quote Warren Buffett says he supports President Barack Obama's efforts to eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans, but he disagrees on where to draw the line. In an op-ed piece in The New York Times on Monday, Buffett writes that the cutoff should be "maybe $500,000 or so." Obama has insisted that the cuts be extended only for families with less than $250,000 in annual income. Republicans argue that tax rates should stay lower for everyone to promote economic growth. It's a key issue in the ongoing negotiations over the looming "fiscal cliff." In his op-ed, Buffett rejects the idea that wealthier Americans would go on "strike ... stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp —capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities." Buffett also repeats his controversial call for a minimum tax of high incomes. He's suggesting 30 percent on taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on incomes above $10 million. "A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny faction of ours," he writes. He thinks Congress should make that change right away, and not wait for some effort at a more comprehensive tax reform. In the meantime, he writes, you might "run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds." Buffett wants to help. "Send him my way. Let me unburden him."

http://www.nbcnews.com/busi...nion-obama-1C7206891

It's not like these greedy Montgomery Burn clowns were doing bad during the Clinton era. Everybody was making money hand-over-fist during the Clinton years and so too were the tax loop holes. President Bush comes along and does a favor for his buddies and now they're complaining like it's something new to them. Give me a break! Pay your share of taxes just like all of the other 99% have been doing for we all know they will have off shore accounts and the best tax accounts known to mankind.

------------------



"Friends don't let their friends drive stock."

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 11-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Pay your share of taxes just like all of the other 99% have been doing

All of that 99% does not pay. You know that, must have just gotten too excited.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: It's not like these greedy Montgomery Burn clowns were doing bad during the Clinton era. Everybody was making money hand-over-fist during the Clinton years and so too were the tax loop holes. President Bush comes along and does a favor for his buddies and now they're complaining like it's something new to them. Give me a break! Pay your share of taxes just like all of the other 99% have been doing for we all know they will have off shore accounts and the best tax accounts known to mankind.

They paid their share, and invested a lot of it to get you your damned job.

Time to go back to Economics 101 for you.

What defines the term "ultra-rich"?

quote Originally posted by theBDub: What defines the term "ultra-rich"?

Anyone that has more than you . ( well not you specifically, im sure you understand what i mean )

How dare they pick on our Gods!

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-26-2012).]

Any investor, ultra rich or not, will look for investing opportunities. Higher taxes will make different "opportunities" more attractive. If moving the money out of the country, or moving themself out of the country, is a wise financial move, many will do it.

Buffett is a great mouthpiece for the administration, but he doesn't mention how he's profited by key administration decisions, like the cancelling of the Keystone pipeline.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Anyone that has more than you . ( well not you specifically, im sure you understand what i mean )

Wealth envy for many, but not for all.

Nobody ever seems to be able to put a number on it, though.

"Ultra Rich" what a joke. They're only "investing is to ship all of the jobs overseas.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Wealth envy for many, but not for all. Nobody ever seems to be able to put a number on it, though.

Put a number on rich, poor, middle class for us and you might have a better idea. Also I think it's pretty clear in the article quoted that Warren Buffett is using a figure of $500 000 that can afford to pay the tax rate he is advising.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: It's not like these greedy Montgomery Burn clowns were doing bad during the Clinton era. Everybody was making money hand-over-fist during the Clinton years and so too were the tax loop holes. President Bush comes along and does a favor for his buddies and now they're complaining like it's something new to them. Give me a break! Pay your share of taxes just like all of the other 99% have been doing for we all know they will have off shore accounts and the best tax accounts known to mankind.

exactly.

some of these buttwads make it sound like nothing existed before.

what is wrong with the Reagan tax rates? they seemed to be magical. they won the cold war, after all. they must be the most awesome rates there are. why not use them?

quote Originally posted by newf: Put a number on rich, poor, middle class for us and you might have a better idea. Also I think it's pretty clear in the article quoted that Warren Buffett is using a figure of $500 000 that can afford to pay the tax rate he is advising.

I don't like pie charts of people. I'm not the one who wants to tax all these different rates, so it isn't really on me to define poor, middle class, and rich.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: "Ultra Rich" what a joke. They're only "investing is to ship all of the jobs overseas.

Ungrateful middle class, what a joke. ( it works both ways )

quote Originally posted by User00013170: They just serve to further compartmentalize and divide us.

Yep.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I don't like pie charts of people. I'm not the one who wants to tax all these different rates, so it isn't really on me to define poor, middle class, and rich.

