DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 29, 2012, 11:42:13 AM
-
Once again, billionaire investor Warren Buffett urges his fellow high-on-the-hoggers to pay more in taxes. “Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination,” says Buffett, do taxes make much of a difference in how people invest. “So let’s forget about the rich and ultra-rich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if – gasp – capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultra-rich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities. …
“We need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that.”
So taxes, says Buffett, do not deter the ultra-rich “from pursuing investment opportunities.” Really?
The Weekly Standard’s Adam J. White writes about how tax considerations affect investment decisions by Buffett despite his assertion that tax considerations don’t much matter when it comes to investment decisions. White gives examples from Buffett’s biography “The Snowball,” written by Alice Schroeder:
“Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily – almost one-third of his early fund’s capital – in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility lines and such. … Buffett amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally in hand, he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two. …
“Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand, Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of … taxes. As Schroeder recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences – ‘let’s just swallow the tax,’ he suggested. To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder): ‘And I said, “Wait a minute. Let’s – ‘Let’s’ is a contraction. It means ‘let us.’ But who is this us? If everyone around the table wants to do it per capita, that’s fine, but if you want to do it in a ratio of shares owned, and you get 10 shares’ worth of tax and I get 24,000 shares’ worth, forget it. …”‘
“Later in the book, (Schroeder) recounts how Buffett chose to structure his investments under Berkshire Hathaway’s corporate umbrella, rather than as part of his hedge fund’s general portfolio, precisely because of the tax advantages (emphasis added).”
White quotes Buffett’s 1986 letter to his investors, where Buffett warned about the consequences of the1986 tax reform act: “If Berkshire, for example, were to be liquidated – which it most certainly won’t be – shareholders would, under the new law, receive far less from the sales of our properties than they would have if the properties had been sold in the past, assuming identical prices in each sale. Though this outcome is theoretical in our case, the change in the law will very materially affect many companies. Therefore, it also affects our evaluations of prospective investments. … My impression is that this important change in the law has not yet been fully comprehended by either investors or managers (emphasis added).”
Taxes matter – to Buffett.
Harvard’s Economic Department chairman, Greg Mankiw, writes that “Mr. Buffett never mentions doing anything to eliminate the tax-avoidance strategies that he uses most aggressively. In particular:
“1. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, never pays a dividend but instead retains all earnings. So the return on this investment is entirely in the form of capital gains. By not paying dividends, he saves his investors (including himself) from having to immediately pay income tax on this income.
“2. Mr. Buffett is a long-term investor, so he rarely sells and realizes a capital gain. His unrealized capital gains are untaxed.
“3. He is giving away much of his wealth to charity. He gets a deduction at the full market value of the stock he donates, most of which is unrealized (and therefore untaxed) capital gains.
“4. When he dies, his heirs will get a stepped-up basis. The income tax will never collect any revenue from the substantial unrealized capital gains he has been accumulating.
“To be sure, there are pros and cons of changing the provisions of the tax code of which Mr. Buffett takes advantage. Tax policy always involves difficult tradeoffs. But it seems odd to me that whenever Mr. Buffett talks about taxing the rich more, the ‘loopholes’ that he uses never seem to enter into the conversation.”
Guess who else thinks Buffett should pay more in taxes: the IRS.
Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has been fighting the IRS over the $1 billion in taxes the government claims it is owed, dating as far back as 2002. Last year, one of Berkshire Hathaway’s companies, NetJets, sued the IRS, demanding that the feds return $642.7 million in already paid taxes. And this year, the IRS sued NetJets, claiming it is owed $366.3 million in unpaid taxes.
Meanwhile, scientists at the National Institutes of Health are working feverishly to develop a cure, vaccine or treatment for this disease – that appears to afflict guilty/super-wealthy liberals – known in medical circles as “Buffettitis.” It’s early, and one risks being premature. But NIH just may have produced a workable solution: “Mr. Buffett, whip out your checkbook, and cut the U.S. Treasury a check. Given the state of the economy, let’s hope it doesn’t bounce.”
