about. A corporation is a private entity so it gets taxed on its own. This means that the corporation gets taxed on its own transactions. That is the purpose of a Corporation! This is also the reason that corporations can now donate to political campaigns.
He is taking a flashlight and illuminating small amounts information to try to make a argument. He obviously does not understand the way the economy works.
Peter says Warren pays dividend tax, but I think he’s wrong on that; Warren pays long-term capital gains tax, but it’s roughly the same, so no big deal there.
Most of the rich dont pay shit because they can afford tax lawyers and financial people to cook the books and hide their money in investments and tax shelters.
Peter..this is the best thing that you have done since writing your book about the coming economic crash...I'm standing up and giving you an ovation ! Bravo !
Obama has used Buffett as a punching bag, even bashing corporate jets, one of Buffetts favorite perks and businesses. Buffett is such a sellout desperate to be liked that he has capitulated like a whip-dog. Unlike Steve Wynn who fights back. Buffett finally struck back on the corp jet "subsidy" lie. Calling a "deduction" a "subsidy" is clear proof of Obama's lies. They are two totally different things, which Obama confuses on purpose to fool voters, and the compliant press goes along like fools.
I just sent Berkshire Hathaway a nasty email, calling Buffett a pandering liar and an enemy to all true conservatives. Screw him! He's telling lies so he'll be liked by the liberal media. I encourage others to call his bluff and call him a lying dog. He needs to hear the truth. Screw Buffett. He supports Obama's nonsense too. He's a Democrat shill sellout. He's scared of poor people now. Screw him and his lies! Call BH on the phone now and tell Buffett what you think of his crap.
Glad you posted this. Warren Buffett is lying too be liked. He feels guilty being so rich, so he tries to be on the side of the little guy. But he's speaking bad economics that hurts the rest of us. Raising taxes on the wealthy is immoral and economic folly. Equality is a flat tax. The more you make, the more you pay. Say 20% for everyone. Any higher is immoral theft of my time and property. Most rich pay over 50% when you include state, sales, property, gas tax, etc. No matter how you slice it.
Buffet is paying less taxes because of all the tax breaks and shelters his allowed under law. The corporation are NOT paying 35% taxes, as they also have major tax breaks and shelters. So, you are missing the point that Buffet is making. Very wealthy people do not pay the same level of taxes as the middle working class.
@brett2100 theoretically you should get any "tax" back as it is merely a tool for the government to redistribute wealth, although often it is wasted due to the poor choice of were to re-invest this wealth.
If taxs are cheaper now, why is it that every single thing I do is taxed, and I pay city, state and fed income tax? I'm being taxed on taxes! My city taxes my homeowner's and car insurance, sat tv [until I cancelled] my internet, my telephone, you name it. My wages are taxed in the city [joke] where I work, even when I work in another city in the county. We are slaves to government, cut and dried.
@gringott12 The reason is that the upper 5% pay 20% tax instead of 91% like they used to, which greatly decreased overall tax revenue and destroyed the middle class in America. Thanks Reagan!
@heelspurs You are clueless. I was a young adult during Jimmy Carter. Regan dragged us back from the brink. Are you so foolish as to think some multi-millionaire actually paid 90% of his or her income in tax? You better get off the mind altering drugs if you do.
@gringott12 Of course taking us from biggest creditor to biggest debtor status in only 8 years stimulated the economy. Cancelling all of Carter's energy independence initiatives also helped....in the short run. These are different issues than the long-term effects from destroying the middle class. As far as millionaires paying 90% income tax from the 1940's into 1960's, I can only refer to the tax tables. Do you have some facts you could share?
@heelspurs What energy independence initatives? The Energy Department? Turning down the thermostat? Wearing a sweater? Those were the ones that nutjob was pushing. I don't disagree that we went from a creditor to debtor nation, now please explain how Reagan did it by himself. Was Congress on vacation for 8 years? Same with Carter, he did not do it alone. You and Al Jeezera agree, that I noted. Time to break the two party mindset. They are the same party, the Statist Party.
@gringott12 In the Carter & Reagan years, presidents actually made a difference, provided they had the support of the people. Carter: Gas-guzzlers were going to be severely penalized. He kicked solar off with a bang giving a plan for 20% of electricity by 2020, which Reagan promptly killed. His 1977 speech kick insulation off, too. Reagan brought us back from the brink and yet congress sent us into debt? 5 Q's from you & yet you didn't answer my 1 Q. Facts instead of emotion, please.
@heelspurs I was an adult during that time. The President had no more power than he or she would have today under the Constitution. Congress appropriates money. Your arguement is a bunch of "what-if". What if they invented fairy dust? Gas-guzzlers were going to be penalized - why didn't he? Plan for 20% electricity by 2020, wow, what a plan, over 40 years he planned out - who was paying for that? Can't do it now, how then? There was insulation before Carter - you are a lame thinker. Wakeup.
Yes, let's go back to cheaper 1950's taxes. My tax rate would be 26% while Peter's would be 91%. Here are the tax rates for $100k and over $2M. Look at what happened under Reagan.
Remember Reagan's "tax cuts" that turned us from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation? Turns out that was just a gift to the wealthy the middle class now has to pay off. $100k and $2 million in constant 2009 dollars. How about the 1950's boom? Strange how the middle class didn't need to give the rich cheap taxes in order to bless us with the wisdom of their investments. The middle class does fine on it's own.
@heelspurs apparently you weren't paying attention. Inflation adjusted, $2 Million today would be roughly $200,000 in 1950. Assuming Peter makes $2 Million a year (we have no way of know what he makes today), he would pay roughly 26%. $ 2 million in 1950 would be equal to $2 Billion today. The only people making $2 Billion today, or $2 Million in 1950 are investors and pay "Capital Gains Taxes". Please at least attempt to compare apples to apples when making your arguments. Thanks!
@captcorona maybe I do need to go through his reasoning again since tax on $200,000 income in 1950 was 91%. Look at 2nd link down on google when searching "historical tax tables"
@heelspurs ... You are allowed your own opinion but not your own facts... At least for this argument let's stick w/ Peters numbers which are 10%..as in His example $250k today equals $25k in 1950... IE $2 Million in 1950 would equal $200 Million today...I correct my earlier assertion by one decimal point..to that you have my apology..It does not however change the core of my argument..Which is NO One paid 90% income/payroll taxes on their income in 1950. They paid Capital Gains taxes. 15% now!
@captcorona you're still off a decimal place: $2M => $20 M. OK, point well taken. I see 25% on capital gains in 1950. But I suspect the wealthy. If my point is true (a continuation of a portion of "Reaganomics" is killing the middle class), there would need to be a much higher percent of taxes from the upper 5% in 1950 compared to 1990 and now. I'll have to look that up sometime.
@heelspurs Why do you feel the need to compare tax rates to previous years... in the 50's we were the only manufacturing base in the world, so we can set whatever rates we wanted because where else can you build something?? no where but here.....
This might come as a shock to you, but it is no longer the 1950's ... and manufacturing could be done anywhere now.... and what a shock, the places getting the most investment capital is China, India and Brazil.... why? cost of business.. taxes.
Regarding Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway has never paid dividends, so his income was from long term capital gains which aren't doubly taxed like dividends.
Regarding the rest of the tax myths, the video is spot on.
