I think the father was wrong in this case, as either one of the buys could have had that ticket, one boy having the ticket over the other is really no different. Plus it is an insurance company paying the 50 grand. and they usually get more than there fair share of money, and it was their decision to make the game they took the risk. Plus this is not any case of having a look a like its your brother, I could see them denying if they had a pro that looked like you go up.
@MrRandomname2 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Capital investments, what Keynes called animal spirits, is essential to employment. Stock market investment is not. Stock market investments show up on a corporate treasury, and for the most part, don't have a significant impact on business fundamentals. Thats why Macro Economics refers to Stocks as saving instead of investment when calculating GDP. Yet the stock market has a HUGE impact on wealth disparity because wealth is scare. Affluence creates poverty.
@ec123456789able You simply don't get it. Buffet pays NO income tax. He pays tax on his dividends. He personally chooses to pay himself in dividends instead of personal income. He deliberately chooses to evade higher taxes for himself.
So it's not the law that is wrong. Because taxes on dividends shouldn't be higher than 18%. Dividends aren't income, they are what an investor gets for investing money in the economy so that more jobs get created. It makes no sense to tax that money. Moron = you.
@TWSceptic I do get it, Buffet declared this himself.
Also, the idea that allowing the rich to make more money creates jobs is false. The richer the very rich get, the harder it is for others to compete. Small businesses close due to big corporations.
If you really want to create jobs you have to empower people by allowing smaller businesses to be able to compete. This would create a lot more jobs than allowing wealth to get locked in very small circles.
@ec123456789able "The richer the very rich get the harder it is for others to compete"
Did it ever occur to you that rich people invest in any successful OR promising business, and that any business with good creativity, ideas, workers, and management will attract their interest regardless of the business size? Ever heard about venture capital?
You see this is the problem with you people, you look at the world like everything is black and white. The free market does not need your interference.
@TWSceptic No, sorry. The free market has lead to many people in poverty and others with huge excess. You can keep spouting the same right-wing rhetoric, but the truth is, there is only a finite amount of money in the world.
Once the rich get to a point where profits become increasingly difficult, they have to resort to other means of making money, this means moving employment to other countries, and taking increasing risks.
It isn't me who is thinking in absolutes. There needs to be balance..
With regards to venture capitalism, this only applies to a very small minority of people lucky enough to get investment from banks and corporations who are uneager to part with their money
A fairer tax system targetting expense for large wealth as well as progressive income tax would empower people not to rely on the rich to decide their fate
Many small businesses can't compete without investment
@TWSceptic No this guy is a fucking idiot, like you. All these republican idiots that keep making the same stupid ass argument that Buffett can write a check any time. What a spectacularly stupid argument. He wrote the largest check in history to charity for starters. And he is actually volunteering to help pay off the national debt.
@Mrinebriation No they don't, and even if they did that wouldn't justify it. You actually have to look at what helps the economy, not what people think is popular. That's just a fallacy.
@TWSceptic so 68% percent of a segment of the population say the government needs revenue and we can handle the hit, we can handle paying 2 or 3 percent more on our top bracket. thats not a fallacy. and america is the only developed country in the world including china that has regressive taxation system which is retarded. and btw tax reduction for millionaire's does not help the economy because they save their money in recessions which harms the economy
@Mrinebriation "tax reduction for millionaire's does not help the economy because they save their money in recessions which harms the economy"
Right, but bailing out banksters which are actually the biggest speculators, no problem there.
The only reason that people are using recession to make money is because that's what the government and the fed has caused, and instead of doing nothing, they at least use that to make some money. The market actually uses government stupidity to make money.
Dude I have no idea why you're not endorsing Ron Paul just for the sake of being intellectually balanced. If you truly care, make a video recognizing Ron Paul's fealty for real libertarianism.
"Easy, tax more capital gains" -- Easy as a walk in the park, but It won't cause billionaires like Buffer to pay more, since most of his capital gains earnings stay within his corporation and never get cashed out as personal income. Only ordinary folks pay capital gains taxes.
"Anyway he will give his fortune to charity." -- Too bad that Americans won't benefit from his "charity." But I'm sure that many people in South America and Africa will will enjoy the corporate enslavement that results.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1 It would be useless to write a check to the IRS so that the other rich people get bigger tax breaks. He wants all filthy rich people to contribute to a better educated and healthy citizen using better infrastructure.
2 Was losing money and finally make a big income? business carry forward losses.
3 The tax is about people who get MILLIONS in income
4. You don't want the Govt. to get the money? How are you going to solve the debt problem? by cutting spending on the average income earners?
Obama raising the income tax saying it will raise revenues shows how ignorant Obama is about "rich people" (not all people remain rich their whole life)but Obama does not even pay attention to his own partner in crime, Warren Buffett. Buffett makes $100,000 a year salary,so his tax rate would not be impacted by an income tax hike.Furthermore, Buffett makes most of his money through capital gains & dividends, taxed at 15-20%.Buffett knows this, & his own company owes back taxes!NOBAMA!
@dotaonline End the deficit by getting rid of all these big government programs stolen from the taxpayers' pockets. Liberals need to learn its' our money, not theirs!
We tax the crap out of wealth, the inflation tax. He corporations pay over 75% in tax, Warren Buffett does not even know how much his corporations pay in tax.
I recall hearing about this, for the first time, a few years ago. I don't know what he's saying now but as I recall the original statement Buffett made was that he was upset that he paid less income tax than his own accountant. Due to how the tax code allows you to deduct from your final tax bill via any number of methods.
And if that is still his statement then I have to say that I whole heartily agree with him. I don't want to see more taxs, but I'd like to see people actually pay some tax
It's a BS statement designed to mislead gullible people who don't understand how the tax system works. (See my comment, below.) Many billionaires who advocate high-taxes have their vast fortunes safely harbored in foreign-domiciled corporations. So, raising taxes in the US won't affect how much they pay.
However, it will ensure that the politically-connected among them receive bailouts, for their foreign corps, from American taxpayers who foolishly volunteer to pay high taxes.
Why is he talking about Buffett's wealth, not income? It's just a red herring talking about the money he HAS instead of what he actually MADE. Buffett's op-ed is about his INCOME taxes.
Lee Doren now wants to talk about taxing wealth - wich does not work. The money would just leave the country even more.
It's not a red herring. Personal earned and unearned income is a miniscule part of a billionaire's overall income, so it's deceptive for such a person to advocate raising income taxes -- because he won't be paying additional taxes, anyway!
Instead, most of these people's earnings are represented in the form of corporate income, so, at best, their corporations pay corporate income taxes. Or, they simply keep re-investing the income so it doesn't get taxed, at all.
That's doubtful. Dividends represent the personal unearned income that I mentioned, above. Billionaires simply retain investment earnings on the balance sheets of their respective C-corporations, withdrawing only small portions as dividend income. As far as I know, Buffer's company, BH, never pays-out a dividend.
If you want to see your local economy grow, then advocate for free-market currency and eliminating all capital gains taxes.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Well, he had income - it's taxable so let's bring it to a more reasonable rate.
To your proplosal of eliminating cap gains taxes: It would move the wealth just faster to the top.
And eliminating them won't have more jobs as a result Lowering cap gains or eliminating them are no incentives. Companies will only hire, when their business flourishes and have actual demand for their products.
I don't think you understand my point about capital gains. You see, billionaires don't have significant personal cap gains. Only ordinary people do, so they suffer under cap gains taxes.
At best, you can tax billionaires' respective corporate incomes, but only that portion which is derived from corporations domiciled in the USA. (See my comment concerning foreign-domiciled corporations.) Of course they already pay corp income tax on that portion, but some corp tax reform is needed.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Actually, I waited for this kind of argument, because most Americans who have capital gains, have them inside their IRA or 401k - those gains are tax defered.
"The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income."
And billionaires are not just taking the money out of their company, they are getting paid by the company.
Sure, those capital gains are tax-deferred, but only until the person suddenly needs to withdraw the money. Moreover, local business owners aren't shielded from the cap gains tax. That's great for globalists, though!
Keep in mind, that center was established by a 501(3)(c) tax-exempt foundation rooted in oligarchy of the Roosevelt regime, which confiscated everyone's gold (Gold Confication Act of 1933), thus forcing people to borrow from the "privately owned" Federal Reserve.
All I've given you are FACTS. It's not my fault you don't understand how the system works.
Your "source" is deserving of criticism -- not because its numbers are wrong (I don't know if they're a true reflection or not), but b/c the tax-exempted billionaires who fund this 501(3)(c) essentially advocate the same high-tax policy that you do. It should awaken you to the FACT that you have no control over where tax money is spent. But globalist billionaires certainly do have control.
@LibertaerUeberAlles The 501(3) status per se, is not a point of criticism - they are non-profits, they're tax exempt.
If you won't accept the numbers, think about this: Who has most of his wealth in stocks, bonds etc., and not in their home, car or other things? Try answering it yourself. Hint: They are the reason why the gap between rich and poor/middle class is the widest since 80 years.
But it's precisely a point of criticism. Billionaires use tax-exempt 501(c)'s to shelter their earnings from taxes. This includes capital gains. Furthermore, 501(c)'s fund other 501(c)'s. It's a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes, while simultaneously advocating for high taxes on your community.
It answers your question as to "who has most wealth." You can't just exclude 501(c)'s from the numbers. The high-tax system you advocate only increases the gap between rich and poor.
@LibertaerUeberAlles "It's a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes" Sure - they are giving it away :)
And that a high tax system increases the gap is just plain wrong. All Western Euopean countries and Canada have MUCH higher income taxes on the wealthy and a much lower Gini-coefficient.
