• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Buffett: Tax the Rich

Mister Agenda said:
Could be. I think investors aren't investing and consumers aren't spending for pretty much the same reasons, though. I can see how upping the capital gains rate could encourage people to take money out of their investments (or put less money into them) and buy stuff you only have to pay sales tax on. Maybe the rich can give the yacht and private plane industries a boost.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they arrange for some sort of tax write-off. Yacht's being, of course, a necessary business expense to a well paid accountant?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
One rich guy buys a very big yacht. One hundred thousand middle class guys buy an average car.

Which of these events would stimulate the economy more?
Click to expand...

the insane CO² intensive event of people getting more of those stupid cars.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, pork was the wrong overall term. Just waste. I'm talking entire departments eliminated or cut in half. It's huge. But, as you said, there will be no agreement, so the point is moot.
Click to expand...

You know, this type of argument always makes me so frustrated....

1. The U.S. government employes a LOT of people (4.5 mill give or take?) and they make between $80k and $120k a year on average based on the number (*spin*) you choose to believe (*buy*).

I thought the GOP's main complaint about the economy was that people are losing their jobs? You are saying we should dump hundreds of thousands more people on the job market and or unemployment lines? That would be very helpful for sure.

2. When people make these claims they never really point to "which department" should be closed or "what people" should be let go.

If you can bring up a department you want closed or specific groups of people you wanted released your argument would hold more weight than "just toss them out on their ears because we all know they are over paid / under worked / not needed / wasting money / what have you." But be warned, if and when you DO come up with a department or group of people to let go there are other people (law abiding, tax paying citizens) who are going to disagree with your choices.

3. Often the people who complain that we should reduce the number of federal employee's hardly ever bring up the fact that MANY of these employees are members of the military. Cutting military spending is off limits but cutting departments for child protection or transportation are just fine.

4. We have had some pretty prosperous years over the decades here in the states and during many of them the Government actually had more total workers than we have now. http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

That doesn't mean they are or are not over paid. They might be but that is a different argument. If you want to say "federal employees should make x% less than they do now" that's fine. But if your argument is that "the massive amount of federal employee's are dragging down the economy or threatening the nation" ... well... that is not backed up by historical evidence.

But the pork needs to go too, as does the system that fosters it.

As does the idea of Congress being your full time job.

In fact, that's where I'd probably start cleaning up the muck. Term limits for Congress.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree... and every new Congressional class talks about just that but realistically, who is ever going to vote themselves out of a job? Especially when they "have so much good work to do for the people of this great nation?"
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
One rich guy buys a very big yacht. One hundred thousand middle class guys buy an average car.

Which of these events would stimulate the economy more?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one proposing an increase in the capital gains tax because I think the rich need to spend more money instead of investing more. Ask lomiller about that one, I was just imagining how it might work if he is right.

And again with hypotheticals, what if 10,000 rich guys buy yachts worth a hundred times as much as an average car? When you pull these comparisons out of thin air, they're worthless.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
Wouldn't they arrange for some sort of tax write-off. Yacht's being, of course, a necessary business expense to a well paid accountant?
Click to expand...

Not a tax lawyer. I don't even know if yachts still get hit with a big luxury tax, I remember the yacht industry taking a hit when it got raised at some point in the past, but I don't know if they kept it, lowered it, or got rid of it. I am unlikely to ever own a yacht, so I haven't dwelt on it much.
 
Off the top of my head, just throwing something out, if the goal is to, say, increase employment, it might be effective to do something like this: tie the capital gains/corporate income tax rate to the unemployment rate, so higher unemployment gets, the higher the capital gains/corporate income tax rate gets, and the lower it gets, the lower the capital gains/corporate income tax gets. Maybe it could be twice the last year's unemployment rate for capital gains and four times for corporate income tax. The uber rich might find the economic calculation of putting some resources into increasing employment allows them to make more money.
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
Off the top of my head, just throwing something out, if the goal is to, say, increase employment, it might be effective to do something like this: tie the capital gains/corporate income tax rate to the unemployment rate, so higher unemployment gets, the higher the capital gains/corporate income tax rate gets, and the lower it gets, the lower the capital gains/corporate income tax gets. Maybe it could be twice the last year's unemployment rate for capital gains and four times for corporate income tax. The uber rich might find the economic calculation of putting some resources into increasing employment allows them to make more money.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that it would much more likely have the opposite effect. As unemployment rises, you impose heavier tax burdens on those who would be creating the most jobs, causing them to create fewer jobs, causing unemployment to rise even faster. And as employment rises faster, so, under your plan, would the tax rates. As rising tax rates drive unemployment, you'd have unemployment driving tax rates, creating a nasty feedback loop.

If your purpose is to completely wreck the economy, sending it into an unstoppable death spiral, then you've come up with an excellent plan for doing so.
 
you impose heavier tax burdens on those who would be creating the most jobs, causing them to create fewer jobs
Click to expand...

It's been three decades since Reagan introduced his trickle-down economics. Has it worked? No. Stop citing like this is a fact.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Seems to me that it would much more likely have the opposite effect. As unemployment rises, you impose heavier tax burdens on those who would be creating the most jobs, causing them to create fewer jobs, causing unemployment to rise even faster. ...
Click to expand...
Why is the demand side of the equation blocked from your mind. Taxes on these "job creators" have rarely been lower. Where are the jobs?
D'uh! No demand. :rolleyes:
 
Bob Blaylock said:
As far as I am concerned, it is difficult to find a higher compliment than an insult such as yours coming from a Marxist.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.
It is just a bit sad how you write off anyone pointing out the increasing disparity in wealth as evil commies. :(
 
Not a Marxist myself, just noting that doing the same thing and expecting different results isn't very rational. My modest proposal assumes investors are smart enough to try to keep their taxes low and effective enough to affect employment rates. I could certainly be wrong about either or both of those assumptions. If it were to be actually implemented, it could go like this: the tax bill would announce the change, to be implemented in two years. This would give investors time to consider what investments would be most productive in consideration of the coming tax environment. It could have a sunset and a 'kill switch' so it can easily be gotten rid of if counter-productive.

It's too bad we can't use the states as laboratories for different economic experiments, it might be rough on some of them in the short term, but the knowledge gained could make a big difference in the country's long-term prosperity. And some of that knowledge might be that one economic plan won't work for every state.
 
Toke said:
And it has not occurred to you that it is there to show that he got some things right?
Click to expand...


If the particular quote in your .sig is what you consider an example of Marx having got something right, then it proves my point exactly. It is an expression of the core philosophy of Marxism, and the basis for a system that has failed with terrible, tragic, destructive results, every where and every time that it has been tried.

As I said, I take it as a high compliment to be insulted by anyone who believes in that slogan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom