[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I simply think our economy would be stronger if it was based on making and selling things, instead of just trading stocks/money back and forth.

You need a balance. Stocks allow the raising of capital for the people who make things. In a properly regulated economy, that's a good thing. The stock market is deemed as one of the features of Western economic success beginning before the industrial age. Allowing it to get out of control and become a rigged game for a few insiders with no sense of limits or decency isn't.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

At the very least, the democrats on that list have come out if favor of raising taxes on themselves so that they at least pay the same rate as a wage earner in the top income bracket.

You may want to back that claim up.

As far as I have seen, every wealthy person (Dem or Rep, makes no diff) that has offered support to increased taxes, has only offered support to increases in taxes that do not really affect them...income tax.

Income tax could be 100% and a guy like Buffet will still be paying less, as a percentage of total income, then his secretary.

[andyt]

$1:

The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he believed it was wrong that rich people, like himself, could pay less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.[4] The rule would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans.[5] In October 2011, Senate leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) proposed a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires to pay for new stimulus provisions, but the change did not go through.[6]

Part of the reason for the inequality in taxation is, that revenue from long-term capital gains is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. It's not entirely clear how many individuals would be affected by the change. An October 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service found that a 30% minimum tax rate rule would mean up to 200,000 taxpayers, equivalent to 0.06% of all U.S. citizens, paying more.[13]

The United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation released a letter in March 2012 estimating that the Buffett Rule would raise $46.7 billion over the next decade.[15] The divergent estimates come about because of different assumptions about the details of the Buffett Rule. For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation assumes that many high-income taxpayers would reduce the amount of capital gains realized in one year to fall beneath the Buffett Rule threshold.

Capital gains are in above a certain threshold. One that Buffet and Gates would far exceed.

[peck420]

So...my point still stands.

Buffet only endorsed a raise to income taxes.

The rest is assumptions.

[andyt]

$1:

Buffett, who has spoken out in favor of raising taxes on the rich multiple times, urged the super-committee to increase income taxes for the 236,000 people who earned more than $1 million in 2009, including taxes on investment profits such as capital gains and dividends. For the 8,000 people who made more than $10 million in 2009, Buffett suggested an even higher tax increase.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-b ... d=14307993

Are you finished with the bullshit now?

[N_Fiddledog]

No Peck. Don't go. There's more to this. We've yet to see who's talking BS, and I don't think it's you.

My original point was the rich guys who made their fortunes moving money around rather than producing or offering a service were mostly Democrats. Possibly all Democrats, depending on how far down the list you want to go.

I was, of course, correct so we moved on to 'yes, but some produced stuff.' To which I would answer, 'who said some didn't?' That wasn't my point, but good on whoever it was for noticing.

OK, so then we move on to yeah, but, even if they were just money managers like Buffet, he at least wanted to see the rich taxed.

Good for him. I forget exactly how it goes though, but basically there's this story that says it's fine for Buffet to want others taxed high, it doesn't affect him as much as you might thing, and facts show he's a little more worried about paying high taxes then his supporters like to blow about.

I forget exactly how it goes. I'll look around. Check this out while you're waiting.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... you-c.aspx

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a few...

http://accordingtoralph.com/2014/01/03/ ... ly-warren/

http://www.themoneyways.com/truth-about ... -taxe.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/s ... n-buffett/

This is also interesting.

$1:

Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people...

That’s right, serfs: anything your benevolent “leaders” in Washington allow you to keep is a “blessing” that has been “showered” upon you. All money rightfully belongs to the State. It’s about time you spotted owls got with the program.

Funny thing is, it turns out Buffett was being… shall we say… disingenuous when he claimed his “leaders” never got around to asking for his “shared sacrifice.” His company, Berkshire Hathaway, has been fighting the IRS tooth and nail to avoid paying its federal tax bill for nearly a decade.

How much of the State’s rightful money has this hypocrite been clutching in a white-knuckled death grip? Oh, only about a billion dollars or so. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government tallies up the bill:

More Here

[andyt]

Berkshire has shareholders. If it didn't fight this bill, his shareholders could sue for lack of fiduciary duty. Nowhere has Buffet called for higher corporate taxes. Many profitable companies have paid zero taxes and even got refunds. That's another discussion, although if capital gains are taxed the way he wants them to be, I could see the US lowering corp taxes quite a bit, since the shareholders would pay those taxes instead.

[N_Fiddledog]

Very well so we've discovered one way Warren will benefit whether Obama brings this silly eponymous tax in or not. You can excuse it. Good for you. So what? Are you ready to apologize to Peck yet, or are you going to read the other links?

[andyt]

How will he benefit? Berkshire could lose that case.

[jj2424]

andyt andyt:

How will he benefit? Berkshire could lose that case.

Your break must be over and I'll bet people are waiting for fries.

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No Peck. Don't go. There's more to this. We've yet to see who's talking BS, and I don't think it's you.

My original point was the rich guys who made their fortunes moving money around rather than producing or offering a service were mostly Democrats. Possibly all Democrats, depending on how far down the list you want to go.

I was, of course, correct so we moved on to 'yes, but some produced stuff.' To which I would answer, 'who said some didn't?' That wasn't my point, but good on whoever it was for noticing.

You were kind of correct. You said that four of the top 10 were Democrats. Goody for you. Too bad for your argument that is half of them earned their money producing the software and hardware that drive the global economy, while the Republicans on your list only create minimum wage jobs and people who need food stamps to survive. Good on the Waltons!

What you ignored - as is usually the case when you can't refute something - is that Wall Street largely supports the Republicans.

$1:

Without Wall Street, Republicans risk their coffers emptying. The securities and investment industry is the largest contributor — besides candidate committees — to the National Republican Congressional Committee this cycle, directing $3.5 million to the party committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the 2012 election cycle, the financial services industry ponied up nearly $9.9 million.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/w ... z30ZUt4RTX

Everyone konws that people vote for omne party and donate to the other right? Is that how it works? But yeah sure, Democrats are the only people who earned their wealth shifting money around...

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people...

And there goes any credibility from this source...

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

Warren Buffett, President Obama’s pet billionaire, spends a great deal of time calling for tax increases on wealthy people...

And there goes any credibility from this source...

Why, the source is right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this source is very right. And good on Buffet and Gates. If Buffett is Obama's pet, that's probably better than the given Republican candidate being the lapdog of the Koch brothers.