There is no excuse Warren buffet is begging gov

women haze

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
485
Reaction score
23
To TAX the Freakin Wealthy......

All you guys who put up the defense..why take money from those who have earned it. Which I can understand, but if the wealthy are Keeping their money hoarded up in Off Shore bank accounts and liquidation they can afford to pay more taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/o...the-super-rich.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

Stop coddling the Wealthy with tax loopholes and let's get this Economy moving again....

Jobs, Wage Raises for Hardw orking individuals, opportunity for growth let's Do this **** people......

Ooooh I get..Obama has to leave office first I get it.
 

element0

Don Juan
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
92
Reaction score
2
Sounds reasonable, next is to work on the corporate loopholes.
 

squirrels

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
6,627
Reaction score
178
Age
45
Location
A universe...where heartbreak and sadness have bee
Flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate. No more loopholes for the rich, no more loopholes for the poor.

It'd be funny to see what would happen if we instituted a "fair" tax system. :p Both the rich AND the poor would be up in arms if they couldn't get their breaks and push the burden off onto someone else.
 

5string

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
112
Location
Standing At The Crossroads
squirrels said:
Flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate. No more loopholes for the rich, no more loopholes for the poor.

It'd be funny to see what would happen if we instituted a "fair" tax system. :p Both the rich AND the poor would be up in arms if they couldn't get their breaks and push the burden off onto someone else.
What squirrels said.

This would put an end to our fvcked up socialistic system.
 

5string

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
112
Location
Standing At The Crossroads
Danger said:
Exactly Squirrels.

A flat sales tax. That way if you consume more, you pay more. What could be more fair than that?

Imagine getting rid of that bloated department of fear called the IRS?

Imagine the freed productivity by eliminating the need for all of these complicated tax jobs that add no value other than to confuse and scare the poor while giving loopholes to the rest?
And get this, if you have a flat tax, all those who cheat could not cheat and get away with it any longer.

Of course this makes so much sense that our government could never understand it.
 

If you want to talk, talk to your friends. If you want a girl to like you, listen to her, ask questions, and act like you are on the edge of your seat.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
Hate rage hate rage hate rage hate rage.

It's all their fault! End property rights!!!
When did the Original Post mention anything about all the fault being the rich's? Or to call for the ending of property rights? It didn't. You say "hate rage hate rage" and then you fill his mouth with words.

All he did was point out a loophole that the Mega-Rich have been using for years...And the fact of the matter is regardless of what you think, 2 of the world's former #1 richest man says that the Mega-Rich are undertaxed compared to everyone else. (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet)

By the way, here is a video of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates saying why a flat tax rate does not necessarily work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY

Obviously its only two men talking but you think people like Warren Buffet really know their sh!t. You have to imagine how flawed the current tax system is if the Mega-Rich are actually asking to be taxed.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
Relax sailor. Say what you want, I just boiled down his words to what the OP was really saying.

I'm relaxed. You're the one typing crazy hate rage posts.

Citing Warren Buffet's comments as supreme evidence that we need to do this is seriously flawed at the very best.

I never said that, never typed that ever. I just said I think Warren Buffet knows what he is talking about, probably more than anyone here. And that the world's former two richest men have agreed with his views. While not supreme evidence I do think that should count for a lot.

If you really want to talk about how smart he is, perhaps you should investigate how well he did in the last 15 years and you will find his success is rather anemic in that time period.

Whether his success is anemic during that period is moot. He is one of the most successful men in the world period. Probably more successful than all of sosuave combined will ever be in terms of money.
Is it stealing when the rich ASK to be taxed? Is it seizing money when men who have been richer than all of the other 6-7billion souls on the planet say that the current US tax system is heavily flawed and they pay a smaller percentage than their own personal assistant and office workers? I think it is.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
The only one I hear asking to be taxed is Warren himself. There is a little spot on the 1040 that allows him or anyone to donate more money to the IRS. I suggest he fill in whatever number he finds appropriate.

Again, you are advocating that it is *OK* to take from someone just because they can afford it. That logic can apply to ANY concept, so be very careful in the prcedent you are establishing.

