What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[dc1971]

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.

I always love this talk about cutting spending too.

It was at my job for the State of West Virginia where I learned that every penny the state takes in has to be spent. Government in any capacity does not have the luxury of a nest egg nor do legislators, judges, and lawmakers make a profit. Government does not operate like a business. Payroll for government employees and services is generated through, guess what (?), taxes!!

It's funny and laughable how the conservatives on this board have a cut and dry answer for how the government should operate and how the first order of business should be to cut spending.

And that would mean cutting taxes in case you missed elementary economics!

Why do you think it would be possible to get away with spending cuts if you raise taxes? The money you save from spending cuts will go... where?...

 

[dc1971]

I said nothing about people not working. The 46% that don't pay income tax are not necessarily unemployed.

Oh, never mind.

Delete.

 

[AlBell]

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).

[qimg]http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/1258/800pxincometaxesbycountj.png[/qimg]

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

Please fix the misquote you attributed to me; that was Neally.

As to increasing personal tax rates you may well get your wish, and definitely will if congress doesn't act before 12/31/2012. This tax-increase idea I find incomprehensively silly; I really don't want another recession. A robust economy is a much better target to shoot for; ergo, reduce corporate IRS rate.

 

[dc1971]

This tax-increase idea I find incomprehensively silly; I really don't want another recession.

And those who keep making such statements still have to answer the question of how a tax increase will create a recession?

 

[RandFan]

Please fix the misquote you attributed to me; that was Neally.

I apologize. Done.

As to increasing personal tax rates you may well get your wish, and definitely will if congress doesn't act before 12/31/2012. This tax-increase idea I find incomprehensively silly; I really don't want another recession. A robust economy is a much better target to shoot for; ergo, reduce corporate IRS rate.

Oh yeah, just look at the robust economy the lowered tax rates gave us... oh wait, it was an unmitigated disaster. How someone can look at the facts and deem lower taxes to be good is what I find not just silly but absurd.

 

[RandFan]

As to increasing personal tax rates you may well get your wish, and definitely will if congress doesn't act before 12/31/2012.

Here is what I don't get.

You are suggesting anything that happens after tax increases will be proof that increased taxes were the result, right?

Okay, now here is where I have a problem.

1. Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003
2. There was no significant improvement in our economy.
3. You refuse to accept that premise #2 was the result of premise #1.

Why should we believe in results following a tax increase will have anything to do with the increase? How can you be coherent when you pick and choose your results?

 

[leftysergeant]

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

Leaving people to starve and making it harder for small businesses to compete with mega-corporations that import cheap crap from off-shore will not gorw the ecconomy. That is part of what got us here.

As I mentioned before, my idea of the ultimate in fairness would be to tax people according to what they use.

DUH! How do you make more money than other people without using more natural and human resources? When you can explain that without making everybody laugh their butts off, you might have a point.

 

[dc1971]

I apologize. Done.

Oh yeah, just look at the robust economy the lowered tax rates gave us... oh wait, it was an unmitigated disaster. How someone can look at the facts and deem lower taxes to be good is what I find not just silly but absurd.

I thought the whole reason behind a robust economy is that people spend money.

Maybe my brain is messed up, but I was thinking anyway...

If a government employee is on a payroll, don't they get a paycheck?

And if/when they get a paycheck, would they not spend that money?

And where would they spend that money?

So where do/does/doeth government employees earn their income?

 

[leftysergeant]

And where would they spend that money?

China, unless we go back to funding government in large part by tariffs, cut subsidies to corporations that locate manufacturing facilities and customer support centers off-shore and tax the bejeebus out of "repatriated capital" that does not get used to increase domestic production of goods.

 

[dc1971]

China, unless we go back to funding government in large part by tariffs, cut subsidies to corporations that locate manufacturing facilities and customer support centers off-shore and tax the bejeebus out of "repatriated capital" that does not get used to increase domestic production of goods.

Geopolitics aside, most who work as government employees in the United States are also your run of the mill consumer. A more realistic answer when asking where they would spend their money would be within the US and within the private sector.

 

[Neally]

Leaving people to starve and making it harder for small businesses to compete with mega-corporations that import cheap crap from off-shore will not gorw the ecconomy. That is part of what got us here.

Huh? Growing the economy leaves people to starve? Earth to leftysergeant...

DUH! How do you make more money than other people without using more natural and human resources? When you can explain that without making everybody laugh their butts off, you might have a point.

Gee, I didn't realize that by providing jobs you should be penalized with higher taxes, that human resources are a public resource that someone should be taxed at a higher rate for allowing them to be employed. Now when you come up with a way to measure exactly how much government benefits and services the wealthy and poor use we can come up with a way to equitably tax them rather than your constant screeching that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, they need to pay more!

 

[SezMe]

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.

Again, Neally, you reply to my posts but you don't respond to them.

That aside, if you agree with "free market" economies, then the above is not true.

 

[dc1971]

Gee, I didn't realize that by providing jobs you should be penalized with higher taxes...

Since when is paying taxes considered a form of penalization?

 

[Beerina]

?

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.)

Coincidentally, it buys goodwill. Rockefeller did this in later years...after being savaged by politicians leading people on crusades.

Golly, Bill Gates is a massive philanthropist, too...after governments around the world started slamming Microsoft with anti-trust lawsuits...which died down after he started donating millions a year to campaigns.

Who thinks they can get elected attacking such people?

I would love for my cynicism to have no reference to reality. The older I get, though, the more accurate it seems.

