What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[SezMe]

You don't find it compelling because you completely mischaracterized it. Not entirely surprising, but there it is.

 

[RandFan]

I've seen rich people say, "Ok, I'll pay more taxes -- now cut the hell out of spending to meet halfway."

• The GOP have taken tax increases off of the table.
• The Dems have not taken spending cuts off the table.

I think you got that backwards.

 

[RandFan]

Investment tax breaks should be given and taken away as needed to increase investment. Managers and others earning commissions should not get a lower rate.

 

[leftysergeant]

And why is his opinion on the matter any more relevant that anyone else's? Do you think rich people's opinions matter more than poor peoples'?

To the extent that he says that he and his peers would not be hurt by a tax increase, yes, I think his opinion matters. He is in a position to know that the tax cuts to his class were a joke.

Would forcing him to pay more make the money magically multiply? You're not making any sense.

Requiring slime like the Koch roaches and the Walton larvae pay more toward the upkeep of the government and the infrastructure would make a lot more money available. It would certainly circulate through the ecconomy here faster than it would if they were allowed to go on spending it off-shore.

I thought the whole idea was that government revenue would benefit the poor, which is why we needed to increase that revenue. Now apparently you're arguing that increased revenue benefits the rich. You're not making any sense.

You are not making any sense. I said that it makes no sense for one or two gazillionaires with a conscience to pay more into the system and not expect slime like the Waltons and the Koch roaches and the jackasses at Bank of America and Goldman Sacks to kick in as well. Why should Buffet do pennance for the Koch roaches?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sorry, but it is YOUR argument which is silly, not mine. You are free to pay more in taxes. The government already has laws in place which allow that.

I don't see how this is a reason for opposing the proposed Buffett Rule. The rule would not make this particular bit of "more" taxes voluntary. That's why it'd be different than the status quo.

It seems you're only arguing against the position of Warren Buffett himself rather than the proposed Buffett Rule. (And I realize the OP set this thread up that way--focusing on the opinion conservatives have of Buffett himself.)

If what you're saying is that the fact that Warren Buffett favors this proposed rule isn't persuasive in and of itself, I wholeheartedly agree. But that's certainly not the reason why I'm in favor of the Buffett Rule!

 

[eeyore1954]

I am worried about the Buffett Rule because
It will result in a dramatic increase in C/G rates on high earners which may in turn bode poorly for the stock market.
It will just add another level of complexity but only on high earners. As an accountant I should be happy about that.
I am worried about charitible contributions although I do not remember the latest on what it would do to that deduction.
It really adds very little in revenue if any.

 

[eeyore1954]

It's also not even a "flip-flop"

Even if Rush was a big fan of Buffett (no idea, I don't read his books or listen to him religiously, unlike the OP), criticizing somebody you have previously praised after they do something you disagree with is hardly inconsistent.

It is also hardly inconsistent to disagee on one point(taxes) while also respecting someones business success.

Finally who cares what Rush Limbaugh thinks.

 

[Neally]

Requiring slime like the Koch roaches and the Walton larvae pay more toward the upkeep of the government and the infrastructure would make a lot more money available.
I said that it makes no sense for one or two gazillionaires with a conscience to pay more into the system and not expect slime like the Waltons and the Koch roaches and the jackasses at Bank of America and Goldman Sacks to kick in as well.

They already do. The 237,000 millionaires in America pay a greater share of the income burden than every single American earning under $75,000 combined. The top 20% of income earners paid 70% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, 46% of taxpayers don't pay any federal income tax. More like time for the 46% to start kicking in.

 

[tyr_13]

They already do. The 237,000 millionaires in America pay a greater share of the income burden than every single American earning under $75,000 combined. The top 20% of income earners paid 70% of federal taxes. Meanwhile, 46% of taxpayers don't pay any federal income tax. More like time for the 46% to start kicking in.

That's because the top 20% have the vast majority of the money, and the bottom 46% have very little of it. Disingenuous framing of the numbers will not pass the sniff test on these boards even if it flies in real life.

 

[Neally]

That's because the top 20% have the vast majority of the money, and the bottom 46% have very little of it. Disingenuous framing of the numbers will not pass the sniff test on these boards even if it flies in real life.

Facts are facts despite your hand waving them away and implying that they don't matter. Yes, people with more wealth tend to have higher incomes, duh. They also pay more in taxes. Way more.

 

[Ziggurat]

If what you're saying is that the fact that Warren Buffett favors this proposed rule isn't persuasive in and of itself, I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes, that's roughly what I'm saying.

But that's certainly not the reason why I'm in favor of the Buffett Rule!

Fair enough.

 

[tyr_13]

Facts are facts despite your hand waving them away and implying that they don't matter. Yes, people with more wealth tend to have higher incomes, duh. They also pay more in taxes. Way more.

What I said was also fact. It's not a hand wave to point out the facts that show your framing to be disingenuous. What I said was not showing that it doesn't matter, but what the actual cause is. That cause is not that rich people unfairly pay for the freeloads at the bottom through unfair tax policy but that they are the ones with the money in the first place.

This is a side track and you've been corrected in other threads over and over again. I don't imagine that there will be productive discourse on it here.