No one is saying the 250,000 %ers are not being taxed enough. The issue is people who make more than you. Your talk points are stupid bullshit too.. Leave the 250k bracket the fuck alone. The .0001 - .01% are the issue. So, any clown who calls someone who makes 250k is wealthy isn't worth any consideration. Man up and re do your numbers for people earning 200/300/500ish million to several billion. Democrats are clowns but this republican/libertarian talk point is just as deceptive.
Just because Warren is rich doesn't mean he's evil he's the biggest charity donator.he donates in billions . And another thing Warren is against taxing the middle class. He always says that the rich have to pay higher taxes than the middle class
@FinancialVideos1 It is weird Schiff is going this direction. If anyone didn't loose immediate trust in him after this it is only because they are stupid. The 250k bracket are not wealthy or rich by any standard. This is a typical republican/libertarian talk point. Talk about cosmetics in a slanted way near elections. The issue is the .0001 - .01% of the rich.... I do not know if the top 1% should even be included. Don't get me wrong democrats are just as disgusting.
Mr. Schiff..... you have jumped the shark! We need to create revenue in this country! Your solution is to keep taxes low, and let corporations create jobs. That hasn't worked very well so far correct? Just keep buying gold & silver!
@psurge38 its illogical to say that taxes are lower than ever, even if you disregaurd all the facts (which you have to in order to think they are at their lowest) just looking at it logically should prove you wrong. The american military is the biggest its ever been, there are more departments than ever, there are more programs and subsidies than ever, there are more agencies, offices and federal employees than ever, does logic tell you that this is all done with less spending? stop being dumb
not to mention the measure of the federal governments financial cost to the country is not what it taxes in any one form but what it taxes in all forms, this means that its not just income tax, infact that is not even 20% of the tax burden. peter mentioned the other federal payroll taxes, but the majority of what the gov taxes is its debt and inflation, when it raises the debt amount that is the same as raising a tax, infact its worse becuase interest adds on to it.
He promised to make the biggest donation of all time, but this has nothing to do with Schiff's argument. If Warren Buffet wants to pay more in taxes, he merely needs to write the government a check. Insofar as his actual argument is concerned, the top 1% of income earners account for 33% of the nations total federal tax revenue, and the top 10% accounts for around 70%. The bottom 50%, on the other hand, accounts for only 3%. In other words, WB is full of shit.
it's pretty basic to say: if you dont have the money to cover it, dont spend it. that's an austrian. current economics says: debt doesn't matter, spend it anyway (but instead of "spend" the gov't & politicians use bullshit words like "invest").
@tmac9938 Nice special pleading fallacy. Just because I say that it doesn't work doesn't mean I don't understand it, it simply mean I don't believe that it works. Government should not be ran like a market. Back when everything was at a "gold standard" we had recessions depressions like crazy dating far far back in history. I government should always hold deficit, its good. We cant have deflation every decade and have the government fall apart, they need to have extra spending ability.
@theUSER101 two assumptions you're making with that comment.
1st, not all austrians support a gold standard. many advocate using a basket of resources to represent the currency, in addition to using to using gold. also, many advocate for competing currencies rather than 1 monopoly (the dollar). a pretty solid solution/stance to prevent corruption.
@theUSER101 2nd, natural "deflation" of a currency is a good thing. in a natural free market with sound money, currencies rise in value because production becomes more efficient over time as producers perfect their methods (it becomes cheaper to produce). this added efficiency increases your purchasing power, thus increasing the currency ("deflating" it).
now, true, it is difficult for gov'ts to spend with sound money. but that's a good thing. look what happens when there's no restraint...2008.
I think your naive Peter, the "rich" that are having access to these excessivly low taxes are not the 250 000 -millions. I would suggest that the rich would at minumum start at 50 000 000 and above. I think if you looked at how they handle their money it would be shocking to you. I saw Robert Kiyosaki was on with you to talk about this but you didn't really listen, your caught up thinking every ones pays like you do, but they do not!
Nice response itachi. Things I noticed in the first 4 minutes (I couldn't listen any longer): He complains how Buffett is a hypocrite bc he doesn't donate his money but it is common knowledge that he is giving away the bulk of his $ when he dies. He also mentions that Buffett pays taxes on the dividends he receives from BRK. This is impossible since BRK doesn't pay dividends. Thereason you have to make 10x more now than 1950 is bc of inflation. The average income was $3,000 in 1950.
If it were not for the bailouts Buffett wealth would have been wiped out by as much as 75%. BH are/were heavily invested in AIG, Goldman etc., who would have to sold their derivatives if they had not got bailed out via the tax payer.
Copy and paste this link into Google or search Rolf Winkler’s Buffett Betrayal dated Aug. 2009. Buffett needed to the bailouts to go through so he could continue hanging out with the big boys at the tax payer's expense of course!
@BlackSheepReport YUP. "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." P.J. O'Rourke
”Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money. There is no more important challenge facing us than this issue -- the restoration of your freedom to secure gold in exchange for the fruits of your labors.” – 1948.
I understand there are alot of things to take into consideration, but this is a garbled mess peter. Slow down. Start from the basic and work your way up.
@MustangManiac1115 I agree this is a little hard to follow, especially for a novice. I think this would be a great post if it was a little better organized, and showed charts along the way. I agree - build this argument up from the bottom and let the conclusions follow logically. With charts. Then you'll have something that I feel confident in sending to my friends for consideration. Thanks!
It's actually not that simple, unfortunately. Well it's simple for people who think that very simple interpretations of statistics like that are irrefutable evidence. The fact of the matter is, however, there were dozens of other variables... some of which aren't easily quantified. For instance, it is noteworthy that during that time there was quite a bit of fake "wealth" with the dot com bubble. Is that really prosperity? Or is it unsustainable? I agree with you about military, nice comparison.
In my estimation, Warren Buffet is an old thief and he is in favor of higher taxes because he feels guilty about all the money he earned dishonestly. As a teenager he invested in pinball machines. Traditionally this is a business controlled by organized crime and the only reason why he didn't get his legs broken and his machines vandalized was because his father was a politician. My guess is that he has been operating on the outskirts of the law his entire career.
Peter's argument is simple, logical, and correct. One just needs common sense to understand it. free from economic mumbo jumbo and jargon the keynesians use to confuse things.
@mistermassive1 if the mega-rich aren't just like you and me, what are they? Lizards, Aliens, Cyborgs? How about people stop stealing from each other through government force on the one hand and on the other leave people alone so they can start their own businesses.
While much of what Schiff says is inaccurate and exaggerated, he is completely right about Buffet. Buffet is a scumbag crook and liar. He is basically a shill for the US fascist government. However, Schiff is wrong about taxes. They are too low. This is a fact. But they are too low for the wealthy only. Taxes are not too low relative to GDP. If you look at the historical tax rates over thepast 100 years you will see this.
@exposingcrooks If tax rates go up, who would consider hiring more workers?
It does not seem the right thing to do when our country is in a recession. That would be too risky that more unemployment would be the result. I think we should lower tax rates but also consider limiting interest deductions for everyone. That could be phased in over 10 years, so it wouldn't be a drastic change and there could be some minimum amount allowed to still encourage home ownership for families.
@CPAsheldon Tax rates have very little to do with hiring. The fact is that taxes shluld have been raised many years ago. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and these useless wars in the Middle East made things even worse. US companies are not hiring in America because they can find much cheaper labor overseas. You should read America's Financial Apocalypse written by Mike Stathis in 2006 if you want to understand what is happening and why. That book predicted everything.
