What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[Neally]

Since police and fire departments and schools are generallyfunded by property and sales taxes collected within the service area, the por are going to pay more toward those services than is a gazillionaire living outside the city limits.

Well that sure is a revelation. I don't live in Houston, therefore the people that do live in Houston pay more towards the services provided by the city of Houston.

Nobody makes a dime without exploiting the commons in some way. The measure of the value extracted from the commons is most easily taken by income levels.

And the rich pay more towards the commons than the poor, yet somehow they still aren't paying their fair share.

I would, of course, favor a progressive tax rate because making more money usually involves more activity which requires proportionately more regulation.

We've already been through this repeated fallacy by assertion of yours. You think that the poor don't use many government benefits, do you? That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

 

[leftysergeant]

You think that the poor don't use many government benefits, do you? That poor neighborhoods don't require much police, court and jail expenses, do you?

What has that to do with the amount you owe toward the management of natural resources and the regulation of commerce, which are paid out of your income tax?

 

[Orphia Nay]

If he weren't saying, "Raise taxes on me", most of you would be bemoaning his worthless existence.

?

Warren Buffett is one of the biggest philanthropists in the world, and he also causes other rich people to donate huge sums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Philanthropy

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/19/buffett/ (Hot off the press.)

 

[theprestige]

?

Warren Buffett is one of the biggest philanthropists in the world, and he also causes other rich people to donate huge sums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Philanthropy

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/19/buffett/ (Hot off the press.)

These are things that make you think most people wouldn't bemoan his worthless existence. But consider lefty's point of view: Unless he's paying his fair share more taxes, his existence is a net loss to society.

Also, congratulations on not being most people.

 

[Orphia Nay]

These are things that make you think most people wouldn't bemoan his worthless existence. But consider lefty's point of view: Unless he's paying his fair share more taxes, his existence is a net loss to society.

Also, congratulations on not being most people.

Thanks, I think that's a compliment, but I'm not quite sure. What do you mean by "most people wouldn't bemoan his worthless existence"? Cheers.

 

[leftysergeant]

These are things that make you think most people wouldn't bemoan his worthless existence. But consider lefty's point of view: Unless he's paying his fair share more taxes, his existence is a net loss to society.

Cow cookies. He is not trying to use his wealth to reshape the world to suit his lust for grandeur nor to establish a dynasty.

Can't say that about the Walton larvae or the Koch roaches.

 

[Neally]

What has that to do with the amount you owe toward the management of natural resources and the regulation of commerce, which are paid out of your income tax?

1. Unsupported claim that the rich somehow use more natural resources and public benefits that society owns or provides that they don't fully pay for now.
2. The poor uses plenty of public resources and benefits that they pay nothing for in terms of income tax.

 

[Lurker]

2. The poor uses plenty of public resources and benefits that they pay nothing for in terms of income tax.

And we should increase their taxes? That will show them!

 

[Neally]

And we should increase their taxes? That will show them!

I thought it was all about "fairness" and everyone paying their fair share. Oh wait, that only works as some sort of meme to attack the rich. When it comes to the poor, they shouldn't have to help pay for stuff, they should get it free, after all they've been oppressed by the parasites the likes of Walton and Koch.

 

[Lurker]

I thought it was all about "fairness" and everyone paying their fair share. Oh wait, that only works as some sort of meme to attack the rich. When it comes to the poor, they shouldn't have to help pay for stuff, they should get it free, after all they've been oppressed by the parasites the likes of Walton and Koch.

Well, I was not the one promulgating the "fairness" argument as my primary purpose for raising taxes on the wealthy. My primary purpose is to provide the govt more revenue in an effort to tackle the deficit.

And if we are talking about fairness, wouldn't the fairest system just tax people all the same amount? Not the same rate, but the same amount? I mean, why should we penalize someone who earns more? Each person in the country should pay $X per year. If all men are created equal they should all be taxed equally. then each person's value to the govt is exactly the same. Why should an engineer pay more in taxes than a cashier? Neally already pointed out that poor people may use more goods and services than the rich so don't give me any muck about who benefits the most from government.

 

[dc1971]

Sure, but the discussion here is about income tax.

No, you turned the subject to people who don't work! To which my response is yes, there are other ways to pay taxes if you're not working.

Anyway, I think it would be fair to say that those who don't work eventually find work! Would that be a fair statement to you?

 

[leftysergeant]

The Walton larvae and the Koch roaches need the low-earners to do their scut work for them, so they rich parasites should at least pay for the conservation of that human resource.

 

[Neally]

Well, I was not the one promulgating the "fairness" argument as my primary purpose for raising taxes on the wealthy. My primary purpose is to provide the govt more revenue in an effort to tackle the deficit.

Fair enough. My suggestion to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy and cut spending.

And if we are talking about fairness, wouldn't the fairest system just tax people all the same amount? Not the same rate, but the same amount? I mean, why should we penalize someone who earns more? Each person in the country should pay $X per year. If all men are created equal they should all be taxed equally. then each person's value to the govt is exactly the same. Why should an engineer pay more in taxes than a cashier? Neally already pointed out that poor people may use more goods and services than the rich so don't give me any muck about who benefits the most from government.

