rickyp wrote:ray

If he wants to tax millionaires and billionaires, why doesn't he propose legislation on that basis.

I think its fair to say that political rhetoric doesn't always make for clarity.
Its like calling people "job creators" without actually showing how decreased taxation created jobs or wondering why, when these "job creators" were taxed at higher rates they invested at higher rates then today . And job creation was higher too.

That is very poorly written. You can call someone a "job creator" without having to show how an increase or decrease impacts that fact. They either can hire people (thus are "job creators") or they can't (for example, someone making $30K a year and supporting a family of four is not able to hire someone).

Now, if you want to argue about taxation and its impact, that is a different argument than merely classifying someone as a "job creator" or not.

Obama made a political calculation when faced with the ultimatum of either letting all Bush Tax cuts go under, or accepting they all remain. I think he made a mistake and had other alternatives... But clearly tax increases on the lower 90% would have damaged the recovery...... Where tax cuts on the top 10% only exacerbated the deficit.

Please tell us all the massive impact the December decision had on this year's deficit. The way you are caterwauling about it, I'm sure it was massive. Surely it was more than half a trillion this year?

Buffet isn't saying that his recommended tax increases will eliminate the deficit. Only contribute to narrowing it. And he's saying, with vast experience, knowledge and a track record, that it won't affect investment by job creators...

Yet, we know, both by experience and by the President's recent pronouncements, that raising taxes will have zero impact on the deficit. Why not? Because the President is only interested in promising cuts tomorrow for tax increases and spending today.

The number one reason that investors are sitting on the sidelines is uncertainty.

Finally, some truth! Obamacare, massive regulations, runaway agencies--You get it!

Wait. No you don't.

Mostly uncertainty over whether ot not the Credit Default Swap & MBS have actually worked themselves through the system. The Greek crisis is in part a function of the Goldman SAchs CDS problem and it just recently was encountered. Since CDS were wholly unregulated, no one knows the extent of the financial exposure to them. And for the largest invetors this creates serious uncertainty and doubt. Unfortunately ordinary tax payers end up saddling that problem. Buffett thinks the rich should do their share too.

Buffet is acting as a political hack. Sure, he's rich, but that doesn't give him any more credibility than the Koch brothers or Trump. If I find quotes from them, will they necessarily overtrump Buffet?

You still can't figure it out: rich liberals are no more "experts" than rich conservatives.

Btw, talk about rhetoric not being helpful: how is it that the President continually says "millionaires and billionaires," yet wants to raise taxes on those making $200K?

Moving back to the topic question:

15. Remove all tariffs between the EU and US.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _opinion_0

This would help Europe as much as it would help us.

rickyp wrote:Buffet isn't saying that his recommended tax increases will eliminate the deficit. Only contribute to narrowing it. And he's saying, with vast experience, knowledge and a track record, that it won't affect investment by job creators...

Frankly, I think Buffet's calculator must have broken--probably trying to calculate how many pesos he can buy with his $40B.

Anyway, it seems his "brave" recommendations don't amount to much:

. . . taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

“[T]aking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation's debt by 1%,” the report said.

Taxing millionaires at an effective tax rate of 50 percent would raise only $120 billion more, according to Tax Foundation calculations based on IRS data.

Taxing those who make $10 million or more at an even higher rate, as Buffett advised, would also do little to reduce the deficit and debt. Tax Foundation calculations indicate that taxing these individuals at an effective rate of 100 percent would only net the government $186 billion, reducing the deficit by 12 percent and the debt by an additional 2 percent.

In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said.

“Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion,” reported the Tax Foundation.

All of that said (or quoted), I would LOVE President Obama to make this his platform for re-election.

steve

Frankly, I think Buffet's calculator must have broken--probably trying to calculate how many pesos he can buy with his $40B.

Its interesting how off point all these arguements about Buffetts comments are.
He never said that reverting back to the taxes of 2001 on the wealthy would balance the deficit. He said it would contribute towards balancing the deficit.
Because it isn't the only thing you need to do to balance the deficit doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

He also said that reverting back to levels of taxation of 2001 wouldn't affect the way investors invest . So far no one has provided evidence why he's wrong about that. Nor have any disagreed when he pointed to times of much greater taxation on these job creators when they actually were creating jobs...

rickyp wrote:He also said that reverting back to levels of taxation of 2001 wouldn't affect the way investors invest . So far no one has provided evidence why he's wrong about that. Nor have any disagreed when he pointed to times of much greater taxation on these job creators when they actually were creating jobs...

Maybe no one has responded because his proposal does not do much of any good. No sense trying to disprove that a squirt gun can't put out a forest fire.

ruff

Furthermore Buffet has no idea how 'investors' will invest. He knows how *he* would invest, and that's all well and good, but the last time there are just a few more investors out there than the high and mighty Mr. Buffet

One of the most important things about wise investing is understanding how others will invest. You cannot ignore the direction of the markets and predicting the course of the markets comes from understanding how the crowd thinks...
Buffett is known as the seer of Omaha and attracted thousands to invest in Berkshire Hathaway simply becasue he has perhaps the best rack record in the industry.
One mans opinion is worth more than anothers ... In Buffetts case, bilions more.

Now I find it interesting that taxing the rich back to levels that they endured under Clinton is seen as class warfare. However raising (allowing the recent cuts to fade) payroll taxes back on the working poor and middle class is a policy that Republicans are currently pursuing.(Wall Street Journal aug 23) Even Grover Norquist is somehow having difficulty coming out against these changes ... And Paul Ryan came out against it becasue it would "just exacerbate our debt problems".
Thats a tax that will cost those who earn $50,000 a year, $1,000. Those who earn $100,000 a year $2,000.
Its certainly interesting how the attitudes change when the tax is one that selects only those who are on a payroll.

Whats your position on allowing the payrol taxes to go back up Ruff?

rickyp wrote:One of the most important things about wise investing is understanding how others will invest. You cannot ignore the direction of the markets and predicting the course of the markets comes from understanding how the crowd thinks...
Buffett is known as the seer of Omaha and attracted thousands to invest in Berkshire Hathaway simply becasue he has perhaps the best rack record in the industry.
One mans opinion is worth more than anothers ... In Buffetts case, bilions more.

If the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which it is, it is one that you launch with startling repetitiveness. However, if you post it one time or a . . . billion . . . it is no less a fallacy.

Now I find it interesting that taxing the rich back to levels that they endured under Clinton is seen as class warfare. However raising (allowing the recent cuts to fade) payroll taxes back on the working poor and middle class is a policy that Republicans are currently pursuing.

What you cannot grasp is this: we need a plan. Temporary measures are what is messing with the economy. Simply put: investors don't know what to expect out of Obama tomorrow. Everything they see, from Obamacare to the EPA and NLRB suggests more restrictions, regulations, and costs. Furthermore, much of the regulation from Dodd/Frank haven't even been promulgated.

Certainty is what markets want. Uncertainty is what Obama gives them. Therefore, the trillions sit on the sideline.

(Wall Street Journal aug 23) Even Grover Norquist is somehow having difficulty coming out against these changes ... And Paul Ryan came out against it becasue it would "just exacerbate our debt problems".
Thats a tax that will cost those who earn $50,000 a year, $1,000. Those who earn $100,000 a year $2,000.

Please explain how such an increase will impact the national deficit. Please--do the math and describe the vast change it will make. Don't give me your typical garbage--something like "Are you saying more revenue would increase it?" Do the sweaty hard work of busting out your calculator and then tell us all how brilliantly it helps the problem.

Whats your position on allowing the payrol taxes to go back up Ruff?

My position, and I'm not speaking for Ruffhaus, is that temporary, short-term (1 to 3 year) cuts have very little impact. Beyond that, those monies are supposed to go into a trust fund, right?



That's why payroll tax cuts should be viewed with a jaundiced eye--they are an admission that the SS Trust Fund is a myth. Why does the President like them? Because they "help" those on the low end of the spectrum and do far less for those on the upper end (because of the cap).

Cut corporate rates. Cut all rates and close loopholes and reduce deductions. Repeal Obamacare. Repeal Dodd-Frank.

Watch the economy take off.

steve

If the argument from authority is a logical fallacy

I take it Steve that you feel that anyopne's opinion on any matter should be given equal weight?
When you seek medical advice do you equally take the advice of cab drivers with doctors?
When seeking legal advice do you treat a lawyers advice equally with that of your barber?
Buffett can speak as an expert. He is a qualified authority.
Now, he isn't infallible ..And appealing to an authority as an infallible expert is a logical fallacy. But denying that there are people with expert knowledge and experience and who's opinions matter more because of their expertise is just stupid.

rickyp wrote:steve

If the argument from authority is a logical fallacy

I take it Steve that you feel that anyopne's opinion on any matter should be given equal weight?
When you seek medical advice do you equally take the advice of cab drivers with doctors?
When seeking legal advice do you treat a lawyers advice equally with that of your barber?
Buffett can speak as an expert. He is a qualified authority.
Now, he isn't infallible ..And appealing to an authority as an infallible expert is a logical fallacy. But denying that there are people with expert knowledge and experience and who's opinions matter more because of their expertise is just stupid.

I take it you ignore logic when you post?

I'm not denying his experience. However, you have suggested his opinion is as close to infallible as possible. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, because Buffett says . . .

When Buffett starts talking about issues that have some import, maybe I'll listen. In the meantime . . . BUST OUT YOUR CALCULATOR!!!

Do the math or shut up. Your repetition is worse than tedious.

Since Buffett is considered an expert would other billionaires be considered experts?

How about Philip Ruffin (2.1 Billion)?
"He is forgetting about the 55% estate tax at death that goes along with making the money. Maybe he is getting senile?"

How about B Thomas Glassindo (2 Billion)?
"There are some facts I'd like to remind Mr. Buffet of. The top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of the income taxes, and the top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes."

Ballmer and Bezos vs Gates
In Washington State, for example, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have given $100,000 each to defeat ballot initiative 1098, which would slap a 5% tax on income over $400,000 per couple and a 9% levy on income over $1 million. On the other side is the nation's richest man, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates--not surprising, since his dad is promoting the new tax, which would fund education, health care and other tax cuts. Gates Sr., 84, has given $500,000 to the 1098 campaign and even filmed a comic "soak the rich" ad for it, which ends with him dropped into a dunk tank.

Gates Sr. readily concedes he's in the minority among the highly affluent. "It's quite natural for people who are well-to-do to resist paying more taxes. In fact, it's quite natural for every person, everywhere, of whatever means, to resist paying more taxes," he says. "The interesting side," he adds, "is the number of people who are well-to-do who feel that this is something that should happen and that taxation should be progressive." (Washington State now relies on real estate and sales taxes, which hit the less wealthy harder.)

So there are many "experts" on both sides. Perhaps we should just see the math, and not rely on what we are told.

Of course we could just "wait until the bill is enacted to find out what is in it"...

BBauska I notice that the experts you are quoting actually don't contradict anything Buffett is saying...
In fact Glassindo is ignoring payroll taxes, which Buffett specifically includes to make a dollar for dollar copmparison on federal taxes. This ignorance of pay roll taxes is what makes the " 50% don't pay federal income tax, " willfully misleading. It seems to me that Glassindo either didn't actually read, or perhaps retain after reading, what Buffett said. Buffett addresses pay roll taxes specifically in order to demontrate true equivalence. A bucks abuck.

I also note that no person has addressed the crux of the issue, Buffetts point that returning to pre-Bush marginal tax rates, would not impact investment. Why is that? Perhaps becasue it is so clear. If investment rates, and job creation were indeed higher when marginal rates for the wealthy were higher it debunks the premise that "we can't tax the welathy becasue they are the jon creators".

The biggest difference in the billionares and the working shlubs is that capital gains are treated differently than otehr income. Ron Reagan didn't think that should be so...

The 1986 tax reform closed the gap between capital gains and ordinary income, taxing both at a top rate of 28 percent. But subsequent legislation under both Republican and Democratic administrations, culminating in the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, reopened it. This is one reason that the effective tax rate on the top 400 earners in the United States fell from 29.2 percent in 1992 to 21.5 percent in 2008, even as their income more than quintupled.

Mr. Buffett, whose main argument — that the burden of deficit-reduction should fall most heavily on the well-to-do — Mr. Golub doesn’t dispute. Mr. Buffett acknowledged that higher taxes on the very rich should be part of a deficit-cutting package that also tackles excessive entitlement spending. He doesn't, as Steve consistently misrepresents (the only way he seems able to argue) that the tax increase on the wealthy is the only thing required. But he does say that it would help, that it would be fair and that the myth that higher taxes on the wealthy would affect employment is hogwash..

So quote your experts too B. But find some that address the arguemetns Buffett made. Glassindo doesn't. Neither really does Ruffin. Estate taxes are not taxes on income..

Calculator function?

Please tell us how much Buffett's plan will reduce the deficit. Be precise.

Echoing comments he has made in the past, he called on Congress to make the tax system more fair by rolling back the so-called Bush tax cuts on people who earn more than $1 million a year and on income from capital gains and dividends. He would also close the loophole allowing hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rateWhatever the political viability, his proposal would put a significant dent in the nation’s budget shortfall. Based on projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury, the tax increase on all three fronts would generate as much as $500 billion in new revenue over the next decade — about a third of what the Congressional committee is supposed to cut from the deficit.
“It’s not going to solve the long-term budget shortfall all by itself,” said Eric Toder, an economist at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “The only way to do that is to have broader tax increases or reduce entitlements. But it could be an important piece of the puzzle.”

source:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/business/buffett-calls-on-congress-to-raise-taxes-on-the-rich.html?_r=1&ref=davidkocieniewski
Not my calculator... the Tax Policy Center's calculator...

Not my experts, just differing views RickyP... If I had my druthers, we would all pay 10% total tax, no exemptions; and the government could live on that.
(btw, the statement about Buffet from Ruffin does address Buffett's assertion that the rich do not pay enough. He states that Buffett is forgetting about the estate taxes in the calculations of how much a rich person pays.)