Only for the United States its "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"
Not really. European countries also have oligarchs w/ tax-exempt "foundations." A certain DIY-assembly furniture magnate comes to mind. Such people aren't counted in any equality index.
Sure, in lieu of paying taxes, "foundations" donate to "charity"...seemingly, in whatever country they choose. Why can't we all do the same?
Alternatively, instead of going after successful people in your community, why don't you advocate making 501(c)'s pay the same tax rates as ordinary people?
Sure, Europe also has big corporations, but in a grander scheme, executives not just have responsibilities to shareholders, but also to their employees and society as a whole.
It is for example customary that labour unions, or in general, representatives of the workforce are on boards of directors.
PS: Frensh billionaires WANT to be taxed more.
It's not a "me against you/them" It is more of a "we're all in this together".
Yeah right. Those "French Billionaires" are pulling a Buffet. They know that taxes on their corporate and "foundation" income won't increase, so they advocate for "higher taxes" knowing it'll only effect the nouveau riche who might someday challenge their supremacy. Didn't we already cover this topic?
If billionaires' 501(3)'s tax-exempt "foundations" don't have a "profit motive," then you shouldn't have a problem advocating to tax their earnings at the ordinary rate.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Ok, I get it, you're against philanthropy. They are "pulling a Buffett" not because they are in fear - challenging supermacy - but much rather because they see the very fabric of society in peril. It's just way more fun being rich in a prosperous nation, than in a poor one.
Since you can't really tax wealth, but income, many wealthy people are doing something useful with their money. Just take a look at the Gates Foundation.
I'd say "French Billionaires" are themselves in peril. That's why they deceptively advocate for using someone else's money to "save society (i.e., save themselves)."
Billionaires' 501(3) tax-exempt "foundations" can "donate" as much free software to developing overseas markets as they want, but they should first get taxed the ordinary rate in the US.
So, you see, I'm not against philanthropy. But you seem to be in favor of oligarchy -- BTW, most so-called "Progressives" are.
@ShinjukuHH I love that phrase! Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor...that's the modern US in a nutshell.
Money in politics is behind it all, and that's where we need to start. Through a combination of buying politicians and planting astro-turf, the wealthy are all but running our government.
In order to get a million-dollar tax break, it takes a minimum 3 million contribution, more like 7 million if the income was LTCG. The AMT would also kick in and limit the usefulness of the deduction.
By law, the donated money cannot be used for personal purposes. I'm sure there are some abuses, but the IRS does watch these orgs, and will fine them or revoke their status if they break the rules.
Yes, I think 501 orgs are subversive. It's not just about tax breaks claimed by contributors. It's also about the organizations themselves being absolved from paying normal taxes. That's why many see 501's as a wealth (and power) preservation scheme for ultra-wealthy people. Meanwhile, these wealthy people (such as Walrus Buffer) can advocate for high taxes, including estate taxes, on the rest of us.
See videos of Norman Dodd, chief investigator of the Reece Committee.
@LibertaerUeberAlles The Reece committee was a big deal, but a long way in the past. It looks like they predate the entire 501 code section that current groups operate under.
501's may not pay taxes, but any use of a 501 org's finances for personal gain is strictly illegal. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it can't happen legally.
Warren specifically said only the top 2% should be taxed more, not the middle class. Our economy needs consumers with money to spend, not more capital.
It doesn't matter whether 501 earnings are for personal gain or not. It's irrelevant. The point is that it's a wealth preservation scheme for billionaires. It's not available to the rest of us
Walrus Buffer wants all taxes increased. But you can be sure he's not talking about increasing taxes on himself -- at least not in proportion to his wealth and earnings. See my other comments on this topic. I've already covered it.
@LibertaerUeberAlles It's actually quite cheap to start a 501, just of less financial benefit than you think.
"Walrus Buffer wants all taxes increased" - No, Warren specifically says he does not support a tax hike on the middle class.
"he's not talking about increasing taxes on himself" He is clearly saying the opposite.
Maybe you "covered it" with your opinions, but you misquote Buffet as if you never read his editorial at all. Try again, or I can provide quotes if I must.
Those weren't just my "opinions." Anyone can read the tax code, apply common economic sense, and see that increasing personal income taxes (irrespective of whether it's on low- or high earners) harms local communities and favors globalist, TARP receiving oligarchs like Walrus Buffer.
Sure, anyone can start a tax-exempt 501, but only billionaires can benefit by, e.g., "donating" software to Guatemala, thereby expanding their market share. Meanwhile, US taxpayers get screwed.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Warren buffet is giving most of his fortune to Charity. To solve the debt problem, squeezing the poor or middle class who are fighting to survive won't do. Both taxing the 2nd million of the rich and cutting spending is the best solution.
The trickle down effect doesn't work , tax breaks were given to huge corporations and you could barely see any job creation. Rich corporation horde money or invest overseas or give enormous bonuses to executives.
@dotaonline Buffett says raise the income tax, which he is making under the "rich barrier". Most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains & dividends, so Buffett's paying those rates 15-20 pct, and he wants others to pay 39%? LOL. And Berkshire owes back taxes! What a joke! Trickle down economics worked under JFK, Reagan & George W Bush until the real estate bubble burst (7/8 years job growth after the tech bubble burst). You're claims are not based on facts.
@BlackRepublican2010 Easy, tax more capital gains. Anyway he will give his fortune to charity.
America's economy was worst under bush when he gave the tax cuts but was better under Clinton when the taxes were higher. Obama made the mistake of extending the tax cuts, the debt is now out of control.
Recently Corporation profits have increased but not jobs. Trickle down effect and stats? Why have the number of poor people increased? Jobs? Third world labor is cheaper.
As I've already said, oligarch Walrus Buffer can give as much money to "charity" as he wants. But first his tax-exempt "foundation" should be taxed in the US at ordinary income tax rates. Until then, he should stop pretending that he advocates increasing taxes on himself.
You should really become more informed about taxes and their economic effects. You'll see that it's not as simple as you think.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Ordinary people suffer from CG tax?? Most of the middle class pays 0% LTCG rate. The upper-middle class pays 15%. Low and middle income taxpayers may also shelter all or most of their gains in IRAs or 401(k)s, a strategy not available to those with large incomes.
Don't get me wrong, the wealthy have many ways to avoid tax, but 1) ordinary people have few stocks outside retirement accounts, thus rarely pay CG at all. 2) It's very low when they pay it.
@LibertaerUeberAlles You don't know taxes as well as you think. Personal earned and unearned income is *all* of a billionaire's income. His corporation(s) are separate entities that pay their own tax, but any money moved from corporate to personal use will be taxed as income to Warren. He also specifically says he pays SS tax, so he must draw salary, because there is no SS tax on capital gains.
One doesn't avoid taxes by reinvesting, either. Tax is due in the year the stock is sold.
@LibertaerUeberAlles I've seen them, but they don't add up. Warren is showing around 40 million of income this year. That's what he withdrew from the company as salary, dividends, whatever...plus what he made on the investments he owns personally. He's paying around 7 mil in tax on that amount, which he says is too low.
Sure, BH may hold much greater assets, but that's a separate matter. Money re-invested in the business is neither net profit nor income to anyone. It's deducted.
Wrong again. The reason my previous comments "don't add up" is because you don't understand the system from an analytic perspective.
The few-million dollars billionaires withdraw (and pay personal income taxes on) is chump change for partying and hookers, whereas the bulk of income stays in their respective companies, free from personal income taxes. For smaller business owners, it is the inverse.
That's why TARP-receiving oligarchs like Buffer don't mind high personal income taxes.
What Buffet is advocating is a barrier to entry to separate him from other competition (like a corporation that lobbies for special grants and erects barriers so smaller companies can't compete). What Buffet won't tell you is that he has almost zero income tax since his gains are primarily made through investment. Raising the income tax on the "rich" would help stifle his competitors (the up-and-coming rich). Anyone who believes Buffet is being sincere is a fool!
He makes near zero income. My point still stands. Raising income tax "on the rich" will only help Buffet weed out his competitors that are "rich" through income gains as opposed to investment.
@fwanksajerk Totally wrong. He has a very large income, because investment gains *are* income.
Stock and some dividend gains are taxes at the lower CG rate, but investments that generate bond and account interest are taxable at the same rate as salary.
@fwanksajerk "almost zero income tax' Ok, you're waaay off here. Read what he says. He paid almost 7 million dollars last year.
Buffet has it MADE at this point. He really isn't worried about competition. They're not going to take what he already has.
A fool would be a middle-class earner who would assume they know more about the finances of the rich than Warren Buffett. He knows that the small tax raises being proposed currently would not "stifle" anyone. That's the point.
But so this isn't redundant I'll make some more points:
You said 15% but it's closer to 35% via "double" tax.
Anyway you seemed to unintentionally validate my point. Of course he's not worried on a raise on himself (should I bring up his tax-avoidance such as dodging estate tax?). It'll crush the up-and-coming. "small tax raises?" Not what I've been hearing.
This IS class warfare. Political class vs. the people.
@fwanksajerk What barriers to competition? The increase in taxes is only if you are already earning in the millions. Oh! You can't afford a bit more tax on your 2nd million.
Watch the video, he told you how much tax he paid.
The guy will give most of his fortune to charity, so who is the fool now?
You want to talk about stifling competition, ask Rick Perry or Mitt Romney about the money they take in exchange for political/legislative favors to the rich corporation.
Of what relevance is your charity point? Besides the fact that he's using it as evasion?