I am not advocating that. I'm pointing out Warren's argument that the Mega-Rich are somehow paying a less percentage of tax than their own office workers. That is a very big flaw that needs to be addressed.

Is it not better to just have a flat sales tax so that if you consume more, you pay more? It sure sounds a lot more free than *tax them because they have it and one of them says it's ok*.

The idea sounds good in theory... As does communism but theory does not equal reality. In the video I posted 2 posts back it already talks about some pit falls of a flat tax and why it does not necessarily work.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or perhaps a more apt phrase is.....be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

I certainly do not wish to have a .gov or a citizenry that can rationalize theft on such a scale. Where would it end???
I am not rationalizing theft. Warren pointed out that the Mega-rich pay a smaller tax percentage than their own office workers. At the very least my view is it should be an equal percentage. But it isn't. How is the guy making a rich man's coffee taxed a higher percentage then the multi-billionaire?
 

5string

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
112
Location
Standing At The Crossroads
If Buffett wants to be taxed more heavily, he can just make out his check payable to the US Treasury. Nobody is stopping him.

These clowns in Washington have even mentioned that if you have saved x bucks in your qualified accounts, ie 401K, Roth's, etc, that your social security should be reduced or even eliminated because you have more than other people! That way, they can punish those who have been frugal and reward those who have not.

Socialism plain and simple. P!sses me off.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,107
Reaction score
5,740
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
The flat tax doesn't work, because it does not allow businesses to deduct expenses against income, especially small businesses.

For example, if I bought a lawn mower on credit and started mowing yards, but I only made enough money to pay for the payment on the mower and the gas used, then under the current scheme of taxation, I have zero income and don't have to pay income tax. Under the flat tax scheme, I would have paid a giant 20-30% tax on the mower without actually having any net income. There are a lot of small businesses that barely break even, especially when getting started, and the flat tax would crush them all.

For a even simple reselling business, If I had to pay a 20-30% tax on goods initially without being able to deduct that cost, then unless my profit margin is greater than the amount of the giant flat tax, then the business doesn't work. All small-margin businesses that get by on volume would be gone, or at least they would have to markup everything 40-60% to offset not being able to deduct their initial cost like they do now. And that's only if goods trade hands once, which is optimistic.

If the answer were to simply exempt corporations from paying the flat tax, then everyone is suddenly going to pay the $100 and get an llc or corp and we are back to having worse tax evasion than we do now.

That's why there's no flat tax, other than in 3rd world countries where the government is so weak that they would never be able to collect an income tax. Kazakhstan, home of Borat, is one of them. When the US collapses into the dark ages, which will happen any time between next week and never, depending upon whom you ask, then we'll be ready for the flat tax.
 

r0cky

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
30
the majority of politicians fit in the wealthy bracket. Why in the world would they want to increase their own taxes??

Would you vote to increase your own taxes just to help the country's debt?

Now do you see why democracy can do nothing but to collapse?

Warren can think like that because he's seen the top, he knows that being the richest man in the world will not buy happiness. Until politicians see this they will not sacrifice their wealth for the benefit of their country.
 

Stagger Lee

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
138
I like how some argue don't tax the rich it's their money, we must have a flat tax! As if everyone is paid what they're really worth. Well wealth actually comes from work. If you own a company and have workers creating wealth and you pay them near minimum wage, that is really workers' wealth that is being appropiated by the person controlling the pay roll and money supply. So the richest people aren't paying taxes, the workers that actually created that wealth are paying the taxes on the behalf of the rich. If the wealthiest want to pay less taxes and want the working poor and middle class to pay more taxes, how about stop claiming all the revenue and compensating the workers? No, that would be even worse than taxes. According to the philosophy of some only the wealthy are entitled to wealth.

So basically the slaves create the wealth, the wealthy claim most of it, and turn around say let's taxes the slaves. This is about how extreme it has become. All of their arguments are just more of the same and transfering more tax burden on the productive and less wealthy and on to consumers who stimulate the economy. The wealthy want the non-wealthy basically to be taxed twice, first by them and then by the governent. The bottom 50% don't have anything left to spare.
 

azanon

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
41
Danger said:
Let's try something else......Would you not agree that a flat sales tax would be fair? The rich purchase and consume far more than the poor and it certainly gets rid of the tax loopholes right?

