Warren Buffett and the rich

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
So on my side I have data that contradicts what you claim, and on your side you have excuses why I have data the contradicts what you say.

[b]"The Dow Jones Industrial Average which bottomed out at 776 under Carter went sky rocketing under Reagan and sometime afterwards (to 13 times taht 776 number)."

13 x 776 = 10,088

It never got a ...[text shortened]... ee? I don't cherry pick data to prove my case. I give ALL the data and ALL the context.[/b]

We simply don't agree and to be honest the more I hear from you the less sympathetic I am to your beliefs.

When some people pay more than half of their money in federal, state and municipal taxes, it is too much and when your solution is that they should pay even more I am simply floored by your concept of fairness. When 50% of people pay no income tax, I have to wonder if there is any fairness at all in the tax system. When 14.3 trillion dollars debt level is not enough we spend too much. When governmental spending goes up 31% during the current president's tenure in a non-inflationarty period, government spending is "out of control".

Maybe there were times when we could afford to choke our economy in this way but it does not seem to working now. We won't have World War II to stimulate the economy or new labors sources like (women entering the market) or new markets like we did with the fall of Communism.

Taxation, borrowing and government interference is not the solution.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Holy crap. Look up hyperbole. Obviously wealthy people spend money, but the point is they spend a tiny fraction of their income whereas the poor and middle class spend all or almost all of theirs.

The number driver of any economy is consumer spending.

Holy crap.

The rich ARE consumers.

And they still spend more than poor folk, regardless of "percentages"

I'm sure you're impressed with the stimulative affects of unemployment compensation and food stamps, both being very prevalent in Obamaville.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
When the 400 richest men in the country own more wealth than over half the country combined, it just makes practical sense to tax upper incomes at a greater rate.

To keep numbers simple, the revenue from taxing the upper $100 million dollars of one person's income at a marginal rate of 10%..... is equal to the revenue generated by taxing ...[text shortened]... lity of life of the wealthy one, single bit and as we've proven it doesn't hurt the economy.

The top 1% pays over 40% of taxes. They are not the problem.

Originally posted by quackquack
That does not mean that our tax system caused prosperity. Our huge national debt is as indication that we cannot afford the level of spending that we currently have. Perhaps the real bubble we have the expectation of governmental services.

Or, conversely, perhaps you cannot afford the long series of tax cuts given to the rich ever since the 92% tariff under Eisenhower.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Or, conversely, perhaps you cannot afford the long series of tax cuts given to the rich ever since the 92% tariff under Eisenhower.

One could conclude anything but I'm pretty sure the world economy would immediately crash if you raised taxes close to that rate -- simply people and businesses would decide most risks are too great -- expansion and innovation would be stifled -- everyone would be really reluctant to hire and retain staff because costs stay the same and you keep only a small fraction of what you keep. In fact, it is probably the best way to kill our economy.

Originally posted by quackquack
We simply don't agree and to be honest the more I hear from you the less sympathetic I am to your beliefs.

When some people pay more than half of their money in federal, state and municipal taxes, it is too much and when your solution is that they should pay even more I am simply floored by your concept of fairness. When 50% of people pay no incom all of Communism.

Taxation, borrowing and government interference is not the solution.

Frankly I can care less about your sympathy. I just provided you with the facts. There is no evidence that taxing the wealthy more has an adverse affect on the economy, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Argue all you want about your ideology and what you consider to be "fair", but this mantra that taxing the so-called "most productive" people hurts the economy is absolutely false.

Let's take a look at your priorities here. You profess that deficits and debt are your priority. But in keeping lock step with your Republican reps you adamantly refuse to accept taxing the rich just what they were paying in the 1990's, even if done in conjunction with spending cuts, even though it won't affect their quality of life, even though we have decades worth of data showing it won't hurt the economy.

So it seems to me your real priority is ideology about fairness first and foremost, and reducing deficits a distant second.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Or, conversely, perhaps you cannot afford the long series of tax cuts given to the rich ever since the 92% tariff under Eisenhower.

The current rap against the "rich" is that they don't actually pay the tax rates, because they enjoy so many shelters. That indeed was the case when the top marginal rate (not tariff) was 92%. Kennedy, and subsequently Reagan reduced the number of marginal rates, and at the same time simplified the code by the elimination of lots of loopholes and shelters. Under either system the "rich" are getting screwed.