Your last "paragraph" would insinuate that I'm somehow an apologist for them, but my initial comment should clearly show you and I are in agreement on that (anti-lobbying).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased! Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased! Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased. Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity
I just figured Buffet's SS tax percentage. He pays about .05%. Regular employees pay 6.2%, and normal self-employed people pay over 15%. That's one reason income taxes should be progressive; they redress this imbalance.
@SPGhettus Income tax IS progressive. That has nothing to do with SS tax though. And, the "regular employee" only pays 4.2% on the first $106,800. The employer pays the other 6.2%of the employees' SS tax. Buffet has to pay that same percentage on the first $106,800. Even if you raised income tax on the rich, it wouldn't affect Buffet. His money comes from long term investments and are not under the income tax laws. If you want to pay the same percentage, invest your money.
@stoicsquirrel Yeah, as if anyone but the rich start out with money to invest.
The 4.2% is a temporary tax cut, brought to you by Obama. It will be 6.2 again soon.
Buffet has *some* ordinary income in with his capital gains, else he would be paying no SS at all, so he must pay himself a salary.
Long term investments are under the income tax laws, because they cover both cap gain and ordinary income. If you meant they have different rate schedules, yeah, I've known that for 20 years.
@stoicsquirrel The point is, we have people on here yelling "half the people are paying no taxes", a blatant untruth. The personal income tax is only about 20% of total government income, and personal plus corporate only make up about 33%. Those who don't pay federal income tax are paying a big part of the other 66% of the money it takes to keep things going, and I find it deceptive and low to bash the working poor that way.
@SPGhettus You're right. So 51% of the U.S. doesn't pay INCOME taxes. I took it for granted that you understood that. That is what everyone is referring when they say that the rich need to pay "their fair share". That's all the pundits ever talk about on MSNBC: "The top tax bracket use to be 90%". They were talking about INCOME tax. "The country was better with higher taxes on the rich". They were talking about income taxes.
@stoicsquirrel If the same people are paying income and SS tax, then they obviously can be considered to have something to do with each other. The fact that our other major sources of revenue are actually regressive has significant meaning when the person you argue with is a flat-taxer, or anyone else who is arguing that the income tax is too progressive.
@SPGhettus I pay income taxes and drink water. I bet you do to. That doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other. And, by the way, if we had a flat tax on SS -instead of having the cutoff at $106,800- that would get of the problem your complaining about.
@stoicsquirrel Payroll tax is tax, just like income, sales, etc. What we were talking about is the *overall tax burden on any citizen*.
Warren, being self-employed, pays income tax and SE tax on the same form. He framed this discussion with the two combined from the beginning. Some on the right choose to ignore this so you can yell that same 51% that is one of your current talking points.
I know you don't really need me to explain why paying taxes is not like drinking water.
@stoicsquirrel Actually, a flat tax income coupled with current FICA law would still leave Buffet paying a lower total percentage than his secretary. Plus, I believe the principle of the widow's mite should apply to the term "fair share."
@SPGhettus I ABSOLUTELY agree with you about the widow's mite story. BUT it was about charity. Not taxing. I'm all for charity. And, apparently, so is Warren Buffet. He recently gave away 85%(according to ABC) of his wealth to charities. Most conservatives are charitable, too. Many feel the need to give to those less fortunate. But, when that money is taken by force, we all feel a little different about it.
@stoicsquirrel True, it was charity in the original, but it can be applied to taxes.
If the widow pays a "mite" for her SS, another for Medicare, and another for sales, then I don't think we should take one for income tax, when its obvious she doesn't have enough to feed herself. That would be the "broadening the base" that several Fox commentators have supported.
Instead, the overweight guy counting his gold on the nice side of town will just have to make do with one less gold piece.
@SPGhettus Do you realize that, if Buffet pays more into the SS fund, he will get more back? So, if you ask him to pay more, you have to expect to GET more. It's not quite the same as charity.And, I really don't think we should include sales tax in this discussion because we are talking about federal tax.
@stoicsquirrel "Do you realize that, if Buffet pays more into the SS fund, he will get more back?" No, SS doesn't work like that. Buffet's contribution is capped, so he doesn't contribute a dime more than a dentist making 125k. Benefits are capped, too.
Besides, I never mention raising his SS tax. Its just that SS hurts that dentist, while it's pocket change for WB. Both paid about 13k in 2010. That's one reason he says an income tax rate hike is more fair than many think.
@SPGhettus I think the cap on benefits is around $3000. Yeah, I'm sure he's fine with an income tax hike. Does ANY of his money get taxed as "income"? Isn't almost all of it long term CG's? I find that hilarious that he would advocate taxes that don't affect him.
@stoicsquirrel He has ordinary income as salary. If he had only capital gains, he would owe no SS tax at all. He paid some form of tax on about 40 million in income, because capital gains are still income, just a different tax classification.
Gains on sales of stock and qualified dividends generally qualify for the LTCG rate, but profit from interest-bearing investments is taxed at ordinary rates the same as wages.
@stoicsquirrel By IRS rules, income is capital or ordinary. Wages, bank and bond interest, and net profits of small business are ordinary. Sales of stock and qualified dividends are capital, but so is profit made on the sale of a business asset or a home.
Short-term capital gain is 28%, which does hit day-traders, but most investors hold profitable stocks at least a year to get 15%. It's 0% for the low-income, but they have almost nothing to invest.
@SPGhettus That's not what I'm saying. STCG's are taxed at the same rate as regular income. It's the LTCG's that has a different tax rate. The 28% you mentioned would only be for people making $82,251–$171,550.
@stoicsquirrel As for sales taxes, I was just discussing the overall tax burden of the lower and middle classes, and how I think income tax should figure into that picture.
@SPGhettus In the other post you were upset that I didn't specify income tax. Now you're upset because I'm saying that income taxes and SS taxes are different taxes (the whole drink water thing). Let's narrow it down then: do you think that we need to raise income taxes? SS taxes? What is it that you're asking for? I think you would be happy with a flat tax but, since it is a conservative idea, you are automatically against it.
@stoicsquirrel Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention.. not all investments are capital. Bonds and other interest-paying vehicles typically generate ordinary income, not capital.
@SPGhettus The money made from selling bonds is treated as capital gains but the interest (bond coupons?) are not. My business classes were a lifetime ago so I may be a little fuzzy here. But what does that have to do with income taxes vs. SS taxes?
It pisses me off that you're so young yet so well spoken and well versed in these subjects. It ain't easy to speak 6 minutes concisely like that, and you make it look easy.
Congratulations sir and thank you for your videos!
@Jbrouhaha Deregulation has been a major theme of every state and federal Republican politician since Reagan. The S&L crisis, the Enron fiasco, the junk-bond scandals, the Gulf spill, and yes, the housing/financial crisis all were at least helped along by deregulation or under-regulation. Big money moves in and starts making money, until the bubble pops and someone's left holding the bag.
@SPGhettus The Gulf spill had NOTHING to do with deregulation. It everything to do with the government workers not doing their job of making sure that PB did ITS job. Same goes for Enron. The housing and financial crisis was NOT DEregulated. There weren't laws that were taken away. They weren't there in the first place. In fact it was republicans that asked for more regulations on the banks. There are videos all over YouTube showing republicans in congress asking for tighter regs on the banks.
@stoicsquirrel You actually think Republicans have been pushing for more regulations on banks? Wow, we have a reality disconnect. Deregulation is at the top of their agenda.
"It everything to do with the government workers not doing their job of making sure that PB did ITS job."
When government workers are tasked with overseeing private work, that IS regulation, though it was too weak and it failed.
"There weren't laws that were taken away" Wrong. Check Glass-Steagall, for one.
As for BP: You said it was because of deregulation. It wasn't. It was because the government didn't do it's job. And that's what happens when we put too much faith in the federal government.
As for the Glass-Steagall Act: Wasn't it Clinton who signed the repeal (it had strong bipartisan support, BTW)? And wasn't it John McCain who proposed the re-enactment of the act? I thought McCain was a Republican.
@stoicsquirrel "It was because the government didn't do it's job." And the job it should have done? Regulation.
As for the vids..why didn't the GOP stop this, despite controlling the WH and both houses?
Clinton shares blame for the repeal, but the point is you claimed there were no laws taken away. There were.
Clinton let the Reps, with the help of banker friends, change the law so they could take more risk for larger profits. They got the profits; we all paid for the losses.
@SPGhettus You're right. The problem I have with the banks being deregulated is that: 1. Most liberals blame Bush. and 2. That most liberals think that it was democrats that asked for more regulations on the banks when it was republicans. Why did the GOP do nothing about it? Two words: Barney Frank. I don't understand how he keeps getting reelected.
@Jbrouhaha Have you read of the insane loan products they were using, some where you pay less than the interest and actually allow the principle to grow instead of shrink? Where were the loan officers who should have been checking incomes, and the regulators who should have know this wasn't being done?
Why did a housing price collapse threaten to seize the entire economy? Because of Wall Street's greed, allowed to use securities trading as a money-making playground for the fat cats.
@Jbrouhaha Returning the top rate to about half of what it was from 1940 through 1980 is not "picking on the rich" It is collecting revenue from those who can easily afford it at a time when we, as a nation, desperately need the money.
I wouldn't be so sure about the regulations. Deregulation has been the second big goal of the Republicans who have been in charge for most of the past 30 years. Witness energy deregulation and Enron, or securities deregulation and our recent crisis.
Yeah, America's "hard-working" rich..."Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees." - S.M. Miller, "Born on Third Base"
@stoicsquirrel Perhaps. Mostly I'm attempting to counter the idea that hard work will always bring wealth.
