CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

[quote name='dmaul1114']Is anyone seriously ok with the mega wealthy only being taxed at 15% on the vast majority of their income since most is from stock options etc.?

Is anyone really opposed to treating all income the same so the wealthy are at least getting all their income taxed at the top bracket rate rather than below the middle class bracket?

That's what I don't get about all this "no raising taxes!" rhetoric from the right currently. How can people be opposed to taxing the wealthy at least at the highest current bracket (or whatever future top bracket) on all their income? Or ending deductions for corporate jets and closing BS loopholes.

It's one thing to oppose increasing the current tax brackets--I disagree with it but I can at least understand the principle there. I can't understand the opposition the tea party has to things like the capital gains tax which has millionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than much of the middle class, closing loopholes etc.[/QUOTE]

Some are paid to believe and spout this shit. Some are stupid and many are brainwashed. Quite frankly I don't care why they believe or push the BS. They cannot without lying say why or how it is good for anyone or the country as a whole.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Some are paid to believe and spout this shit. Some are stupid and many are brainwashed. Quite frankly I don't care why they believe or push the BS. They cannot without lying say why or how it is good for anyone or the country as a whole.[/QUOTE]

The weird thing is - this is a softball. People should immediately understand that undertaxing the superrich is horrifically idiotic. Republicans should be laughed out of office on this issue. It's so basic that even a child could understand it.

It's enough to make you believe that brainwashing is no bs.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The goal is to starve the government as a tool to get rid of any program cons don't like.[/QUOTE]

Until you take it away and they figure out that they not only liked, but needed those programs.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My favorite part of the article:



The same is true of the vast swaths of cash companies are sitting on and the jobs they aren't adding to their businesses. Companies add jobs in order to grow their business, to become *more* profitable. Tax rates don't matter here; a company is lying through their teeth if they insist they're forgoing potential profit because they fret over a 32% versus 35% tax rate.

Likewise, investments are made when there is an opportunity for profit, which happens independent of tax rates.

I mean, we can engage these deliberate maroons who think that "take a penny, leave a penny" is how taxation should work. Or we can continue to point out that Buffett makes cogent, logical arguments. If we want to argue Buffett's points, don't let the bastards move the goalposts: we know they can not argue Buffett's op-ed on its arguments and merit.

I will continue to cite Buffett in small, bite-sized quotes. These people clearly can't read and process 300 words all at once; so let's give them Buffett 20 words at a time instead.[/QUOTE]
Just yesterday I believe on National Communist Radio they were talking about how so many large corporations are sitting on piles of cash, completely able to hire basically as many people as they'd like, yet are spending it on other things like mergers and acquisitions. so it isn't even that they're afraid to spend money, but they figure why hire when you just make the peons you have work more instead?
 
I am still curious as to why Warren Buffett and all of his billionaire buddies that he says are willing to pay, don't start a pledge to give in taxes what they think they should pay? They are free to do this, the only reason they wouldn't is that it would leave out the people who aren't willing to pay. If you can understand this, then you can understand how he is manipulating things. Like I said before its not that those other billionaires arent starting charities, didn't sign the pledge to give their fortunes away, etc, they just arent giving money to the government. They should be paying within their bracket though yes.

[quote name='Warren Buffett']
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting.
 
Something I'll never understand, most conservatives seem to long for the days of the early 20th century, the earlier industrial era of the country. Yet the closer you get to that period, the higher taxes were on the wealthy. This current, pathetically low tax rate is a fairly new thing, so why do they seem to long for those days?
 
Just more brainwashing nonsense of not understanding the facts of how things were in that time period.

The only "plus" I see of that period for a portion of the conservative base is there were a lot more jobs for under-educated and under-skilled workers that have since vanished since manufacturing jobs have largely moved overseas. But even that is BS nostalgia as those were back breaking jobs with low wages and tons of worker exploitation in the early 20th century before labor laws were in place and widely enforced.

I think most are just fired up on "hate big government" rhetoric and end up ignorantly opposing policies and programs that benefit them and protect the wealthy corporate class of which they have almost not chance of ever gaining entry into.
 
Back to all this non-sense about why the wealthy like Buffett just not choose to pay more taxes...do people really not see the problem with allowing the wealthy to make donations to the government?

With all the problems we have with the wealthy and corporations controlling politics through campaign contributions, lobbyist groups etc., do we really want to open the door of further corruption by allowing donations to the federal government? Are people really naive enough to think that everyone making large donations will do it out of concern for the greater good rather than in exchanges for favors?
 
It's already happening. I'd rather them make the donations payable to the Federal Government than to any particular politician's personal accounts.
 