@exposingcrooks Taxes are too low for the wealthy? Omg. Peter pays upwards of half his income in taxes. Is that not enough? Man, who the fuck are you to say taxes are too low? That's like saying theft needs to go up.
@HandyMan101 What country do you live in? The highest tax bracket is under 36% you tool. And Schiff isn't wealthy. His new-found income was the rsult of duping idiots like you to buy into his useless books which he didnt even write and which dont help you a damn bit. Its shocking to see how any stupid people America has. Schiff is laughing all the way to the bank fooling you idiots.
I used to respect Buffett. The last few years you can tell he's been totally co-opted by the globalists. His father, Howard, is probably spinning in his grave.
@SMWhit3out plus state taxes in most states gets you back close to 50%, but that is deductible also so there are 50 different answers in our country before you consider that some cities have income tax.
I don't understand all the resistance to reverting to Clinton era tax rates. The Bush tax cuts have clearly been a failure. What's even more amusing is how Republicans have convinced their middle class supporters that tax cuts for the rich are good for the middle class. All spending cuts they want to make are to social programs, yet the bloated military budget remains untouched.
@TeaParty1776, it's good that you tow the party line, however where is the proof that the rich are investing in production? Also, the military is a social program(paid for by taxpayers and run by government), so are you for cutting military spending to the same degree as social programs? It's very simple if you look at recent history. America was prosperous during the Clinton tax era, and 10 years after the Bush tax cuts America is broke.
@TheSkinzilla You miss my point about coincidences and causes. Tax cuts leave money w/private investors. Thats an absolute. But, in current situation, those private investors are afraid that more govt intervention will stop successful investment. If govt decreased intervention, private investors would invest. And Clinton prosperity was not, could not, be caused by higher taxes because that decreases money that can be privately invested. Clinton prosperity was caused by Internet revolution and...
...and Clinton using SS to pay for non-SS govt programs. Tax increases cannot increase production. Govt consumes, not produces. Govt is an octopus w/tentacles in almost the whole economy but its so chaotic its difficult to trace causes and effects. You need a principle: private investment produces. Govt consumes.
i think Buffett pays none to little in taxes , because probably all his personal expenses are financed by pretax corporate dollars as his business is his life. also i don't think he pays what Peter said , he simply spends (reinvests etc) all the corporate profit prior to declaring it as a profit, as any normal business tries to do.
However, Buffett not paying taxes gives Buffett NO rights to advocate more violence, theft and robbery of other people with taxes!!!
i c what AleXGT7 tried to say and i agree it is wrong but srsly? ppl take to much pleasure in the use of the thumbsup and down mechanic. it got a thumbs up from me.
Poor Uncle Warren. He wants to give all his money to a charity, which means that money won't be taxed at all. meanwhile, former fair haired boy, Dave Sokol, and partner Charlie Munger are front running Berkshire and making millions. He could always pay his secretary in other ways to cut her tax load. Warren's a lying douche.
I get Buffet's argument that he would volunteer to pay more if other rich people did but he won't donate by himself- its the collective action problem.
The thing that bugs me is Warren Buffet is pretending his allegiance is with all people and not just the rich and powerful. This is inconsistent with the lies he is spewing about the state of the economy.
1,000,000,000 a year = 124,000 dollars an hour, 24/7 . this person makes the avg family income in just over 2 hours. mind you this is caclulated over a 24/7 work week. this guy makes more money a week taking a dumb then the avg family makes all year long LITTERALLY . You could not be more off base here.
Peter, your comparing a secretary to warren buffet? your comparing a family that makes 250K a year who takes the standard deduction to warren buffet? there is a HUGE difference between those that make 250k, millionaires, and BILLIONaires. This comparision is a scam. your playing on the lack of comprehension the avg person has of large numbers. It is NOT a liniar scale.
@BadWithNames123 no it wasnt, the point was warren buffet admitted he needed to pay higher taxes. not a family making 250k a year, HIM. Peter is trying to say that he is infact paying too much in taxes. I say peter is crazy. granted, NO ONE should have to pay 40 or even 30% in taxes. After city, state, federal, gas, and every other tax, I pay around 60% a year. single, non homeowner. its robbery, true this. But if hes saying I should pay more in % then warren buffet, I have a problem with that.
splitting it down the middle does a nice job of hiding the tax relief a single earner making 250k because of the fact that SS tax cuts at I think 110k. So in your scenario, both people are paying SS tax on all their income, whereas if it were one earner making 250k, only the first 110k would have SS tax. In the 50's most households had only 1 worker and you are comparing that to 2 earners.
I think Peter Schiff missed Warren Buffetts point. That he does not have to pay any taxes, he can just borrow pereptually, (there is no tax on loans) Because Warren Buffett has such good credit, it's much cheaper for him to do this than to pay taxes.
All these rich elite make me sick giving thousands and millions in donations and I sit here cant even pay my rent or my bills. Hell 500 dollars is alot for me and I hear about these organizations getting millions donated to them and they do nothing to help American people. The fact of the matter is our planet earth is a grain of sand and these elites think they are so powerful and better than everyone else when in fact they are just like any other man.
@BadWithNames123 Having money will mean notthing in the end what I have these rich elite cant get with all there money in the world and that is the holy spirit of God. Money is just something that was made to have contol over people and it works because most people only care about money like the elite. These acult elite that think they are like gods with there eugenics and mind control will have alot to answer for at judgement! Living a life for god is number one on my list not being rich!
@chaosmucker Sadly..... God doesn't care, if he has he has taken no direct action. Rather than talk about your lovely god on the internet let's talk about what we can do in it's direct physical absence.
Defending a raise on taxes is asking for a system that provides consistent revenues for infrastructure, qualification of the labour force and servicing the debt. It has nothing to do with charity.
luizcadu 1 month ago
@luizcadu So none of the budget goes to welfare spending, huh? Please pull your head out of your ass before commenting.
david52875 1 day ago
@david52875 You misunderstood my comment. What I'm saying is that this "why don't you make a donation instead of defending tax raises" argument is nonsense. What you do with the tax revenues, that's a whole other issue.
luizcadu 1 day ago
Buffet is talking about income tax that we all share, not dividend income -which his secretary (meaning = lower 2/3 of America) has little of. Kinda missed the point. Average rates for people over 2 million$ has declined steadily since 1960 - Economic Report of President 2010.
enverbatim 4 months ago
@enverbatim You missed the opening of the show where he said that Buffet doesn't pay himself an income. He doesn't pay himself, as CEO of the company that he owns, any salary. So he can't be taxed an income tax. However, as the owner of his company, he pays a 35% corporate tax on all of his profit(after expenses) then he gets taxed on his dividend (the money he gets back from owning stocks in his own company) at 15%. So 50% of his combined income is taken back as taxes.
MonfangHowlett 4 months ago 3
@enverbatim
Right, but the upper classes earn most their income through dividends. So raising income taxes on them is pointless and will only fall on the lower classes.
fountainherz 2 months ago
The secretary is paid by a company, which is taxed by corporate income tax. Therefore the secretary is taxed twice too.
CambridgeHeights 5 months ago
The comments on this page are off the mark, because they are mixing balancing the governments' budget with stimulating the economy. If the government tries to balance its' budget, it may retard the economy. On the other hand, if the government tries to stimulate the economy, it may unbalance the budget. The reason the comments are off the mark is that people are trying to balance the budget and stimulate the economy at the same time. This may not be possible!
sampraki 5 months ago
@loeghat He he. Well, you said it! It's a very long time since the free market has been allowed to work. It's a urban myth since most men want democracy and power over your neighboor and not their own production and body. Free Market is allways the end game. The buble has to burst. It's just life.
larsiemannen 5 months ago
The logical conclusion from saying that Warren Buffet should donate, if he wants to raise taxes, is that only people who don't want taxes should not donate.