If you don't know anyone who has worked their a&* off for many, many years, but is still flat broke, you haven't been around long enough. Ditto if you don't know someone who has loads of money but hardly lifts a finger to work.
@Jbrouhaha Passing a puny 2% tax increase does not require hate. It only requires common sense, at a time when we desperately need money to balance the budget. We're not talking about killing the rich, or even making a significant dent in their fortunes, we're just asking them to chip in a bit more, as they did in all the years of America's greatness.
A)So you suggest he is being double-taxed because he invests in companies that may (or may not) pay tax on their profits? Apples and oranges, HE doesn't pay corporate income tax. B)Front-end double tax? That makes no sense, and I know the tax code as a professional. C)Greater hostility from liberals? Huh? Liberals have been on the defensive for 30 years in America. The loud and angry part of politics is almost exclusively the right-wing, Tea Party side.
@johnsonfromwisconsin Cap gains is not double. Income is either one or the other, capital or ordinary. There are a few instances where the two interact, but never is income taxed both ways.
If you mean corporate gains are taxed, then the funds are taxed again when passed on to investors, that's not double taxation. The corp and the stockholder are separate entities, and each pays their own tax...once.
@SPGhettus one more thing " That makes no sense, and I know the tax code as a professional." It's strange how many "tax professionals" I've seen fail in economics arguments. Your profession seems to fall for the Keynesian ideas that shifting costs between balance sheets somehow creates "stimulus", for instance. I graduated college a Keynesian myself, but my background in mathematics and numerical logic fortunately let me escape the mental trap of causality sloppiness that idiology preaches.
@johnsonfromwisconsin Keynesian theory does not call for "shifting costs", but for putting people to work instead of paying them unemployment.
What is the logic in letting skilled workers go without work while much of our infrastructure is still in need of repair, and starting to look less-than-up-to-date compared to some competitors?
@SPGhettus It does when you allready have a structured debt like we do. The only ways goverment can get wealth to spend is from private hands by taxing it (confiscation), printing it (removal by dilution), or borrowing (removal by "crowding out" investment). So even worthwhile projects involve taking money out of one side of the economy (private markets or savings) and sticking it in the other(public works). Keynesian economics only really works if we had an actual savings to draw from.
@johnsonfromwisconsin It's true that a proper stimulus would require more funds than we can afford at the moment, but that is primarily due to a certain GOP administration who kept us deeply in the red even during boom times. Run balanced budgets or surpluses when it is easy to do so, and you can afford to keep people working when private enterprise refuses to hire, as they have done now.
@johnsonfromwisconsin When there is a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines, ..well, "Confiscating" does make it sound bad, but legal taxation is common to all governments and doesn't need to be treated like a dirty word...why not put a small amount of that capital into circulation?
We can cut taxes for the top brackets until we can't keep the lights on, with no guarantee of a single job.
@SPGhettus Legal taxation is indeed good. There is nothing dirty about it, as long as we understand that we are talking about what is legal. If you start off in a low income tax bracket is it legal to make you pay more in taxes; because you worked hard, studied more, started a small business and after 5 years made your first million? It is "fair", because now you have more than other people. What is this sideline capital you speak of, maybe that is the amount of wealth that is not invested.
@tenhirankei The large number near the bottom, by the time they are done paying thousands dollars worth of SS, Medicare, Sales, excise, and other taxes, barely have enough to live on.
I do taxes, and I've run the numbers. The cut Bush gave the top bracket is costing us 70 billion a year, which we borrow. If we go back, a typical one million dollar earner will see his after-tax income drop from an average of 800k to about 780-785. That's small sacrifice for significant deficit reduction.
SPG: "the cut Bush gave the top bracket is costing us 70 billion/year" Your argument only works if you believe all my $ belongs to Washington, they decide what one can keep. I don't accept your premise. As silly as Buffet's arguments is, I'll trust him to spend/invest over the knuckleheads in Washington. Lastly, give me a 10+year period where fed. tax rev. as a % of GDP markedly increased after an income tax hike. FYI, under Bush the bottom tax bracket also fell by 33%.
@UTubekookdetector I believe the government has a right to what the law says it does. The law once required those with over 300k of ordinary income to pay 39+% in taxes. At that time, we had a healthy economy and a balanced budget. We lowered that to 35, had a few OK years of growth, but huge deficits, then things went to s(*&.
The Buffets of the world have the money to hire and expand, but they choose not to, and no tax cut is going to change that.
@UTubekookdetector The rates haven't stayed the same for ten years in recent history, that's not a test that can be run. You did have me looking at old data, though... the 60's have the steadiest and best GDP growth of any decade since WWII, with top marginal rates 70 to 91%.
What Buffet is saying is that leaving it in the hands of the wealthy is a stupid move. Billionaires can make millions sticking their money in bonds, so why would they risk investing in a crappy economy?
SPG: I still don't accept your premise, my $ doesn't belong to Washington. You didn't address that. In addition, Kennedy cut taxes, tax rev. as a % of GDP was higher after the tax cut. You also failed to inform others that the top rates kicked in at much higher income levels. Funny how you didn't mention the 70s? That entire decade was marred by high inflation, poor job growth & a few recessions. Fed. tax reve. as a % of GDP was higher from 1978-08 than 1958-2008.
@UTubekookdetector If you don't except the premise, you must have no respect for the constitution. By the authority of this document, and the amendments added as specified by our founding fathers, income tax due is not "their money", it is our money. Yes, we'd all love to pay no taxes, but the world doesn't work that way. The systems and infrastructure provided by the government are what allow the wealthy to make and keep their money in the first place.
@UTubekookdetector Kennedy's tax cut was entirely different. Even after he cut rates, the top three brackets were still over 50%, 60%, and 70% respectively. Evidence suggests we were on the high end of the Laffer curve, where there was genuine and significant benefit to lower rates. Bush's tax cuts did not significantly increase revenue. If they had, we would not have had the stunningly large deficits of the 00's, even when times were good and tax revenues should have been high.
I think the father was wrong in this case, as either one of the buys could have had that ticket, one boy having the ticket over the other is really no different. Plus it is an insurance company paying the 50 grand. and they usually get more than there fair share of money, and it was their decision to make the game they took the risk. Plus this is not any case of having a look a like its your brother, I could see them denying if they had a pro that looked like you go up.
MrRandomname2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrRandomname2 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
Capital investments, what Keynes called animal spirits, is essential to employment. Stock market investment is not. Stock market investments show up on a corporate treasury, and for the most part, don't have a significant impact on business fundamentals. Thats why Macro Economics refers to Stocks as saving instead of investment when calculating GDP. Yet the stock market has a HUGE impact on wealth disparity because wealth is scare. Affluence creates poverty.
radix3d 1 month ago
Last year Warren Buffet paid 18% income tax whilst his employees paid 33%.
Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
Moron.
Also, Rick Perry is a piece of slime.
ec123456789able 2 months ago
@ec123456789able You simply don't get it. Buffet pays NO income tax. He pays tax on his dividends. He personally chooses to pay himself in dividends instead of personal income. He deliberately chooses to evade higher taxes for himself.
So it's not the law that is wrong. Because taxes on dividends shouldn't be higher than 18%. Dividends aren't income, they are what an investor gets for investing money in the economy so that more jobs get created. It makes no sense to tax that money. Moron = you.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic I do get it, Buffet declared this himself.
Also, the idea that allowing the rich to make more money creates jobs is false. The richer the very rich get, the harder it is for others to compete. Small businesses close due to big corporations.
If you really want to create jobs you have to empower people by allowing smaller businesses to be able to compete. This would create a lot more jobs than allowing wealth to get locked in very small circles.
ec123456789able 1 month ago
@ec123456789able "The richer the very rich get the harder it is for others to compete"
Did it ever occur to you that rich people invest in any successful OR promising business, and that any business with good creativity, ideas, workers, and management will attract their interest regardless of the business size? Ever heard about venture capital?
You see this is the problem with you people, you look at the world like everything is black and white. The free market does not need your interference.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic No, sorry. The free market has lead to many people in poverty and others with huge excess. You can keep spouting the same right-wing rhetoric, but the truth is, there is only a finite amount of money in the world.
Once the rich get to a point where profits become increasingly difficult, they have to resort to other means of making money, this means moving employment to other countries, and taking increasing risks.
It isn't me who is thinking in absolutes. There needs to be balance..
ec123456789able 1 month ago
@TWSceptic (post 2).. in the economy
Giving the rich tax cuts doesn't increase job opportunities
With regards to venture capitalism, this only applies to a very small minority of people lucky enough to get investment from banks and corporations who are uneager to part with their money
A fairer tax system targetting expense for large wealth as well as progressive income tax would empower people not to rely on the rich to decide their fate
Many small businesses can't compete without investment
ec123456789able 1 month ago 2
The guy in the video is such a tool. Fuckin nerd ass faggit
radix3d 2 months ago
@radix3d No he's actually an intelligent guy who understand economics, and you are a stupid ignorant failure.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic No this guy is a fucking idiot, like you. All these republican idiots that keep making the same stupid ass argument that Buffett can write a check any time. What a spectacularly stupid argument. He wrote the largest check in history to charity for starters. And he is actually volunteering to help pay off the national debt.
radix3d 1 month ago
68% of millionaires say they support raising taxes
Mrinebriation 3 months ago
@Mrinebriation No they don't, and even if they did that wouldn't justify it. You actually have to look at what helps the economy, not what people think is popular. That's just a fallacy.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic so 68% percent of a segment of the population say the government needs revenue and we can handle the hit, we can handle paying 2 or 3 percent more on our top bracket. thats not a fallacy. and america is the only developed country in the world including china that has regressive taxation system which is retarded. and btw tax reduction for millionaire's does not help the economy because they save their money in recessions which harms the economy
Mrinebriation 1 month ago
@Mrinebriation "tax reduction for millionaire's does not help the economy because they save their money in recessions which harms the economy"
Right, but bailing out banksters which are actually the biggest speculators, no problem there.