So you don't think poor, middle class, and rich exist and want someone to define a class for you instead?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Hello pot have you met kettle ? [QUOTE]Originally posted by User00013170: They paid their share

[/QUOTE]

Yes they have, as has most people. I'm not dividing, in fact im doing the opposite.. Trying to show that the so called 'rich' are just like the rest of us in this aspect.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 11-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: They're only "investing is to ship all of the jobs overseas.

Yeah right, . What of it, if it were true ? Do we have you on record as saying the only investing you would do would be if it helped other people ?

quote Originally posted by newf: So you don't think poor, middle class, and rich exist and want someone to define a class for you instead?

"Ultra-rich" was brought up in the title, and in the article. I asked what it meant. I'm not asking you to compartmentalize. I'm asking what the term used in the article presented means.

I think people exist and that some have varying degrees of money. That's about all that goes through my head when I think about economic classes of people.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: It's not like these greedy Montgomery Burn clowns were doing bad during the Clinton era. Everybody was making money hand-over-fist during the Clinton years and so too were the tax loop holes. President Bush comes along and does a favor for his buddies and now they're complaining like it's something new to them. Give me a break! Pay your share of taxes just like all of the other 99% have been doing for we all know they will have off shore accounts and the best tax accounts known to mankind.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: exactly. some of these buttwads make it sound like nothing existed before. what is wrong with the Reagan tax rates? they seemed to be magical. they won the cold war, after all. they must be the most awesome rates there are. why not use them?

They parade Reagan's name around like it's the best thing since sliced bread here and elsewhere, but somehow they have forgotten the tax rates during his term. Just think about for one moment. How many jobs are now located in foreign countries during the so-called Bush years? If the Bush years were so great why then the exodus? I have one word, GREED. The ultra rich reaped record profits during Bush and Obama's first term and yet they still want to continue the tax breaks. Give me a break. Did they continue the interest on credit cards as a deduction? Here's the answer, NO.

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 11-26-2012).]

There's so much wrong about this article that I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, what will STOP the ultra-wealthy from investing is the 15% to 35% capital gains tax increase that will also expire with the Bush tax cuts.

If I didn't know any better, I'd almost say that this article took bits and pieces of Warren Buffet's conversation and attributed ALL of the Bush Tax cuts to whether or not people making over $250,000 a year should get a tax increase.


But aside from personal income tax, the biggest downfall of America right now is it's 35% corporate tax rate. It's the highest in the world. Japan also has a 35%, but offers tons of incentives so it's really more like high 20s.

We're not competitive at all in the global economy, and I just don't get why people can't see that? If you lower that to like 20% or something like that, you'd have companies flocking to the United States to set up their headquarters.

Todd

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We're not competitive at all in the global economy, and I just don't get why people can't see that? If you lower that to like 20% or something like that, you'd have companies flocking to the United States to set up their headquarters. Todd

But then you cant be a socialist and fleece the wealthy...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yeah right, . What of it, if it were true ? Do we have you on record as saying the only investing you would do would be if it helped other people ?

What do you mean, "What of it?" Ask your parents or grandparents. I'm sure you'll find someone saying, "That a company use to provided for their employees." I know elderly people who use to work for Ma Bell. What about the steal factories? You'd be hard press finding a company today looking after their employees. They will sell the company to the highest bidder and send you down the river without a boat. Meanwhile the shareholders and croonies line their pockets with golden parachute retirement packages while the employees fight over the crumbs left on the floor.

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 11-26-2012).]

If the Clinton taxes were so great, then why is it called a "Fiscal Cliff" if we return to them?

I say we return to the Clinton era tax rates; ALL of them. It is time for American Austerity. We need to pay the bill for all the entitlements being handed out.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: What do you mean, "What of it?" Ask your parents or grandparents. I'm sure you'll find someone saying, "That a company use to provided for their employees." I know elderly people who use to work for Ma Bell. What about the steal factories? You'd be hard press finding a company today looking after their employees. They will sell the company to the highest bidder and send you down the river without a boat. Meanwhile the shareholders and croonies line their pockets with golden parachute retirement packages while the employees fight over the crumbs left on the floor.

Hmm... you mention two industries that were dismantled by government regulation as being "monopolys"... Bell Telephone Company, and Carnegie Steel Company.