– IS THERE A CURE? (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/buffettitis-is-there-a-cure/)
-
Buffett understands the tax laws quite well, obviously.
Better than you.
Everyone needs to analyze everything the read and everything they hear.
This has been a pretty good idea since well, forever.
Are we going to chastise Buffett for doing what benefits Buffett the most?
Unlike Romney, who was chastised when he failed to fool the people into electing him to run the country for his small elite group of fatcats, Buffett is not running for office.
-
Xo, I'm going to try and be as straightfoward & civil as I can. I hope you can provide the same effort
What we have here is your attempting to rationalize Buffett's hypocrisy. No one is argueing that he doesn't know how to play the market well, or that sirs knows tax laws better, or that one should be thoroughly educated when invested in the market, especially if heavily invested
The issue here is this notion that rich people don't really care about how high their taxes are, because they can afford it. And that higher taxes wouldn't impact the pursuit of other investments. He says that, however many, if not most, of his decisions and rhetoric when making decisions on his investments were squarely related to how it would impact him, from a tax standpoint.
So its bogus for him to claim that higher taxes won't really impair a person from pursuing investment opportunities, when he's a walking contrary
Do you have any clue as to what "the rich" pay in taxes vs what they take in? Here's a clue, the top 1% are paying a staggering 40% of all taxes. Do you know how much they take in, as a % of the country's wealth? If you guessed 40%, you'd be wrong. If you guessed half that, you'd still be wrong. Contrary to popular erroneous opinion the rich pretty much only take in about 15-17% of the nation's income
Yet listening to folks like Buffett, you'd think every rich person had some secret offshore account where they paid next-to-nothing in taxes
So, you're absolutely right, the rich folks should know tax laws as well as they can, and for doing what they can to benefit them the most. It's complete AMBE though to then claim how raising taxes doesn't influence decision making regarding what activities they would pursue, when its shown how he does the precise opposite
-
So, you're absolutely right, the rich folks should know tax laws as well as they can, and for doing what they can to benefit them the most. It's complete AMBE though to then claim how raising taxes doesn't influence decision making regarding what activities they would pursue, when its shown how he does the precise opposite
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Well said.
I don't know why Warren Buffet has been saying the stuff he has been saying for the last few years, it is as if he doesn't want to be emulated.
Or could he be trying to create a legacy , saying what he thinks we want to hear.
I am just guessing.
-
Good guess, and thanks 8)
-
I was not justifying anything Buffett said. but he is correct that those who benefit the most should pay the most. I really don't know what Buffett actually pays, but I am sure that it is as little as possible. Everyone pretty much pays as little as possible, but most fatcats (like Romney) want to pay even LESS, so I would say that Buffett has them beat, rhetoric-wise, at least.
-
I was not justifying anything Buffett said.
Of course you were....you were arguing points that were never really being questioned...the notion of doing whatever you can to benefit one's self
but he is correct that those who benefit the most should pay the most.
THEY ALREADY FRICKEN DO. IIRC this country has the most progressive tax structure on the globe, and yet the rich still don't pay enough?? Not to mention, that's not his issue.....his issue is that raising taxes even more, is no big deal, when his actions and prior rhetoric alone directly debunks that claim
-
They should pay MORE.
They already have most of the wealth.
-
They should pay MORE.
WHY? You hate "the rich" that much?
They already have most of the wealth.
Even if it were true........SO?? What's it to you? It's THEIR MONEY
-
They should pay MORE.
They already have most of the wealth.
If Buffett wants to pay more he should simply pick up a pen and write a check to the federal govt.
I don't see why simply because he is successful he should pay anymore of a percentage than you do. I'm not real big on this whole progressive tax idea nor the envy based justifications that go with it.
-
A park is public property , amintained by the city , we all own it.