The only reason that people are using recession to make money is because that's what the government and the fed has caused, and instead of doing nothing, they at least use that to make some money. The market actually uses government stupidity to make money.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
This guy has no idea how Warren Buffet got rich, nor how much Warren Buffet has donated.
Chibicho 4 months ago
Suggest everyone Google The Following & investigate THE INFORMATION provided for oneself:
Eleven ways Warren Buffett is lying about Warren Buffett Thursday, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM EDT
WingThaiJ 5 months ago
Dude I have no idea why you're not endorsing Ron Paul just for the sake of being intellectually balanced. If you truly care, make a video recognizing Ron Paul's fealty for real libertarianism.
Otzmatron 5 months ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks 2
I think the father did the right thing...
foundsheep89 5 months ago
Totally agree...
foundsheep89 5 months ago
"Easy, tax more capital gains" -- Easy as a walk in the park, but It won't cause billionaires like Buffer to pay more, since most of his capital gains earnings stay within his corporation and never get cashed out as personal income. Only ordinary folks pay capital gains taxes.
"Anyway he will give his fortune to charity." -- Too bad that Americans won't benefit from his "charity." But I'm sure that many people in South America and Africa will will enjoy the corporate enslavement that results.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1 It would be useless to write a check to the IRS so that the other rich people get bigger tax breaks. He wants all filthy rich people to contribute to a better educated and healthy citizen using better infrastructure.
2 Was losing money and finally make a big income? business carry forward losses.
3 The tax is about people who get MILLIONS in income
4. You don't want the Govt. to get the money? How are you going to solve the debt problem? by cutting spending on the average income earners?
dotaonline 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama raising the income tax saying it will raise revenues shows how ignorant Obama is about "rich people" (not all people remain rich their whole life)but Obama does not even pay attention to his own partner in crime, Warren Buffett. Buffett makes $100,000 a year salary,so his tax rate would not be impacted by an income tax hike.Furthermore, Buffett makes most of his money through capital gains & dividends, taxed at 15-20%.Buffett knows this, & his own company owes back taxes!NOBAMA!
BlackRepublican2010 5 months ago 3
@dotaonline End the deficit by getting rid of all these big government programs stolen from the taxpayers' pockets. Liberals need to learn its' our money, not theirs!
BlackRepublican2010 5 months ago
Faux news idiot: "Is he [Warren Buffett] completely a socialist?"
Jon Steward: "Ey that George Clooney, bangin' a different broad every day; what a queer."
IblameBlame 5 months ago
You forgot the big reason why Buffett pays so little in tax relative to his income is because he earns his money in capital gains, not salary like us.
So he's either
1) Supporting a raise in taxes on a form of income he doesn't collect much of, disproportionately hurting upper-middle class people
OR
2) An increase in capital gains tax. But Clinton lowered the capital gains tax, and I thought he was some sort of Democratic Jesus?
Of course, slacktivists ate this up, and that's all that matters
jrsub3 5 months ago 2
We tax the crap out of wealth, the inflation tax. He corporations pay over 75% in tax, Warren Buffett does not even know how much his corporations pay in tax.
pirucreek 5 months ago
The family is not "down $50,000" like you said... that's the same kind of thinking that says not increasing taxes is the same thing as a tax cut.
pieinurface11 6 months ago
You change your channel name to HowTheWorldDoesn'tWork or SociopathIncorporated or ImAFoolForTheRich!
OhZoneFan 6 months ago 2
What is your income...? I bet it has a lot to do with why you think they way you do..
hunkgod 6 months ago
Oh no! You cheated an insurance company... Moral relativism is retarded. The kid should have keep the money.
Orion1232 6 months ago
Kudos to the father for his honesty, that's a quality far more important then having money.
MasterKorinSama 6 months ago
I recall hearing about this, for the first time, a few years ago. I don't know what he's saying now but as I recall the original statement Buffett made was that he was upset that he paid less income tax than his own accountant. Due to how the tax code allows you to deduct from your final tax bill via any number of methods.
And if that is still his statement then I have to say that I whole heartily agree with him. I don't want to see more taxs, but I'd like to see people actually pay some tax
therealfatNINJA 6 months ago
@therealfatNINJA
It's a BS statement designed to mislead gullible people who don't understand how the tax system works. (See my comment, below.) Many billionaires who advocate high-taxes have their vast fortunes safely harbored in foreign-domiciled corporations. So, raising taxes in the US won't affect how much they pay.
However, it will ensure that the politically-connected among them receive bailouts, for their foreign corps, from American taxpayers who foolishly volunteer to pay high taxes.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 8
Why is he talking about Buffett's wealth, not income? It's just a red herring talking about the money he HAS instead of what he actually MADE. Buffett's op-ed is about his INCOME taxes.
Lee Doren now wants to talk about taxing wealth - wich does not work. The money would just leave the country even more.
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
It's not a red herring. Personal earned and unearned income is a miniscule part of a billionaire's overall income, so it's deceptive for such a person to advocate raising income taxes -- because he won't be paying additional taxes, anyway!
Instead, most of these people's earnings are represented in the form of corporate income, so, at best, their corporations pay corporate income taxes. Or, they simply keep re-investing the income so it doesn't get taxed, at all.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles I agree - many billionaires sure get much of their income in the form of investment-gains such as dividends.
Lets go ahead and tax capital gains as ordinary income
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
That's doubtful. Dividends represent the personal unearned income that I mentioned, above. Billionaires simply retain investment earnings on the balance sheets of their respective C-corporations, withdrawing only small portions as dividend income. As far as I know, Buffer's company, BH, never pays-out a dividend.
If you want to see your local economy grow, then advocate for free-market currency and eliminating all capital gains taxes.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 4
@LibertaerUeberAlles Well, he had income - it's taxable so let's bring it to a more reasonable rate.
To your proplosal of eliminating cap gains taxes: It would move the wealth just faster to the top.
And eliminating them won't have more jobs as a result Lowering cap gains or eliminating them are no incentives. Companies will only hire, when their business flourishes and have actual demand for their products.
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
I don't think you understand my point about capital gains. You see, billionaires don't have significant personal cap gains. Only ordinary people do, so they suffer under cap gains taxes.
At best, you can tax billionaires' respective corporate incomes, but only that portion which is derived from corporations domiciled in the USA. (See my comment concerning foreign-domiciled corporations.) Of course they already pay corp income tax on that portion, but some corp tax reform is needed.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles Actually, I waited for this kind of argument, because most Americans who have capital gains, have them inside their IRA or 401k - those gains are tax defered.
"The Tax Policy Center estimates that the highest-income 5 percent of U.S. households receive 83 percent of total capital gains income."
And billionaires are not just taking the money out of their company, they are getting paid by the company.
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
Sure, those capital gains are tax-deferred, but only until the person suddenly needs to withdraw the money. Moreover, local business owners aren't shielded from the cap gains tax. That's great for globalists, though!
Keep in mind, that center was established by a 501(3)(c) tax-exempt foundation rooted in oligarchy of the Roosevelt regime, which confiscated everyone's gold (Gold Confication Act of 1933), thus forcing people to borrow from the "privately owned" Federal Reserve.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles
If You Can't Win on Facts, Attack the Source - awesome idea
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
All I've given you are FACTS. It's not my fault you don't understand how the system works.
Your "source" is deserving of criticism -- not because its numbers are wrong (I don't know if they're a true reflection or not), but b/c the tax-exempted billionaires who fund this 501(3)(c) essentially advocate the same high-tax policy that you do. It should awaken you to the FACT that you have no control over where tax money is spent. But globalist billionaires certainly do have control.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles The 501(3) status per se, is not a point of criticism - they are non-profits, they're tax exempt.
If you won't accept the numbers, think about this: Who has most of his wealth in stocks, bonds etc., and not in their home, car or other things? Try answering it yourself. Hint: They are the reason why the gap between rich and poor/middle class is the widest since 80 years.
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
But it's precisely a point of criticism. Billionaires use tax-exempt 501(c)'s to shelter their earnings from taxes. This includes capital gains. Furthermore, 501(c)'s fund other 501(c)'s. It's a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes, while simultaneously advocating for high taxes on your community.
It answers your question as to "who has most wealth." You can't just exclude 501(c)'s from the numbers. The high-tax system you advocate only increases the gap between rich and poor.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles "It's a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes" Sure - they are giving it away :)
And that a high tax system increases the gap is just plain wrong. All Western Euopean countries and Canada have MUCH higher income taxes on the wealthy and a much lower Gini-coefficient.
Only for the United States its "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
Not really. European countries also have oligarchs w/ tax-exempt "foundations." A certain DIY-assembly furniture magnate comes to mind. Such people aren't counted in any equality index.
Sure, in lieu of paying taxes, "foundations" donate to "charity"...seemingly, in whatever country they choose. Why can't we all do the same?
Alternatively, instead of going after successful people in your community, why don't you advocate making 501(c)'s pay the same tax rates as ordinary people?
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles because they don't have a profit motive.
Sure, Europe also has big corporations, but in a grander scheme, executives not just have responsibilities to shareholders, but also to their employees and society as a whole.
It is for example customary that labour unions, or in general, representatives of the workforce are on boards of directors.
PS: Frensh billionaires WANT to be taxed more.
