"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice." -Warren Buffett
http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-sup … 40678.html
This article, about the super-rich Buffett, is a pretty convincing argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts for billionaires, isn't it?
I never have liked the term shared sacrifice. If Buffett thinks he should pay more in tax then go right ahead and pay more. Why should anyone have to join in on his self masochism?
The reason all billionaire should join Buffet is because those who have benefited so much from a free enterprise system owe the system that made it possible.
rofl, free enterprise in the US.
That always makes me laugh
True. Also, because income disparity has grown to the point that many are losing faith in our democratic, free enterprise system and in the effectiveness of our government.
So there is free enterprise is this globalized, homogenized, centralized fascist banking cartel world? News to me. . .
That is ridiculous. He says the uber rich are coddled. If you aren't uber rich Repair guy, why on earth would you want them to continue to be coddled while mainstreet is getting wiped out. And don't think that main street being wiped out won't at some point hurt Wall Street because at some point the Street will be shown to have no clothes.
A magnanimous gesture at least, and regardless of assigned motives, it should not have any negative effect on those who are NOT in the billionaire league.
But that won't stop the selfish from believing it is somehow bad to pay their share of taxes when they can afford to.
Mr.Buffett is way beyond normal people's everyday worries. He can afford anything, even being generously stupid or stupidly generous.
Why would you call it stupid? He is calling on taxes for those who are of like income and property.
There is nothing stupid about WArren Buffet. Generous, yes, stupid, no. In favor of fairer taxation, yes. Stupid, no.
Increased taxes on entrepreneurs benefits Buffet quite a bit.
Sure, he'll lose a few million in taxes, but much of his competition will not be able to survive the increase in taxes. He'll take a 1-5% hit in his revenues, but his competitors will lose 20-50% on increased taxes.
This is how Mercantilism works.
So, I'm all fine with him wanting to be taxed more...
... but only if it's ONLY him being taxed.
That is ridiculous, Evan. These guys aren't using the freedom from taxes to invest in you or main street. They use the taxes to invest in hedge funds that speculate and turn your 2.50 gas into 4.00 gas. i guess that isn't a problem for you Evan since you seem to be rolling in money. That is why you are here? Hahahahahahahaha!
Why don't you align your humble circumstance in life with your beliefs? Only brainwashed robots can't see their own self interest.
you really have a thing for hedge funds.
"THESE BASTARDS ARE INVESTING THEIR MONEY IN DIVERSIFIED WAYS SO AS TO HELP AMELIORATE THE LOSS OF REVENUE IN THE POSSIBLE FUTURE!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
Man, I F*ing hate it when people diversify their portfolios!!
At least this time you didn't blame Ron Paul for it.
No, it is the leverage of hedge funds that pushes up the prices on the contracts they invest in. Don't you know anything about economics? The hedge funds actually bounce the value of commodities up.
And as far as housing is concerned, in the last one they funded the SIVs that the banks used to get around their capital requirements. It was unregulated and caused the big banks to get into big trouble. Plus, the easy money that flowed from these SIVs actually pushed the prices of houses up because there was so much easy money.
You don't understand economics, Evan, which makes you a very dangerous politician.
Sounds like a good plan to me. If they tax the rich more, and tax the poor less, then the poor will have more to spend on goods being made (or most likely imported) by the rich business owners. If the poor spend more, the rich benefit too. It's win-win!
I agree, the American people need more to spend if the economy is to recover.
Australia made a huge pre-emptive attack on the meltdown, stimulated the economy and survived fairly well as a result. We could have done better, but shrinking the economy was not even considered as a way out.
I rescued a business once that owed 35,000 dollars to one creditor.
I rang the creditor and ordered more product, made cost cuts elsewhere and traded them out of debt in 11 months by spending, not contracting.
The creditors got paid and everyone kept their jobs except those who caused the fall in to debt in the first place.
If we had decided to shrink the stock we would never have survived.
The American economy could do with a boost from the bottom up. They should consider raising their minimum wage by quite a hike. Sounds radical, but if the costs are funded from the top (i.e. dishing out smaller raises and bonuses to those higher up the ladder), and smaller businesses are helped along by targetted government assistance for the first year or two, the economy could begin to spend it's way back up.
That is a helluva lot better theory than the ones I have seen bandied about by some of the economists I've seen!
