Buffett Debunks Galtism

[Mark B. Morrow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?_r=0

 

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

 

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

 

So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

 

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

[xr7g428]

Why so much talk? You think stealing is okay, just do it and stop trying to convince us all that it is noble.

[cal50]

Why so much talk? You think stealing is okay, just do it and stop trying to convince us all that it is noble.

 

LOL!

[RangerM]

Why so much talk? You think stealing is okay, just do it and stop trying to convince us all that it is noble.

People have to be convinced that a policy will provide a (net) benefit for themselves, and/or will only harm the other guy. People don't worry about Buffett (and shouldn't) because his wealth is sufficient to keep his status, regardless of tax rates. Nor do taxes affect people who don't pay them; and aren't going anywhere that would lead them to. But when you're trying to reach Buffett's status, tax rates affect nearly every business decision you make. If people understood that higher taxes represent greater control of the private economy, largely solidifying peoples' station in life (rich stay rich, and poor stay poor), then it might not be as popular as it seems to be.

 

But then it's always easier to implement an ultimately unpopular policy, if the people are lied to.

 

How do you kill 11 million people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKcF--1hEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3EgCFlQcyk

Edited November 27, 2012 by RangerM

[akirby]

In my county I pay property taxes. It's based on the value of your real property but not on your income. Two people who own $500K homes pay the same tax even though one may make $200K/yr and the other one $2M/yr. In return for those taxes the county provides services: legislature and law enforcement, fire and ems, roads, bridges, sewer, water service, parks and recreation. The services provided and consumed by a taxpayer doesn't change based on how much money that taxpayer earns. Everybody pays - either directly or indirectly through rent to the property owner who pays the taxes.

 

Why should the federal government be different? Does a doctor use or need more military protection than a McDonalds cashier? Does he/she require more legislators or judges or national guard? More federal highways, dams or bridges? More foreign ambassadors? More DEA agents (probably less actually)?

 

In actual money the rich already pay FAR more than their "fair share" of the Federal government regardless of the percentage.

 

I say we cap federal income at $300K/year similar to what's done for FICA and tax everything at the same rates including capital gains. Anything you can make above that is yours free and clear. And then we make the federal government fit into whatever revenue that brings in.

 

The problem with the liberals is they're starting with a budget that's WAY too high to begin with and then they're looking for ways to fund it rather than looking at what's actually NEEDED first.

 

You don't see counties and cities raising their "debt ceilings" over and over. They go bankrupt. They operate within a budget and if revenue drops then spending drops to match it.

 

The Republicans TALK about reducing government and cutting spending but they don't actually do much about it. The Democrats ignore the debt and just keep on spending.

 

We're screwed.

[TomServo92]

I'm really sick and tired of out of control government spending. I'm especially sick of hearing that the solution is "more revenue". Higher taxes on the rich is all well and good but it won't solve the problem. Eventually the tax hikes will hit the middle class. How about cutting bloated programs and finding efficiencies in others?

 

I might as well quit my job and get one with the government because I feel like I work for them anyway. Of better yet, I'll take advantage of my medical issues and start sucking off the government disability tit. It's all the rage right now ya know!

 

Sorry for the rant but this really pisses me off!

[RangerM]

I'm really sick and tired of out of control government spending. I'm especially sick of hearing that the solution is "more revenue".

The people on the receiving end of that spending are not only NOT sick of it, but clamor for more of it.

 

Every cow (even a cash cow) stops producing milk, eventually.

[grbeck]

I seriously doubt that Warren Buffett is going to pay a 91 percent, or even a 70 percent, tax rate on ANYTHING. He will manage to conveniently escape the higher taxes he wants others to pay.

 

He also sells planning services that help people circumvent or minimize various death taxes. If this tax goes away, so does the demand for his planning services. Hmmm....

 

He conveniently forgets that the rest of the world was still rebuilding from the rubble of World War II in the 1950s and even early 1960s. We were basically the only game in town, so comparing the behavior of investors at that time to today won't work.