Just to chime in on the fallacy of the "IF HE FEELS LIKE SUCH A BIG MAN, THEN HE SHOULD JUST CUT A BIGGER CHECK TO THE FED!!!111!!" argument:

Let me first say that this is a valid argument...but only if there were a handful of obscenely rich motherfuckers. Like literally 5-10 people. And the reason why that argument is stupid is because you have to address it on a systemic level. It doesn't matter of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Mark Zuckerberg donate all of their wealth today if there are still the Waltons, Hiltons, Rockerfellers, Carnegie's, or Koch's actively fighting against paying their fair share. And that's what Buffet is talking about.

You simply cannot address systemic problems on an individual level.

edit: Yes, Buffet is problematic because of how he made his money, but he also isnt living like Richard Branson ie para-sailing with a naked model on his back clinging for dear life.
 
Agreed...that's the biggest issue. The wealthy who want to pay more taxes and want to leave most of their wealth to charity are a minority.

Most are working the system to pay lower effective tax rates than the middle class, only make donations for tax benefits etc. and want to pocket as much of their wealth as they can so they can spawn multiple generations of trust fund babies who never contribute anything to society as they never have to better themselves or work for anything.
 
And I don't even blame people for doing what they can to limit their tax burden, I means that's just good accounting. The point is that it shouldn't be there for them to take advantage of it anyway.
 
The argument against Buffett isn't that he's wrong. It's that he's two-faced.
He says "Mega-rich people should give more money to the government."
Warren Buffett is "mega-rich".
Therefore, by Buffett's logic, Buffett is going around saying "Warren Buffet should give more money to the government." All while sitting on his piles of money doing everything but giving more money to the government.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."
 
Is there even a way for the mega rich to give big sums of money to the government?

I'd assumed it was impossible to do so to prevent corruption etc. i.e. if you pay to much taxes it gets refunded.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's already happening. I'd rather them make the donations payable to the Federal Government than to any particular politician's personal accounts.[/QUOTE]

As much as I rag on you, ultimately I think it is good having you on the forums. I always wondered what was going on in the minds of conservative voters from the midwest.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The argument against Buffett isn't that he's wrong. It's that he's two-faced.
He says "Mega-rich people should give more money to the government."
Warren Buffett is "mega-rich".
Therefore, by Buffett's logic, Buffett is going around saying "Warren Buffet should give more money to the government." All while sitting on his piles of money doing everything but giving more money to the government.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."[/QUOTE]

What do you think would change if Buffett donated his money to the US govt?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The argument against Buffett isn't that he's wrong. It's that he's two-faced.
He says "Mega-rich people should give more money to the government."
Warren Buffett is "mega-rich".
Therefore, by Buffett's logic, Buffett is going around saying "Warren Buffet should give more money to the government." All while sitting on his piles of money doing everything but giving more money to the government.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."[/QUOTE]
You just....you just really don't get what he's saying, do you? Willful ignorance or just plain misunderstanding?

Let me help, he's saying that people like himself should be made to pay more taxes, not make some sort of donation. There, does that clear things up?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Is there even a way for the mega rich to give big sums of money to the government?

I'd assumed it was impossible to do so to prevent corruption etc. i.e. if you pay to much taxes it gets refunded.[/QUOTE]
Like bob, said, there is. But it's much more effective to use lobbyists.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Like bob, said, there is. But it's much more effective to use lobbyists.[/QUOTE]

I know there are ways to give to politicians etc. But could he and others really just write the government a check to put towards paying down the debt?
 
[quote name='Clak']You just....you just really don't get what he's saying, do you? Willful ignorance or just plain misunderstanding?

Let me help, he's saying that people like himself should be made to pay more taxes, not make some sort of donation. There, does that clear things up?[/QUOTE]

What's the difference between donating money (free and clear, of course) to the Federal Government vs. paying taxes with regards to how that money is used?

I understand what he's saying - he's simply being two-faced about it. Let him donate his money to the Government *then* tell all the other mega-rich people to STFU and pay.

Riddle me this - why does Buffett give so much money to private charities of his choosing instead of the Federal Government?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I know there are ways to give to politicians etc. But could he and others really just write the government a check to put towards paying down the debt?[/QUOTE]

Yes... sorta.

It's given to the Federal Government with no strings attached for them to spend how they see fit.
 
If that's true, then I agree that Buffet and others should start a campaign for donations for debt reduction while lobbying for taxes to be raised on the super wealthy (capital gains etc.). I think that would give more potency to his argument and be more likely to lead to change by putting the focus clearly on the greedy.

Donations aren't sufficient as you still have the majority of the wealthy being greedy and hoarding their wealthy so you need the "forced donations" of taxes even if it's nothing more than getting rid of the capital gains tax and treating them as income.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What's the difference between donating money (free and clear, of course) to the Federal Government vs. paying taxes with regards to how that money is used?

I understand what he's saying - he's simply being two-faced about it. Let him donate his money to the Government *then* tell all the other mega-rich people to STFU and pay.

Riddle me this - why does Buffett give so much money to private charities of his choosing instead of the Federal Government?[/QUOTE]
Because he isn't made to I would assume. Which is kinda, you know, why we have taxes. If the government ran on donations we'd be fucked. The only thing he isn't doing is not lobbying for changes in tax law more openly. He isn't being two-face about anything at all because he isn't talking about donations of money. But then you don't see any difference, so you aren't going to understand that. What is done with the money in the end does not mean it's all the same thing.
 
gift.jpg

Wow, that was easy. Took less than five minutes.

*edit*... never noticed that memo line before (as I typically only use my online bill pay for gas/electric that I can't pay on the service provider's website). I might have to start sending a penny every month with some kind of off-hand remark. I was able to go in and edit this one to say "You guys need this more than I do." :D
 
[quote name='Clak']Because he isn't made to I would assume.[/QUOTE]

That's awesome reasoning. "I really think I should be doing this... but since no one is making me, I guess I won't. But so I don't look bad, I'll publically lament the fact that I should be doing it."
 
What the motherfuck is wrong with you people?

This whole "let them donate to the government" is the dumbest, pants-on-backwards, moronic fucking troll bait I've ever come across.

And y'all are running with it.

UncleBob, Doctor of Thundernomics, is so afraid of actually having to engage and dispute anything in Buffett actually says that he deflect and deflects. And nobody is calling him on it.

One of Buffett's main arguments is that there is not a progressive tax system; taxes are weighted in favor of the ultra wealthy, rooted in the idea that lower tax rates spurn investment. Buffett says that's nonsense - returns on investment spurn investment, independent of tax rates. As evidence, Buffett cites the fucking market we live with, employment and unemployment measures from the last several decades.

And we let this dipshit guide the discourse into the realm of the preposterous? Shame on us.
 
To clarify, I'm not at all running with it as it's not remotely feasible as a solution.

Just saying Buffett and some others making some donations while more actively lobbying to reform the tax code could get the message out stronger and faster and get things changed faster. i..e perhaps it will guilt some of the greedy wealthy who don't donate any more than they have to for tax benefits to at least not actively oppose reforming the tax codes so the wealth pay their fair share rather than a lower effective rate than the middle class etc.

Simply saying that paying more through donations while campaigning for tax reform may lead to change faster than just arguing for it in op-eds as it's leading by example and saying "We need to change the tax system, in the meantime I encourage everyone to do as I do and donate at least as much as we should be paying in taxes."

Better yet, do that and pump a bunch of money into lobbyist groups working to bring about such tax reform.

Talk is cheap. It will take more than op eds from people like Buffett to bring about change.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']UncleBob, Doctor of Thundernomics, is so afraid of actually having to engage and dispute anything in Buffett actually says that he deflect and deflects. And nobody is calling him on it.[/QUOTE]

As I already said, I agree with the idea behind what he's saying. What's there to debate?

The issue with Buffett (and, mind you, I am NOT the one who brought this up.. but you're so near-sighted in your hatred of anything outside your mind's preset comfort zone to notice) is that he's being a two-faced twit. Would you listen to David Vitter's advice for a healthy marriage? Most people wouldn't, as his personal choices are in a direct conflict with what he'd be preaching. Same thing here - Buffett is preaching one thing, then doing the opposite.

Two-faced sack of crap. Let him cut a check to the government, then come back and preach about how other people should be forced to do the same.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Two-faced sack of crap.[/QUOTE]

Forest for the trees. Forest for the trees.

I'm saying it twice so that perhaps, by some strange turn of events, you see the former and not just the latter.

I'll keep my expectations low, in proportion to where they should be.
 
Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

Man, I can't wait for the next topic where Myke calls out someone (who's political philosophy just happens to differ from Myke's) for being a hypocrite. Apparently, doing the opposite of what you preach is a-okay... so long as what you're preaching is in line with Myke's politics.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Mr. Buffet stated several coherent and factual reasons why the tax rate for the mega rich should go up.

Do any of the clown shoes around here care to make a rebuttal that isn't a sorry ass non sequitor?[/QUOTE]

Also. What Myke said. Let one of the putzs ARGUE a position instead of hiding behind teh stoopid and half assed moral arguments.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What the motherfuck is wrong with you people?

This whole "let them donate to the government" is the dumbest, pants-on-backwards, moronic fucking troll bait I've ever come across.

And y'all are running with it.

UncleBob, Doctor of Thundernomics, is so afraid of actually having to engage and dispute anything in Buffett actually says that he deflect and deflects. And nobody is calling him on it.