Would that not be better than just passing a law to grab money from the most convenient deep pockets around?
It would be easy and tempting to equate "fair" with rational, sensible, "correct", etc. It would also be naive and often just flat out wrong too, but you probably deduced that from my earlier implication. I agree with your assessment of "fair",but I fail to see your point at all from a rational point of view.

Economics 101 - generally speaking, you can measure the health of an economy by the size of the middle class. If you wanted to make the middle class smaller in a graduated tax system, you'd definitely want to implement a flat tax. To state the obvious, what would happen is the wealthier would pay much less (making them even more rich), and the poor would pay much more (making them even more poor, desolate even). The greater the disparity in wealth in a society, the greater the social unrest, revolts, riots in the streets, etc.

This whole issue reminds me of a minister once who tried to guilt the congregation I was in my pointing out that 20% of the congregation give 80% of the tithes. Probably only myself and a select few other individuals realized that's exactly how it should be. The wealthy can (and should) give a lot, and they are still wealthy. When the poor give what they don't have, sometime even the light bill doesn't get paid or food doesn't make it to the dinner table.

One more point - who the he** said any aspect of life is, or should be, fair? I find the very idea naive and short-sighted.
 

5string

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
112
Location
Standing At The Crossroads
azanon said:
It would be easy and tempting to equate "fair" with rational, sensible, "correct", etc. It would also be naive and often just flat out wrong too, but you probably deduced that from my earlier implication. I agree with your assessment of "fair",but I fail to see your point at all from a rational point of view.

Economics 101 - generally speaking, you can measure the health of an economy by the size of the middle class. If you wanted to make the middle class smaller in a graduated tax system, you'd definitely want to implement a flat tax. To state the obvious, what would happen is the wealthier would pay much less (making them even more rich), and the poor would pay much more (making them even more poor, desolate even). The greater the disparity in wealth in a society, the greater the social unrest, revolts, riots in the streets, etc.

This whole issue reminds me of a minister once who tried to guilt the congregation I was in my pointing out that 20% of the congregation give 80% of the tithes. Probably only myself and a select few other individuals realized that's exactly how it should be. The wealthy can (and should) give a lot, and they are still wealthy. When the poor give what they don't have, sometime even the light bill doesn't get paid or food doesn't make it to the dinner table.

One more point - who the he** said any aspect of life is, or should be, fair? I find the very idea naive and short-sighted.
azanon

Have always enjoyed your posts and mean no disrespect, but I disagree.

Lets start off agreeing that the poor should be helped, but that's another discussion.

What I disagree with is your comment that the "wealthy can and should give alot." In my case, I do rather well with a 6 digit income. I paid my dues and earned it along with a nice lifestyle. I'm in the highest tax bracket right now, yet the politicians keep on a comin' with new ways to get at my money and redistribute it to others. Bottom line, I don't think anyone should tell me I should pay more than another man (there are exceptions) simply because I have sacrificed, saved and have reached a level in life that many will never attain. Nobody has the right to tell me to pay more because I have more.

Gotta go hide now. Obama is targeting my income bracket. :D
 

synergy1

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
192
I have read Rands work, and I disagree with the general premise that the rich people are the 'creators' and the middle class are the 'looters'. Fact is they exist on both ends of the spectrum.

So let me ask you this. If I make 100 k$ in a few years working grueling test shift positions when I am qualified, why should I get taxed more on that than if my financial operations net the same dollar amount? Why should one source of income get taxed over 20% and the other, under 15% ( and yes ,I read enough of the tax pubs to know how to do this).

I don't advocating 'stealing' from the rich. I advocate everyone paying the same on taxes.

As for the abhorrent term 'social responsibility', rand forgot one thing. What happens when the masses are desperate? What happens when wealth disparity reaches its pinnicle? What will happen when everyone is broke, has no job, no place to live? When people have nothing to lose, this is when they are the most likely to act and the most dangerous. Social responsibility might as well be akin to sedation of the masses. If I was rich, i'd rather pay a little bit more if that meant not having to deal violent masses..

/end tangent...
 

Burroughs

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
100
synergy1 said:
As for the abhorrent term 'social responsibility', rand forgot one thing. What happens when the masses are desperate? What happens when wealth disparity reaches its pinnicle? What will happen when everyone is broke, has no job, no place to live? When people have nothing to lose, this is when they are the most likely to act and the most dangerous. Social responsibility might as well be akin to sedation of the masses. If I was rich, i'd rather pay a little bit more if that meant not having to deal violent masses..

...
Very true.

I grew up in an affluent family and have the benefits this situation entails. I went to private schools all my life and an ivy league college. Most of of my friends did the same. And most agree with WB that we ought to pay more or else risk social unrest and stagnation.

The only people I know who resist this are the middle class strivers. A pathetic group at best. As if wealth could be actually be 'earned'. A wake up call. If you're not on the inside by now you're not getting in. :) To say it another way...if you're not worth at least 10 mil then STFU

Get in the bread line now.
 

synergy1

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
192
Burroughs said:
The only people I know who resist this are the middle class strivers. A pathetic group at best. As if wealth could be actually be 'earned'. A wake up call. If you're not on the inside by now you're not getting in. :) To say it another way...if you're not worth at least 10 mil then STFU

Get in the bread line now.
It can be earned - but by a very few who have some strokes of luck and the right tools to execute said luck. many people can't. Those who can't are the biggest defenders of the system , as you said. Money is like power, if you don't have it, you probably won't get it. Those who have it won't abdicate it. These are the facts of life. Machiavelli wrote about this how many hundreds of years ago?
 

sstype

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
715
Reaction score
31
Location
atl, GA
Burroughs said:
Very true.

I grew up in an affluent family and have the benefits this situation entails. I went to private schools all my life and an ivy league college. Most of of my friends did the same. And most agree with WB that we ought to pay more or else risk social unrest and stagnation.

The only people I know who resist this are the middle class strivers. A pathetic group at best. As if wealth could be actually be 'earned'. A wake up call. If you're not on the inside by now you're not getting in. :) To say it another way...if you're not worth at least 10 mil then STFU

Get in the bread line now.
I think Danger is more worried about the definition of "rich" these days, a valid concern. A single man earning 125000 a year is considered rich by the government even though that sort of income will afford you a solid
"middle-class" lifestyle in somewhere like SF or NYC.

The working rich/professional class (small business owners, doctors, lawyers, accountants, highly-skilled technicians, middle management) are NOT the enemy.

Its the elite rich....the hedge fund billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, superstar athletes/celebrites who need to be taxed more. It's not because we want to discourage wealth creation or we're envious.....a hedge fund manager will STILL be extremely wealthy whether he makes 5 billion or 2 billion dollars.

Its because Danger, when a few people hold massive amounts of wealth, they become rent-seekers. Economic payoffs for influencing government officials and speculating in non-productive ventures (betting in the stock market, real estate, gambling) far surpass returns on traditional "real economy" investments like factories.

History has shown that extreme accumulation of wealth at the very top leads to plutocracy and oligarchy followed by social unrest and rise of extremist left or right wing movements.
 

sstype

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
715
Reaction score
31
Location
atl, GA
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Interesting article. I'm not in any suggesting Norway's model would work here.....but it does at least question the long-standing belief that low taxes on the rich is the ONLY way to national prosperity.


IN NORWAY START-UPS SAY JA TO SOCIALISM

Wiggo Dalmo is a classic entrepreneurial type: the Working-Class Kid Made Good.

Dalmo, who is 39, with sandy blond hair and an easy smile, grew up in modest circumstances in a blue-collar town dominated by the steel industry. After graduating from high school, he apprenticed as an industrial mechanic and got a job repairing mining equipment.

