Stop Coddling the Super-Rich: Warren Buffett

[hugolp]

I said corporate tax rate. Then you change it to corporate tax rate income to GDP and call me a lier. You corporatists are just incredible.

Ayeyo, I gave you a full critique of keynesian economics and you completely chicken out and disaperared.

You imply sir that our corporations are heavily taxed which is far from the truth. Regardless of the specifics, the fact of the matter is they are getting away without paying trillions while the middle class suffers with deeper and deeper spending cuts. You advocate for their tax cuts/loopholes.

I said what I said, and it was correct. You call me a lier for it. You can now claim to read my mind and pretend I was implying whatever you want.

You dont even know my political positions but it has not stopped accusing me of a bunch of stuff. Regarding what you are saying, its the fault of progressives. You justify the polticians having more control and produce the corporate system we have now where corporations fight and lobby politicians for tax regulations (f.e. Warren Buffet) while diluted people play their game and ever cheer them.

It is customary for the biggest company's to donate to all the candidates. Mostly they do it for publicity to show that they care about the American system. The difference is that Democrats get the majority of their money from individuals and non profit organizations, and Republicans get most of their money from Wealthy beneficiaries like the Koch Brothers and other corporatist.

You corporatists will justify anything.

[1714000275]

1714000275

[1714000275]

1714000275

[1714000275]

1714000275

[AyeYo]

I said corporate tax rate. Then you change it to corporate tax rate income to GDP and call me a lier. You corporatists are just incredible.

Ayeyo, I gave you a full critique of keynesian economics and you completely chicken out and disaperared.

You imply sir that our corporations are heavily taxed which is far from the truth. Regardless of the specifics, the fact of the matter is they are getting away without paying trillions while the middle class suffers with deeper and deeper spending cuts. You advocate for their tax cuts/loopholes.

I said what I said, and it was correct. You call me a lier for it. You can now claim to read my mind and pretend I was implying whatever you want.

Then what were you implying?  Were you not implying that corporations are too heavily taxed?  What point were you making with your statement?

[FlipPro]

So it's theft to help your own country now huh?

God Obama is going to win so bad in 2012... You guys are just giving this election away lol.

No it's theft when my money is used to pay the bills of my friends sister who has 2 children by 2 different fathers, has no job, owns the latest and greatest cell phones and laptops and is quoted as literally saying (wouldn't have believed it if I didn't hear it myself) in dead seriousness "I need to have another kid so I can get some more money" both in child support and federal and state assistance.....

That is theft!

Your gross generalization of anyone who is receiving help is disturbing.

Is this how you really look at other people who are taking help from the government right now to survive?

The person who you know has her own problems to deal with and her free ride will be over with time. However, how can you relate Warren Buffet only paying 17% in taxes to your (I assume poor) free loading friend who probably barley has enough to feed her kids she has now.

How is it that you can justify in your mind giving Billionaires like Buffet huge tax cuts while normal people (like your friend) have to justify having another kid just to make rent with the welfare check...

It's an amazing time we are living in people...

[AyeYo]

So it's theft to help your own country now huh?

God Obama is going to win so bad in 2012... You guys are just giving this election away lol.

No it's theft when my money is used to pay the bills of my friends sister who has 2 children by 2 different fathers, has no job, owns the latest and greatest cell phones and laptops and is quoted as literally saying (wouldn't have believed it if I didn't hear it myself) in dead seriousness "I need to have another kid so I can get some more money" both in child support and federal and state assistance.....

That is theft!

What's your yearly income?

[NghtRppr]

Oh, who gives a fuck what you think, I'm just popping in to say that the more you post on this forum the fewer non-crazy customers you'll get.

It's pretty funny how the people on here who think of capitalism as some kind of God-like force that can do no wrong are also the ones who are so bad at business that they see no problem running around calling potential customers "whining parasites".

My service is targeted towards libertarians and anarchists. You're still welcome to use my service if you change your mind but I really won't miss you if you don't.

[AyeYo]

What's your yearly income?

Can you explain how my personal income matters to this discussion at all?....

Because I want to know if you are actually paying your fair share or whether you're a moocher just like your sister.  The people that spend the most time railing against the welfare "parasites" typically aren't making enough income to actually be paying their fair share either.  Just because you pay a few bucks in taxes every year doesn't mean you're actually covering the costs of the services provided to you.  It'd be a bit hypocritical of you to condemn moochers while mooching yourself, don't you think?

Just FYI, at last calculation (government budget amount / number of adult citizens = "fair share"), the break-even income point for paying your fair share was ~$150,000/year.  Everyone that makes less than that amount is being subsidized by everyone that makes more than that amount.  I'll take 1,000:1 odds on you making WAY less than that amount, thus making you a mooch as well.

[Anonymous]

The welfare queens are nothing compared to corporate bailouts. There's bigger fish to fry.

[NghtRppr]

the break-even income point for paying your fair share was ~$150,000/year

[citation needed]

[AyeYo]

The welfare queens are nothing compared to corporate bailouts. There's bigger fish to fry.

And obviously you're going to fry these fish by handing them the pan and hopping in it.

[AyeYo]

the break-even income point for paying your fair share was ~$150,000/year

[citation needed]

I already told you how to compute it.  I guess you aren't capable of grade school math.

US budget 2010: $3.55 tril
US adult population: ~228,182,000

The US unemployment rate in 2010 averaged about 9.75%, so let's get rid of those people... that gives us 207,910,706 taxpayers.

$3.55 tril / 207,910,706 tax payers = ~$17,075 per year, per person

How much would you have to earn to pay $17,075 to the federal government in taxes?  Let's use our handy dandy US tax calculator.




http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

Using 2010 figures because that's what year the budget was for, we can plug in some numbers and see what we get...


vipermoron probably makes well under $150,000/year.  Let's say he makes $30,000/year.

Damn, that's only $3,903/year.  Guess he's going to have to step his game up to not be a moocher.


Looks like $90,000/year will put him just over the break-even at $17,348.  Obviously that's with NO write offs, including kids (~22% of American couples have children, most more than one).  Do the math to factor in all the write offs and you'll be just shy of $150,000/year using up to date numbers.  I'll let you do that part yourself.



Cliffs: viperidiot is a mooch

[AyeYo]

I do not get anywhere near the amount back from the government that I pay in nor will I ever, social security will be lost on me when I go to retire as will medi, I paid my own way through college, didn't even apply for a grant didn't think it was right to do since I am capable of caring for myself and didn't want the loan debt, I only apply for the basic tax deduction for my wife and I instead of itemizing.

Therein lies your problem.  You think that the government has to be sending you a check in order for you to be receiving a benefit.  Unfortuantely that's not how it works.

I've posted this before, but I think you'll benefit greatly from it.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water
utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see
what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like,
using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the
U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables, thanks
to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com
and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the
government can't do anything right.

[NghtRppr]

US budget 2010: $3.55 tril

That says absolutely nothing about how much I actually use. I really don't need or want social security, medicaid, foreign wars, etc, etc. Your numbers are worthless just like the posts you make.

[FlipPro]

1)  I pay an electric bill
2)  I pay a water bill
3)  I don't buy cable television, or satellite or broadcast, I do listen to the radio so I'll give you partial credit.
4)  USDA gotcha, I'll give you that one.
5)  Standard times and measurements... an advent of the railroads that the government took over without really having any urgent need for it.
6)  Postal service - An actually constitutionally mandated service congratulations!
7)  OSHA.... not necessary to avoid getting killed at work.... seriously are you worried about falling in the fry oil at any moment but thanks to OSHA your safe?....
  Roads - Hey! a 2fer another constitutionally mandated service (to support the post office)
9)  State and local Fire/Police.... not a part of the fed budget ... it's state and local, covered by local sales taxes and my property taxes.
10) Don't forget Al Gore invented the net ....  but Can't knock this it was funded governmentally... you'd be hard pressed to not realize this *required* government funding to come into existence.... but I guess your due partial credit

Congratulations! You justified a few % of my taxes!  Well done.