Government "revenue" is not the problem with our system, it's over spending. Sure Buffet can be a martyr, he has billions to throw at the issue. ten percent more to him is nothing, to me it's huge. I find myself make a bit over 65K a year and I am in the top 25% of wage earners. Take another 10% from me is ridiculous. The top 50%, those making over 33K per an-um, of earners pays 97.4% of all taxes. The top 1%, those making a threshold income of 380K, pay 38.2% of ALL taxes. They collect 12% of potential income available and pay over a third of the taxes. These numbers don't include the taxes related to business that they pay do to the fact that the majority of them are business owners.
We have to stop overspending. that is the real issue and politicians don't want to point the finger back at themselves. They just want to dig deeper in to someone's pocket and it might as well be the top earners. They figure they won't complaint too much, they are a MINORITY and no one wants to here them complain about enough is enough.
They've not got too much to complain about even if their taxes are raised through the roof. The truth is that their wealth will be worth zip if those at the bottom stop spending altogether. We hear a lot about trickle down wealth, but the reality is that wealth siphons upwards.
I have had too many years to count in business and every buck I made was made by one of my workers. Money does indeed come from the bottom up, and it would serve some businesses to recognise it. Ford has, and it is beating the Asian products on price and quality, when others are falling away in the motor industry.
Another north American company has made a profit all but one year in the last hundred and has a policy of never firing anyone.
It can be done!
You're missing the big picture here. No wealth isn't taxed because the taxes were paid on the original investment. Any profit from that investment then has to be paid as well. Or would you double or triple taxation. The problem we are having in this country is a government out of control. U.S. citizens are taxed higher than most industrialized countries. The business tax rates are so high, they are moving off shore now in droves and taking jobs with them. 35% on business money is unheard of around the globe. Countries like Ireland and Switzerland are enticing U.S. companies to come over and "build" there and they are. The taxation in this country is absurd.
So are the wages for those at the bottom. No-one should have to borrow to live if they are working.
I can recall paying 49% on my company tax and 41% on my income from one of my businesses and was happy to pay it. That does not seem too high to me.
Tax on anything under 60k would need to be a lot lower though. We have a few levels without any or very little tax for the those working for little money, and subsidise with family payments. It seems to work OK.
Australia has weathered the worst of the recent financial problems and come through in fairly good shape. Your tax system doesn't seem to be hurting your economy too badly!
Tax has been much less of a problem than monopolies. Huge organisations have put all the shopping in warehouse sized specialist stores that are very convenient and have wiped out a lot of smaller businesses. Some of it is good, some bad.
Retail is having it's problems at this time as Australians close the purse stings once again in light of bad world economy news. It will be an interesting year with a "two speed" economy.
What is happening in the coming year here is the commodities boom will continue, (inflationary)while retail and domestic business falters and we are gonna get screwed if we are not miners, and the government is gonna screw them (the mining companies) for us.....just to keep it all even.
Unemployment is under 5% and never gets much below 6% historically a point that many consider to be full employment here, so 4.9% is as good as it gets I reckon.
Buffet has been talking about the dangers of the present drift towards plutocracy in the US for a long while.
General Electric paid NO taxes at all in 2010. Not one dime. They had worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion came from US operations.
Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO earned $5,487,155.
In 2008, The House Ways & Means Committee recommended ending many corporate loopholes and GE's response was to add 3 mil. more to the $18 million already allocated to its in-house lobbying dept.
January 2011, President Obama designated Mr. Immelt as his jobs czar, based presumably on his success at GE in creating jobs in China.
So who's got your back in DC?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/busin … wanted=all
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference … ;st=Search
Guys it doesn't matter if everyone paid 99% taxes on every dime they made and there were no loophole to lower your expected taxation. The Federal Government would spend all of it and still borrow or want more. It is an ever growing money eating machine. The government has $20,000,000,000 incoming revenue per month and still can't get the job done!! Government in this country has run a muck. What your saying is my kid spends more than I give him for an allowance. He is a rotten to boot. He doesn't do his chores, he is late to school, he gets bad grades, his not trustworthy, and he doesn't respect anything I do for him, but I'm going to give him an even BIGGER allowance. I'm so tired of hearing this crazy logic. I am all in favor of entitlements and social security. We built this country on helping those you are in need, but you can't use the argument that we should give drug addicts more drugs first and get them treatment some where down the road. You have to administer treatment FIRST! Cut government spending. Check out this web site for the what our "kid" spends his money on. ---- 50 Examples of Government Waste ---- The reluctance by many to pay more taxes is due to the fact that the government spending is out of control. Those who wish to blindly give more because the government can't live within its means is ludicrous.
