No one is arguing that. He is saying that taxes on the rich are too low. And the dim bulbs on the right are howling that he should singly donate his money to the US, as if that would actually address the root problem. The right is the monkey cage at the zoo at this point. Screams and howls are all they can bring to bear.
I should mention that Einstein didn’t believe in God.
Well to begin with, are imposed not donated.
Warren Buffett donating more taxes is not going to force others to pay more taxes.
There are two question, are taxes at a sustainable level and how should the tax burden be distributed.
I go to the capitalist’s convention (i.e. BRK annual meeting) from time to time and there are defintiely people there who are upset that Buffett thinks we should have an estate tax and that we should have a progressive tax system but Buffett believes that America is the greatest money making machine in history and we risk breaking that machine because those who make the most money from the machine don’t want to pay for the upkeep.
LOL…always falling back on the tired Fox line. You people use this instead of actually arguing anything.
You also don’t remember your history very well. Don’t you remember all the veto threats of appropriations bills that Clinton made because the republican congress did not want to fund his pet projects? Hell, he even threatened to veto spending bills in his first term that required a balanced budget. Don’t you remember the government shutdown?
If you or others on the right are blankly parroting misinformation it stands to reason that you’re getting your news from sources that feed you things that are not true. If someone wants people to think they’re actually informed, they should inform themselves.
The government shutdown wasn’t on Clinton’s head. The cuts weren’t smart. You can save a lot of money (for instance) by utterly defunding the military. But that doesn’t mean you should let that budget go through.
The '95 Republicans threw a tantrum and hurt the nation in the process. The '10 Republicans are on track for more of the same.
Lobo–what do you mean “no one is saying that”? Why do lefties bring up Buffett’s view re: taxes on the rich if not to argue for increasing taxes on the rich?
Which is not too unreasonable for someone making $10 or $20 million a year. My calculation assumed no deductions, so the income would be much higher on average than the $1.8 million or so you’d get just by considering the tax rate alone.
It only sounds high if you have a lower income. I pay more in taxes than my starting salary at Bell Labs, and more than both my kids make put together. I don’t think it is particularly onerous, and if I paid less it would go directly into savings, not consumption.
I would reckon that most “lefties” think raising taxes on the rich is a good idea because they have been benefiting most over the last few years. Also, the majority of economists believe that the tax cuts for the wealthiest would stimulate the economy the least.
If one segment of the economy has been deriving greater benefit, doesn’t it stand to reason that that segment should be taxed more?
In my mind Buffet’s view is brought up as a tweak to people on the right who fetishize wealth. If actual rich people think their taxes are too low, why are you fighting so hard to give them tax cuts?
Slight hijack. I, as a hobby, apply behavioral economics to real world things, like engineering. Could you share the assumptions that made you think $173 million in state tax liability as an average over 144K people could in any way be correct? You mentioned that you thought the distribution was skewed - which it clearly is - but that would place the top earners in the distribution at an insane income level.
The only thing that pops into my mind as an explanation would be that for some reason you have a default value for any tax at 90% or something. Or was it confirmation bias? Anyone can make order of magnitude mistakes, my interest is why the result seemed more or less reasonable to you.
The misinformation comes mostly from the left on these boards. Many here, yourself included, are woefully misinformed on very basic information.
I find it amusing that you use defunding the military as cuts that are not smart. Clinton cut the military severely. I also find it amusing that, instead of arguing with my point, you just call the republican cuts a bad idea. Sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.
Defense cuts =/= defunding the military. Most of what Clinton cut was designed (or being designed) to fight a Cold War that no longer needed to be fought.
Any examples spring to mind? I can give you a few common conservative bits of misinformation that people on the right largely believe. Of course not all of them agree. Common misconceptions on the right: The stimulus was a failure, the auto bailout was a failure, AGW is a hoax, HCR will add to the deficit, ACORN was actually guilty of voter fraud, Obama’s is a [Marxist, Muslim, Foreign-Ursurper], Czars are sinister, and so on. I could come up with more, but I was just trying to think off the top of my head.
I was using the military as an example because presumably it’s important to you. Just like the Medicare and other cuts that the Republican congress was trying to make were important to Clinton.
Lobo–re: “a tweak to righties who fetishize wealth”–now you are adding a strwman argument to your argument from authority. You are not doing a stellar job of showing how it’s the righties that use this issue to show their lack of arguing ability (but, given that ýou can’t tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, this comes to no one’s surprise).
Reread my post. I put the argument right in there. Maybe you could take a look and answer it instead of lashing out?
Cite?
Lobo–there’s nothing to answer. You’ve only presented the ravings of a nutter, not an actual argument for anything.
So you admit you have no arguments?
Also you admit that you have no cite for your accusation? I’ll take your backpedaling as an apology. Thanks.
Not a leftie but an independent and always have been.
Some things are given:
[ul]
[li]average person wants to pay less tax[/li][li]average person thinks “some” of the taxes they pay are wasted[/li][li]average person wants other people to pay more tax (while they personally want to pay less)[/li][li]average person believes that “some” of their taxes goes to things they don’t personally benefit from or find ludicrous[/li][li]average person makes “some” rationale economic decisions to minimize their taxes (claim exemptions[/li], time purchases, etc)[/ul]
But I personally find it incomprehensible that “some” people think the wealthiest Americans should pay less tax. I mean it’s not like insert vociferous defender name here makes or ***likely will ever ***make enough personal income to be in the top bracket. IMHO being in the top 1% tax bracket falls into the “nice problem to have” category and I write that as having both grown up scrapping by and now in that top 1% depending on how the bonus plays out in any given year.
Warren Buffet aka the Oracle of Omaha is argueably one the most successful investors ever. Whether he is an “economist” is rather immaterial as he has a proven track record of being able to read the economy, predict where it will go, invest in fundamental businesses to capitalize on that. YMMV but at least I give his views on business and economics a lot more weight than say Sarah Palin based on track record.
Nope. You are seriously arguing that anyone who thinks taxes should be higher should pay a charitable donation to the government over and above their taxes.
Not the same.
Lobo–it’s not that I have no arguments, it’s that I have nothing to argue agaoinst. You are just flailing and stammering, which can be handled by a simple observation that you are doing so.
Also, the thread where you show you don’t know the difference between a fact an an opinion was my last pit thread, where you said that I disagree with “facts” such as “Keynesian economics” and AGW.
Oh, and “healthcare reform.”
Keep running. Eventually you’ll circle round.
The facts mentioned are that it is a fact that those two things are supported by the majority of experts in the field. If you don’t believe in AGW you are siding with less than 1% of climate scientists.
Only a fool would do that, wouldn’t you say?