As I mentioned before, my idea of the ultimate in fairness would be to tax people according to what they use. Gasoline tax to pay for roads approaches that, with the exception of hybrids/electric vehicles, as do admittance fees to national parks, but for the fast amount of government provided things, it's not practical. Your idea of a flat per person tax seems also a fair approach.

No, you turned the subject to people who don't work! To which my response is yes, there are other ways to pay taxes if you're not working.

I said nothing about people not working. The 46% that don't pay income tax are not necessarily unemployed. They could in fact be fully employed, retired, partially employed, etc. It's just that the deductions and tax rates allow them not to pay any income tax.

Anyway, I think it would be fair to say that those who don't work eventually find work! Would that be a fair statement to you?

Not all. Many can and do survive long term by being below the threshold for income taxes to kick in.

 

[SezMe]

The 46% that don't pay income tax are not necessarily unemployed.

You seem concerned that this 46% are getting a free ride. Does the fact that more than 46% of corporations pay no taxes imply that they are getting a free ride? Are you concerned about this unfairness?

 

[dc1971]

Fair enough. My suggestion to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy and cut spending.
.

And growing the economy would involve...?

 

[RandFan]

And growing the economy would involve...?

Dude, seriously, lower taxes. It always works. Look at the Bush tax cuts. Lowest in decades. You don't think that didn't grow the economy? Okay, no, it didn't. But we just need to keep lowering them till it does. Since no one knows how low they should be, perhaps the rich should pay zero for awhile until we are back on our feet.

 

[Neally]

And growing the economy would involve...?

1. Provide Stability. Private business does best when the rules do not change in mid-stream. Government where the regulations do not change constantly provide the stability that business like to see in order to plan and expand.
2. End corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is not part of a free economy. In a free society the government does not have tax exemptions, special taxes, and all sorts of carved out provisions that give insiders with power free money at the public expense. The economy grows best when their is a fair and equal playing-field. We need to get the government out of the business of taking money from everyone and giving it to pet projects. There is no reason to fund planned parenthood, wind farms, oil drilling, economic opportunity areas, ethanol, or farm subsidies.
3. There are several bipartisan bills including the Startup Act and the Agree Act. These bills will help start-ups get access to capital during the early stages by permitting crowdfunding which allows ordinary investors to pool their money online to fund new businesses. Democrats and Republicans have also introduced legislation to reform Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to make it easier for high-growth companies to go public.

You seem concerned that this 46% are getting a free ride. Does the fact that more than 46% of corporations pay no taxes imply that they are getting a free ride? Are you concerned about this unfairness?

Tax corporations all you want as far as I'm concerned. The corporations simply are a middle man tax collector. All the taxes you want to charge them with simply get passed on to the consumer.

 

[AlBell]

Nealy:
"1. Provide Stability. Private business does best when the rules do not change in mid-stream. Government where the regulations do not change constantly provide the stability that business like to see in order to plan and expand."
Here you are basically correct. Corporations usually plan to have sufficient cash on hand (or borrowing capability) to meet IRS tax when due.

"Tax corporations all you want as far as I'm concerned. The corporations simply are a middle man tax collector. All the taxes you want to charge them with simply get passed on to the consumer."
Here you are conflating sales tax for which that statement is basically correct with IRS tax. Inceasing price in mid-business-cycle-planned-for may not be practical in that a supply-demand situation usually exists, and over-pricing may see revenues fall as competitors take your customers from you.

IRS & state tax is a difficult problem, and the US has an uncompetitive high rate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html

 

[RandFan]

Tax corporations all you want as far as I'm concerned. The corporations simply are a middle man tax collector. All the taxes you want to charge them with simply get passed on to the consumer.

No, the law of supply and demand doesn't magically ceases because of taxes. Increased expenditures put an upward pressure on corporations to raise prices. Corporations may very well try to pass the tax to the consumer but if the market won't bear it then they will absorb the costs or go out of business. Econ 101.

I'm fine with lowering corporate taxes so long as we increase personal tax rates for those making in excess of $250,000 (or more perhaps).

IRS & state tax is a difficult problem, and the US has an uncompetitive high rate.

The US also has an incomparably expensive military. Someone's got to pay for that.

 

[Neally]

"Tax corporations all you want as far as I'm concerned. The corporations simply are a middle man tax collector. All the taxes you want to charge them with simply get passed on to the consumer."
Here you are conflating sales tax for which that statement is basically correct with IRS tax.

The IRS tax get's built into the product pricing, so in that sense, it is similar to a sales tax, it's just not segregated out like a sales tax. Ultimately though, the consumer pays for it. The corporate tax is essentially a consumer tax so all the talk again about paying their fair share ends up on the back of the consumer.

Inceasing price in mid-business-cycle-planned-for may not be practical in that a supply-demand situation usually exists, and over-pricing may see revenues fall as competitors take your customers from you.

If all corporations are taxed the same, there would be no competitive advantage by anyone else as far as reduced tax costs go. That of course doesn't mean revenues wouldn't fall as you mention, just that everyone's revenues would fall as the consumer reduces their demand due to increased costs. As demand falls, so does production and thus wages, so you end up reducing money circulating. There's no free lunch, you can't fix the government debt problem by taxing it away from the corporations.

Understand that I'm not arguing for increased corporate taxes, I'm just pointing out that the argument to tax the evil corporations that aren't paying their fair share, is ultimately simply another tax on consumers.