So, should I buy new furniture or should I save money?
What economy will I support by spending - mine or Chinese, because all furniture is made in China?
I know, Warren is not stupid,he knows what he is doing, but what about the rest of us?
Why do so many seem to think that all U.S. problems will be solved once their party takes over the govt?
We've had each party in charge with control of the presidency and congress - what great accomplishments are there to show for it? What will change if a single party gets control again?
Congress should be made to be more afraid of the voters than of the lobbyists. Every single pol who is up for reelection should be voted out.
The real problem is that 47 percent of americans due not pay any kind of taxes to the federal government but most of them are on the welfare system therefore how can you have an honest vote when there all for the free handouts. What happens when we break that 50 percent mark
Ask GE, they're already there.
I'd like to see some proof of that...
Mr. Buffet is free to pay all the taxes he wants. Especially since some of the businesses he owns benefit from higher taxes.
Funny how some bend over backwards when discussing the rich as if they can do no wrong and how all they think of is others and creating jobs, but when one disagrees with the Republicans he doesn't know what he's talking about and is said to be only thinking of himself.
Paul Solman had a piece on The News Hour tonight which started with Warren Buffet's comments about coddling the wealthy in America. The segment then went on to him (Solman) doing man-in-the-street interviews where he showed an illustration comprised of three pie graphs with three very different colored sections that represented, in percentages, the distribution of wealth among various segments in America .
The top graph had a very equitable balance of wealth distribution. The middle graph had a distribution of roughly 70 precent of the wealth going to the top 20% of the population. The bottom graph had a distribution of 97% going to the top 4%.
Solman then asked a number of middle-class American tourists, coming out of a play in Manhattan, which particular graph they thought was most accurate in representing the wealth distribution in this country. All of the tourists chose either the top or the middle pie graph.
Solman then went to a lower income section (of Queens or Brooklyn, I can't recall now) and asked a couple of minority men—showing the same graphs—and they both chose the bottom graph.
The top graph was totally made up. The middle graph represented wealth distribution in Sweden, The bottom graph was based on recent and accurate non-partisan statistics of the U.S.
This explains, to me anyway, why so many people in this country are either ignorant of the facts or just plain comfortable and apathetic towards other Americans' economic realities. The Republicans are surrogates for the wealthy and the unjust exploitation of the American worker and anyone who says otherwise is a Darwinian Crapitalist—or a dupe for one.
If Buffet wants to pay more taxes, he can go ahead, but I'm willing to bet when being taken to account he'll back away. He may argue that the government wouldn't exactly make the best use of the money. Hence, this is definately part of the problem. The best Buffet can do is take his billions to make manufacturing jobs for Americans, but he won't do it, too much work. Let's face it, shuffling stocks is so much easier.
Here is a video of that Paul Solman report on PBS I mentioned. If any of you want the truth, it's available in living color right here . . .
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Why is Warren Buffett supporting Hillary Clinton for President?He is known as the smartest investor who has made his fortune under our capitalist economic system. Yet, he is supporting a socialist progressive Democratic candidate who wants to tax the rich and believes big government will solve all...
by kerryg 7 years ago
Funding for our country's children is being cut, but we allow a hedge fund manager to make enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Most of his earnings are taxed at a rate less than that of his secretary.We haven't been able to do anything about it because...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12771This is really aggravating! Even Palin is disappointing me! At least Bachmann had a proposal to cut farm subsidies but republicans supporting ethanol just to get votes of Iowans is morally wrong and unacceptable! We need to cut the budget, and that...
by thecounterpunch 9 years ago
This is the testimony of Martin Armstrong a well-reknowned hedge fund manager: "At the start of the silver manipulation I was flat. I had taken all profits and closed out all short positions. Silver was trading around $4.29 when PhiBro walked across the ring and handed to my broker an order to...
by Texasbeta 6 years ago
I hate to just post a link and walk away, but I cannot imagine it being put more clearly.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … h-20111109
by tksensei 8 years ago
BARNEY FRANK: "I'm a supporter as many in the House are, of a surtax on very wealthy people. We should probably be restraining this. But secondly, this is why a surtax on the very wealthy ought to go forward. This is a way in which we can make up for some of the problems of having to pay for...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|