 

What about those higher wages for everyone during those years? During the 1950s and 1960s, there was a relative shortage of labor. Immigration had been tightly restricted since 1925 (this would change in 1965), and the Great Depression had resulted in a decline in birth rates. Plus, a fair amount of able-bodied men were killed in World War II and the Korean War. And several jobs were reserved for males in general, and white males in particular. Hence, the rise in wages for those who were working. So, are we going to restrict immigration? Last time I checked, liberals in general, and Democrats in particular, were happy to make hay by tarring anyone as a racist who dares to raise that issue.

 

Conditions today simply aren't the same as they were back then. Mr. Buffett would have just as much credibility if he touted the 1955 Fairlane or Bel Air as the perfect vehicle for today's driving conditions.

 

At any rate, if higher taxes are great, why doesn't Mr. Buffett put his money where his mouth is and simply send a check to the federal government for what he believes he should pay? Last time I checked, there is no law against that. Then he'll have some credibility.

 

.

Edited November 27, 2012 by grbeck

[TomServo92]

.

 

At any rate, if higher taxes are great, why doesn't Mr. Buffett put his money where his mouth is and simply send a check to the federal government for what he believes he should pay? Last time I checked, there is no law against that. Then he'll have some credibility.

 

.

 

I said essentially the same thing here a couple of weeks ago. Talk is cheap. Write the check and lead by example.

[goinbroke2]

AKirby, you said "In my county I pay property taxes. It's based on the value of your real property but not on your income"

I don't think people comprehend the statement. The POINT of taxes in the first place was to pay for services you wanted. (military/police/fire/etc) Everybody paid equally until somebody decided that if your property was worth more, you should pay more. This was the same as income tax, everybody could pay a flat tax (it was on whisky btw) and all were taxed equally (if you drank I guess LOL) But again, SOME people decided that the rich should pay more than somebody poor. So, a graduated income tax as well as a graduated property tax was introduced.

NOW, people are fighting over just HOW MUCH more a rich person should pay, not IF they should pay more. Perhaps a cheap car should be taxed at a lower rate than an expensive one...oh, wait, england does that with their co2 tax. Bigger, more expensive cars put out more co2 than small shitboxes so a way to only tag the rich, is tag the higher co2 emitting cars! Brilliant!

Now, if they could only figure a way to charge rich people more for everyday items....ketchup, $1.00 unless you are rich, $5.00 for those in "X" income bracket. Then the battle begins on where the "x" should be and how much extra a "X" person should pay...sounds stupid when you talk about food doesn't it? Then why do people so casually accept graduated rates on anything else?

 

The problem is both revenue and spending. Primarily spending must be reduced to sustainable levels and then revenue brought up to meet that level.

Or..in simple terms, you have an arterial wound, you must first slow/stop the bleeding BEFORE you start inj more blood. The libs want to just keep adding needles in your arm, 10 pints out, 10 pints in and we're all good...REALLY??? Forget the hemoraging of blood, just increase the volume of blood being transfused??? REALLY????

 

edit: Forgot to mention that it's a little facetious for somebody with hundreds of gallons of blood to tell everybody that he agrees he should chip in an extra pint or two. Listen jackwad, if your so all about paying higher taxes, why are you claiming your income as dividends instead of as income tax??? TWO FACE! I think what he has accomplished should be applauded, but for him to say something which obviously he doesn't even practise??? SHUT THE %^&* UP!

Edited November 27, 2012 by goinbroke2

[TomServo92]

AKirby, you said "In my county I pay property taxes. It's based on the value of your real property but not on your income"

I don't think people comprehend the statement. The POINT of taxes in the first place was to pay for services you wanted. (military/police/fire/etc) Everybody paid equally until somebody decided that if your property was worth more, you should pay more. This was the same as income tax, everybody could pay a flat tax (it was on whisky btw) and all were taxed equally (if you drank I guess LOL) But again, SOME people decided that the rich should pay more than somebody poor. So, a graduated income tax as well as a graduated property tax was introduced.

NOW, people are fighting over just HOW MUCH more a rich person should pay, not IF they should pay more. Perhaps a cheap car should be taxed at a lower rate than an expensive one...oh, wait, england does that with their co2 tax. Bigger, more expensive cars put out more co2 than small shitboxes so a way to only tag the rich, is tag the higher co2 emitting cars! Brilliant!

Now, if they could only figure a way to charge rich people more for everyday items....ketchup, $1.00 unless you are rich, $5.00 for those in "X" income bracket. Then the battle begins on where the "x" should be and how much extra a "X" person should pay...sounds stupid when you talk about food doesn't it? Then why do people so casually accept graduated rates on anything else?

 

The problem is both revenue and spending. Primarily spending must be reduced to sustainable levels and then revenue brought up to meet that level.

Or..in simple terms, you have an arterial wound, you must first slow/stop the bleeding BEFORE you start inj more blood. The libs want to just keep adding needles in your arm, 10 pints out, 10 pints in and we're all good...REALLY??? Forget the hemoraging of blood, just increase the volume of blood being transfused??? REALLY????

 

edit: Forgot to mention that it's a little facetious for somebody with hundreds of gallons of blood to tell everybody that he agrees he should chip in an extra pint or two. Listen jackwad, if your so all about paying higher taxes, why are you claiming your income as dividends instead of as income tax??? TWO FACE! I think what he has accomplished should be applauded, but for him to say something which obviously he doesn't even practise??? SHUT THE %^&* UP!

 

Sometimes I think a more apt analogy is pumping hydrogen into the Hindenburg while it burns. Oh the humanity!

[Edstock]

Why so much talk? You think stealing is okay, just do it and stop trying to convince us all that it is noble.

 

No, stealing isn't OK, which is why Wall Street needs close supervision, along with an increased IRS presence with the offshore banks, so people like Romney can't get away with their greed.

[FiredMotorCompany]

In my county I pay property taxes. It's based on the value of your real property but not on your income. Two people who own $500K homes pay the same tax even though one may make $200K/yr and the other one $2M/yr. In return for those taxes the county provides services: legislature and law enforcement, fire and ems, roads, bridges, sewer, water service, parks and recreation. The services provided and consumed by a taxpayer doesn't change based on how much money that taxpayer earns. Everybody pays - either directly or indirectly through rent to the property owner who pays the taxes.

 

Why should the federal government be different? Does a doctor use or need more military protection than a McDonalds cashier? Does he/she require more legislators or judges or national guard? More federal highways, dams or bridges? More foreign ambassadors? More DEA agents (probably less actually)?

 

In actual money the rich already pay FAR more than their "fair share" of the Federal government regardless of the percentage.

 

I say we cap federal income at $300K/year similar to what's done for FICA and tax everything at the same rates including capital gains. Anything you can make above that is yours free and clear. And then we make the federal government fit into whatever revenue that brings in.

 

The problem with the liberals is they're starting with a budget that's WAY too high to begin with and then they're looking for ways to fund it rather than looking at what's actually NEEDED first.

 

You don't see counties and cities raising their "debt ceilings" over and over. They go bankrupt. They operate within a budget and if revenue drops then spending drops to match it.

 

The Republicans TALK about reducing government and cutting spending but they don't actually do much about it. The Democrats ignore the debt and just keep on spending.

 

We're screwed.

 

You just barely nudged up on an interesting concept. Why does a successful person pay more for the same highways, police, military,........or why does a poor man pay for services he doesn't use?

 

Every man should pay exactly the same. Charities could provide assistance for the needy. But, I see the law of the land being manipulated so that it is no longer true "that all men are created equal".

Apparently, if you are successful, you are demonized and punished, while the non-successful are pandered to and become beneficiaries of the penalty exacted upon the successful.

 

If every man was taxed identically, regardless of income, or wealth, then every man would be more concerned about government's growth and waste.

 

 

Don't forget to consider the Homestead Exemption for homeowner and additional exemption for seniors.

Edited November 28, 2012 by FiredMotorCompany

[TomServo92]

No, stealing isn't OK, which is why Wall Street needs close supervision, along with an increased IRS presence with the offshore banks, so people like Romney can't get away with their greed.

 

Who's going to supervise the government when they're stealing from us? Politicians are as greedy as any Wall Streeter (probably more so).

[akirby]

Who's going to supervise the government when they're stealing from us?

 

The government of course.

 

[Marginal Economist]

http://www.nytimes.c...althy.html?_r=0

 

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

 

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

 

So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

 

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

 

Is Buffett for reducing gov't spending levels to pre-1970's levels as well? Looks like a if we shaved 1/3 of gov't spending we could be there - LINK

[TomServo92]

Is Buffett for reducing gov't spending levels to pre-1970's levels as well? Looks like a if we shaved 1/3 of gov't spending we could be there - LINK

 

Now, now. We can't have talk like that. The government MUST be allowed to spend like a drunken sailor with no accountability to those providing the funding.

[Edstock]

Took 300 years from their origins in Europe, but the corporation and its controllers has produced a society whose victims believe their victimization is Good and Just.

 

[NickF1011]

No, stealing isn't OK, which is why Wall Street needs close supervision, along with an increased IRS presence with the offshore banks, so people like Romney can't get away with their greed.

 

Has anyone demonstrated in any way that anything Romney did with his offshore accounts was in any way illegal? If not, then all the IRS agents in the world wouldn't prevent him from taking advantage of loopholes to "get away with" his greed.

[Langston Hughes]

Has anyone demonstrated in any way that anything Romney did with his offshore accounts was in any way illegal? If not, then all the IRS agents in the world wouldn't prevent him from taking advantage of loopholes to "get away with" his greed.

 

It can take years of investigations to find that type of thing.

[Langston Hughes]

Every man should pay exactly the same. Charities could provide assistance for the needy. But, I see the law of the land being manipulated so that it is no longer true "that all men are created equal".

Apparently, if you are successful, you are demonized and punished, while the non-successful are pandered to and become beneficiaries of the penalty exacted upon the successful.

 

If every man was taxed identically, regardless of income, or wealth, then every man would be more concerned about government's growth and waste.

 

Do you really have such a shitty view of your fellow humans?

Even if everyone worked as hard as they could, overcome all their obstacles there would still be winners and losers. You have some idealistic conservative Utopia in your head where everyone who works hard makes great money, has an amazing life and shits roses. Please come back to reality.

 

You work for a company where the best don't always get promoted, self promotion is at least as important as ability, sometimes more and who you know, blow, work for, your daddy/sister/brother/Uncle/drinking buddy is more important than your ability. That being said sometimes ability wins out and people do reach their max potential. Sometimes they get shut down by the system. How you still think like your post above is beyond me.

[RangerM]

It can take years of investigations to find that type of thing.

And it doesn't matter if he was guilty of anything illegal or not. It only mattered (in the campaign) if enough people could be convinced he was.

 

The Five Rules of Propaganda

 

 

The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between 'Good and Bad', 'Friend and Foe'.

 

The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.

 

The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one's own ends.

 

The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.

 

The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

Edited November 28, 2012 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

It can take years of investigations to find that type of thing.

 

So that's a 'no' then.

[TomServo92]

 

 

So that's a 'no' then.

 

Didn't you know that wealthy = greedy criminal? There IS NO OTHER explanation (unless you're a rich liberal). Get with the program Nick.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Has anyone demonstrated in any way that anything Romney did with his offshore accounts was in any way illegal? If not, then all the IRS agents in the world wouldn't prevent him from taking advantage of loopholes to "get away with" his greed.

 

The release of his tax returns would have revealed whether he participated in the Swiss Bank Amnesty program. So we will never know.