 

[RandFan]

I am worried about the Buffett Rule because
It will result in a dramatic increase in C/G rates on high earners which may in turn bode poorly for the stock market.
It will just add another level of complexity but only on high earners. As an accountant I should be happy about that.
I am worried about charitible contributions although I do not remember the latest on what it would do to that deduction.
It really adds very little in revenue if any.

Do you have any basis for your assertions? Don't your assertions conform to your bias? Sure you can say you are an accountant and therefore would like to be able to charge more but in the end don't these people have sufficient income to overcome the added complexity by paying accountants like you so it's really rather moot? How much extra do you think this added charge will cost.

IMO: I have been studying this since I had a recent debate with WildCat. While there is a basis to believe that tax incentives work there is no guarantee that they will always result in net increase in revenue. What is the basis to believe ours can't be raised?

 

[RandFan]

I'm not a conservative and I don't listen to Rush but Buffett is a hypocrite plain and simple. He uses every tax loophole in the book to pay the minimum amount of taxes possible but now suddenly he wants everyone who is rich to pay more (after he's made his billions of course).

Wouldn't that mean that he will pay more in taxes also? And isn't this ad hominem? Aren't you attacking Buffett and not his arguments?

 

[Neally]

What I said was not showing that it doesn't matter, but what the actual cause is. That cause is not that rich people unfairly pay for the freeloads at the bottom through unfair tax policy but that they are the ones with the money in the first place.

Let me see if I understand your point:

1. Rich people have a lot money.
2. Poor people don't.
3. Poor people don't pay much in taxes because they are poor.
4. Rich people pay a lot of taxes because they are rich.

Now that we have that cleared up. We can focus on the point that the rich do carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden despite all the whining from the Buffetites about the rich not paying their "fair share". The ones not paying their fair share are the 46% of the people that pay zero federal income tax.

 

[Lurker]

If your argument is that other people should pay more in taxes, and you're willing to pay more yourself in order to get that to happen, then there is no logical requirement that you pay more now.

And here I thought this was intuitively obvious that this was my argument. I feel that people in certain income brackets (including mine) should pay more in taxes.

 

[Lurker]

Facts are facts despite your hand waving them away and implying that they don't matter. Yes, people with more wealth tend to have higher incomes, duh. They also pay more in taxes. Way more.

First off, let's limit this discussion to income tax.

If the population of the country is two, you and me. I earn $100,000 and you earn $10 per year. The tax rate is 20% (or use a progressive scale if you prefer). I pay $20,000 and you pay $2.

I then whine how I pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. After all, I am paying $20,000 and you are only paying $2. Not fair at all, is it?

Your response?



P.S. The numbers you have been quoting I hear all the time on talk radio and they are painting only half the picture. The other half of the picture includes what each group earns as far as % of income. So a more reasonable comparison would be

Group A earns X% of the money and pays Y% of the tax burden

In a rigorously strict enforcement of "fairness" X should equal Y

 

[Policenaut]

Wouldn't that mean that he will pay more in taxes also? And isn't this ad hominem? Aren't you attacking Buffett and not his arguments?

Yes. My position is about Buffett as a person. He's a hypocrite. If there was a loophole in the rule named after him he would take it. I don't really give a damn about the buffett tax. It's inconsequential. It won't bring in enough money to make a statistical blip in the deficit. I don't think it'll hurt many rich people if it passes either. Certainly not someone like Buffett. Funny we don't usually hear these kinds of "I want to pay more" arguments from these rich guys before they make their mega bucks. They gotta have billions first before they think it's now the opportune time for them to pay a fraction more in taxes. Buffett could be paying lots more in taxes right now but he chooses not to by using loopholes. So he's saying he wants to pay more but won't if he has a choice. He will only pay more when he has no choice but to. What a weasel. I hope all the loopholes get closed but with our current *************** of a tax code I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. My position is about Buffett as a person. He's a hypocrite.

• If his actions are successful then it will result in raising his taxes. He doesn't want to benefit unfairly and therefore he isn't a hypocrite.
• Your argument is ad hominem and therefore fallacious, but I do appreciate your honesty.

 

[Neally]

First off, let's limit this discussion to income tax.

If the population of the country is two, you and me. I earn $100,000 and you earn $10 per year. The tax rate is 20% (or use a progressive scale if you prefer). I pay $20,000 and you pay $2.

I then whine how I pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. After all, I am paying $20,000 and you are only paying $2. Not fair at all, is it?

Your response?

The perfect form of fairness is that each person pays for exactly what they use, no more, no less. Since this is totally impractical for everything that the government provides, taxes based on income or consumption have to be used. Your scenario is unfair if the higher payer doesn't get 10,000 times the amount services from the government as the lower payer. The problem is that the left wants to make it even more disproportionate and unfair while claiming just the opposite.

Quote:Group A earns X% of the money and pays Y% of the tax burden
In a rigorously strict enforcement of "fairness" X should equal Y

Nope, I don't buy that criteria for the ultimate form of fairness. My ultimate hypothetical would be based on services used as mentioned above. But let's run the numbers through your criteria:
For all people earning $1 million+, their total income is $726.9 billion. That is 10% of all reported AGI earned reported to the IRS. They paid 177.5 billion in taxes which is 20% of all the taxes collected. Looks to me like they are way overpaying according to your fairness criteria.