Originally posted by quackquackSo if a middle-class car salesman went to his political representative and argued that his taxes were too high, and that the economy were too burdensome, then his opinion is also completely invalid?
Buffett's opinion is not any more or less valid than your opinion. But when he is quoted as an economic guru implying that his opinion in more valid than yours or based on more evidence than yours (because he made a lot of money in something unrelated) or someone elses, I object.
If you don't think that a billionaire should have a legitimate say in whether he is capable and willing to pay more in taxes, who should we listen to? By all means.
Originally posted by quackquackAh! So only people with a certain economic ideology are credible?
I don't have a specific person in mind but you can read the Wall Street Journal if you a easily accessable point of few that tends to be pro-business and anti-tax.
Why are these people more credible, exactly? Because they work for a newspaper company?
Originally posted by quackquackSee? You don't know of any self-made rich conservatives either. Self-made rich liberals...much more prevalent.
I don't have a specific person in mind but you can read the Wall Street Journal if you a easily accessable point of few that tends to be pro-business and anti-tax.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI just told you where you could find a school of thought on the topic. I am not sure why you think it would be better if I limited my views to one specific person. If you are interested the Wall Street Journal is a daily newspaper with the ability to discuss many taxation far better than I can. If you are not interested that's certainly ok, but don't pretend that I did answer your question.
See? You don't know of any self-made rich conservatives either. Self-made rich liberals...much more prevalent.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell if nobody buys the widgets, then the market value of production (or revenue-product) would be zero; but physical productivity is generally measured in terms of labor hours. Increasing productivity comes from such things as new technology that expands output per labor hour.
If no one uses the widgets then effectively the productivity was 0.
The point, though, is that absent product demand, firms will not invest in more physical production (or productivity enhancing technology) even if they are cash-rich and could finance all new investment out of that (e.g., accumulated retained earnings). If a firm is producing at relatively low capacity (and perhaps has built up unwanted inventories), and is at best uncertain about future demand, it would be irrational for them to engage in purchasing new productive capital. The firm may well invest in financial instruments to get some return on their money; at some point the firm’s owners/managers might decide to buy out a competitor, or vertically integrate by buying a supplier—but that is still simply purchasing already existing capital.
If a firm sees sufficient future demand, then it makes sense to invest in productivity enhancing real capital—ceteris paribus (such things as interest rates, time horizon, etc. also matter).
Originally posted by quackquackExactly. Specifically read the editorial section. It's almost exclusively conservative right, and there's a pretty good chance any given author is rich.
I just told you where you could find a school of thought on the topic. I am not sure why you think it would be better if I limited my views to one specific person. If you are interested the Wall Street Journal is a daily newspaper with the ability to discuss many taxation far better than I can. If you are not interested that's certainly ok, but don't pretend that I did answer your question.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell said!! The mantra sited by the previous poster is so wrong and misguided. It is often used by folks who understand very little about economics to support their selfish views regarding money which they believed they earned entirely on their own merit - as if the world revolved around them and them alone. Warren Buffet was correct when he said that giving every family $1,000.00 would have done more to stimulate the economy that Bush Jr.'s tax cuts.
WROOOOONG. And it's been prove WROOOONG over and over.
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.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaThis is part of a political strategy to generate a stimulus-supporting narrative. I'm not complaining, but Obama's comments today were tailored to Buffet's comments. Timing.
Warren Buffet on the failure of Congress to include tax increases in the deficit reduction package:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1
[i]OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But [b]when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were ex punish the middle class[/b]? Or are all "businesses" indistinguishable from "people"?[/b]
The Republicans have opposed tax cuts which might actually stimulate the economy. They would rather sink the economy than allow Obama to be reelected.
It almost seems like Perry was part of the strategy on Saturday night when he called for higher taxes on poor people and seniors.
Originally posted by wittywonkaHe can pay more taxes if he wants, just make a great big donation to the IRD.
So if a middle-class car salesman went to his political representative and argued that his taxes were too high, and that the economy were too burdensome, then his opinion is also completely invalid?
If you don't think that a billionaire should have a legitimate say in whether he is capable and willing to pay more in taxes, who should we listen to? By all means.
That is different from claiming taxes are a burden, cut the rates and let all those that like to pay more...well...just let them pay more.
Problem solved. Alll those billionaires like Buffet will be filling their wheelbarrows with cash and bringing it to the IRS.
Originally posted by WajomaExactly. Here's the link.
He can pay more taxes if he wants, just make a great big donation to the IRD.
That is different from claiming taxes are a burden, cut the rates and let all those that like to pay more...well...just let them pay more.
Problem solved. Alll those billionaires like Buffet will be filling their wheelbarrows with cash and bringing it to the IRS.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Also, you don't need to be mega-rich to do this. I encourage you all to make your donation now (I'll cheer you on). 🙂
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214780
Originally posted by WajomaHe already donates a huge amount of money to causes. That is completely beside the point.
He can pay more taxes if he wants, just make a great big donation to the IRD.
That is different from claiming taxes are a burden, cut the rates and let all those that like to pay more...well...just let them pay more.
Problem solved. Alll those billionaires like Buffet will be filling their wheelbarrows with cash and bringing it to the IRS.
Good article, but there's a subtle piece of misdirection in there.
Raising taxes in the way he suggests (20% tax raise for the Forbes 400) would raise an additional $18bn per annum.
Taxing the same Forbes 400 as little as 10% on their wealth would raise $140bn per annum.
So, thanks for your magnamity, WB - can we just go ahead and tax your wealth at 10%? Warren? Warren? Can you hear me?
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooTim Carney The Washington Post:
He already donates a huge amount of money to causes. That is completely beside the point.
Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports
Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.
"Buffett Profits from Government Spending
Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.
If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth."
Buffett can give great advice on how to make money. His advice on how to steal it should be put where the sun doesn’t shine.