rickyp wrote:

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...

So, bloody what? $50B a year? That's the solution? That's what you're droning on and on about?

Feeble.

Btw, your source is hardly neutral. They love taxes and love spending.

I can help a lot more with a snap of my fingers: eliminate the Department of Education. All that money really needs to go from the States to the Fed, have some taken for "overhead," and then returned with mandates? No way. That's almost $70B a year I just saved.

Seems to me Ricky is assuming an awful lot by reading into one excerpt from Tom Golisano (you should have checked his real name, spelling it so completely wrong (Glassindo?) and not even close while critiquing what he says lessens your point)
Tom Golisano is from my home town and he is always fighting taxes, he even changed his permanent address to Florida because NY taxes are too extreme. He considered running for Governor a few times, he's against higher taxes! To try and say you think he agrees with Buffett is simply seeing what you want to see and not attempting to understand the person in the least.

FYI, the man is extremely generous and donates millions upon millions to the community, he does not shirk any responsibilities, he thinks taxes are crazy high however, to try and assert he agrees with Buffett is just ...wrong!

tom

To try and say you think he agrees with Buffett is simply seeing what you want to see and not attempting to understand the person in the least.

I didn't say he agreed with Buffett. I said nothing he said contradicts Buffett.
Thats different.
The most specific thing that no one attempts to contradict with evidence, including your friend from New York, is that taxing as Buffett suggests would have anything to do with affecting invstment levels. No one has even bothered addressing that point.

It sems to me that the major reason given for not taxing the wealthy at the same levels that they were taxed under Clinton, is that it would hamper investment and therefore "job creation". And yet, after Buffett cogently put that notion to rest ...no one has even bothered to attempt to address it. Not the WSJ, no leadership candidates... Not even your New York Golassino fellow, if that is who B was quoting.
So far the only reasons offered (on this board) for not going back to those tax levels are
a) all taxation is evil
b) $50 billion ain't worth the effort.
Compelling stuff.

Moving back to the topic question:

16. Change our immigration laws to enable individuals who are willing to hire employees or invest capital in the US (details to be worked out) a path to citizenship. This will create economic advancement, prosperity, tax revenue, and jobs.

Currently, the best and the brightest from China and India and elsewhere come to the US to study and obtain masters and doctorates in some of the most important fields, including computer tech, bio-tech, and nanotechnology. After many years of study they have ideas that will create the next billion dollar companies and the will and drive and capability to make it work. So what happens? Their Visas run out and we force them to return to their native lands to start those companies overseas.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ

Seeing that businesses ARE people, Warren Buffett does NOT pay his taxes. That is what I mean by hypocrisy, RickyP. That is why Mr. Buffett's words mean so little to me.

But enough about hypocrites...

Ray, the numbers of foreign students attending in the US has been dropping since 9/11, mostly because of security policies.

Now, several years after the sweeping post-9/11 immigration changes, U.S. higher education institutions are down an average of over 30% in international applications (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004).

source: http://www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/cep/ej ... a020.shtml

Where once those foreign students who gained entrance at the top US universities stayed in the US, because thats where the oportunities were for people with their educations...now they increasingly find similar opportunities in their homelands.
From the point of view of India or China this is a good thing... Its made that way because of both government investment in industry in the home country and attendant private investment. Cisco now has more employees in India than the US...
If the cuts to federal spending that are envisioned by the Tea Party are brought in, much of the spending in science will be diminished. The avenues and oportunities that currently exist for top level scientists will be gone. (example: The NOAA which tracked Irene so well will loose a third of its funding, ...)
You also have to wonder how attractive it is for top level science students to come to a nation where science, and the elite scientists who lead the advancements are accussed by seemingly serious politicians of participating in major conspiracies to defraud the public. (Global Warming Conspiracy Theorists like Rick Perry and M. Bachman.)

b

Seeing that businesses ARE people

Well, at least according to Mitt Romney.
B, you realize that Buffett may only be a shareholder in the companies under question? And that the company has as its mandate the responsibility to maximize its returns to ALL of its shareholders. Which means minimizing tax paid as much as legally possible.
The corporation is merely acting as a corporation is supposed to, and within the constraints of the legal system. (and I think you and I agre on the insane complexity of the tax code.)