Also, companies can no longer be handed-down to the next of kin anymore because of the death / estate tax (IE: more government regulation). When companies like that are managed or kept in the family (so to speak).. even when they're public companies, but the major shareholder is a member of the founder's family... they are concerned about it's well being. They're concerned about the company's welfare and the people working for it. You might still have smaller companies like Coker Tire, etc... but the big companies that employ thousands of people... they just can't pay the tax when the founder dies... so they go public, and then it's all just about the investors.

All of this heavy regulation, and weird "progressive" taxes, are a result of the anti-wealth sentiment that gets fostered in America every now and then... we're in one of those times again. Unfortunately, it gets worse each time I think.


Just curious what you think about that...

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 11-26-2012).]

How about he, Mr. Buffett pays his employees more? More money spread across those who have a reason to spend will stimulate the economy, increase revenues in sales tax and income tax, and perhaps create more jobs. Close 10% of the loopholes that corporations benefit from would be a good start. As to taxing the income of the owners of these huge corporations it will have no effect as they would simply decrease the reported income they have and as they already have the companies picking up their expenses for let’s say “everything” they would be paying even less.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: "Ultra-rich" was brought up in the title, and in the article. I asked what it meant. I'm not asking you to compartmentalize. I'm asking what the term used in the article presented means. I think people exist and that some have varying degrees of money. That's about all that goes through my head when I think about economic classes of people.

Well reading the article he said "the ultra rich including me" so maybe he's talking about billionaires. I would consider them ultra rich as well.

The poverty class for instance is pretty well defined but maybe you don't think about their economic class either...
"The methodology for calculating the thresholds was established in the mid-1960s and has not changed in the intervening years. The thresholds are updated annually to account for inflation."

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Ask your parents or grandparents. I'm sure you'll find someone saying, "That a company use to provided for their employees."

I doubt that. Why did we start unions ? Companies do provide for their employees, by giving them a chance to work. Many company employees provide for other company employees which provide for/enrich the company. As it should be.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Wealth envy for many, but not for all. Nobody ever seems to be able to put a number on it, though.

Nor does anybody want you to try to quantify it.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: And to avoid doing real work which would result in paying income taxes.

And if a rich person did to some "real work" you'd complain they were taking work away from people they could be paying to do the work.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Companies do provide for their employees, by giving them a chance to work. .

It is not one-sided.
One is not doing all the giving while one does all the taking.

One needs something built that they can sell.
The other has the skill to build for them.

But they both want the same thing.
Money.

They both just need to come to a deal that is good for both of them.

Unfortunately, consumers have decided they would rather buy cheaper goods, meaning their countries factories must cut the cost of their product which means they must cut the cost of producing that product by cutting the wages of their employees, or they will have to close their doors and open up in a country where people will do the same job for cheaper.

So, the real catalist here is the consumer.
They demand cheap.
America can't do cheap.

We believe in a living wage & a safe workplace.
And we just can't compete with those that don't.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-26-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: We believe in a living wage & a safe workplace. And we just can't compete with those that don't.

A living wage ? We believe in $200.00 sneakers. We believe in all the latest greatest big boy toys. We believe in spending our money on interest, for things we did not want to wait for. We don't believe in saving.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: A living wage ? We believe in $200.00 sneakers. We believe in all the latest greatest big boy toys. We believe in spending our money on interest, for things we did not want to wait for. We don't believe in saving.

Well, that too.

Why do Libs/Dems think raising taxes are going to help??????? We have to stop government growth and wasteful spending and stop the loopholes that the rich have. Raising taxes will only hurt the middle class. I'm not rich and I have already stopped spending money like I did under bush. I do not trust the people in office at this time. The Dems are real good at lies, separating classes and races to achieve their agendas. Hating the rich does not help anyone but the Snake in Office.

quote Originally posted by F355spider: I'm not rich and I have already stopped spending money like I did......

I must be the only one keeping this country afloat.........i'm spending like there IS no tomorrow!
There is no tomorrow.
There is no tomorrow.
There is no tomorrow.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I must be the only one keeping this country afloat.........i'm spending like there IS no tomorrow! There is no tomorrow. There is no tomorrow. There is no tomorrow.

Party like it's 2012!

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: ... i'm spending like there IS no tomorrow!

Even squirrels know better than this. Well, not the squirrels in Washington ...umm DC, . Squirrels save nuts for tomorrow/winter.
The thing here Boonie, is that Washington is spending "other peoples money" like there is no tomorrow. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem and there is a tomorrow.