 

[BravesFan]

I have always been o the opinion that economies ,as chaotic systems, act independent of what Govt happens to be in office (and any effect policies of said govt may have on economies, it takes several years for the full effect to be seen ) We tend to give credit/blame for economic things going right/wrong to Presidents when,honestly, i doubt it's ever been due to their policies that these things happen (at least not while they are in office).


I would be in favor of a type of isolationist economic policy where we put tariffs on imported goods to such a level that it makes our industry capable of price matching.

i would be in favor of taxing outsourced jobs unless said company matched the outsourced job with a domestic one.

I would be in favor of increasing the capital gains tax to 30%

I would be in favor of giving tax credits for every increased manufacturing job in the country.

I would be in favor of eliminating the individual citizen income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax.

I would also be in favor of legalizing drugs so as to remove the budgets of prevention, enforcement and penalization from their present use back into the public coffers.

I would be in favor of dumping about 75% of the present day federal govt departments and systems so as to afford Universal Health Care. IMO, it's a matter of priority, would you rather have HUD? Or free health care for everyone? Do we need a Federal Dept of Education? No , we need , the Treasury, the State Department, The Dept of the Interior and the Dept of Defense, most other things can be handled by the states .

The above slashing of federal programs could allow us to move more tax revenue to the states and allow them to handle more of their own business and allow the Federal Govt to do what it was intended to do, which is handle the big stuff the states can't. Foreign affairs, security, printing of money, federal environmental standards, federal commerce standards and free health care for all.


I bet all of this could be done and we'd still lower the individual tax burden. But people would have to come to the reality that we cannot have everything we presently get from Govt AND add more things day by day. This is a recipe for an obsese Type Two diabetes ridden govt that can't get out of bed, nor pay it' debts.

 

[leftysergeant]

Gee, I didn't realize that by providing jobs you should be penalized with higher taxes, that human resources are a public resource that someone should be taxed at a higher rate for allowing them to be employed.

Please engage the forepart of your brain before posting. Taxes are not a penalty. They are a utility bill. You are getting a benefit from your use of the commons. You are not "allowing people to be employed." You are using their resources to generate more for yourself. Their labor, plus natural resources produce wealth. Government is charged with the stewardship of both human and natural resources. You derive a greater benefit from the results of that stewardship, you owe more for that stewardship.

 

[leftysergeant]

Geopolitics aside, most who work as government employees in the United States are also your run of the mill consumer.

Problem is that, unless there are domesticly-produced goods in the stores, the money winds up in China or in some investor-class parasite's Swiss bank account.

 

[Neally]

Since when is paying taxes considered a form of penalization?

When you consider that somehow you are using up some sort of public resources by providing jobs, then have to pay specifically for doing that, I'd call it a penalty.

Please engage the forepart of your brain before posting. Taxes are not a penalty. They are a utility bill. You are getting a benefit from your use of the commons.

Sorry, I don't buy into the Marxist crap that providing employment is somehow the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat like you do.

You are not "allowing people to be employed." You are using their resources to generate more for yourself. Their labor, plus natural resources produce wealth. Government is charged with the stewardship of both human and natural resources. You derive a greater benefit from the results of that stewardship, you owe more for that stewardship.

Marxist babble, but do continue that thought and detail exactly how you can fairly measure that use, and therefore tax fairly. Then tally up how much government resources the poor use and compare the two to find out who exactly is paying their fair share.

 

[AlBell]

Here is what I don't get.

You are suggesting anything that happens after tax increases will be proof that increased taxes were the result, right?

Okay, now here is where I have a problem.

1. Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003
2. There was no significant improvement in our economy.
3. You refuse to accept that premise #2 was the result of premise #1.

Why should we believe in results following a tax increase will have anything to do with the increase? How can you be coherent when you pick and choose your results?

No improvement? Not from my viewpoint. Plus it didn't get worse, and may have staved off the recession Obama finally caught. I suspect McCains' mishandling of that was likely part of the reason he lost.

As to where we are headed

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...amas_solution_to_high_taxes_even_higher_taxes

You probably think that's a good idea. I don't, nor do I believe anyone can rationally predict unintended consequences. When this doesn't fly, Bernake will just devalue the $ even more rapidly than is now occuring, and I predict the Chinese juan will soon replace the dollar as the currency of trade, while we watch the price of our bread, milk and eggs continue to skyrocket.

Romney has yet to weigh in on any of this nonsense.

 

[leftysergeant]

When you consider that somehow you are using up some sort of public resources by providing jobs, then have to pay specifically for doing that, I'd call it a penalty.

How do you make money without consuming resources, burdening infrastructure (to include the regulatory agencies which ensure that you and your custimers and employees are not harmed by your or your competitor's actions) or using the labor of other persons?

Sorry, I don't buy into the Marxist crap that providing employment is somehow the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat like you do.

Only labor, applied to natural resources, creates wealth. Capital is a product of labor. If you are not paying a living wage, you are stealing labor. This is an inescapable fact. If you disagree, talk to the sig line, the avatar is sick of hearing it.

Marxist babble, but do continue that thought and detail exactly how you can fairly measure that use, and therefore tax fairly. Then tally up how much government resources the poor use and compare the two to find out who exactly is paying their fair share.

Ancap twaddle. The poor are a resource which needs to be maintained in good health as a labor pool. Taxing them to help pay for the regulatory burden and infrastructure subsidizes the capitalists who need them, as a resource to the harm of those who are shut out of the ecconomic game.