Buffeetts comments about taxation are about changing the rules for everyone. For all corporations and individuals, not just thosecorproations he has a share in or those he doesn't.
Until the rules are changed he is bound to act in the best interests of all shareholders.

Thats really not in any way hypocritical. In one sense the corporation is acting under the rules as they exist. He's saying the rules should change. Until then he'll play the game as well as he always had.
(And since he's in the process of giving away most of his money to various charities, u;timately he isn't the hypocrit you paint him to be...)

rickyp wrote:b
Buffeetts comments about taxation are about changing the rules for everyone. For all corporations and individuals, not just thosecorproations he has a share in or those he doesn't.
Until the rules are changed he is bound to act in the best interests of all shareholders.

Thats really not in any way hypocritical. In one sense the corporation is acting under the rules as they exist. He's saying the rules should change. Until then he'll play the game as well as he always had.
(And since he's in the process of giving away most of his money to various charities, u;timately he isn't the hypocrit you paint him to be...)

Ummm, No. His "recommendations" are not for everyone. They were only for the rich. Did he propose that everyone pay more taxes? No. So you are patently false on that.

If he is "bound to act in the best interest of the shareholders", should he be recommending policy that takes more money from those shareholders? I don't know about you, but taking money from me does not support my best interest. Letting ME decide is in my best interest.

I have no problem with Buffett taking his personal money and giving it back to the government, or to charity. I do have a problem with Buffett saying only the rich should pay more. That is unfair. And yes, it is hypocritical when you say one thing, and the company that you are THE major shareholder (40%) does the opposite.

Ricky:

Ray, the numbers of foreign students attending in the US has been dropping since 9/11, mostly because of security policies.

Now, several years after the sweeping post-9/11 immigration changes, U.S. higher education institutions are down an average of over 30% in international applications (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004).


source: http://www.wce.wwu.edu/resources/cep/ej ... a020.shtml

So you are using a study from 2004 to make the case about trends from 2001 till 2011? Here's some relevant information:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2765290/posts

Thanks to a thriving economy at home, an increasing number of Chinese students are attending U.S. graduate schools, according to a study to be released on Tuesday by a graduate-school industry group.

Graduate schools saw a 21% increase in Chinese applicants from the last school year and a 23% increase in admissions offers, for students slated to start this fall, according to a study by the Council of Graduate Schools. It is the sixth year in a row of double-digit percentage increases for Chinese students.

Applications and offers were up sharply for international students overall, jumping 11% compared with 2010, according to the report. The study looked at data for a total of 591,739 applications to U.S. graduate schools by prospective international students for fall 2011.

Business schools, in particular, are accepting more Chinese and international students. Graduate business programs extended 16% more offers to international students for the class entering this fall, compared with the prior school year, according to Council of Graduate Schools' data.

In any case, getting back to the topic: many want to stay and are forced to go home under our immigration laws.

b

Did he propose that everyone pay more taxes? No. So you are patently false on that.

You do torture logic to end up with this misconception, and misrepresentation.
Right now, as a percentage rich people generally pay much less as a percentage of their income then people who earn much less... He established that clearly by examining all types of federal tax on income. (He does leave out inheritance and state taxes. But the first is only for dead rich people who one can't count on to die more than once, and the second becomes complex x 50, In texas don';t they pay zilch?)
Buffett isn't simplisiticly saying that only rich people should pay more taxes. He's saying that right now only rich people pay less taxes on income over the basic exemptions. And that they should pay their fair share.
Then he goes on to discuss their fair share. But first he established that that pay less now...
He then goes on to establish that there is no justification for rich people payingl ess. They aren't creating jobs the way apologists drone on about.... (which means the apologists are down to the style of arguementation that goes on to "whataboutery" and misrepresentation of his statements.)