If people don't want taxes, and also don't want to donate, then since this is a democracy, then why not do away with all taxes, and resolve the argument?
Then everyone can pay fees for the military, law enforcement, road building, postal sevices, medical care, etc, etc.
sampraki 5 months ago
@sampraki That's true. This is the logical conclusion from what he is saying. Those who don't want to pay taxes shouldn't pay taxes, as whoever don't want to buy CocaCola don't pay fort he CocaCola. Free market ftw.
larsiemannen 5 months ago
That only works if your public sector is larger than your private sector. Neither of ours are, so the logic doesn't work.
Besides, private sector companies surely benefit from the loss of another private company, don't they? So surely using your logic you aren't "generating wealth" either, you are just taking from one hand and giving to another?
afro84 6 months ago
Increasing taxes means that less money is concentrated in fewer hands. The economy will be healthier when we realise that the majority of the rich are lying to us for a quick, easy buck.
Warren Buffett realises this and knows that it is in his interests to pay more taxes to increase the health of the economy which in turn will increase the quality of the investments that are available to him!
Buffett isn't a "get rich quick" kinda guy. He is willing to wait decades for decent returns.
afro84 6 months ago
@afro84 That's not true at all. Buffett is full of shit like Schiff pointed out. If he truly believed his bullshit, he would write a check to the Treasury Department. More so, increased taxes results in lower tax revenue, and this is a statistical fact. Christ, did you even watch the video? You sound like a fucking moron.
kommisar 6 months ago
@kommisar Then show me the "facts" instead of insults!
People at the bottom are more likely to spend all of their money each month, so if you increase taxes on the bottom then you sap money from the economy that would otherwise be spent elsewhere. If instead you take taxes from the top then you impact the economy less, since this money will then be paid to a public sector worker and re-enter the GDP equation, whereas otherwise it would simple sit in a bank account/money market fund/stock/bond.
afro84 6 months ago
@afro84 You may have heard of the Laffer Curve, but whether or not you believe in that, the statistics cannot be dismissed. I am sure liberals such as you never bother looking at these, but here are a couple articles:
house [dot] gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct [dot] htm
american dot] com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
kommisar 6 months ago
@kommisar The Laffer curve may have some weight, but in my country (the UK) we have recently raised the tax rate over £150k from 40% to 50% and backed it up with clamping down on tax avoidance. All of the evidence is pointing towards this having a positive impact on reducing our deficit (although we won't know for certain until the 10/11 tax returns are filed).
afro84 6 months ago
@afro84 At least half your reasoning is completely bogus. Saying money is better spent on a government employee than sitting in a stock, asset or bank account is just plain ignorant. The rich often buy up government bonds for one, but really the money does not necessarily just "sit" there unused. Often a wealthy person will use it to invest in, other than the things I aforementioned, businesses. The problem has a lot to do with tax code making the country business-unfriendly.
kommisar 6 months ago
@afro84 The main problem with your logic is you have fallen for the myth that is spread throughout liberal and Keynesian dogma that spending from the government creates wealth. This is completely false. What creates wealth is saving, investment and innovation from the private sector. If there were any validity to your logic, the war efforts and huge military spending in general would be making us the richest, most financially solvent nation in the world by far. It doesn't though.
kommisar 6 months ago
@kommisar Government can create wealth, just as any private entity can. The issue with what you mention has nothing to do with a public/private entity it is a debt/solvency issue.
All "generates wealth" means is that you are able to take $1 and turn it into goods worth > $1. If you ran a private entity with a budgetary deficit and financed it with more and more debt, then you wouldn't be generating much shareholder wealth, would you? It's exactly the same for governments.
afro84 6 months ago
No, it can't, because it can only get the capital from the producers in the private sector, and thus doesn't produce wealth. It's a matter of stealing from one hand and giving to the other.
Haha, the UK is in as much shit as the U.S. depending on the country. There are very few countries in Europe doing decent economically, and none include the UK. Even then, your argument is flawed because you can't say for certain the tax increases have a causative relationship with the lowering debt.
kommisar 6 months ago
Shocker that all these talking heads come out of the woods to defend tax cuts for the wealthy. I didn't see this coming.
Djambel 6 months ago
yeah how dare we tax the people that can afford it! Tax the lazy people who don't work because they just don't feel like it. Idiots.
Djambel 6 months ago
Warren Buffet owns a large interest in Moody's. Whenever he speaks keep in mind that he is an Obama administration mouthpiece. Do your own research and don't listen to the talking heads - they're lying to you.
Juliathemechanic 6 months ago
BH is not Warren buffet it is a private company that is it's own person legally speaking. Warren buffet is commenting that his income is taxed less then the income of everyday earners. I think there is a difference in passive income and real earned income.
davehlgrn 6 months ago
@davehlgrn your statement doesnt make any sense. BH is not warren buffet? WTF does that have to do with anything? he is the largest stock holder think think think
MIT2004 6 months ago 2
BH is not Warren buffet it is a private company that is it's own person legally speaking. Warren buffet is commenting that his income is taxed less then the income of everyday earners.
davehlgrn 6 months ago
Peter Schiff must be a millionaire.....
TerminalRhinoVirus 6 months ago
@TerminalRhinoVirus yes sir he has a bad ass house and bad ass cars. proof u can go from nada to prada
MIT2004 6 months ago
I am sorry but Buffet made great point about taxing the rich. This why don't you make any donations is stupid, because ALL OF THE RICH don't pay enough taxes! Get that we must tax the richest not only ask to donate plsss!!!
ray4ix 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First of all, Berkshire Hathway's effective tax rate in 2010 was 31% not 35%, according to tax analysts website. But this number is probably much lower in the end since there are countless loopholes and also deferred tax payments.
Second, Berkshire does not pay dividends.
Third, your analysis on tax rates seems very very suspect, show me your calcs.
Fourth, shutup!
JaimeSC 6 months ago
Comment removed
JaimeSC 6 months ago
Comment removed
JaimeSC 6 months ago
Classic example of baffling with bullshit.
RedTory59 6 months ago
Full of factual lies:
- WB has a salary (though law, it is true, 100k / year)
- has NO income from dividends. BH has no dividends! WB lives on this 100k a year, that is it.
- WB practically donates all his money for charity.
You are an idiot and a liar.
MrKrtek00 6 months ago
@MrKrtek00
not all of his money is in BH. Theres a big reason why all these executives dont take their pay in payroll and rather take stock options. The payroll income would be taxed at a much higher rate than 15%. They aren't that dumb. Buffet is just dishonest and ignores the effect the corporate income tax on his stock options. The amount he gets from stocks is after the corp pays 35% in taxes, so his tax rate is truly a lot higher than 17%, he wouldve gotten more if corp tax was lower
ForTehNguyen 6 months ago
@ForTehNguyen
WB doesn't have stock options in BH. He owns stocks. Learn the difference. By the way, he himself urged the government to raise the tax on dividends and similar incomes just the other day.
And no, not the lower tax is the incentive in stock options.
MrKrtek00 6 months ago
Full of factual lies:
- WB has a salary (though law, it is true, 100k / year)
- has NO income from dividents. BH has no dividents! WB lives on this 100k a year, that is it.