One of Buffett's main arguments is that there is not a progressive tax system; taxes are weighted in favor of the ultra wealthy, rooted in the idea that lower tax rates spurn investment. Buffett says that's nonsense - returns on investment spurn investment, independent of tax rates. As evidence, Buffett cites the fucking market we live with, employment and unemployment measures from the last several decades.

And we let this dipshit guide the discourse into the realm of the preposterous? Shame on us.[/QUOTE]
I'm bored?
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] What? I'm required to open my tax forms up for your scrutiny?

If you must know, $27. Which covers use tax on up to $432 worth of non-taxed internet purchases. Which is well more than I purchased online (untaxed) last year.[/QUOTE]

I assume you're talking about people who talk about buying from Amazon, which doesn't immediately take sales tax (depending on where you live), and instead, they pay a use tax at a later date?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I assume you're talking about people who talk about buying from Amazon, which doesn't immediately take sales tax (depending on where you live), and instead, they pay a use tax at a later date?[/QUOTE]

I'd be talking about those who fail to pay the use tax at the later date, yes.
 
You know what's funny? With all the donations that Mr. Buffett is doing to private charity, that's cutting his tax liability down. His plan to donate 99% of his estate upon death to private charity also prevents the Federal Government from any shot of getting estate taxes on that.

Mr. "I wanna pay more taxes" really seems to be actively working against that goal.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know what's funny? With all the donations that Mr. Buffett is doing to private charity, that's cutting his tax liability down. His plan to donate 99% of his estate upon death to private charity also prevents the Federal Government from any shot of getting estate taxes on that.

Mr. "I wanna pay more taxes" really seems to be actively working against that goal.[/QUOTE]

You're one little hop away from being a conspiracy nut.
 
Several people - in this very thread - have commented on how the super-rich donate to charity to limit their own tax liability.

Because I point out that Buffett does it, I'm nearing "conspiracy" levels?
 
From what I've read Buffet donates way beyond what he can write of on his taxes.

So I don't have much gripe with him on that. The problem is with the uber-wealthy who only donate up to the max they can write off.

But it does say something about the greed inherent in human nature that we have to have tax writeoffs for charitable donations to induce most people to give some of their money to help others. Which is why we need taxes and why donations to the Fed would never work on any large scale....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Several people - in this very thread - have commented on how the super-rich donate to charity to limit their own tax liability.

Because I point out that Buffett does it, I'm nearing "conspiracy" levels?[/QUOTE]

It's a factor, but it's more of an overall vibe that I get from you. The eye inside the 2d barcode isn't helping - it's hella creepy.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']From what I've read Buffet donates way beyond what he can write of on his taxes.

So I don't have much gripe with him on that. The problem is with the uber-wealthy who only donate up to the max they can write off.[/QUOTE]

My tongue-on-cheek comment about Buffett lowing his tax liability aside...

How much of a tax break do you actually get in comparison to the amount you donate? Donating $10,000 doesn't mean I save $10,000 in tax dollars - right?

So why would any sane accountant use (legitimate, of course) charitable donations to limit tax payments?
 
[quote name='camoor']It's a factor, but it's more of an overall vibe that I get from you. The eye inside the 2d barcode isn't helping - it's hella creepy.[/QUOTE]

lol... never thought of my Avatar as a New World Order thing... It's a 3DS Mii Q-Code with Reggie Fils-Amie's eye in the middle. Does that make it a little less creepy?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... never thought of my Avatar as a New World Order thing... It's a 3DS Mii Q-Code with Reggie Fils-Amie's eye in the middle. Does that make it a little less creepy?[/QUOTE]

Like I said it isn't any one thing. It's just the way you argue, the way you think. Sure you're captain teaparty right now and your thing is giving the elitist superrich a tossed salad every chance you get, but I could see you getting on a real alien jag or Jesus kick if a cult leader managed to bend your ear.
 
You can balance out donations so you lower your tax burden enough that they pretty much pay for themselves.

It's a big recruiting tool universities use on their donors for example. Bring them in and wine and dine them and show how they can donate money to them instead of giving it to Uncle Sam.

I have no idea what the amounts are or how much you can give before losing more money than you pay out in taxes etc. though.
 
I'd hardly consider myself "Captain Teaparty". Granted, it's none of the topics usually covered in set with Tea Party coverage, but I'm sure my opinions on same-sex marriage, abortion, war, immigration, etc., would probably get me kicked out of any Tea Party party.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd hardly consider myself "Captain Teaparty". Granted, it's none of the topics usually covered in set with Tea Party coverage, but I'm sure my opinions on same-sex marriage, abortion, war, immigration, etc., would probably get me kicked out of any Tea Party party.[/QUOTE]
Huh? I'd like you to quantify that again. If I remember correctly, you're not exactly on the liberal side of same-sex marriage or abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top