3)  I don't buy cable television, or satellite or broadcast, I do listen to the radio so I'll give you partial credit.

This is your biggest problem here. You have no Cable so your stuck at home listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all day so you get this serious distaste for anything Liberal/Progressive. You can't point to why your ideology is superior.

[NghtRppr]

You can't point to why your ideology is superior.

I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense. Other than that, you can do whatever you want. Everything else is immoral.

[rainingbitcoins]

My service is targeted towards libertarians and anarchists. You're still welcome to use my service if you change your mind but I really won't miss you if you don't.

So you're starting off with a subset of a niche market (bitcoins, people who want to buy them with cash and trust some random guy to send money through the mail), but you're going even further by declaring you only want a subset of a subset of a niche? I don't know why I ever complained. This business plan is brilliant, and you're sure to have upwards of five or six customers in no time.

I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense.

And if you don't keep your hands off other people, get ready to feel the wrath of a completely powerless government with absolutely no ability to punish you!

I still can't get over that argument and how central it is to the beliefs of people like you. It's like this weird fantasy world where the businessman can do no wrong and if he does do wrong, it was totally the government's fault somehow. Every damn time. Regulations made him do it! Limited liability made him do it! That's the best one because it makes some amount of sense, but the proposed solution to that problem is an environment with no way to hold anyone with any power liable for anything.

It's a broken, ridiculous ideology because it goes way too far in assuming the average person is rational and will work with the benefit of mankind always in mind. And for every historical example of people clearly not ever doing that, there's always a government to blame somehow, right?

Ironically, the people who believe this stuff are so blinded by their ideology that they don't see how irrational it is to believe that most people are rational. I mean goddamn, the evidence is all around you.

[JBDive]

Such a freaking hypocrite, yes I called Warren Buffett a hypocrite. Why?

Sure he, Gates and others who are sitting on Billions can afford more tax however most of the super rich have offshored their wealth and any tax increases on the millionaire crowd is not a tax on the Buffett's and Gates' type but a tax on those working the hardest and likely generating most of the income tax the Feds take from the various millionaires.

You've got the super rich Hollywood types like Depp who backend their deals with the studios so they are paid directly from foreign accounts into foreign accounts thus never pay income tax on those earnings. Much of their earnings come from royality checks from the distributor of the film, the DVD, the merchandise, etc and the Disti in the EU doesn't send a check to Depp's bank in California it goes right into an account probably in Ireland then who knows. You think these guys just move to some island because they like the weather?

Then you have the Gates and Buffetts who earn tons strictly from investment earnings and yes it is taxed at the lower 15% but I am willing to bet Bill Gates long ago moved as much as he could into foreign exchanges which deposit into foreign banks, not the local bank down the road in Redmond. Buffett has stated in the past he has accounts all over the world, as long as that money doesn't come home he isn't going to get hit with some major tax increase that hurts.

Who does it hurt? It hurts those high tech Silicon Valley types that are doing pretty well in Bubble 2.0. It hurts the family who worked their ass off from the 50's onward and were smart enough to invest in say an Apple or Microsoft in the 1980's. It hurts the owner/operator of lumber operations in the Pacific Northwest that if and when they can get the freaking Forest Service out of their way can actually cut down some trees and not only employ dozens but also buy big ticket items like skidders. These and others that are "millionaires" work for a freaking living, when they can work.

So sure let's tax the super rich and let's start right in D.C. by stopping ALL subsidies to ALL industry. No more corn, sugar, oil tax credits which in the case of corn is killing us and in the case of sugar killed south Florida's wetlands. I don't think anyone would stick up for oil companies at this point I hope. Ok next let's go after the military complex with it's $350 MILLION per F-22 or the $350 BILLION spent on a handful of F-35's both of which are now grounded. Am I saying we don't need a defense, hell no, but come on we have all heard the stories of $300 hammers and know full well once a Gov't contract goes out these guys soak it for all it's worth and make sure no Senator would kill it by putting production facilities in as many states as possible. Then we have the Navy with it's fleet of 11 Aircraft Carriers and two more being built at projected cost of $8 Billion each, yeah right that will hold, USS George Bush ran over $6 Billion and that was in 2001. Don't forget deploying sailors on all those ships cost over a Billion per Carrier per year and that's not counting the pilots or deployment cost such as fuel and food!

While staying in D.C. let's look at other fraud and abuse. Who thinks we need another entire military force deployed inside the US? WEll maybe we can get rid of or put major caps on TSA employment. Do we need Federal workers with Federal benefits standing around picking their nose or maybe we could deploy skilled managers to oversee outsourced security? Then we have the ATF, FBI, Federal Marshals, Forest Service, Park Rangers, Customs Agents, and the list goes on and on, all Federal Dorks with Badges and Guns. Could we maybe cut some of that spending out or do we need billion dollar FBI Agents storming a house in south Florida to return some kid to Cuba?

Finally to the sacred cow, Social Services. If you do not think there is huge fraud in Medicare, Medicaid then dudes just turn on the TV. While Dr's actually do get screwed with reduced billing you have an outfit on TV being so bold to say upfront, "you lazy Americans don't need to walk, get a powered wheelchair and we guarantee Medicare will cover it!" Do you know why that outfit shows you using your new scooter indoors and how easy it can move around the house? It's because you only have to have some quack say you need it to move around the house and TADA guess who picks up that bill? Yes sure some need these devices but come on people. If they are as bold as to advertise on TV do you have a clue what is going on behind closed doors? I won't even go into the hundreds of various social programs that do nothing but spend money. From food stamps abuse to Gov't provided Cell Phones these programs are so various, deep and entrenched nobody in D.C. is even willing to start looking at the waste for fear they will tick off some voting group.

So sure let's tax the rich more because the super rich certainly won't figure out how to not pay while in the meantime we continue sending trillions right out the front door with no accounting.

[NghtRppr]

So you're starting off with a subset of a niche market (bitcoins, people who want to buy them with cash and trust some random guy to send money through the mail), but you're going even further by declaring you only want a subset of a subset of a niche? I don't know why I ever complained. This business plan is brilliant, and you're sure to have upwards of five or six customers in no time.

Newsflash: I'm not doing this to get wealthy. Bitcoin is free market money. I'm here to support that. I'm also covering my costs so I'm satisfied with that. I'm sure you're one of those ignorant morons that thinks "free market equals selfishness" but charity and activism are part of the free market.

I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense.

And if you don't keep your hands off other people, get ready to feel the wrath of a completely powerless government with absolutely no ability to punish you!

Herp derp!

More like, get ready to feel the wrath of my shotgun or if I don't catch you, my private security firm will. Most people on this planet understand that theft is wrong when it comes to one-on-one interactions. It's only when they are fooled into thinking of themselves as worker ants, bees or cogs in this great machine called "society" that they abandon simple ideas such as "keep your hands to yourself". No, no, let's rob each other in order to protect ourselves from robbery!

I still can't get over that argument and how central it is to the beliefs of people like you. It's like this weird fantasy world where the businessman can do no wrong and if he does do wrong, it was totally the government's fault somehow. Every damn time. Regulations made him do it! Limited liability made him do it! That's the best one because it makes some amount of sense, but the proposed solution to that problem is an environment with no way to hold anyone with any power liable for anything.

All you have to understand is that free trades, i.e. trades where I don't say "accept or I'll kill you" are beneficial. Why? Let's say that I want to trade my watch for your sandwich. If we both accept the trade then necessarily, I must want your sandwich more than my watch, and necessarily, you must want my watch more than your sandwich, after the trade, we both end up with something we want more. Otherwise, why the fuck would either of us agree to the trade?! It's pretty damned simple. All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place. Convince me that's incorrect and I'll submit to whatever dumbfuck collectivist ideology you support.

[rainingbitcoins]

More like, get ready to feel the wrath of my shotgun or if I don't catch you, my private security firm will.

Ah yes, and if you can't afford a private security firm? Even better, if you can't afford one and the guy who wants to rob you can? Taken to its logical extent, we'd have companies with full mercenary armies going to war with each other all the time.

Most people on this planet understand that theft is wrong when it comes to one-on-one interactions. It's only when they are fooled into thinking of themselves as worker ants, bees or cogs in this great machine called "society" that they abandon simple ideas such as "keep your hands to yourself".

Is that really what you think? If that's the case, why are so many of our greatest criminals not the cogs or worker bees, but rather the people who run the machine? And how would any of this be different under libertarianism anyway? You still have workers, you still have a society.

All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place. Convince me that's incorrect and I'll submit to whatever dumbfuck collectivist ideology you support.

Mutually beneficial doesn't mean fair or moral or non-coercive. If I'm dying of thirst in the desert and you sell me a glass of water for $10 million, I guess you could say that's beneficial for me in that I get to stay alive, but it doesn't mean you didn't just rip me off.

It also ignores the fact that what may seem beneficial at the outset to one party may be just the opposite in reality. But I guess that's the fault of the person who got screwed, right? Should have been more of a rational actor?

[NghtRppr]

Ah yes, and if you can't afford a private security firm? Even better, if you can't afford one and the guy who wants to rob you can? Taken to its logical extent, we'd have companies with full mercenary armies going to war with each other all the time.

War costs. Peace doesn't. The companies that go to war with each other will be out-competed by the ones that don't.

And how would any of this be different under libertarianism anyway? You still have workers, you still have a society.

It's the difference between seduction and rape.

Mutually beneficial doesn't mean fair or moral or non-coercive. If I'm dying of thirst in the desert and you sell me a glass of water for $10 million, I guess you could say that's beneficial for me in that I get to stay alive, but it doesn't mean you didn't just rip me off.

It's not our job to enforce morality on each other with violence. We shun people that do things like that but we don't hold a gun to their head and tell them to stop. That's why we don't lock people up for cheating on their partner or calling their grandmother a cunt.

It also ignores the fact that what may seem beneficial at the outset to one party may be just the opposite in reality. But I guess that's the fault of the person who got screwed, right? Should have been more of a rational actor?

I didn't ignore it at all, that's why I specifically said "All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place." If you change your mind, decide you don't like the color, the flavor or whatever, you're goddamned right that's your fault. Next time, be more careful. As long as there was no fraud involved, it's definitely your fault.

[rainingbitcoins]

Ah yes, and if you can't afford a private security firm? Even better, if you can't afford one and the guy who wants to rob you can? Taken to its logical extent, we'd have companies with full mercenary armies going to war with each other all the time.

War costs. Peace doesn't. The companies that go to war with each other will be out-competed by the ones that don't.

Or, you know, they'll be seen as easy targets by the companies that do have armies and will be promptly and violently taken over. Really now. I love that the people complaining about regulations creating barriers to entry for small businesses are the same ones who are advocating for a society where those businesses will need to hire private armies to fend off bigger businesses.

It's the difference between seduction and rape.

What the hell? Mind elaborating on this, because I really don't see what this is supposed to mean.

It's not our job to enforce morality on each other with violence. We shun people that do things like that but we don't hold a gun to their head and tell them to stop. That's why we don't lock people up for cheating on their partner or calling their grandmother a cunt.

Based on the history of what modern corporations have been able to get away with and face little or no outcry or boycott, we apparently don't shun people who do things like that. This also assumes that the newspapers that would have reported those misdeeds wouldn't just be a different division of the same company that comitted them. Or making ad money from them. Or anything else that gives them financial incentive to cover it up.