It's not a "me against you/them" It is more of a "we're all in this together".
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
Yeah right. Those "French Billionaires" are pulling a Buffet. They know that taxes on their corporate and "foundation" income won't increase, so they advocate for "higher taxes" knowing it'll only effect the nouveau riche who might someday challenge their supremacy. Didn't we already cover this topic?
If billionaires' 501(3)'s tax-exempt "foundations" don't have a "profit motive," then you shouldn't have a problem advocating to tax their earnings at the ordinary rate.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles Ok, I get it, you're against philanthropy. They are "pulling a Buffett" not because they are in fear - challenging supermacy - but much rather because they see the very fabric of society in peril. It's just way more fun being rich in a prosperous nation, than in a poor one.
Since you can't really tax wealth, but income, many wealthy people are doing something useful with their money. Just take a look at the Gates Foundation.
ShinjukuHH 6 months ago
@ShinjukuHH
I'd say "French Billionaires" are themselves in peril. That's why they deceptively advocate for using someone else's money to "save society (i.e., save themselves)."
Billionaires' 501(3) tax-exempt "foundations" can "donate" as much free software to developing overseas markets as they want, but they should first get taxed the ordinary rate in the US.
So, you see, I'm not against philanthropy. But you seem to be in favor of oligarchy -- BTW, most so-called "Progressives" are.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago 16
@ShinjukuHH I love that phrase! Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor...that's the modern US in a nutshell.
Money in politics is behind it all, and that's where we need to start. Through a combination of buying politicians and planting astro-turf, the wealthy are all but running our government.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus Yeah, yeah... January 21, 2010 - The day, democracy in the United States died.
R.I.P McCain-Feingold
ShinjukuHH 5 months ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles Do you really think 501 orgs are that much of a problem?
In order to get a million-dollar tax break, it takes a minimum 3 million contribution, more like 7 million if the income was LTCG. The AMT would also kick in and limit the usefulness of the deduction.
By law, the donated money cannot be used for personal purposes. I'm sure there are some abuses, but the IRS does watch these orgs, and will fine them or revoke their status if they break the rules.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
Yes, I think 501 orgs are subversive. It's not just about tax breaks claimed by contributors. It's also about the organizations themselves being absolved from paying normal taxes. That's why many see 501's as a wealth (and power) preservation scheme for ultra-wealthy people. Meanwhile, these wealthy people (such as Walrus Buffer) can advocate for high taxes, including estate taxes, on the rest of us.
See videos of Norman Dodd, chief investigator of the Reece Committee.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 3
@LibertaerUeberAlles The Reece committee was a big deal, but a long way in the past. It looks like they predate the entire 501 code section that current groups operate under.
501's may not pay taxes, but any use of a 501 org's finances for personal gain is strictly illegal. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it can't happen legally.
Warren specifically said only the top 2% should be taxed more, not the middle class. Our economy needs consumers with money to spend, not more capital.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
It doesn't matter whether 501 earnings are for personal gain or not. It's irrelevant. The point is that it's a wealth preservation scheme for billionaires. It's not available to the rest of us
Walrus Buffer wants all taxes increased. But you can be sure he's not talking about increasing taxes on himself -- at least not in proportion to his wealth and earnings. See my other comments on this topic. I've already covered it.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles It's actually quite cheap to start a 501, just of less financial benefit than you think.
"Walrus Buffer wants all taxes increased" - No, Warren specifically says he does not support a tax hike on the middle class.
"he's not talking about increasing taxes on himself" He is clearly saying the opposite.
Maybe you "covered it" with your opinions, but you misquote Buffet as if you never read his editorial at all. Try again, or I can provide quotes if I must.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
Those weren't just my "opinions." Anyone can read the tax code, apply common economic sense, and see that increasing personal income taxes (irrespective of whether it's on low- or high earners) harms local communities and favors globalist, TARP receiving oligarchs like Walrus Buffer.
Sure, anyone can start a tax-exempt 501, but only billionaires can benefit by, e.g., "donating" software to Guatemala, thereby expanding their market share. Meanwhile, US taxpayers get screwed.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles Warren buffet is giving most of his fortune to Charity. To solve the debt problem, squeezing the poor or middle class who are fighting to survive won't do. Both taxing the 2nd million of the rich and cutting spending is the best solution.
The trickle down effect doesn't work , tax breaks were given to huge corporations and you could barely see any job creation. Rich corporation horde money or invest overseas or give enormous bonuses to executives.
dotaonline 5 months ago
@dotaonline Buffett says raise the income tax, which he is making under the "rich barrier". Most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains & dividends, so Buffett's paying those rates 15-20 pct, and he wants others to pay 39%? LOL. And Berkshire owes back taxes! What a joke! Trickle down economics worked under JFK, Reagan & George W Bush until the real estate bubble burst (7/8 years job growth after the tech bubble burst). You're claims are not based on facts.
BlackRepublican2010 5 months ago 2
@BlackRepublican2010 Easy, tax more capital gains. Anyway he will give his fortune to charity.
America's economy was worst under bush when he gave the tax cuts but was better under Clinton when the taxes were higher. Obama made the mistake of extending the tax cuts, the debt is now out of control.
Recently Corporation profits have increased but not jobs. Trickle down effect and stats? Why have the number of poor people increased? Jobs? Third world labor is cheaper.
dotaonline 5 months ago
Comment removed
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dotaonline
As I've already said, oligarch Walrus Buffer can give as much money to "charity" as he wants. But first his tax-exempt "foundation" should be taxed in the US at ordinary income tax rates. Until then, he should stop pretending that he advocates increasing taxes on himself.
You should really become more informed about taxes and their economic effects. You'll see that it's not as simple as you think.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 3
@LibertaerUeberAlles Ordinary people suffer from CG tax?? Most of the middle class pays 0% LTCG rate. The upper-middle class pays 15%. Low and middle income taxpayers may also shelter all or most of their gains in IRAs or 401(k)s, a strategy not available to those with large incomes.
Don't get me wrong, the wealthy have many ways to avoid tax, but 1) ordinary people have few stocks outside retirement accounts, thus rarely pay CG at all. 2) It's very low when they pay it.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
I already covered all of this. See my other comments.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles You don't know taxes as well as you think. Personal earned and unearned income is *all* of a billionaire's income. His corporation(s) are separate entities that pay their own tax, but any money moved from corporate to personal use will be taxed as income to Warren. He also specifically says he pays SS tax, so he must draw salary, because there is no SS tax on capital gains.
One doesn't avoid taxes by reinvesting, either. Tax is due in the year the stock is sold.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
Wrong. I already covered this topic. See my other comments.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles I've seen them, but they don't add up. Warren is showing around 40 million of income this year. That's what he withdrew from the company as salary, dividends, whatever...plus what he made on the investments he owns personally. He's paying around 7 mil in tax on that amount, which he says is too low.
Sure, BH may hold much greater assets, but that's a separate matter. Money re-invested in the business is neither net profit nor income to anyone. It's deducted.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
Comment removed
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
Wrong again. The reason my previous comments "don't add up" is because you don't understand the system from an analytic perspective.
The few-million dollars billionaires withdraw (and pay personal income taxes on) is chump change for partying and hookers, whereas the bulk of income stays in their respective companies, free from personal income taxes. For smaller business owners, it is the inverse.
That's why TARP-receiving oligarchs like Buffer don't mind high personal income taxes.
LibertaerUeberAlles 5 months ago 3
What Buffet is advocating is a barrier to entry to separate him from other competition (like a corporation that lobbies for special grants and erects barriers so smaller companies can't compete). What Buffet won't tell you is that he has almost zero income tax since his gains are primarily made through investment. Raising the income tax on the "rich" would help stifle his competitors (the up-and-coming rich). Anyone who believes Buffet is being sincere is a fool!
fwanksajerk 6 months ago 23
@fwanksajerk "What Buffet won't tell you is that he has almost zero income tax since his gains are primarily made through investment."
Which is taxed by capital gains taxes, which is why he pays less taxes than his maid, which was his point.
Bleuski3 6 months ago
@Bleuski3
He makes near zero income. My point still stands. Raising income tax "on the rich" will only help Buffet weed out his competitors that are "rich" through income gains as opposed to investment.
fwanksajerk 6 months ago
@fwanksajerk Um...except he was talking about raising the capital gains tax on investments, not income tax.
Bleuski3 6 months ago
@Bleuski3
Where? Last I checked he was bitching about income.
therealfatNINJA's comment is basically what I recall.
fwanksajerk 6 months ago
@Bleuski3
He's talking about personal capital gains, of which he apparently has none. See my above comments.
LibertaerUeberAlles 6 months ago
@fwanksajerk Totally wrong. He has a very large income, because investment gains *are* income.
Stock and some dividend gains are taxes at the lower CG rate, but investments that generate bond and account interest are taxable at the same rate as salary.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fwanksajerk "What Buffet won't tell you is that he has almost zero income tax since his gains are primarily made through investment"
Did you read the article? He actually tells you that directly...
dmk2113 5 months ago
@fwanksajerk "almost zero income tax' Ok, you're waaay off here. Read what he says. He paid almost 7 million dollars last year.
Buffet has it MADE at this point. He really isn't worried about competition. They're not going to take what he already has.
A fool would be a middle-class earner who would assume they know more about the finances of the rich than Warren Buffett. He knows that the small tax raises being proposed currently would not "stifle" anyone. That's the point.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus
Check my reply to you on the other video.
But so this isn't redundant I'll make some more points:
You said 15% but it's closer to 35% via "double" tax.