- WB practically donates all his money for charity.
You are an idiot and a liar.
MrKrtek00 6 months ago
I am a fiscal conservative however:
This guy does not know what he is talking about. A corporation is a private entity so it gets taxed on its own. This means that the corporation gets taxed on its own transactions. That is the purpose of a Corporation! This is also the reason that corporations can now donate to political campaigns.
He is taking a flashlight and illuminating small amounts information to try to make a argument. He obviously does not understand the way the economy works.
gutseb 6 months ago
omg you are a morron! this is the worst aregument i think i've ever heard!
RGOLFSTAR 7 months ago
Peter says Warren pays dividend tax, but I think he’s wrong on that; Warren pays long-term capital gains tax, but it’s roughly the same, so no big deal there.
ForbiddenStallion 7 months ago
I thought Buffett doesn't like dividends? I don't think Berkshire pays dividends, but I'll watch the interview.
ForbiddenStallion 7 months ago
Most of the rich dont pay shit because they can afford tax lawyers and financial people to cook the books and hide their money in investments and tax shelters.
tubester4567 7 months ago
If God only wants 10% from me, then why should the Government get more ?
Buckhead1959 7 months ago
Peter..this is the best thing that you have done since writing your book about the coming economic crash...I'm standing up and giving you an ovation ! Bravo !
Buckhead1959 7 months ago
Obama has used Buffett as a punching bag, even bashing corporate jets, one of Buffetts favorite perks and businesses. Buffett is such a sellout desperate to be liked that he has capitulated like a whip-dog. Unlike Steve Wynn who fights back. Buffett finally struck back on the corp jet "subsidy" lie. Calling a "deduction" a "subsidy" is clear proof of Obama's lies. They are two totally different things, which Obama confuses on purpose to fool voters, and the compliant press goes along like fools.
DexterHaven49 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul MONEYBOMB TODAY!
DONATE AT ronpaul2012 (DOT) com
Spread the word!
diipadaapa1 7 months ago
The first 1:30 of this video is ABSOLUTELY crucial. If Warren Buffet is pulling this type of shit, think of the others that are pulling this shit.
TheManiacalSatanist6 7 months ago
I just sent Berkshire Hathaway a nasty email, calling Buffett a pandering liar and an enemy to all true conservatives. Screw him! He's telling lies so he'll be liked by the liberal media. I encourage others to call his bluff and call him a lying dog. He needs to hear the truth. Screw Buffett. He supports Obama's nonsense too. He's a Democrat shill sellout. He's scared of poor people now. Screw him and his lies! Call BH on the phone now and tell Buffett what you think of his crap.
DexterHaven49 7 months ago
Glad you posted this. Warren Buffett is lying too be liked. He feels guilty being so rich, so he tries to be on the side of the little guy. But he's speaking bad economics that hurts the rest of us. Raising taxes on the wealthy is immoral and economic folly. Equality is a flat tax. The more you make, the more you pay. Say 20% for everyone. Any higher is immoral theft of my time and property. Most rich pay over 50% when you include state, sales, property, gas tax, etc. No matter how you slice it.
DexterHaven49 7 months ago
Buffet is paying less taxes because of all the tax breaks and shelters his allowed under law. The corporation are NOT paying 35% taxes, as they also have major tax breaks and shelters. So, you are missing the point that Buffet is making. Very wealthy people do not pay the same level of taxes as the middle working class.
MudDauper 7 months ago
You are wrong. Soc Sec & Medicare should not be called "taxes".
We are to get that $ back, right?
brett2100 7 months ago
@brett2100 If your young, hell no.
HandyMan101 7 months ago
@brett2100 its more like an loan you don't want to give.
HandyMan101 7 months ago
@brett2100 theoretically you should get any "tax" back as it is merely a tool for the government to redistribute wealth, although often it is wasted due to the poor choice of were to re-invest this wealth.
CBullock1994 7 months ago
Go Peter. This is what I like about Peter he exposes the government oppression.
What if all those contributions that the fat government receives were channelled to employing workers and capital investment?
Ae306 7 months ago
Probably your best video so far Mr. Schiff. Really drops the knowledge.
onemindonespirit 7 months ago
There should be no federal taxes at all. The federal government should be given a flat percentage by the states.
KenMacMillan 7 months ago
If taxs are cheaper now, why is it that every single thing I do is taxed, and I pay city, state and fed income tax? I'm being taxed on taxes! My city taxes my homeowner's and car insurance, sat tv [until I cancelled] my internet, my telephone, you name it. My wages are taxed in the city [joke] where I work, even when I work in another city in the county. We are slaves to government, cut and dried.
gringott12 7 months ago
@gringott12 The reason is that the upper 5% pay 20% tax instead of 91% like they used to, which greatly decreased overall tax revenue and destroyed the middle class in America. Thanks Reagan!
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs You are clueless. I was a young adult during Jimmy Carter. Regan dragged us back from the brink. Are you so foolish as to think some multi-millionaire actually paid 90% of his or her income in tax? You better get off the mind altering drugs if you do.
gringott12 7 months ago
@gringott12 Of course taking us from biggest creditor to biggest debtor status in only 8 years stimulated the economy. Cancelling all of Carter's energy independence initiatives also helped....in the short run. These are different issues than the long-term effects from destroying the middle class. As far as millionaires paying 90% income tax from the 1940's into 1960's, I can only refer to the tax tables. Do you have some facts you could share?
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs What energy independence initatives? The Energy Department? Turning down the thermostat? Wearing a sweater? Those were the ones that nutjob was pushing. I don't disagree that we went from a creditor to debtor nation, now please explain how Reagan did it by himself. Was Congress on vacation for 8 years? Same with Carter, he did not do it alone. You and Al Jeezera agree, that I noted. Time to break the two party mindset. They are the same party, the Statist Party.
gringott12 7 months ago
@gringott12 In the Carter & Reagan years, presidents actually made a difference, provided they had the support of the people. Carter: Gas-guzzlers were going to be severely penalized. He kicked solar off with a bang giving a plan for 20% of electricity by 2020, which Reagan promptly killed. His 1977 speech kick insulation off, too. Reagan brought us back from the brink and yet congress sent us into debt? 5 Q's from you & yet you didn't answer my 1 Q. Facts instead of emotion, please.
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs I was an adult during that time. The President had no more power than he or she would have today under the Constitution. Congress appropriates money. Your arguement is a bunch of "what-if". What if they invented fairy dust? Gas-guzzlers were going to be penalized - why didn't he? Plan for 20% electricity by 2020, wow, what a plan, over 40 years he planned out - who was paying for that? Can't do it now, how then? There was insulation before Carter - you are a lame thinker. Wakeup.
gringott12 7 months ago
@gringott12 Because the American people rejected Carter and went with Reagan. You can do a search on "house insulation history Carter".
heelspurs 7 months ago
Amen!!!!!!!!
Hernanpfl 7 months ago
Yes, let's go back to cheaper 1950's taxes. My tax rate would be 26% while Peter's would be 91%. Here are the tax rates for $100k and over $2M. Look at what happened under Reagan.
1950 26% 91%
1960 36% 91%
1970 38% 70%
1980 52% 70%
1990 52% 28%
2000 52% 40%
2010 51% 35%
heelspurs 7 months ago
Remember Reagan's "tax cuts" that turned us from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation? Turns out that was just a gift to the wealthy the middle class now has to pay off. $100k and $2 million in constant 2009 dollars. How about the 1950's boom? Strange how the middle class didn't need to give the rich cheap taxes in order to bless us with the wisdom of their investments. The middle class does fine on it's own.
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs apparently you weren't paying attention. Inflation adjusted, $2 Million today would be roughly $200,000 in 1950. Assuming Peter makes $2 Million a year (we have no way of know what he makes today), he would pay roughly 26%. $ 2 million in 1950 would be equal to $2 Billion today. The only people making $2 Billion today, or $2 Million in 1950 are investors and pay "Capital Gains Taxes". Please at least attempt to compare apples to apples when making your arguments. Thanks!
captcorona 7 months ago
@captcorona maybe I do need to go through his reasoning again since tax on $200,000 income in 1950 was 91%. Look at 2nd link down on google when searching "historical tax tables"
heelspurs 7 months ago
@captcorona P.S., $2 million in 1950 is about $18 million today.
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs ... You are allowed your own opinion but not your own facts... At least for this argument let's stick w/ Peters numbers which are 10%..as in His example $250k today equals $25k in 1950... IE $2 Million in 1950 would equal $200 Million today...I correct my earlier assertion by one decimal point..to that you have my apology..It does not however change the core of my argument..Which is NO One paid 90% income/payroll taxes on their income in 1950. They paid Capital Gains taxes. 15% now!
captcorona 7 months ago
@captcorona you're still off a decimal place: $2M => $20 M. OK, point well taken. I see 25% on capital gains in 1950. But I suspect the wealthy. If my point is true (a continuation of a portion of "Reaganomics" is killing the middle class), there would need to be a much higher percent of taxes from the upper 5% in 1950 compared to 1990 and now. I'll have to look that up sometime.
heelspurs 7 months ago
@heelspurs Why do you feel the need to compare tax rates to previous years... in the 50's we were the only manufacturing base in the world, so we can set whatever rates we wanted because where else can you build something?? no where but here.....
This might come as a shock to you, but it is no longer the 1950's ... and manufacturing could be done anywhere now.... and what a shock, the places getting the most investment capital is China, India and Brazil.... why? cost of business.. taxes.
soma187 7 months ago
i read your book crash proof 2.0
i like how you think
m1o2r3i4o5n 7 months ago
Comment removed
BeyondNeptune 7 months ago
Comment removed
BeyondNeptune 7 months ago
Regarding Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway has never paid dividends, so his income was from long term capital gains which aren't doubly taxed like dividends.
Regarding the rest of the tax myths, the video is spot on.
jiggloo 7 months ago
No one is saying the 250,000 %ers are not being taxed enough. The issue is people who make more than you. Your talk points are stupid bullshit too.. Leave the 250k bracket the fuck alone. The .0001 - .01% are the issue. So, any clown who calls someone who makes 250k is wealthy isn't worth any consideration. Man up and re do your numbers for people earning 200/300/500ish million to several billion. Democrats are clowns but this republican/libertarian talk point is just as deceptive.
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@Downfurlife You got it. The upper 5% need to be taxed like they were from the 1940's to 1980.
heelspurs 7 months ago
peter buy a neuman u87 Mic with a 1073 neve pre amp with a
tube tech cl1 B for compression. u give great advise for free to me
This is the least i can do thanks bro Steve Morales
IconMusicGroupInc 7 months ago
Just because Warren is rich doesn't mean he's evil he's the biggest charity donator.he donates in billions . And another thing Warren is against taxing the middle class. He always says that the rich have to pay higher taxes than the middle class
FinancialVideos1 7 months ago
@FinancialVideos1 It is weird Schiff is going this direction. If anyone didn't loose immediate trust in him after this it is only because they are stupid. The 250k bracket are not wealthy or rich by any standard. This is a typical republican/libertarian talk point. Talk about cosmetics in a slanted way near elections. The issue is the .0001 - .01% of the rich.... I do not know if the top 1% should even be included. Don't get me wrong democrats are just as disgusting.
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@FinancialVideos1
yeah but these people hide their money in tax-exempt foundations and tax havens. I think they just want their competition taxed to death.
xMaXiMuSx 7 months ago
Mr. Schiff..... you have jumped the shark! We need to create revenue in this country! Your solution is to keep taxes low, and let corporations create jobs. That hasn't worked very well so far correct? Just keep buying gold & silver!
psurge38 7 months ago
@psurge38
"That hasn't worked very well so far correct?"
Probably because it isn't being done. Retard.
itachi705 7 months ago
@itachi705
Retard? Check you facts shithead! Taxes are at the lowest ever.... Where are the jobs?
psurge38 7 months ago
@psurge38 its illogical to say that taxes are lower than ever, even if you disregaurd all the facts (which you have to in order to think they are at their lowest) just looking at it logically should prove you wrong. The american military is the biggest its ever been, there are more departments than ever, there are more programs and subsidies than ever, there are more agencies, offices and federal employees than ever, does logic tell you that this is all done with less spending? stop being dumb
slickbtk 7 months ago
not to mention the measure of the federal governments financial cost to the country is not what it taxes in any one form but what it taxes in all forms, this means that its not just income tax, infact that is not even 20% of the tax burden. peter mentioned the other federal payroll taxes, but the majority of what the gov taxes is its debt and inflation, when it raises the debt amount that is the same as raising a tax, infact its worse becuase interest adds on to it.
slickbtk 7 months ago
@psurge38 Might have something to do with bailing out the to big to fails.
The recession recovery has cost around $8trillion. For what?
Salvysahagun 7 months ago
Hasn't Buffett donated like, the biggest donation of all time?
VantekHG 7 months ago 2
@VantekHG Yes even ranking towards the top on a global scale.
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@VantekHG Thank you. Buffet gave away 99% of his wealth. He's a fucking hero.
Grognax 7 months ago
@VantekHG
He promised to make the biggest donation of all time, but this has nothing to do with Schiff's argument. If Warren Buffet wants to pay more in taxes, he merely needs to write the government a check. Insofar as his actual argument is concerned, the top 1% of income earners account for 33% of the nations total federal tax revenue, and the top 10% accounts for around 70%. The bottom 50%, on the other hand, accounts for only 3%. In other words, WB is full of shit.
Questfortruth86 6 months ago
Austrian Economics doesn't work. It's just an insane right wing dogma.
theUSER101 7 months ago
@theUSER101 you dont even understand it.
it's pretty basic to say: if you dont have the money to cover it, dont spend it. that's an austrian. current economics says: debt doesn't matter, spend it anyway (but instead of "spend" the gov't & politicians use bullshit words like "invest").
now which makes more sense?
tmac9938 7 months ago
@tmac9938 Nice special pleading fallacy. Just because I say that it doesn't work doesn't mean I don't understand it, it simply mean I don't believe that it works. Government should not be ran like a market. Back when everything was at a "gold standard" we had recessions depressions like crazy dating far far back in history. I government should always hold deficit, its good. We cant have deflation every decade and have the government fall apart, they need to have extra spending ability.
theUSER101 7 months ago
@theUSER101 two assumptions you're making with that comment.
1st, not all austrians support a gold standard. many advocate using a basket of resources to represent the currency, in addition to using to using gold. also, many advocate for competing currencies rather than 1 monopoly (the dollar). a pretty solid solution/stance to prevent corruption.
tmac9938 7 months ago
@theUSER101 2nd, natural "deflation" of a currency is a good thing. in a natural free market with sound money, currencies rise in value because production becomes more efficient over time as producers perfect their methods (it becomes cheaper to produce). this added efficiency increases your purchasing power, thus increasing the currency ("deflating" it).
now, true, it is difficult for gov'ts to spend with sound money. but that's a good thing. look what happens when there's no restraint...2008.
tmac9938 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theUSER101
Keynesian Economics doesn't work. It's just an insane left wing dogma. Accept the truth, bitch.
itachi705 7 months ago
I think your naive Peter, the "rich" that are having access to these excessivly low taxes are not the 250 000 -millions. I would suggest that the rich would at minumum start at 50 000 000 and above. I think if you looked at how they handle their money it would be shocking to you. I saw Robert Kiyosaki was on with you to talk about this but you didn't really listen, your caught up thinking every ones pays like you do, but they do not!
DeepRootsFilms 7 months ago
You tea partiers believe anything from idiots like this guy and Beck
chiefsrw1 7 months ago
@chiefsrw1 Um, this guy is right you stupid fuck.
itachi705 7 months ago
@itachi705
Nice response itachi. Things I noticed in the first 4 minutes (I couldn't listen any longer): He complains how Buffett is a hypocrite bc he doesn't donate his money but it is common knowledge that he is giving away the bulk of his $ when he dies. He also mentions that Buffett pays taxes on the dividends he receives from BRK. This is impossible since BRK doesn't pay dividends. Thereason you have to make 10x more now than 1950 is bc of inflation. The average income was $3,000 in 1950.
chiefsrw1 7 months ago
Comment removed
chiefsrw1 7 months ago
@chiefsrw1 Yes. Believing facts is helpful.
HandyMan101 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to know how to succeed in the upcoming economy. Go to my channel and watch 10 Years Later; After 9/11 it is crazy.
withnonamemarketing 7 months ago
If it were not for the bailouts Buffett wealth would have been wiped out by as much as 75%. BH are/were heavily invested in AIG, Goldman etc., who would have to sold their derivatives if they had not got bailed out via the tax payer.
Copy and paste this link into Google or search Rolf Winkler’s Buffett Betrayal dated Aug. 2009. Buffett needed to the bailouts to go through so he could continue hanging out with the big boys at the tax payer's expense of course!
Saywhatyoumust 7 months ago
@Saywhatyoumust Want to know how to succeed in the upcoming economy. Go to my channel and watch 10 Years Later; After 9/11 it is crazy.
withnonamemarketing 7 months ago
18 people are beyond the reach of common sense.
weavermama 7 months ago 2
@weavermama Or they are just proponents of theft as "social justice"
BlackSheepReport 7 months ago
@BlackSheepReport YUP. "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head." P.J. O'Rourke
weavermama 7 months ago
”Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money. There is no more important challenge facing us than this issue -- the restoration of your freedom to secure gold in exchange for the fruits of your labors.” – 1948.
Howard Buffett
U. S. Congressman from Nebraska
Father of billionaire investor Warren Buffett
iannetta11 7 months ago
I understand there are alot of things to take into consideration, but this is a garbled mess peter. Slow down. Start from the basic and work your way up.
MustangManiac1115 7 months ago
@MustangManiac1115 I agree this is a little hard to follow, especially for a novice. I think this would be a great post if it was a little better organized, and showed charts along the way. I agree - build this argument up from the bottom and let the conclusions follow logically. With charts. Then you'll have something that I feel confident in sending to my friends for consideration. Thanks!
vbywrde 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbywrde Want to know how to succeed in the upcoming economy. Go to my channel and watch 10 Years Later; After 9/11 it is crazy.
withnonamemarketing 7 months ago
Peter, Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend!
bogardan666 7 months ago
It's actually not that simple, unfortunately. Well it's simple for people who think that very simple interpretations of statistics like that are irrefutable evidence. The fact of the matter is, however, there were dozens of other variables... some of which aren't easily quantified. For instance, it is noteworthy that during that time there was quite a bit of fake "wealth" with the dot com bubble. Is that really prosperity? Or is it unsustainable? I agree with you about military, nice comparison.
macktasticjoshflava 7 months ago
I cannot believe how much value the dollar has lost. That is just sickening.
SirTenenbaum 7 months ago 2
You are so smart Peter. I wish I had a dad like you growin' up.
lindabebe835 7 months ago
In my estimation, Warren Buffet is an old thief and he is in favor of higher taxes because he feels guilty about all the money he earned dishonestly. As a teenager he invested in pinball machines. Traditionally this is a business controlled by organized crime and the only reason why he didn't get his legs broken and his machines vandalized was because his father was a politician. My guess is that he has been operating on the outskirts of the law his entire career.
michaelkilcommons57 7 months ago
Peter's argument is simple, logical, and correct. One just needs common sense to understand it. free from economic mumbo jumbo and jargon the keynesians use to confuse things.
rothschilds666 7 months ago 4
Of course, Inflation itself is a tax so you have to add that on top.
Helionaeic 7 months ago 17
@Helionaeic absolutely
rothschilds666 7 months ago
@mistermassive1 if the mega-rich aren't just like you and me, what are they? Lizards, Aliens, Cyborgs? How about people stop stealing from each other through government force on the one hand and on the other leave people alone so they can start their own businesses.
Helionaeic 7 months ago
Of course these Marxist deadbeats want high tax so that they can sit on their idle butt doing nothing but spending someone else' money.
dlmaniac 7 months ago 14
While much of what Schiff says is inaccurate and exaggerated, he is completely right about Buffet. Buffet is a scumbag crook and liar. He is basically a shill for the US fascist government. However, Schiff is wrong about taxes. They are too low. This is a fact. But they are too low for the wealthy only. Taxes are not too low relative to GDP. If you look at the historical tax rates over thepast 100 years you will see this.
exposingcrooks 7 months ago
@exposingcrooks If tax rates go up, who would consider hiring more workers?
It does not seem the right thing to do when our country is in a recession. That would be too risky that more unemployment would be the result. I think we should lower tax rates but also consider limiting interest deductions for everyone. That could be phased in over 10 years, so it wouldn't be a drastic change and there could be some minimum amount allowed to still encourage home ownership for families.
CPAsheldon 7 months ago
@CPAsheldon Tax rates have very little to do with hiring. The fact is that taxes shluld have been raised many years ago. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and these useless wars in the Middle East made things even worse. US companies are not hiring in America because they can find much cheaper labor overseas. You should read America's Financial Apocalypse written by Mike Stathis in 2006 if you want to understand what is happening and why. That book predicted everything.
TheHedgefundguy 7 months ago
@TheHedgefundguy I'll read that. I recommend Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.
Helionaeic 7 months ago
@TheHedgefundguy "US companies are not hiring in America because they can find much cheaper labor overseas."
So your solution is to raise taxes and make it even more expensive to operate in the US.
Brilliant.
jeffiek 7 months ago 6
@exposingcrooks Taxes are too low for the wealthy? Omg. Peter pays upwards of half his income in taxes. Is that not enough? Man, who the fuck are you to say taxes are too low? That's like saying theft needs to go up.
HandyMan101 7 months ago
@HandyMan101 What country do you live in? The highest tax bracket is under 36% you tool. And Schiff isn't wealthy. His new-found income was the rsult of duping idiots like you to buy into his useless books which he didnt even write and which dont help you a damn bit. Its shocking to see how any stupid people America has. Schiff is laughing all the way to the bank fooling you idiots.
exposingcrooks 7 months ago
I used to respect Buffett. The last few years you can tell he's been totally co-opted by the globalists. His father, Howard, is probably spinning in his grave.
dskillz1 8 months ago
WHATS THIS CRAP ABOUT WAZZA PRETENDING HE WANTS TO GIVE AWAY 50% OF HIS LIFE'S ACCUMULATION TO CHARITY - WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
????????????????
BiggerThinking1 8 months ago
I really really really wish more people watched peter schiff's stuff on youtube. educational and to the point.
SMWhit3out 8 months ago
@SMWhit3out plus state taxes in most states gets you back close to 50%, but that is deductible also so there are 50 different answers in our country before you consider that some cities have income tax.
CPAsheldon 8 months ago
@CPAsheldon Sorry SMWhit3out, I meant to reply to RobTzu comment on tax rates below.
CPAsheldon 8 months ago
I don't understand all the resistance to reverting to Clinton era tax rates. The Bush tax cuts have clearly been a failure. What's even more amusing is how Republicans have convinced their middle class supporters that tax cuts for the rich are good for the middle class. All spending cuts they want to make are to social programs, yet the bloated military budget remains untouched.
TheSkinzilla 8 months ago
@TheSkinzilla The rich have a moral right to the money they earn by productive work. Social programs are theft.
And the investment in production by the rich benefits everyone. Social programs decrease production, hurting all.
TeaParty1776 7 months ago
@TeaParty1776, it's good that you tow the party line, however where is the proof that the rich are investing in production? Also, the military is a social program(paid for by taxpayers and run by government), so are you for cutting military spending to the same degree as social programs? It's very simple if you look at recent history. America was prosperous during the Clinton tax era, and 10 years after the Bush tax cuts America is broke.
TheSkinzilla 7 months ago
Comment removed
macktasticjoshflava 7 months ago
@TheSkinzilla You miss my point about coincidences and causes. Tax cuts leave money w/private investors. Thats an absolute. But, in current situation, those private investors are afraid that more govt intervention will stop successful investment. If govt decreased intervention, private investors would invest. And Clinton prosperity was not, could not, be caused by higher taxes because that decreases money that can be privately invested. Clinton prosperity was caused by Internet revolution and...
TeaParty1776 7 months ago
...and Clinton using SS to pay for non-SS govt programs. Tax increases cannot increase production. Govt consumes, not produces. Govt is an octopus w/tentacles in almost the whole economy but its so chaotic its difficult to trace causes and effects. You need a principle: private investment produces. Govt consumes.
TeaParty1776 7 months ago
With a 35% corporate tax rate, followed by a 15% capital gains tax is not 50%, it is Rate = 1- (1-0.35) X (1-0.15) which equals 44.75%.
RobTzu 8 months ago
i think Buffett pays none to little in taxes , because probably all his personal expenses are financed by pretax corporate dollars as his business is his life. also i don't think he pays what Peter said , he simply spends (reinvests etc) all the corporate profit prior to declaring it as a profit, as any normal business tries to do.
However, Buffett not paying taxes gives Buffett NO rights to advocate more violence, theft and robbery of other people with taxes!!!
alennna 8 months ago 2
i c what AleXGT7 tried to say and i agree it is wrong but srsly? ppl take to much pleasure in the use of the thumbsup and down mechanic. it got a thumbs up from me.
maj1kninja07 8 months ago
Poor Uncle Warren. He wants to give all his money to a charity, which means that money won't be taxed at all. meanwhile, former fair haired boy, Dave Sokol, and partner Charlie Munger are front running Berkshire and making millions. He could always pay his secretary in other ways to cut her tax load. Warren's a lying douche.
emmy1cat 8 months ago
I get Buffet's argument that he would volunteer to pay more if other rich people did but he won't donate by himself- its the collective action problem.
The thing that bugs me is Warren Buffet is pretending his allegiance is with all people and not just the rich and powerful. This is inconsistent with the lies he is spewing about the state of the economy.
orenofhowick 8 months ago
Lol when he says Social Security it always comes out soshecurty.
pate357 8 months ago
250,000
1,000,000 = 250,000 x 4
1,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 x 1,000
1,000,000,000 a year = 124,000 dollars an hour, 24/7 . this person makes the avg family income in just over 2 hours. mind you this is caclulated over a 24/7 work week. this guy makes more money a week taking a dumb then the avg family makes all year long LITTERALLY . You could not be more off base here.
ajs2984 8 months ago
Peter, your comparing a secretary to warren buffet? your comparing a family that makes 250K a year who takes the standard deduction to warren buffet? there is a HUGE difference between those that make 250k, millionaires, and BILLIONaires. This comparision is a scam. your playing on the lack of comprehension the avg person has of large numbers. It is NOT a liniar scale.
ajs2984 8 months ago
@ajs2984 the point was that warren buffet always compares his taxes to his secretary..
BadWithNames123 8 months ago
@BadWithNames123 no it wasnt, the point was warren buffet admitted he needed to pay higher taxes. not a family making 250k a year, HIM. Peter is trying to say that he is infact paying too much in taxes. I say peter is crazy. granted, NO ONE should have to pay 40 or even 30% in taxes. After city, state, federal, gas, and every other tax, I pay around 60% a year. single, non homeowner. its robbery, true this. But if hes saying I should pay more in % then warren buffet, I have a problem with that.
ajs2984 8 months ago
In Korea I paid about 10% tax in total.
rupertmja1 8 months ago
fucked up logic, peter.
if DEMs want to tax the income ABOVE 250k higher, how does it make sense to use someone earning 250k as an example?!
myrelative 8 months ago
Just one other thing. I am not trying to be a jerk or an ass. I just don't think we need to cherry pick to make our point.
christo930 8 months ago
splitting it down the middle does a nice job of hiding the tax relief a single earner making 250k because of the fact that SS tax cuts at I think 110k. So in your scenario, both people are paying SS tax on all their income, whereas if it were one earner making 250k, only the first 110k would have SS tax. In the 50's most households had only 1 worker and you are comparing that to 2 earners.
christo930 8 months ago
I think Peter Schiff missed Warren Buffetts point. That he does not have to pay any taxes, he can just borrow pereptually, (there is no tax on loans) Because Warren Buffett has such good credit, it's much cheaper for him to do this than to pay taxes.
AndrewLLFrazier 8 months ago
All these rich elite make me sick giving thousands and millions in donations and I sit here cant even pay my rent or my bills. Hell 500 dollars is alot for me and I hear about these organizations getting millions donated to them and they do nothing to help American people. The fact of the matter is our planet earth is a grain of sand and these elites think they are so powerful and better than everyone else when in fact they are just like any other man.
chaosmucker 8 months ago
@chaosmucker if the rich elite is just like any body else than how come your not a millionaire yet? o0
BadWithNames123 8 months ago
@BadWithNames123 Having money will mean notthing in the end what I have these rich elite cant get with all there money in the world and that is the holy spirit of God. Money is just something that was made to have contol over people and it works because most people only care about money like the elite. These acult elite that think they are like gods with there eugenics and mind control will have alot to answer for at judgement! Living a life for god is number one on my list not being rich!
chaosmucker 7 months ago
@chaosmucker Sadly..... God doesn't care, if he has he has taken no direct action. Rather than talk about your lovely god on the internet let's talk about what we can do in it's direct physical absence.
Downfurlife 7 months ago
@c