Originally posted by quackquackWROOOOONG. And it's been prove WROOOONG over and over.
When we take money out of people's hands who best have the opportunity to invest and employ we most definitely will end up with fewer investments and less jobs.
What stimulate the economy more than any single thing is people spending their money. The very wealthy spend very small percentage of their wealth, as compared to the poor and middle class.
As a country I would take the economic activity of 1000 people making $50,000 per year over 1 person making $50,000,000 per year any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe only reason you believe what Buffett says is because you agree with it. You would be the first people to say he is selfish and wrong if he said he truly believed wealthy people paid their fair share. There simply is no reason why his motives should not be scrutinized.
On what basis are you claiming Buffett is lying about his personal opinion about what's best for the economy? I mean besides the fact that he disagrees with you.
You're so concerned about deficits but you're adamantly against taking the tax rates back to 1993 levels, even if it's just for the top earners, even though our current tax rate is the ...[text shortened]... reason why it shouldn't be done, other than the fact that it doesn't suit your ideology.
I can read the NYT editorial page and believe that untrue things are proven again and again but that does not make them true. I'd prioritize cutting government and its inherent inefficiencies and letting people have money to spend and invest as they wish. Raising taxes but continuing government growth (at its current 31% increase since Obama took office) is a recipe to disaster. Right now the debt is almost the size of GDP -- that means if everyone worked and every penny went to pay down the debt (no money for yourself or other government services) we would need a whole year to be able to pay the debt. The debt ceiling, Greece and other European countries killed by debt is an opportunity to realize that government expansion is out of control. The solution is not to continually enable goverment expansion by raising taxes on small segements of society. Raising taxes on the wealthy is popular because we can be inefficient and then we tell everyone not to worry because someone else pays.
The idea that Joe six pack stimulates the economy but Joe Millionaire doesn't is just untrue. Unspent money is invested in companies, building or banks which re-lend it out to those he invest. Big project results in businesses and homes and all sorts of things people enjoy and none of them are started by some guy on welfare.
Originally posted by quackquackYes, I would absolutely say he's wrong but I wouldn't accuse him of lying about his opinion.
The only reason you believe what Buffett says is because you agree with it. You would be the first people to say he is selfish and wrong if he said he truly believed wealthy people paid their fair share. There simply is no reason why his motives should not be scrutinized.
I can read the NYT editorial page and believe that untrue things are proven ag ...[text shortened]... omes and all sorts of things people enjoy and none of them are started by some guy on welfare.
Warren Buffett, a man widely regarded by just about everyone as a financial genius advocates taxing the wealthy more for the good of the overall economy.
You're not just saying you disagree with him. You're accusing him of lying.
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackBuffett is making two points in the op-ed (and you are right that it is an opinion piece and the fact that Warren Buffett wrote does not make it truth).
I think Buffett is concerned with making money and having his name in the headlines increases his exposure for his fund. He'd be just as happy if his investment hurt the US as if it helped them.
Raising tax on one group and cutting it on another is a distribution arguement -- but it certainly does not create jobs and should not be the justification for our tax policies.
He makes a minor point that the government needs to get its fiscal house in order and that this will require some increase in tax revenues (he wants those increases to come from households with very high income).
His main point is distribuitional. Yes, the mega-rich, to use Warren's terminology, do pay a lot of taxes in absolute terms; however, in relative terms, that is as a fraction of income, he's saying that they do not.
I disagree that this is because Congress loves the mega-rich. Instead, it is a result of the belief that income from capital should be taxed at a very low rate. That was the position of macroeconomics about 25-30 years ago. Since then more research has been done under the assumptions of incomplete markets and/or incomplete information. Under these assumptions, the optimal capital income tax is generally positive.
Originally posted by quackquackquackquack, you just don't get it.
The only reason you believe what Buffett says is because you agree with it. You would be the first people to say he is selfish and wrong if he said he truly believed wealthy people paid their fair share. There simply is no reason why his motives should not be scrutinized.
I can read the NYT editorial page and believe that untrue things are proven ag ...[text shortened]... omes and all sorts of things people enjoy and none of them are started by some guy on welfare.
Prosperity is not created through investment. Investment is done only by evil, lazy people who are trying to get out of working. Investors who make money are morally bankrupt criminals who should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. (Investors who lose money got what they deserve.)
No, prosperity is created by everyone spending ever cent they have.
Then, when you run out, you borrow and spend that.
Then, if you run out again, you tell the government to go get some money from the rich people, and you spend that.
This is how middle class prosperity is created and maintained according to, er, ... Greek socialists and Paul Krugman.
Originally posted by spruce112358I disagree with your characterization of the evils of investments, but economically speaking investing in equities creates a negligible amount of jobs.
quackquack, you just don't get it.
Prosperity is not created through investment. Investment is done only by evil, lazy people who are trying to get out of working. Investors who make money are morally bankrupt criminals who should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. (Investors who lose money got what they deserve.)
No, prosperity is created by ...[text shortened]... s prosperity is created and maintained according to, er, ... Greek socialists and Paul Krugman.
People spending money is what grows the economy.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAnd the more we spend, the more the economy grows! It's linear, right?
I disagree with your characterization of the evils of investments, but economically speaking investing in equities creates a negligible amount of jobs.
People spending money is what grows the economy.
Saving, on the other hand -- rubbish. Who ever got rich by saving money and investing? What nonsense!
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperJust because Buffett is an investment genius does not give him any expertiese in political redistribution plans. Free publicity is always of value and Buffett seems to be a master at it. Making himself seem like a good guy is more to his advantage that to talk about insider trading scandals (like the Sokol scandal at Berkshire Hathway -- his firm -- which occured this year). He should be evaluated like any other person -- not nominated for sainthood -- and certainly not be free from all questions regarding motive.
Yes, I would absolutely say he's wrong but I wouldn't accuse him of lying about his opinion.
Warren Buffett, a man widely regarded by just about everyone as a financial genius advocates taxing the wealthy more for the good of the overall economy.
You're not just saying you disagree with him. You're accusing him of lying.
Originally posted by spruce112358At least someone understands.
quackquack, you just don't get it.
Prosperity is not created through investment. Investment is done only by evil, lazy people who are trying to get out of working. Investors who make money are morally bankrupt criminals who should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. (Investors who lose money got what they deserve.)
No, prosperity is created by ...[text shortened]... s prosperity is created and maintained according to, er, ... Greek socialists and Paul Krugman.
Originally posted by quackquackSo we should be cynical enough to assume that the super-rich are utterly selfish, but not cynical enough to assume that they are supremely interested in "creating" new jobs for others?
There is as an assumption that because Bufett is wealthy and he articulates the shocking position that taxes on people like himself should be raised that (1) it must be true (2) he has the best interest of the American people at heart. We live in a society that is very cynical about professionals, politicians, bankers, mortgage brokers, car salesmen and ...[text shortened]... ies in the private sector and we need to let the market decide what is and isn't beneficial.
Also, you never answered my OP question. Beyond what income threshold should we no longer consider an individual a "small"-business owner?