Anyway you seemed to unintentionally validate my point. Of course he's not worried on a raise on himself (should I bring up his tax-avoidance such as dodging estate tax?). It'll crush the up-and-coming. "small tax raises?" Not what I've been hearing.
This IS class warfare. Political class vs. the people.
fwanksajerk 5 months ago
@fwanksajerk What barriers to competition? The increase in taxes is only if you are already earning in the millions. Oh! You can't afford a bit more tax on your 2nd million.
Watch the video, he told you how much tax he paid.
The guy will give most of his fortune to charity, so who is the fool now?
You want to talk about stifling competition, ask Rick Perry or Mitt Romney about the money they take in exchange for political/legislative favors to the rich corporation.
dotaonline 5 months ago
@dotaonline
Of what relevance is your charity point? Besides the fact that he's using it as evasion?
Your last "paragraph" would insinuate that I'm somehow an apologist for them, but my initial comment should clearly show you and I are in agreement on that (anti-lobbying).
fwanksajerk 5 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased! Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity.
dotaonline 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased! Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity
dotaonline 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fwanksajerk Capital gains tax should also be increased. Big corporations need to pay more. Eliminating subsidies and tax loopholes. How come GE is earning Billions and paying no tax? Small companies don't have to worry because the new taxes should be progressive. Tax rates would be higher in the upper income brackets. The first few millions won't be taxed as much as the 100th one.
You were assuming that he is fooling people but he is living modestly and giving most of his fortune to charity
dotaonline 5 months ago
This gives another interesting view....
youtu[dot]be/SZ3II_hI_QI
jeroen360 6 months ago
It makes me sad that your the only well spoken "conservative" on the internet that I know of, who knows his stuff and doesn't get lost in rants.
jeroen360 6 months ago
waaaah the rich are so abused
Djambel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are so full of shit.
Djambel 6 months ago
I just figured Buffet's SS tax percentage. He pays about .05%. Regular employees pay 6.2%, and normal self-employed people pay over 15%. That's one reason income taxes should be progressive; they redress this imbalance.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus Income tax IS progressive. That has nothing to do with SS tax though. And, the "regular employee" only pays 4.2% on the first $106,800. The employer pays the other 6.2%of the employees' SS tax. Buffet has to pay that same percentage on the first $106,800. Even if you raised income tax on the rich, it wouldn't affect Buffet. His money comes from long term investments and are not under the income tax laws. If you want to pay the same percentage, invest your money.
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel Yeah, as if anyone but the rich start out with money to invest.
The 4.2% is a temporary tax cut, brought to you by Obama. It will be 6.2 again soon.
Buffet has *some* ordinary income in with his capital gains, else he would be paying no SS at all, so he must pay himself a salary.
Long term investments are under the income tax laws, because they cover both cap gain and ordinary income. If you meant they have different rate schedules, yeah, I've known that for 20 years.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel The point is, we have people on here yelling "half the people are paying no taxes", a blatant untruth. The personal income tax is only about 20% of total government income, and personal plus corporate only make up about 33%. Those who don't pay federal income tax are paying a big part of the other 66% of the money it takes to keep things going, and I find it deceptive and low to bash the working poor that way.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus According to politifact it IS true. As much as 51% of the US pays nothing in taxes.
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel I realize what you are *trying* to say, but when you leave out that little word "income", you are typing a lie.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus You're right. So 51% of the U.S. doesn't pay INCOME taxes. I took it for granted that you understood that. That is what everyone is referring when they say that the rich need to pay "their fair share". That's all the pundits ever talk about on MSNBC: "The top tax bracket use to be 90%". They were talking about INCOME tax. "The country was better with higher taxes on the rich". They were talking about income taxes.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel If the same people are paying income and SS tax, then they obviously can be considered to have something to do with each other. The fact that our other major sources of revenue are actually regressive has significant meaning when the person you argue with is a flat-taxer, or anyone else who is arguing that the income tax is too progressive.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus I pay income taxes and drink water. I bet you do to. That doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other. And, by the way, if we had a flat tax on SS -instead of having the cutoff at $106,800- that would get of the problem your complaining about.
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel Payroll tax is tax, just like income, sales, etc. What we were talking about is the *overall tax burden on any citizen*.
Warren, being self-employed, pays income tax and SE tax on the same form. He framed this discussion with the two combined from the beginning. Some on the right choose to ignore this so you can yell that same 51% that is one of your current talking points.
I know you don't really need me to explain why paying taxes is not like drinking water.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus You missed my point there: you're against a flat tax, but having one (with no cut off) would mean that Buffet WOULD pay his "fair share".
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel Actually, a flat tax income coupled with current FICA law would still leave Buffet paying a lower total percentage than his secretary. Plus, I believe the principle of the widow's mite should apply to the term "fair share."
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus I ABSOLUTELY agree with you about the widow's mite story. BUT it was about charity. Not taxing. I'm all for charity. And, apparently, so is Warren Buffet. He recently gave away 85%(according to ABC) of his wealth to charities. Most conservatives are charitable, too. Many feel the need to give to those less fortunate. But, when that money is taken by force, we all feel a little different about it.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel True, it was charity in the original, but it can be applied to taxes.
If the widow pays a "mite" for her SS, another for Medicare, and another for sales, then I don't think we should take one for income tax, when its obvious she doesn't have enough to feed herself. That would be the "broadening the base" that several Fox commentators have supported.
Instead, the overweight guy counting his gold on the nice side of town will just have to make do with one less gold piece.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus Do you realize that, if Buffet pays more into the SS fund, he will get more back? So, if you ask him to pay more, you have to expect to GET more. It's not quite the same as charity.And, I really don't think we should include sales tax in this discussion because we are talking about federal tax.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel "Do you realize that, if Buffet pays more into the SS fund, he will get more back?" No, SS doesn't work like that. Buffet's contribution is capped, so he doesn't contribute a dime more than a dentist making 125k. Benefits are capped, too.
Besides, I never mention raising his SS tax. Its just that SS hurts that dentist, while it's pocket change for WB. Both paid about 13k in 2010. That's one reason he says an income tax rate hike is more fair than many think.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus I think the cap on benefits is around $3000. Yeah, I'm sure he's fine with an income tax hike. Does ANY of his money get taxed as "income"? Isn't almost all of it long term CG's? I find that hilarious that he would advocate taxes that don't affect him.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel He has ordinary income as salary. If he had only capital gains, he would owe no SS tax at all. He paid some form of tax on about 40 million in income, because capital gains are still income, just a different tax classification.
Gains on sales of stock and qualified dividends generally qualify for the LTCG rate, but profit from interest-bearing investments is taxed at ordinary rates the same as wages.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus I thought it was the other way around. Isn't the money made by day-traders considered short term gains and is therefore taxed as "income"?
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
Comment removed
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel By IRS rules, income is capital or ordinary. Wages, bank and bond interest, and net profits of small business are ordinary. Sales of stock and qualified dividends are capital, but so is profit made on the sale of a business asset or a home.
Short-term capital gain is 28%, which does hit day-traders, but most investors hold profitable stocks at least a year to get 15%. It's 0% for the low-income, but they have almost nothing to invest.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus That's not what I'm saying. STCG's are taxed at the same rate as regular income. It's the LTCG's that has a different tax rate. The 28% you mentioned would only be for people making $82,251–$171,550.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel As for sales taxes, I was just discussing the overall tax burden of the lower and middle classes, and how I think income tax should figure into that picture.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus In the other post you were upset that I didn't specify income tax. Now you're upset because I'm saying that income taxes and SS taxes are different taxes (the whole drink water thing). Let's narrow it down then: do you think that we need to raise income taxes? SS taxes? What is it that you're asking for? I think you would be happy with a flat tax but, since it is a conservative idea, you are automatically against it.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel First, I'm not upset at all. I don't need to be upset to disagree.
Second, when you failed to specify "income tax", you made the entire statement a lie, and I do object to untruths written as if true.
Third, we are discussing income tax rates, but overall tax burden is a logical part of that conversation.
I'm not "automatically" against flat tax, I prefer a progressive income tax to make up for the regressive nature of other taxes.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention.. not all investments are capital. Bonds and other interest-paying vehicles typically generate ordinary income, not capital.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus The money made from selling bonds is treated as capital gains but the interest (bond coupons?) are not. My business classes were a lifetime ago so I may be a little fuzzy here. But what does that have to do with income taxes vs. SS taxes?
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
I think you hit the point when you said "after your initial income gets taxed it's just SITTING IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT"
Exactly it's not going to stimulate the economy..
OfKindRock 6 months ago 2
It pisses me off that you're so young yet so well spoken and well versed in these subjects. It ain't easy to speak 6 minutes concisely like that, and you make it look easy.
Congratulations sir and thank you for your videos!
1234bogusname 6 months ago 5
@1234bogusname Thanks.
HowTheWorldWorks 6 months ago
I'm against murder, so I won't kill. Doesn't make me a hypocrite to believe that there should be laws against murder, too. Buffett's point.
BOBMAN1980 6 months ago
@Jbrouhaha Look 2 comments up.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@Jbrouhaha People have become so accustomed to our modern world, they forget what government IS doing.
There are 7.2 million in jail, on probation or parole, all using the justice system we pay for, over 1/3 we house and feed.
We have a military larger and stronger than any other 4 nations combined.
We have spent billions around the world fighting terrorism, and billions more here to defend against it.