Of course, neither the Bush cuts, nor the Clinton soakings contained any simplifications of the code, making it more equal or fair.

The percentage of their income argument is total Tauroscatology. If a "rich" person pays 36% of his income, and the "poor" person pays 0, but is given several thousands of dollars in EITC, his tax ends up being a -%. How is this in any sense fair?

Of course this argument comes from the perspective of the EU, where they are a decade ahead of the total collapse which will follow if those taxing and spending policies continue.

Originally posted by normbenign
The current rap against the "rich" is that they don't actually pay the tax rates, because they enjoy so many shelters. That indeed was the case when the top marginal rate (not tariff) was 92%. Kennedy, and subsequently Reagan reduced the number of marginal rates, and at the same time simplified the code by the elimination of lots of loopholes and shelte ...[text shortened]... of the total collapse which will follow if those taxing and spending policies continue.

Rich people benefit from government immensely more than poor people do.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Frankly I can care less about your sympathy. I just provided you with the facts. There is no evidence that taxing the wealthy more has an adverse affect on the economy, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Argue all you want about your ideology and what you consider to be "fair", but this mantra that taxing the so-called "most prod ...[text shortened]... y is ideology about fairness first and foremost, and reducing deficits a distant second.

"There is no evidence that taxing the wealthy more has an adverse affect on the economy, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary."

Taxation on anything deters it. That's always been the argument for "sin taxes". The heavier the burden, the fewer people will drink, smoke, or gamble.

Let's be totally real. Taxing the "rich" takes money out of the hands of people who know how to make it, and puts it into the hands of jerks who only know how to outspend their revenues. Are you really arguing that Tim Geitner, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid can better "invest" money than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, or any of the hardworking small businessmen who make over $250k a year?

Already, the Obama folks have increased the debt in 2.5 years by as much as Bush did in 8 years. And he intends to continue spending, whether taxes are raised or not. Raising taxes will not, will not reduce the debt, but will increase spending, and not just by the amount of the increase, but also by the amount of inflation Obama can coax out of the Fed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Rich people benefit from government immensely more than poor people do.

How?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
There is no evidence that taxing the wealthy more has an adverse affect on the economy, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Central to your argument but just not true.

Originally posted by normbenign
"There is no evidence that taxing the wealthy more has an adverse affect on the economy, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary."

Taxation on anything deters it. That's always been the argument for "sin taxes". The heavier the burden, the fewer people will drink, smoke, or gamble.

Let's be totally real. Taxing the "rich" takes money out ...[text shortened]... nt of the increase, but also by the amount of inflation Obama can coax out of the Fed.

"Taxation on anything deters it."

Maybe if you're buying something, but we're talking about going the other direction. There's a briefcase with a million dollars in it. If I tax that money will it deter you from wanting it?

More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]"Taxation on anything deters it."

Maybe if you're buying something, but we're talking about going the other direction. There's a briefcase with a million dollars in it. If I tax that money will it deter you from wanting it?

More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent.[/b]

Taxing the money in my briefcase, or stock portfolio takes it from what I want to do with it to what the bozos in Washington want to do with it.

It deters either spending, savings or investment to the extent that it is taken. If too much is taken it may dampen my enthusiasm about making money I don't necessarily need, and cause me to stop or at least slow down. When the high earner decides to stop, it is not just his income that is lost, but that of employees.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]"Taxation on anything deters it."

Maybe if you're buying something, but we're talking about going the other direction. There's a briefcase with a million dollars in it. If I tax that money will it deter you from wanting it?

More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent.[/b]

"More important, I provided decades worth of data that showed massive economic growth even when the top marginal tax rates were above 80 and 90 percent."

I wrote a few post ago that the highest marginal rates really were meaningless in those days, because there were so many loopholes and shelters, which for the most part are gone now.

Originally posted by quackquack
Central to your argument but just not true.

I already (showed) you you're wrong. Putting you fingers in your ears and going "lalalala" doesn't make it not so.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html

It also shows long periods of consistent, rapid gains in the Dow even when the top marginal tax rates were in the topping 80-90% !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates