# Warren Buffett Calls for Tax Increase on Super-Rich



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

So Warren Buffett wants to see tax increases on super rich.

Buffett Blasts Low Taxes On Billionaires, Says Congress Must Stop Coddling Them | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

This is actually an American issue, but I actually agree with a tax increase on the super-rich there. I don't in anyway believe that this will save the US but they are so far behind, if you combine that with cuts, when/if they happen it will help.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

At the same time that Buffet bequeathed a large portion of his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in such a way as to avoid estate taxes. Hypocrite.

TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffett: Estate Tax Hypocrite?



> Buffett could give his fortune to the Gates Foundation in a manner which generates federal tax. This would leave less for the foundation but more for the federal fisc. Indeed, Bill Gates, like Warren Buffett, advocates retaining the federal estate tax. He too could leave his assets to his foundation in a fashion which would share part of those assets with Uncle Sam., It seems strange for prominent and outspoken advocates of the federal estate tax to dispose of their assets in a manner meticulously designed to avoid the federal estate tax. ...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I see no problem with tax credits when donating especially for a good cause.

I looked up tax brackets in the US and they seem to be in line with what we are taxed here, 10% all the way up to 35% for making more than $379k. Is there anything I'm missing here? Different rates on capital gains? Being able to write off mortgage interest although I'm sure the super rich don't have mortgages? Perhaps Dr. G could chime in. 

Tax cuts for the rich and for businesses are always cited as good for the economy as it creates jobs. If I were a business owner, I would honestly take that money saved on tax cuts and run. I'm not going to hire more people unless I know they will make me more money and I will upgrade business infrastructure on a timely basis no sooner no later.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

not sure he's a hypocrite, he's just having some tax lawyer do what he's paid to do.

his point is the wealthy should be taxed more, and he's been consistent in this message for years. if he by himself pays more it's a small remedy, but if the rest of the super wealthy do then it can actually solve some problems.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

dona83 said:


> I
> I looked up tax brackets in the US and they seem to be in line with what we are taxed here, 10% all the way up to 35% for making more than $379k. Is there anything I'm missing here? Different rates on capital gains? Being able to write off mortgage interest although I'm sure the super rich don't have mortgages? Perhaps Dr. G could chime in.
> .


you should read his original opinion piece :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2



> Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> At the same time that Buffet bequeathed a large portion of his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in such a way as to avoid estate taxes. Hypocrite.
> 
> TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffett: Estate Tax Hypocrite?


Give me a break. He's pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated Billions to the Gates foundation that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He works efficiently with his money within the rules.

He's a hypocrite for not out of his way to donate money to Washington? 

He's flat out suggested to tax himself more.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> At the same time that Buffet bequeathed a large portion of his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in such a way as to avoid estate taxes. Hypocrite.
> 
> TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffett: Estate Tax Hypocrite?


That's total BS. Saving tax money by giving away billions, I hope you don't manage finances for a living. Yes he could have made it taxable, but that defeats the purpose of a charitable donation. This wasn't about avoiding tax it was about using his wealth to make the world better, otherwise he would have used some tax scheme and trusts and all that and donated nothing.

Since he is talking about raising income tax on the super-rich, he isn't immune from the tax increases.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Ah lower capital gains tax. It's the opposite here yet it doesn't stop people from investing. Well we do have RRSPs but...

I see giving to charities as citizens doing government work, directing money to causes they see fit. The NDP government would probably like to see the government be the central traffic control for all money in and all money out to different needs of citizens, whereas the Conservative government would probably want to abolish all social funding and leave it to citizens to direct money as they see fit. I prefer a central ground -- the Liberal route.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

dona83 said:


> ...
> Tax cuts for the rich and for businesses are always cited as good for the economy as it creates jobs. If I were a business owner, I would honestly take that money saved on tax cuts and run. I'm not going to hire more people unless I know they will make me more money and I will upgrade business infrastructure on a timely basis no sooner no later.


This has turned out to be true, and it is a fallacy that the tax cuts for rich and business stimulates growth and creates jobs, pretty much for the reasons you have cited. Now this is still within reason however, lowering taxes, and alternatively raising taxes by significant amounts will impact growth and job creation, as it will affect returns on investments to a degree of stopping investments.

People will still invest if there is profit to be made. What taxes do is lower your return, not create a loss. Given the choice of making a profit or doing nothing, I take the profit thank you very much.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

dona83 said:


> I see no problem with tax credits when donating especially for a good cause.
> 
> I looked up tax brackets in the US and they seem to be in line with what we are taxed here, 10% all the way up to 35% for making more than $379k. Is there anything I'm missing here? Different rates on capital gains? Being able to write off mortgage interest although I'm sure the super rich don't have mortgages? Perhaps Dr. G could chime in.
> 
> Tax cuts for the rich and for businesses are always cited as good for the economy as it creates jobs. If I were a business owner, I would honestly take that money saved on tax cuts and run. I'm not going to hire more people unless I know they will make me more money and I will upgrade business infrastructure on a timely basis no sooner no later.


I too have no problem with tax credits for charitable donations.

While I am not of the "super rich" class, I do know that mortgage interst is deductible, but only for your primary residence.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Give me a break. He's pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated Billions to the Gates foundation that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He works efficiently with his money within the rules.
> 
> He's a hypocrite for not out of his way to donate money to Washington?
> 
> He's flat out suggested to tax himself more.


Amen, Brother John. :clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

ehMax said:


> Give me a break. He's pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated Billions to the Gates foundation that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He works efficiently with his money within the rules.
> 
> He's a hypocrite for not out of his way to donate money to Washington?
> 
> He's flat out suggested to tax himself more.


Apparently he's a hypocrite for not backing MF's tax cutting proposals backed by the Tea Party.

How dare a SUPER RICH person defy the magnificent tax cutting ideal of MF and the Tea Party rightness. 

Really who does this Buffett person think he is to talk the talk and also walk the walk?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Apparently he's a hypocrite for not backing MF's tax cutting proposals backed by the Tea Party.
> 
> How dare a SUPER RICH person defy the magnificent tax cutting ideal of MF and the Tea Party rightness.
> 
> Really who does this Buffett person think he is to talk the talk and also walk the walk?


Right on, BigDL. "No taxation without representation". "Live free or die".

Still, it shall be very interesting to see how the Tax Party will see their way in cutting some of the programs and entitlements that directly assist their members. Let's hope that day never comes. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.

Still, I think that WB has the correct way of helping to share the burden of trying to balance the books.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Right on, BigDL. "No taxation without representation". "Live free or die".
> 
> Still, it shall be very interesting to see how the Tax Party will see their way in cutting some of the programs and entitlements that directly assist their members. Let's hope that day never comes. We shall see.
> 
> ...


I'm sure it will only be an outrage upon reading the letter detailing the disentitlement of the much needed service or funding.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I'm sure it will only be an outrage upon reading the letter detailing the disentitlement of the much needed service or funding.


I find it interesting to see who are the main financial supporters of the Tea Party.

"The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States." 

Read more The Billionaire Koch Brothers’ War Against Obama : The New Yorker

Tea Party Funding Koch Brothers Emerge From Anonymity - Peter Fenn (usnews.com)

:greedy::greedy::greedy:


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> I too have no problem with tax credits for charitable donations.
> 
> *While I am not of the "super rich" class, I do know that mortgage interst is deductible, but only for your primary residence.*
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


What??? Even if you don't run a business out of your home?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Joker Eh said:


> What??? Even if you don't run a business out of your home?


Yes.

"Under 26 U.S.C. § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the United States allows a home mortgage interest deduction, with several limitations. First, the taxpayer must elect to itemize deductions, and the total itemized deductions must exceed the standard deduction (otherwise, itemization would not reduce tax). Second, the deduction is limited to interest on debts secured by a principal residence or a second home. Third, interest is deductible on only the first $1 million of debt used for acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving the residence, or the first $100,000 of home equity debt regardless of the purpose or use of the loan."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Give me a break. He's pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated Billions to the Gates foundation that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He works efficiently with his money within the rules.


He supported the estate tax--then avoided it. 



ehMax said:


> He's a hypocrite for not out of his way to donate money to Washington?


Yes. He wants other people to donate _their_ money to Washington.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> He supported the estate tax--then avoided it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. He wants other people to donate _their_ money to Washington.





These comments are foolish.

I was honestly expecting some kind of irrational argument about how the super-rich paying more taxes would be wrong, not some useless drivel about avoiding taxes by giving his accumulated wealth away.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> Yes.
> 
> "Under 26 U.S.C. § 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the United States allows a home mortgage interest deduction, with several limitations. First, the taxpayer must elect to itemize deductions, and the total itemized deductions must exceed the standard deduction (otherwise, itemization would not reduce tax). Second, the deduction is limited to interest on debts secured by a principal residence or a second home. Third, interest is deductible on only the first $1 million of debt used for acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving the residence, or the first $100,000 of home equity debt regardless of the purpose or use of the loan."


Can I do this here in Canada? I should get someone to do my taxes instead


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Joker Eh said:


> Can I do this here in Canada? I should get someone to do my taxes instead


Not unless you run a business from home.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> At the same time that Buffet bequeathed a large portion of his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in such a way as to avoid estate taxes. Hypocrite.
> 
> TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffett: Estate Tax Hypocrite?


It says right there in the quote that the federal tax on that donation would leave less for the charity. So why the heck wouldn't he choose to take a tax break? If the US isn't willing to tax everyone evenly why should Buffet pay more taxes on money he's giving to charity than those who spend it on... Oh I don't know... What do libertarian's spend their money one these days? Gun rallies? Lobbying lower taxes and reinstating McCarthyism for proponents of socialized healthcare?

Meanwhile he's willing to pay more taxes and proposes a genuine solution to a very serious problem.

Hypocrite, my ear.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> It says right there in the quote that the federal tax on that donation would leave less for the charity. So why the heck wouldn't he choose to take a tax break? If the US isn't willing to tax everyone evenly why should Buffet pay more taxes on money he's giving to charity than those who spend it on... Oh I don't know... What do libertarian's spend their money one these days? Gun rallies? Lobbying lower taxes and reinstating McCarthyism for proponents of socialized healthcare?
> 
> Meanwhile he's willing to pay more taxes and proposes a genuine solution to a very serious problem.
> 
> Hypocrite, my ear.


Why should any of the "Super Rich" give it to Washington instead of to someone else?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Probably for the same reasons the middle class is made to give it up.

Fair is fair. You have a right wing government supported by the rich spending it's face off on expensive wars, well, the bill has to get paid, regardless of what anyone's opinions are on taxes.

This seems to be a little out of reach for some outstanding thinkers...


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Why should any of the "Super Rich" give it to Washington instead of to someone else?


Because the rich stay rich and get even richer by exploiting the rest of the population, and the tax laws that favor them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The tax laws don't favor them--they pay more in income tax than anyone else. Even those who find many loopholes can be made to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The tax laws don't favor them--they pay more in income tax than anyone else. Even those who find many loopholes can be made to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax.


Not according to what Buffett has stated and the reason he thinks tax cuts for the rich are wrong. Again why let a guy who knows, confuse and confound things for some guy on the internet with an opinion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Not according to what Buffett has stated and the reason he thinks tax cuts for the rich are wrong. Again why let a guy who knows, confuse and confound things for some guy on the internet with an opinion.


Macfury knows more than Buffett could ever know about taxes for the rich because, shut up.


Scuse me while I go spend some tax cut money on screwin around out on the boat.

Maybe a bigger yacht next year when those gorgeous Corp tax cuts kick in.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> Can I do this here in Canada? I should get someone to do my taxes instead


No you can't, and it's the reason the US housing market crashed because hardly anyone had any equity in their homes, because it was more tax beneficial for them to have high mortgages and write off the interest.

Canada's housing market didn't crash nearly so hard, and one reason was because we have incentive to increase our equity in our homes, while the US taxation system, allowing mortgage interest to be deducted from income tax, actually made the system bloated and prone to crashing.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Not according to what Buffett has stated and the reason he thinks tax cuts for the rich are wrong. Again why let a guy who knows, confuse and confound things for some guy on the internet with an opinion.


IS tht a fact?

Alternative Minimum Tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The tax laws don't favor them--they pay more in income tax than anyone else. Even those who find many loopholes can be made to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax.


Bull. As Buffet and many, many others have pointed out, as a percent of their income they pay much less than the middle class. This is partly as a result of favourable tax regulations, partly because they hire teams of well-paid tax lawyers that make efforts by the taxman to to go after them far more difficult then going after the middle class and partly through using morally ambiguous offshore tax havens to sometimes avoid paying any tax at all.

The Bush tax cuts and the spinelessness of congressional Democrats to make sure they continued when they had the chance to allow them to expire, while the US engaged in multi-trillion dollar military adventures abroad has much to do with their current predicament.

That anyone who is a part of the middle class or lower class would support politicians who want to protect the wealthy from their fair share of taxation is incomprehensible.

I imagine Buffet must get some icy stares at the country club.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "fair share" of the rich should be the same as everyone else's. Only a flat tax is fair.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter, do you own that book? What do you think of it?

I have my own business, I've only invoiced $160 so far this year lol but maybe after learning how it can benefit me, I should try to do more side work.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The "fair share" of the rich should be the same as everyone else's. Only a flat tax is fair.


So! One person's opinion is the definitive answer. 

A guy on the internet with an opinion, is the messiah!

"He's not the messiah...he's only a naughty boy!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why should I care what Warren Buffet thinks is fair either? He's just a rich guy.

Let him speak for his own finances and contribute directly to the government. Why wait for them to force you to do it?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The "fair share" of the rich should be the same as everyone else's. Only a flat tax is fair.


Ha ha, good one MF! So you're advocating actually *raising* taxes on the wealthy so they would now pay the same rate as the serfs cleaning their offices?

I believe most calls for a flat tax in the US talk about 20%. According to Buffet he pays 17.4% and says that those who pay tax on capital gains on their investment income (because most of the super-rich don't actually need to be "employed", you just let your pile bring in the income) is in the neighbourhood of 15%. Middle class people in the US pay at least 25% and up.

But the "fairness" of a flat tax is highly debatable anyway. 20% for someone making $30K could mean serious sacrifice. Especially if you're talking about the US with little healthcare. 20% for Buffett would have no effect on his life whatsoever. He's lived long enough so that when he first started getting rich he was likely paying much higher rates than that. And as he says that didn't stop him or his buddies for a second from heavily investing. But then the GOP sold the US public on the trickle down myth, - that if you only stopped taxing the rich, all of society would benefit. Even with that myth so obviously exposed as garbage, there are still conservatives slurping up and selling that slop.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I have long advocated a flat tax with a minimum exemption. If everyone paid 20% of everything over $20k, we'd have a nice system.

But that 'everything' would have to include capital gains, investment income, lottery winnings, etc. and that 'everyone' would have to include corporations. For corporations, I might consider multiplying the minimum exemption by the number of Canadian employees.

The reason this sort of simple tax system will never happen is that it would put all the tax accountants and tax lawyers out of business.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Ha ha, good one MF! So you're advocating actually *raising* taxes on the wealthy so they would now pay the same rate as the serfs cleaning their offices?
> 
> I believe most calls for a flat tax in the US talk about 20%. According to Buffet he pays 17.4% and says that those who pay tax on capital gains on their investment income (because most of the super-rich don't actually need to be "employed", you just let your pile bring in the income) is in the neighbourhood of 15%. Middle class people in the US pay at least 25% and up.
> 
> But the "fairness" of a flat tax is highly debatable anyway. 20% for someone making $30K could mean serious sacrifice.


In the U.S., about half the population pays no federal tax at all. They need some skin in the game, or else their vote can be used only to ensure that they receive more from those who are productive citizens. So by all means flatten the tax and make everyone pay something--a tax system that includes everyone, with nobody paying absolutely nothing.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Tax all imports with extreme prejudice.


The free trade agreements we, and other developed nations have entered into since the 1980's pretty much preclude this sort of thing; although I certainly appreciate the appeal.

One of the huge problems of a global economy is that disparities in human-rights/labour/health/environmental/intellectual-property legislation & enforcement around the world, in combination with the ability of large corporations to write-off expenses like shipping, make it very difficult for local producers of almost anything to compete with imports.

One of my, admittedly unrealistic, hopes is that as people become educated with respect to the social & environmental consequences of their purchasing decisions, more people will choose to pay higher prices for products that do less economic and social damage, out of enlightened self-interest. But the fact is that most people will whine about how society is screwed up, or how the environment is in a shambles, and that the government should 'do something about it' while they go and shop at Wal-Mart.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The free trade agreements we, and other developed nations have entered into since the 1980's pretty much preclude this sort of thing; although I certainly appreciate the appeal.
> 
> One of the huge problems of a global economy is that disparities in human-rights/labour/health/environmental/intellectual-property legislation & enforcement around the world, in combination with the ability of large corporations to write-off expenses like shipping, make it very difficult for local producers of almost anything to compete with imports.
> 
> One of my, admittedly unrealistic, hopes is that as people become educated with respect to the social & environmental consequences of their purchasing decisions, more people will choose to pay higher prices for products that do less economic and social damage, out of enlightened self-interest. But the fact is that most people will whine about how society is screwed up, or how the environment is in a shambles, and that the government should 'do something about it' while they go and shop at Wal-Mart.


What I see happening is that, as these jobs are exported, the general level of wealth begins to rise in these countries. As it does, it gives them enough "hand" to demand better working conditions, etc. We're beginning to run out of countries to which we can export some manufacturing jobs simply because those countries have become too well-off to save the manufacturer any money. Countries like Korea are now exporting manufacturing jobs, for example, too poorer nations.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> *I have long advocated a flat tax with a minimum exemption.* If everyone paid 20% of everything over $20k, we'd have a nice system.
> 
> But that 'everything' would have to include capital gains, investment income, lottery winnings, etc. and that 'everyone' would have to include corporations. For corporations, I might consider multiplying the minimum exemption by the number of Canadian employees.
> 
> The reason this sort of simple tax system will never happen is that it would put all the tax accountants and tax lawyers out of business.


So did Preston Manning....  :yikes:


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

,


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What I see happening is that, as these jobs are exported, the general level of wealth begins to rise in these countries. As it does, it gives them enough "hand" to demand better working conditions, etc. We're beginning to run out of countries to which we can export some manufacturing jobs simply because those countries have become too well-off to save the manufacturer any money. Countries like Korea are now exporting manufacturing jobs, for example, too poorer nations.


Most poorly informed comment of the century.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately we and other nations are not smart enough to think for ourselves and opt out of this bad deal.


What exactly are talking about??


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately we and other nations are not smart enough to think for ourselves and opt out of this bad deal.


You and we didn't create the deal. The object is square, multinational corporations win at every step. Jobs were exported as a reaction to organized labour in the 1980s; it eventually crystallized into what is often termed the Washington Consensus.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Most poorly informed comment of the century.


Well.. while I don't necessarily agree with some of the language used by MF which I think can easily be misconstrued, I think I know where he is coming from.

It is true that the more we "help" *developing *economies the less they are "cheap" labour/manufacturing alternatives for developed western nations. I think this is a simple statement of fact. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it only makes sense. 

The more that developing nations economies improve the worse it is for first world companies looking for cheap labour/manufacturing.

It maybe unsavoury, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I'm not advocating anything one way or the other by saying so... simply keeping eyes wide open without prejudice.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> You and we didn't create the deal. The object is square, multinational corporations win at every step. Jobs were exported as a reaction to organized labour in the 1980s; it eventually crystallized into what is often termed the Washington Consensus.


Jabberwocky....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Well.. while I don't necessarily agree with some of the language used by MF which I think can easily be misconstrued, I think I know where he is coming from.
> 
> It is true that the more we "help" *developing *economies the less they are "cheap" labour/manufacturing alternatives for developed western nations. I think this is a simple statement of fact. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it only makes sense.
> 
> ...


Exactly what i was getting at.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> That, and start doing our manufacturing within our borders instead of importing goods form overseas sweat shops in communist countries and under dictatorships. Tax all imports with extreme prejudice. Use the cash to get manufacturing of similar goods done here.





MazterCBlazter said:


> Unfortunately we and other nations are not smart enough to think for ourselves and opt out of this bad deal.


You do realize this kind of thinking and these ideas has been done before during the depression, and it only makes things worse in the long term and creates unneeded additional hardships on poor as the standard of living goes down.

Unfortunately trade allows for greater efficiencies and allows more economic flow within every country participating



screature said:


> Well.. while I don't necessarily agree with some of the language used by MF which I think can easily be misconstrued, I think I know where he is coming from.
> 
> It is true that the more we "help" *developing *economies the less they are "cheap" labour/manufacturing alternatives for developed western nations. I think this is a simple statement of fact. It may not be politically correct to say so, but it only makes sense.
> 
> ...


This thought is offensive to some, I think it would be a mistake to just completely turn back, it would only make a bad situation worse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> This thought is offensive to some, I think it would be a mistake to just completely turn back, it would only make a bad situation worse.


See this is the kind of post I regrettably expected from certain people... 

Who said anything about back turning??? 

I made a specific statement to avoid such confusion but despite my best efforts and worst suspicions it still persists... So be it.... 

My and others observations are offensive to some?... despite the fact that it is just an observation, regardless of political inclination or thoughts/opinions as to right or wrong... just an observation of what is.... and that is offensive to some? 

Well yes, I can see that for those with a certain agenda it may be offensive. but for those of us who are just watching, it is just an observation of what exists.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

screature said:


> See this is the kind of post I regrettably expected from certain people...
> 
> Who said anything about back turning???
> 
> ...


hmmm... I agreed with you, whats your problem?

You referred to your own observations as unsavoury, I was agreeing with the fact that some might even call it offensive.

Way to take something out of context.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> In the U.S., about half the population pays no federal tax at all. They need some skin in the game, or else their vote can be used only to ensure that they receive more from those who are productive citizens. So by all means flatten the tax and make everyone pay something--a tax system that includes everyone, with nobody paying absolutely nothing.


It sounds like you're saying that those who pay no federal income tax are not productive citizens. That's quite the assumption if that's what you're saying. There are many who work hard or are simply under-employed and don't make enough money to hit the minimum for taxation. That doesn't make them "non-productive" citizens. As a matter of fact I would say that someone who earns money by applying their own time and physical and mental energy is far more productive then someone who earns their money by sitting back and having their fortune generate their income for them 24/7 as the people Buffet is talking about do.

But in all countries nobody pays absolutely nothing, everyone pays some taxes, because of sales taxes and other specialized taxes. The percentage of their income that people on the bottom end pay in sales taxes can be quite high. If you add sales taxes into the equation, which Buffet did not, then the 97.5 percent of us who are not super-rich pay an even higher percentage of our incomes.

With your flat tax idea, the devil is in the details. Flat tax proposals that have been floated in the USA often only apply to wages, leaving capital gains income (where the super-rich make most of their income) and inheritance income, untouched. And the huge amount of loopholes that would have to be closed for a flat tax to be even close to being fair are monumental. It's probably unrealistic to think that those who control politics (those with money) would ever consent to something which may result in them paying more than they do now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It sounds like you're saying that those who pay no federal income tax are not productive citizens.


No. I am saying that if they pay no federal tax, they should not be allowed to vote. Or alternatively, everyone should pay some federal tax.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No. I am saying that if they pay no federal tax, they should not be allowed to vote. Or alternatively, everyone should pay some federal tax.


there's more to tax revenue than just income taxes. everyone pays a bit in different ways. the idea that people have to be some sort of specific cog in your defined system to have a voice in democracy is silly.

What if someone doesn't pay income taxes because they volunteer all their time to a passion cause? they don't get to vote because you say so?

What about those who are physically not fit to hold a job? sorry, no voice to their cause because they can't vote.

stay at home moms? just keep them in the kitchen.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. I am saying that if they pay no federal tax, they should not be allowed to vote. Or alternatively, everyone should pay some federal tax.


Are you saying if a person pays a dollar of GST/HST then you may vote regardless of age?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Are you saying if a person pays a dollar of GST/HST then you may vote regardless of age?


No. I would still have an age limit for voting. And no, I would have a basic minimum contribution that would be required for the vote. More than a dollar certainly. Personally, I believe that all taxes should be sales taxes, in which case the vote could be universal. However, if people insist on also taxing income, then I think a minimum payment is appropriate.



i-rui said:


> What if someone doesn't pay income taxes because they volunteer all their time to a passion cause? they don't get to vote because you say so?


No, they would need to pay something. I neither care about their passion, or most of their causes. Who cares if they put on a polar bear head and pretend to be drowning off an iceberg in protest?



i-rui said:


> hat about those who are physically not fit to hold a job? sorry, no voice to their cause because they can't vote.


They would pay a percentage of their benefits.



i-rui said:


> stay at home moms?


Again, a minimum payment would be required. Probably from the benefits they receive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm just testing this idea out. It has some bugs in it, but I think I like it.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I think paying to be able to vote is a bad idea. On the voting topic, I also think that putting in penalties and incentives for voting are bad ideas.

Also a straight flat tax (% based) is inherently inequitable. It equitable in terms that everyone pays the same percentage, but not everyone receives an equal benefit from society.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ertman said:


> I think paying to be able to vote is a bad idea. On the voting topic, I also think that putting in penalties and incentives for voting are bad ideas.


I agree that paying to vote is a bad idea. I've often suggested the idea of passing a test in order to vote (i.e. demonstrating some awareness of the issues and positions of the candidates), and I like that idea but recognize that it would be nearly impossible to implement fairly.



> Also a straight flat tax (% based) is inherently inequitable. It equitable in terms that everyone pays the same percentage, but not everyone receives an equal benefit from society.


Again, I agree. The question is how 'curved' does a tax system have to be in order to be an acceptable compromise between 'fair' and 'simple'? The more complex a tax system, the more it will be gamed and manipulated by people with the expertise and resources to do so. To be truly fair, each individual would have to be taxed in proportion to how much they personally benefited from being a member of society, making the system extraordinarily complex.

Our current compromise is very complex, and still fails to be fair. So I would argue that it is a poor compromise.

While a flat tax with a minimum exemption is not ideal, it is certainly as fair (or more so) than our current system (especially if all sources of income are taxable, so the wealthy and corporations cannot escape taxation as they currently do), and it is very simple.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think that, in a system based on income tax, it is fair for anyone to pay nothing. How is that a "fair share?"


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I don't think that, in a system based on income tax, it is fair for anyone to pay nothing. How is that a "fair share?"


our system (democracy) is not "*based*" on income tax. income tax is but one method of revenue that the government employs. *everyone* is contributing to that revenue in one way or another.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

i-rui said:


> our system (democracy) is not "*based*" on income tax. income tax is but one method of revenue that the government employs. *everyone* is contributing to that revenue in one way or another.


Not so. Those on the various forms of social assistance contribute nothing to society ........ they just suck it dry for the rest of us taxpayers. They should either contribute or get off the payroll. Either they make it on their own or not ........ we are not our brother and sister's keeper. Rugged individualism is the way to go. Either make money or get out of the way of those who are making money and making their mark on society. They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps .......... even if they are without shoes ......... or food ........ or a home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> our system (democracy) is not "*based*" on income tax. income tax is but one method of revenue that the government employs. *everyone* is contributing to that revenue in one way or another.


Our system is not even democracy. But the government financial system is partially based on income tax.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*seemed apropos*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sums the libertarian position up, spot on.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Dr.G. said:


> Not so. Those on the various forms of social assistance contribute nothing to society


Social assistance is there as a temporary measure to help people get back on their feet so they can contribute in the future. Which would you rather have - a short term payout to help a family get back to paying taxes, and raise their kids to get jobs and pay taxes; or a homeless family who will likely never contribute again?

Sure, some abuse the system. So what. Rich people abuse the system by hiding wealth and income offshore to avoid contributing to society too.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Let the Free Market Rule*

If you are not industrious or smart enough to protect your property properly, then you deserve to be victim of the free market Income Re-distribution of Wealth Plan, aka the Trailer Park Boys Method (TPBM.)

Pay tax dollars to control, arrest, convict and incarcerate the TPBM individualists involved with these activities, who are being entrepreneurial after all, just trying to prosper like anyone else. 

Not to mention the higher private tax of, property insurance but this is a good tax cause it goes to the private sector or we can opt to pay higher deductibles to lower our private tax burden or not to have insurance at all and avoid this private tax altogether.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*25 ceos who made more than their companies paid in taxes*

25 CEOs Who Made More Than Their Companies Paid In Income Taxes - The Consumerist


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> If you are not industrious or smart enough to protect your property properly, then you deserve to be victim of the free market Income Re-distribution of Wealth Plan, aka the Trailer Park Boys Method (TPBM.)
> 
> Pay tax dollars to control, arrest, convict and incarcerate the TPBM individualists involved with these activities, who are being entrepreneurial after all, just trying to prosper like anyone else.