The government isn't blowing it all, WFA is much smaller than you think.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@Jbrouhaha Deregulation has been a major theme of every state and federal Republican politician since Reagan. The S&L crisis, the Enron fiasco, the junk-bond scandals, the Gulf spill, and yes, the housing/financial crisis all were at least helped along by deregulation or under-regulation. Big money moves in and starts making money, until the bubble pops and someone's left holding the bag.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus The Gulf spill had NOTHING to do with deregulation. It everything to do with the government workers not doing their job of making sure that PB did ITS job. Same goes for Enron. The housing and financial crisis was NOT DEregulated. There weren't laws that were taken away. They weren't there in the first place. In fact it was republicans that asked for more regulations on the banks. There are videos all over YouTube showing republicans in congress asking for tighter regs on the banks.
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel You actually think Republicans have been pushing for more regulations on banks? Wow, we have a reality disconnect. Deregulation is at the top of their agenda.
"It everything to do with the government workers not doing their job of making sure that PB did ITS job."
When government workers are tasked with overseeing private work, that IS regulation, though it was too weak and it failed.
"There weren't laws that were taken away" Wrong. Check Glass-Steagall, for one.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus As for the banks:
watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
As for BP: You said it was because of deregulation. It wasn't. It was because the government didn't do it's job. And that's what happens when we put too much faith in the federal government.
As for the Glass-Steagall Act: Wasn't it Clinton who signed the repeal (it had strong bipartisan support, BTW)? And wasn't it John McCain who proposed the re-enactment of the act? I thought McCain was a Republican.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@stoicsquirrel "It was because the government didn't do it's job." And the job it should have done? Regulation.
As for the vids..why didn't the GOP stop this, despite controlling the WH and both houses?
Clinton shares blame for the repeal, but the point is you claimed there were no laws taken away. There were.
Clinton let the Reps, with the help of banker friends, change the law so they could take more risk for larger profits. They got the profits; we all paid for the losses.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@SPGhettus You're right. The problem I have with the banks being deregulated is that: 1. Most liberals blame Bush. and 2. That most liberals think that it was democrats that asked for more regulations on the banks when it was republicans. Why did the GOP do nothing about it? Two words: Barney Frank. I don't understand how he keeps getting reelected.
stoicsquirrel 5 months ago
@Jbrouhaha Have you read of the insane loan products they were using, some where you pay less than the interest and actually allow the principle to grow instead of shrink? Where were the loan officers who should have been checking incomes, and the regulators who should have know this wasn't being done?
Why did a housing price collapse threaten to seize the entire economy? Because of Wall Street's greed, allowed to use securities trading as a money-making playground for the fat cats.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
He did not do the right thing.
flyinbry 6 months ago
@Jbrouhaha Returning the top rate to about half of what it was from 1940 through 1980 is not "picking on the rich" It is collecting revenue from those who can easily afford it at a time when we, as a nation, desperately need the money.
I wouldn't be so sure about the regulations. Deregulation has been the second big goal of the Republicans who have been in charge for most of the past 30 years. Witness energy deregulation and Enron, or securities deregulation and our recent crisis.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
Yeah, America's "hard-working" rich..."Half of those on the Forbes 400 list started their economic careers by inheriting businesses or substantial wealth. Of these, most inherited sufficient wealth to put them immediately into Forbes' heaven. Only three out of ten on the Forbes list can be regarded as self-starters whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees." - S.M. Miller, "Born on Third Base"
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus so?
johnsonfromwisconsin 6 months ago
@SPGhettus What's your point? That we should raise the estate tax?
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@stoicsquirrel Perhaps. Mostly I'm attempting to counter the idea that hard work will always bring wealth.
If you don't know anyone who has worked their a&* off for many, many years, but is still flat broke, you haven't been around long enough. Ditto if you don't know someone who has loads of money but hardly lifts a finger to work.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus I only know one guy who didn't work for his wealth. He's a liberal, by the way.
stoicsquirrel 6 months ago
@Jbrouhaha Passing a puny 2% tax increase does not require hate. It only requires common sense, at a time when we desperately need money to balance the budget. We're not talking about killing the rich, or even making a significant dent in their fortunes, we're just asking them to chip in a bit more, as they did in all the years of America's greatness.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
A)So you suggest he is being double-taxed because he invests in companies that may (or may not) pay tax on their profits? Apples and oranges, HE doesn't pay corporate income tax. B)Front-end double tax? That makes no sense, and I know the tax code as a professional. C)Greater hostility from liberals? Huh? Liberals have been on the defensive for 30 years in America. The loud and angry part of politics is almost exclusively the right-wing, Tea Party side.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus since you do not understand how the capital gains is indeed a double tax, you are clearly over your head in this argument.
johnsonfromwisconsin 6 months ago
@johnsonfromwisconsin Cap gains is not double. Income is either one or the other, capital or ordinary. There are a few instances where the two interact, but never is income taxed both ways.
If you mean corporate gains are taxed, then the funds are taxed again when passed on to investors, that's not double taxation. The corp and the stockholder are separate entities, and each pays their own tax...once.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus one more thing " That makes no sense, and I know the tax code as a professional." It's strange how many "tax professionals" I've seen fail in economics arguments. Your profession seems to fall for the Keynesian ideas that shifting costs between balance sheets somehow creates "stimulus", for instance. I graduated college a Keynesian myself, but my background in mathematics and numerical logic fortunately let me escape the mental trap of causality sloppiness that idiology preaches.
johnsonfromwisconsin 6 months ago
@johnsonfromwisconsin Keynesian theory does not call for "shifting costs", but for putting people to work instead of paying them unemployment.
What is the logic in letting skilled workers go without work while much of our infrastructure is still in need of repair, and starting to look less-than-up-to-date compared to some competitors?
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus It does when you allready have a structured debt like we do. The only ways goverment can get wealth to spend is from private hands by taxing it (confiscation), printing it (removal by dilution), or borrowing (removal by "crowding out" investment). So even worthwhile projects involve taking money out of one side of the economy (private markets or savings) and sticking it in the other(public works). Keynesian economics only really works if we had an actual savings to draw from.
johnsonfromwisconsin 6 months ago
@johnsonfromwisconsin It's true that a proper stimulus would require more funds than we can afford at the moment, but that is primarily due to a certain GOP administration who kept us deeply in the red even during boom times. Run balanced budgets or surpluses when it is easy to do so, and you can afford to keep people working when private enterprise refuses to hire, as they have done now.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@johnsonfromwisconsin When there is a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines, ..well, "Confiscating" does make it sound bad, but legal taxation is common to all governments and doesn't need to be treated like a dirty word...why not put a small amount of that capital into circulation?
We can cut taxes for the top brackets until we can't keep the lights on, with no guarantee of a single job.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@SPGhettus Legal taxation is indeed good. There is nothing dirty about it, as long as we understand that we are talking about what is legal. If you start off in a low income tax bracket is it legal to make you pay more in taxes; because you worked hard, studied more, started a small business and after 5 years made your first million? It is "fair", because now you have more than other people. What is this sideline capital you speak of, maybe that is the amount of wealth that is not invested.
tenhirankei 6 months ago
@tenhirankei The large number near the bottom, by the time they are done paying thousands dollars worth of SS, Medicare, Sales, excise, and other taxes, barely have enough to live on.
I do taxes, and I've run the numbers. The cut Bush gave the top bracket is costing us 70 billion a year, which we borrow. If we go back, a typical one million dollar earner will see his after-tax income drop from an average of 800k to about 780-785. That's small sacrifice for significant deficit reduction.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
SPG: "the cut Bush gave the top bracket is costing us 70 billion/year" Your argument only works if you believe all my $ belongs to Washington, they decide what one can keep. I don't accept your premise. As silly as Buffet's arguments is, I'll trust him to spend/invest over the knuckleheads in Washington. Lastly, give me a 10+year period where fed. tax rev. as a % of GDP markedly increased after an income tax hike. FYI, under Bush the bottom tax bracket also fell by 33%.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I believe the government has a right to what the law says it does. The law once required those with over 300k of ordinary income to pay 39+% in taxes. At that time, we had a healthy economy and a balanced budget. We lowered that to 35, had a few OK years of growth, but huge deficits, then things went to s(*&.
The Buffets of the world have the money to hire and expand, but they choose not to, and no tax cut is going to change that.
SPGhettus 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The rates haven't stayed the same for ten years in recent history, that's not a test that can be run. You did have me looking at old data, though... the 60's have the steadiest and best GDP growth of any decade since WWII, with top marginal rates 70 to 91%.
What Buffet is saying is that leaving it in the hands of the wealthy is a stupid move. Billionaires can make millions sticking their money in bonds, so why would they risk investing in a crappy economy?
SPGhettus 6 months ago
SPG: I still don't accept your premise, my $ doesn't belong to Washington. You didn't address that. In addition, Kennedy cut taxes, tax rev. as a % of GDP was higher after the tax cut. You also failed to inform others that the top rates kicked in at much higher income levels. Funny how you didn't mention the 70s? That entire decade was marred by high inflation, poor job growth & a few recessions. Fed. tax reve. as a % of GDP was higher from 1978-08 than 1958-2008.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector If you don't except the premise, you must have no respect for the constitution. By the authority of this document, and the amendments added as specified by our founding fathers, income tax due is not "their money", it is our money. Yes, we'd all love to pay no taxes, but the world doesn't work that way. The systems and infrastructure provided by the government are what allow the wealthy to make and keep their money in the first place.
SPGhettus 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Kennedy's tax cut was entirely different. Even after he cut rates, the top three brackets were still over 50%, 60%, and 70% respectively. Evidence suggests we were on the high end of the Laffer curve, where there was genuine and significant benefit to lower rates. Bush's tax cuts did not significantly increase revenue. If they had, we would not have had the stunningly large deficits of the 00's, even when times were good and tax revenues should have been high.
SPGhettus 5 months ago