He liked the challenge of the work but not the drudgery of working for someone else. "I never felt like there was a place for me as an employee," Dalmo explains as we drive past spent chemical drums and enormous mounds of scrap metal on the road that leads to his office. When he needed an inexpensive part to complete a repair, company rules required Dalmo to fill out a purchase order and wait days for approval, when he knew he could simply walk into a hardware store and buy one. He resented this on a practical level—and as an insult to his intelligence. "I wanted more responsibility at my job, more control," he says. "I wanted freedom."

In 1998, Dalmo quit his job, bought a used pickup truck, and started calling on clients as an independent contractor. By year's end, he had six employees, all mechanics, and he was making more money than he ever had. Within three years, his new company, Momek, was booking more than $1 million a year in revenue and quickly expanding into new lines of business. He built a machine shop and began manufacturing parts for oil rigs, and he started bidding on and winning contracts to staff oil drilling sites and mines throughout the country. He kept hiring, kept bidding, and when he looked around a decade later, he had a $44 million company with 150 employees.

As his company grew, Dalmo adopted the familiar habits of successful entrepreneurs. He bought a Porsche, a motorcycle, and a wardrobe of polo shirts with his corporate logo on the chest. As rock music blasts from the speakers in his office, Dalmo tells me that he is proud of the company he has created. "We tried to build a family, and we have succeeded," he says. "I have no friends outside this company."

This is exactly the kind of pride I often hear from the CEOs I have met while working at Inc., but for one important difference: Whereas most entrepreneurs in Dalmo's position develop a retching distaste for paying taxes, Dalmo doesn't mind them much. "The tax system is good—it's fair," he tells me. "What we're doing when we are paying taxes is buying a product. So the question isn't how you pay for the product; it's the quality of the product." Dalmo likes the government's services, and he believes that he is paying a fair price.

This is particularly surprising, because the prices Dalmo pays for government services are among the highest in the world. He lives and works in the small city of Mo i Rana, which is about 17 miles south of the Arctic Circle in Norway. As a Norwegian, he pays nearly 50 percent of his income to the federal government, along with a substantial additional tax that works out to roughly 1 percent of his total net worth. And that's just what he pays directly. Payroll taxes in Norway are double those in the U.S. Sales taxes, at 25 percent, are roughly triple.

Last year, Dalmo paid $102,970 in personal taxes on his income and wealth. I know this because tax returns, like most everything else in Norway, are a matter of public record. Anyone anywhere can log on to a website maintained by the government and find out what kind of scratch a fellow Norwegian taxpayer makes—be he Ole Einar Bjørndalen, the famous Norwegian biathlete, or Ole the next-door neighbor. This, Dalmo explains, has a chilling effect on any desire he might have to live even larger. "When you start buying expensive stuff, people start to talk," says Dalmo. "I have to be careful, because some of the people who are judging are my potential customers."

Welcome to Norway, where business is radically transparent, militantly egalitarian, and, of course, heavily taxed. This is socialism, the sort of thing your average American CEO has nightmares about. But not Dalmo—and not most Norwegians. "The capitalist system functions well," Dalmo says. "But I'm a socialist in my bones."

Norway, population five million, is a very small, very rich country. It is a cold country and, for half the year, a dark country. (The sun sets in late November in Mo i Rana. It doesn't rise again until the end of January.) This is a place where entire cities smell of drying fish—an odor not unlike the smell of rotting fish—and where, in the most remote parts, one must be careful to avoid polar bears. The food isn't great.

Bear strikes, darkness, and whale meat notwithstanding, Norway is also an exceedingly pleasant place to make a home. It ranked third in Gallup's latest global happiness survey. The unemployment rate, just 3.5 percent, is the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. Thanks to a generous social welfare system, poverty is almost nonexistent.

Norway is also full of entrepreneurs like Wiggo Dalmo. Rates of start-up creation here are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States, according to the latest report by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, a Boston-based research consortium. A 2010 study released by the U.S. Small Business Administration reported a similar result: Although America remains near the top of the world in terms of entrepreneurial aspirations -- that is, the percentage of people who want to start new things—in terms of actual start-up activity, our country has fallen behind not just Norway but also Canada, Denmark, and Switzerland.
 
Top