No thanks, I prefer my socialism in moderation.Move to Cuba, dude. Then send us updates.
-
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
- Thread starter Eddie Dane
- Start date
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
Move to Cuba, dude. Then send us updates.
He is from Europe, aren't all European countries socialist hellholes?
Progressive taxation and welfare have failed destructively? Where?
Strawman: He said Marxism has failed.
And he was specifically referencing the particular quote from Marx, and it was in the context of Marx getting something particular right.
So, from each according to their ability (progressive taxation) to each according to their need (welfare...tax credits too, while we are at it) has failed each nation that has attempted them?
Elsewhere Bob have gone on about how high European tax rates made us all slaves, so yes he is likely quite serious about the destructive failure of Europe.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
europeans also have much more paid vacation time than most americans.
is that indicative of slavery?
is that indicative of slavery?
bikerdruid
Philosopher
Yes, it is due to the slave protection acts.
We get medical insurance too, and must be given enough money to eat even if not working.
Abolition is not really in favour here, except among the richest percentile.
A higher cap-gain rate can change expectation value of a good investment with a positive return into a loser with a negative return. So increasing CG has the impact of making some investments completely untenable. To calculate this is a bit more math that I care to post to a thread, but you need to consider the integral of the probability distribution of profits and losses for the investment with the profits decreased by the CG rate.
The type of investments that are most greatly discouraged by a CG rate increase are those with a modest expectation value, yet a high potential for a high profit. In other words very risky investments where most the likely outcomes are either a big profit or a comparable (but lesser) loss.
If you want to halt investment in new breakthrough technology, risky mining and drilling ventures, building new business in dicey areas, then a CG increase is a brilliant way to do this.
---
Note that since some risky yet modest return investments are no longer practical, that this reduces total investment return and therefore taxable gains.
In another post IOmiller seems to have doubts that modest return investments are useful (I think that's what he was saying). That is nonsense. If anyone can take capital and produce a better return than inflation they are automatically providing a benefit to society. Of course all enterprise is in competition for capital so there is a market price.
If we wanted a highly competitive society we should eliminate the CG tax, and convert all corporate income tax to VAT tax. The former encourages investment risk, as noted. The latter reduced cumbersome regulation & reporting, and puts US biz on a more level playing field compared to other VAT nations . Consumers pay all corporate tax anyway - so it's a non-issue.
Sadly our nation is infected with small minded people whipped into a frenzy over wealth envy and class warfare who don't understand even the basics of economics. A dim mob who want to first destroy capital, and only later will they realize they've also destroyed their jobs and their standard of living. Frankly I don't give a rat's *ss if Warren Buffet makes another 10 Billlion per year personally and without tax, so long as he is investing his capital in the US therefore creating jobs and creating increased GDP here.
The dim mob also doesn't seem to realize that the big money types can move their capital abroad. They can't be trapped into paying high US rates if they are willing to move. Britain chased off a lot of their bright and wealthy people in the 1960s, let's not make the same dumb mistake.
Got any EVIDENCE that any specific market deregulation resulted in failure ?
Got any EVIDENCE that some intermediate "golden middle" solution is better ?
Frankly I have never seen any credible evidence that deregulation was causal. I can understand how some people don't understand the causes of the housing debacle and want to blame glass-steagal partial repeal - if you follow it in detail it's really irrelevant.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
from what planet are you?
Bob Blaylock
Forklift Operator
“Progressive taxation” and welfare are not the same thing as “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, though they are a major step in that direction. The Marxist slogan refers to a society in which everything that a worker produces is taken from him, “according to his ability”, and then the government gives back to him what it decides he needs.
Elsewhere Bob have gone on about how high European tax rates made us all slaves, so yes he is likely quite serious about the destructive failure of Europe.
And I stand by this claim. If your government takes more than half of your earnings in taxes, then this means that the government owns more of you than you do. This makes you a slave.
The definition of slavery is a human being being the property of someone other than himself. If a human being owns himself, then he owns the fruits of his labor, or at least the majority thereof. If someone else owns the majority of his labor, then that someone else owns the person himself whose labor is thus owned. That makes him a slave.
A government imposing a tax of 50% or more of a person's earnings is claiming ownership of the majority of the taxpayer's labor. This means that the government is claiming ownership of the taxpayer himself. That makes the taxpayer a slave.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
so then the USA is closer to slavery than many european countries.
Yes it is. It includes healthcare as well.
No it doesn't.
After checking this I am very relieved to discover that I am not a slave after all. We only have 40-some % tax pressure.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
I have not bee able to do the reading I'd like to, but I hve some concerns about Buffet's position.
First, of course, is the rather obvious point that Buffet makes money by selling products - like certain types of insurance - that would be an obvious place for people with a lot of moneyto try and run to with their money if they couldn't use it for investment. Meaning he potentiall profits from his seeming altruism, but that point doesn't seem to be brought out much. He's selling his position as some sort of altruism, but inthe long run, he or his companies might well use the change in the tax code to make out like bandits.
Second, the above point highlights something that is hard to quantify without some further research. I think we can safely say that a higher tax rate on capital gains will affect what potential investors will do with their money -- if any deal was "on the margin," they'll look for other, better things to do, or may possibly just sit on their hands. He writes:
Well, the rates are one thing, but the actual numbers in revenue are a bit different. If you do the math -- in 1992, the country’s top 400 earners paid a total of $4.9 billion in taxes. In 2008, it was over $19 billion.
So to "increaase revenue," I'd like to see someone show their math.