RickyP,
We are getting nowhere, and RJ wants to get this back on topic.

You dance around like a cat on a hot tin roof...

bbauska wrote:RickyP,
We are getting nowhere, and RJ wants to get this back on topic.

You dance around like a cat on a hot tin roof...

Amen. Ignores all the problems with what Buffett says, then reposts what he perceives as the "truth."

Anyway, the President is going to release his plan next week. I'm so excited! He's already told us it won't work. Someone will surely say, "Can you provide a link?"

I don't have to. When he says it's going to be "reasonable" and that if the Republicans oppose it: 1) they're not reasonable (since the President is allowed to define the term); 2) he will campaign against them.

In other words, there will be nothing compelling in his proposals--so overwhelmingly "reasonable" that Republicans would have to go with it. So, he is predesignating the GOP as "obstructionists" before he's even proposed his plan.

Let me summarize his plan (sight unseen): "Let's cut spending tomorrow and use the projected savings to spend more now."

Ricky the topic of the thread is "The President Needs Help Your What's Your plan?" There are currently 16 proposed concepts here, and all you care to do is beat the Buffet drum.

I did my bit back on page 2.

You've convinced no one here that Buffett is anything but a windbag. You made a good try, but you also effectively derailed the thread. $50 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but the deficit is over a $1 trillion. A trillion is 1,000 billion, and the dubious suggestion by Buffett to raise a whopping 50 was hardly worth so much effort.

Right. $50 biullion isn't worth the ffort...I noted that rationale a post ago. . The next time you rant on about welfare recipients spending a couple hundred at a casino it'll really put this in perspective

.

Yes, more taxes in a bad economy is a bad idea. Never mind what Buffett says. ven the annointed one himself has said so, and did so prominently in December when he extended President Bush's tax cuts,and has since said that he will do so again. He conceeed the entire argument right there,

Obama conceded the arguement? I hardly concur with whatever Obama says. He's also made a political judgement becasue he was being fored by the nature of your legislature and system of governance to choose between tax cuts eliminated for all, ort ax cuts remaining for all. Politically he made a choice.
But, as Buffett pointed out and which no one has refuted, investors continued to invest when tax rates were higher on them. Indeed when reagan made taxes for capital gains and individuals the same, investors invested. At a higher rate than now. Which is the only rationale thats been offered other than your "it ain't worth hastling the wealthy for a paltry $50 billion.
One isn't soaking the rich by returning them to the rates they paid some 9 years ago. You're buying into a characterization that is empty of reason. Not surprising since its all based on belief absent of evidence.

b

It's a proven encomonic fact that 'rich soaking does not generate more revenue to the treasury, so one has to assume that your motives have nothing to do with economics, and only to do with growing government.

So you think that moving the tax rates back to 2000 would not generate more revenue? really? Please provide a source for this "proven econmoic fact".
What I will point to is the revenues that were accruing to the treasury before 2001 tax cuts. A surplus was created...Investment was robust, unemployment was low.
Based on your faulty reasoning, retruning to those taxation levels could not produce the very effects that existed in 2000. Was that all an illusion?
According to the CBO 2/3 of the deficit is due the Bush Tax cuts. Thats a perhaps inconvenient fact.

rickyp wrote:According to the CBO 2/3 of the deficit is due the Bush Tax cuts. Thats a perhaps inconvenient fact.

1. I doubt this. Link?

2. Even if the CBO says it, it makes its conclusions based on info given. They have been off on just about everything for the last 2 1/2 years.

3. Again, that is, if true, what $800B a year? Where's the rest of it from?

4. I seriously doubt that raising the rates would bring in $800B when we've established it's $50B.

5. If you mean "debt" and not "deficit," you're full of it. The $15T national debt is not 2/3 from the tax cuts.