I would put the Trailer Park Boys in jail in a heartbeat.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah but are you willing to shell out the large amount of tax dollars to investigate, hunt, apprehend, and keep with living expenses for their long term (since neo cons etc love long jail sentences).

The wealthy would rather you foot most of the bill which you're ok with I gather.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No. I am saying that if they pay no federal tax, they should not be allowed to vote. Or alternatively, everyone should pay some federal tax.


<sarcasm>Way to disenfranchise every college and university student. Good plan.</sarcasm>


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

cap10subtext said:


> <sarcasm>Way to disenfranchise every college and university student. Good plan.</sarcasm>


Strangely, and I'm sure many would argue this is just a coincidence, but there's a distinct correlation between one's political views and educational level. The more educated one is, the more likely one's political views are going to be liberal (there was a Pew study on this, but I can't find the link just now).

Therefore, from a right-wing POV, preventing university students from voting is a good idea.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

funny enough, personal experience bears this out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> our system (democracy) is not "*based*" on income tax. income tax is but one method of revenue that the government employs. *everyone is contributing to that revenue in one way or another.*


Not true in the case of those on welfare... everything they spend comes from revenues already collected form other individuals, so not true at all. They do nothing but take from government revenue. Regardless of whether or not this is a short term situation leading to self betterment and eventually again at some point contributing to government revenue, or if it is an ongoing chronic situation for the individual, it is a simple fact.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> <sarcasm>Way to disenfranchise every college and university student. Good plan.</sarcasm>


If students buy anything they pay federal tax via the GST... they may not pay income tax but they pay federal tax.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Strangely, and I'm sure many would argue this is just a coincidence, but there's a distinct correlation between one's political views and educational level. The more educated one is, the more likely one's political views are going to be liberal (there was a Pew study on this, but I can't find the link just now).
> 
> Therefore, from a right-wing POV, preventing university students from voting is a good idea.


There is no therefore as you have not demonstrated the veracity of your claim... post fail.

I would hope as an academic you would fail a student who made such as claim without proof, yet somehow your claim is supposed to be worth something without proof in a public forum.... hmmmm....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> There is no therefore as you have not demonstrated the veracity of your claim... post fail.
> 
> I would hope as an academic you would fail a student who made such as claim without proof, yet somehow your claim is supposed to be worth something without proof in a public forum.... hmmmm....


screature--I could just as easily (and badly) explain that poll by saying that the more likely one was to be indoctrinated by leftist professors, the more likely one would be to believe that one's guilt could be expiated through government programs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature--I could just as easily (and badly) explain that poll by saying that the more likely one was to be indoctrinated by leftist professors, the more likely one would be to believe that one's guilt could be expiated through government programs.


True enough.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> If students buy anything they pay federal tax via the GST... they may not pay income tax but they pay federal tax.


I'm not sure why this was directed at me. But in any case, students are also more likely to be significant tax payers after their schooling. Not all, but I would say the large majority of them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> screature--I could just as easily (and badly) explain that poll by saying that the more likely one was to be indoctrinated by leftist professors, the more likely one would be to believe that one's guilt could be expiated through government programs.


that would be, (sorta) entertaining.

What guilt?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> There is no therefore as you have not demonstrated the veracity of your claim... post fail.
> 
> I would hope as an academic you would fail a student who made such as claim without proof


Good grief, I certainly don't expect any sort of academic rigour in casual conversations on a public forum. But if you find this most uncontroversial statement contentious, two minutes with Google would've saved you the embarrassment of having me rub your nose in the data.

The link between education and social liberalism has been called "one of the most stable and consistent findings in empirical social research" (Weil, 1985 , American Sociological Review 50:458-74). It has been well-documented for decades (see for example Stouffer (1955) "Conformity and Civil Liberties" Wiley, New York; Lipset (1960) "Political Man" Anchor Press Garden City NJ; Ransford (1972) American Sociological Review, 37:333-46; Davis (1975) American Journal of Sociology, 81:491-513; Nunn, Crockett and Williams (1978) "Tolerance for Non-conformity" Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco CA; McCutcheson (1985) Public Opinion Quarterly 49:474-88; Bobo and Licari, (1989) Public Opinion Quarterly 53:286-308).

Really, I can't believe you'd be so out of touch with the social sciences as to find the claim that education correlates with liberalism contentious, so you were simply playing the academic rigour card in a hope that you'd score some sort of point.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I'm not sure why this was directed at me. But in any case, students are also more likely to be significant tax payers after their schooling. Not all, but I would say the large majority of them.


It was a mistake on my part... didn't mean to direct at you or bryanc, meant to only quote cap10subtext, the multi-quote was a mistake... my bad.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Good grief,* I certainly don't expect any sort of academic rigour in casual conversations on a public forum.* But if you find this most uncontroversial statement contentious, two minutes with Google would've saved you the embarrassment of having me rub your nose in the data.
> 
> The link between education and social liberalism has been called "one of the most stable and consistent findings in empirical social research" *(Weil, 1985 , American Sociological Review 50:458-74). It has been well-documented for decades (see for example Stouffer (1955) "Conformity and Civil Liberties" Wiley, New York; Lipset (1960) "Political Man" Anchor Press Garden City NJ; Ransford (1972) American Sociological Review, 37:333-46; Davis (1975) American Journal of Sociology, 81:491-513; Nunn, Crockett and Williams (1978) "Tolerance for Non-conformity" Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco CA; McCutcheson (1985) Public Opinion Quarterly 49:474-88; Bobo and Licari, (1989) Public Opinion Quarterly 53:286-308).*
> 
> Really, I can't believe you'd be so out of touch with the social sciences as to find the claim that education correlates with liberalism contentious, so you were simply playing the academic rigour card in a hope that you'd score some sort of point.


:lmao:

There now you have some veracity. 

Simply not true in the least, you demand it of others here all the time otherwise you are very quick to point out their intellectual failings. 

I was rubbing your nose in the fact that you were being lazy, when you so often demand intellectual rigour from others here. It seems to sting a little when the same is asked of you, I guess what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander when it comes to master bryanc unless challenged.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Good grief, I certainly don't expect any sort of academic rigour in casual conversations on a public forum. But if you find this most uncontroversial statement contentious, two minutes with Google would've saved you the embarrassment of having me rub your nose in the data.
> 
> The link between education and social liberalism has been called "one of the most stable and consistent findings in empirical social research" (Weil, 1985 , American Sociological Review 50:458-74). It has been well-documented for decades (see for example Stouffer (1955) "Conformity and Civil Liberties" Wiley, New York; Lipset (1960) "Political Man" Anchor Press Garden City NJ; Ransford (1972) American Sociological Review, 37:333-46; Davis (1975) American Journal of Sociology, 81:491-513; Nunn, Crockett and Williams (1978) "Tolerance for Non-conformity" Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco CA; McCutcheson (1985) Public Opinion Quarterly 49:474-88; Bobo and Licari, (1989) Public Opinion Quarterly 53:286-308).
> 
> Really, I can't believe you'd be so out of touch with the social sciences as to find the claim that education correlates with liberalism contentious, so you were simply playing the academic rigour card in a hope that you'd score some sort of point.


This is totally beside the point. You'd be disenfranchising everyone who pays tuition as tuition is a tax deductible expense and results in refundable tax credits. This would include apprentices, students at technical/nursing/teachers college. And because these students are in school it's likely their total income would be small enough to get HST credit.

So you think that suppressing the vote of a few PhD's is going to make a whopping difference against the rest of the working class conservatives you've expunged from your voting pool?

This is my last word on this absurd idea.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> that would be, (sorta) entertaining.
> 
> What guilt?


I predicted nothing to this.

I think it's a pretty sad thing to see others dismiss basic human compassion as, "guilt".


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

groovetube said:


> i think it's a pretty sad thing to see others dismiss basic human compassion as, "guilt".


+1


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I think it's a pretty sad thing to see others dismiss basic human compassion as, "guilt".


GT, don't you know that kindness and compassion are human failings?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Perhaps to some hard right conservatives and libertarians it is.

That truly pathetic.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Perhaps to some hard right conservatives and libertarians it is.
> 
> That truly pathetic.


It would be interesting to see how they felt if they were the ones truly in need. They talk a good game...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well we can already see that. They have spent considerable resources ensuring average citizens believe they should shoulder the tax burden and stop whining about reduced social services because they can't afford it they need to pay for the mistakes of the rich. They 'need'... the welfare of the state to cover their losses.

Oh, and that basic human compassion, is guilt, because you know anyone that needs anything, doesn't deserve it likely because they're a lazy waste of skin and likely put themselves inti their poor position.

Isn't conservatism great?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think it's a pretty sad thing to see others dismiss basic human compassion as, "guilt".


maybe it's because they feel guilt for not having basic human compassion, so they link them together?



mrjimmy said:


> It would be interesting to see how they felt if they were the ones truly in need. They talk a good game...


When the wealthy corporations are in need they suddenly become "too big to fail", or vital "job creators" , and need that government welfare for "the good of everyone". Funny how that works....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> ...don't you know that kindness and compassion are human failings?


When others force their fellow human into servitude in order to enforce their own ideas of compassion and kindness, it is a failing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Har!

Warren Buffett may want to pay more taxes, but his company doesn't - Don't Mess With Taxes



> And now Buffett's getting more flack because Berkshire Hathaway, the world's eighth-largest public company, still owes Uncle Sam eight years worth of back taxes.
> 
> The company acknowledges in its 2010 annual report that it is working through Internal Revenue Service issues for tax years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh basic human compassion is servitude!

It gets even more disgusting.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> When others force their fellow human into servitude in order to enforce their own ideas of compassion and kindness, it is a failing.


You're too funny! Back to your black hole of despair!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It would be interesting to see how they felt if they were the ones truly in need.


They feel bad--like everyone else.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They feel bad--like everyone else.


But of course they would stick to their ideals. No stinkin' handouts for them! They would pick themselves up, brush themselves off and get back-in-the-ray-ace.

Wouldn't they MacFury?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> But of course they would stick to their ideals. No stinkin' handouts for them! They would pick themselves up, brush themselves off and get back-in-the-ray-ace.
> 
> Wouldn't they MacFury?


Many would, yes. 

Most of them are perfectly happy to help the truly needy, but not the majority currently at the public trough through choice or convenience.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Har!
> 
> Warren Buffett may want to pay more taxes, but his company doesn't - Don't Mess With Taxes


Looking to Buffett's company for moral guidance?

Have you already forgotten that the point of this thread was that Buffett was saying he encourages the government to reconsider tax breaks for super rich people (not companies)? Heck if he advocated higher taxes for large corporations there'd be a lynch mob. He'd be branded a communist and told he's single handedly advocating the complete destruction of the economy. Or at least that's what happens in Canada when people advocate higher corporate taxation. 

If corporate accountants figure they can earn more in interest by not paying taxes until they are forced to they will. A corporations board of directors worries about the bottom line and will do anything in their power to ensure that. Nothing short of firing a CEO who makes moral decisions that cost the company money.

So, can't raise taxes at the source (if you want to make the argument that it cripples a company's ability to make profits and stay alive, fine) might as well advocate a saner way to collect taxes of those individuals who amass capital mostly through investment. Still makes sense to me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Many would, yes.
> 
> Most of them are perfectly happy to help the truly needy, but not* the majority* currently at the public trough through choice or convenience.



Speaking of convenience. It's convenient to make claims such as these to alleviate yourself of the burden of compassion or caring.

As was mentioned earlier, not unlike your corporate brethren, you would abandon your ideology faster than you can say _spare a quarter?_


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> Looking to Buffett's company for moral guidance?
> 
> Have you already forgotten that the point of this thread was that Buffett was saying he encourages the government to reconsider tax breaks for super rich people (not companies)? Heck if he advocated higher taxes for large corporations there'd be a lynch mob. He'd be branded a communist and told he's single handedly advocating the complete destruction of the economy. Or at least that's what happens in Canada when people advocate higher corporate taxation.
> 
> ...


Buffet's call for higher taxes is meaningless blither. Why would anyone listen to him about tax policy? Take his advice on how to invest money instead--and not always that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure. Anonymous Atom smashers would know more than warren buffet. Absolutely. No guilt there at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Parallel headline:

*Death row inmate calls for more capital punishment!*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think we're quite keenly aware of how the rich views paying their fair share.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I think we're quite keenly aware of how the rich views paying their fair share.


Yes, they get someone else to do it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Yes, they get someone else to do it.


and they successfully convince a lot of gullible people to champion their causes.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Nice infographic pertaining to this discussion of macroeconomics*


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think what the graphic I linked to above shows best is that 'trickle down' economics isn't even close to reality.

The health of the economy depends on the middle class; neither the ultra wealthy nor the poor put much money back into the economy. For the poor, this is obvious, because they have no money to spend, for the wealthy the reasons are less obvious (they have shelters for their wealth, and need to proportionately very little of their money), but the middle class are the engine of the western economy.

The middle classes of the asian giants are growing and ours are shrinking.

Economic policies of western governments should be targeted at reversing this trend.

Taxing the ultra wealthy and corporations more (and middle class less) would be a good start.

{edit to add: the decade between 1972 and 1982 is where I think the US economy really went off the rails... interestingly, that was a particularly unstable time politically, with 4 presidents: Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. The mess was certainly not the fault of any one of them, but in combination, their administrations certainly dropped the ball}


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Taxing the wealthy will not "grow" the middle class. It isn't even "a good start."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Taxing the wealthy will not "grow" the middle class. It isn't even "a good start."


Taxing the middle class less will.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Taxing the middle class less will.


Lower spending will achieve that easily.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Lower spending will achieve that easily.


I'm not at all opposed to lower governmental spending. But I'd cut spending by cutting the military, rather than environmental protection, labour protection, health protection, education, etc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Taxing the middle class less will.


This is almost getting ridiculous. The hand holding is just nuts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm not at all opposed to lower governmental spending. But I'd cut spending by cutting the military, rather than environmental protection, labour protection, health protection, education, etc.


Should be cut across the board.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I'm not at all opposed to lower governmental spending. But I'd cut spending by cutting the military, rather than environmental protection, labour protection, health protection, education, etc.


Exactly. Bye bye jets.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Lower spending will achieve that easily.


It's time the wealthy and corps paid their fair share. Cutting spending 'across the board' will affect services such as health care etc. and yes, I know what your position is on this. Thankfully, it's in opposition to the majority of Canadians.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It's time the wealthy and corps paid their fair share. Cutting spending 'across the board' will affect services such as health care etc. and yes, I know what your position is on this. Thankfully, it's in opposition to the majority of Canadians.


What is "their fair share?" Numbers please.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What is "their fair share?" Numbers please.


Since this thread originally referred to Warren Buffet's comments on the US tax system, it has been shown that the super-rich there pay less than everyone else as a percentage of income. Not sure what the numbers in Canada are like.

Fair share would depend on where you stand regarding the idea of a progressive tax system. I think we know where MF stands. But Buffet is right when he observes that when taxes were far higher for the wealthy and for corps in decades past, the middle class was thriving and the economy was robust. Since the world has embarked upon various flavours of trickle-down theory, the economy has been getting worse and the middle class has been shrinking and stagnating. The last round of Bush tax-cuts for the very richest, if they'd been allowed to expire, would make a big difference to the US government. But the GOP has chosen to focus on taking away Social Security and Medicare rather than allow a few extra coins to be taken from their patrons.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Should be cut across the board.


It should be cut first to eliminate waste, and then where it's getting least amount of return.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

bryanc said:


>


That says it all. Thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But Buffet is right when he observes that when taxes were far higher for the wealthy and for corps in decades past, the middle class was thriving and the economy was robust. Since the world has embarked upon various flavours of trickle-down theory, the economy has been getting worse and the middle class has been shrinking and stagnating. The last round of Bush tax-cuts for the very richest, if they'd been allowed to expire, would make a big difference to the US government. But the GOP has chosen to focus on taking away Social Security and Medicare rather than allow a few extra coins to be taken from their patrons.


The budget of the US government was extremely low during that time period and there were few entitlements. Also, the U.S. had a monstrous advantage over the rest of the war-torn world in peddling its wares. Look there for the thriving middle class.

Even in bryanc's chart, the increased productivity of the working class is largely the result of technological advantages available to any country on earth. The workers did not work harder or become incredibly skilled--they worked efficient machinery supplied to them by the people they worked for.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The last round of Bush tax-cuts for the very richest, if they'd been allowed to expire, would make a big difference to the US government. But the GOP has chosen to focus on taking away Social Security and Medicare rather than allow a few extra coins to be taken from their patrons.


It would have made a small difference. And although the economic dampening effect of raising taxes on anyone might be overstated, it still exists.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Look at the chart a little closer macfury. Look at how productivity skyrocketed from '00 on. You're telling me, mere technology did this?

Bollocks. Total nonsense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> It should be cut first to eliminate waste, and then where it's getting least amount of return.


We also need to apply some actuarial logic to the system. It used to be a nice idea to give people a retirement benefit at age 65 so they could live the last three or four years of their lives in comfort. Folks, that was 1933 and the average lifespan has extended by up to 20 years. Retirement benefits should be raised to age 67 for starters, or at age 65 at a reduced rate.


----------