Can wealth be considered as communal ?
If I ever manage to invent that killer app or that better mousetrap, or even just win the lotto, where do I get a debt to everyone ?
-
Buffett Boosts Own Morale with Hypocrisy
The government revised upward its initial reading of third quarter GDP from 2 percent to 2.7 percent in a move that was widely expected by economists.
And everyone said “yawn.”
That’s because the GDP growth was more government puffery. The increase was borrowed or freshly minted money. The government merely accelerated spending, filing one hole, while digging another- deeper- hole, in Obama’s latest 60-year-same-as-cash financing offer.
At least that’s what the markets have felt apparently- reacting with shrug to another wave of “good” news coming out of the government about how great things are for the folks back home.
Home sales, or least contracts for home sales, have risen to a six-year high, unemployment claims fell again, although still high. Obama has promised that he’s gonna finally make the rich “pay”; and Warren Buffett tells us that those punitive measures will boost the morale of the middle class.
And the miasma of economic data and lavish discourse on it serves as further proof that whatever else may be happening, the economic numbers are disconnected from the everyday lives of ordinary persons as are the people who run Washington, London and Paris
Because you are kidding yourself if you think that anything coming out of any of the Western capitals- and the mouths of so-called Western billionaire capitalists- are about any “class” besides the “ruling” class.
If Warren Buffett wants to boost the morale of middle class so badly, he should:
1) Pay his own taxes;
and
2) boost the paychecks of his middle class workers, not their taxes.
Or he could do us all a favor and just die, like he should have ten years ago.
It would have been fun to watch the government confiscate his wealth and do all the things Buffett advocates for. You know? Like NOT building the Keystone Pipeline. But you see, Buffett’s private railroad has the contract to haul the oil that the Keystone Pipeline would haul for a fraction of the price.
And in dying the Carbuncle of Omaha would have been able to leave his considerable fortune to the government before he implemented his newest, spiffy tax-avoidance plan that makes sure little of his fortune goes for taxes.
No death tax for King Warren!
And since Buffett has already started transferring his wealth to private charity instead of the government, one might be tempted to ask why.
Maybe it’s because Buffett, as the icon billionaire of the technocrat class, doesn’t want follow the rules that he metes out for the rest of us. Man, what a congressman he would make for the left side of the aisle.
But if the guy had any of the “fairness” fortitude that he preaches for everyone else, then as the number one cheerleader for taxing the rich he would be handing over his money to the benevolent government for which he pimps.
“I was wired at birth to allocate capital,” Buffett told Fortune Magazine, “and was lucky enough to have people around me early on - my parents and teachers and [his wife] Susie - who helped me to make the most of that.”
Yeah; and a cooperative, fawning government.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m tired of sanctimonious billionaires who lecture the rest us that we need to change the system that made them billionaires so that you and I can’t become billionaires- sanctimonious or otherwise.
Because, the Warren Buffett story was made possible by the very tax policies and investment-friendly environment advocated by supply-siders since the Reagan Revolution that Buffett now opposes.
Buffett has also benefited from the generous growth of the federal government, which he still supports. It’s no coincidence that one of Buffett’s most successful holdings remains Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), a company that was modeled on the stability and growth of the federal workforce.
So, of course Buffett feels that it’s his birthright to allocate capital for the rest of us.
“I told Susie I was going to be rich,” Buffett also confessed to Fortune. “That wasn't going to be because of any special virtues of mine or even because of hard work, but simply because I was born with the right skills in the right place at the right time.”
And after him, the deluge.
Thanks a lot, Warren. (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/11/30/buffett_boosts_own_morale_with_hypocrisy)
-
GEICO sells insurance to everyone. It has been 40 years or more since they concentrated on federal employees.
GEICO as a name brand was perhaps successful because many people trusted the Government MORE than other insurance companies. Now, perhaps they sell better because of their popular spokeslizard.
Buffett is correct about being better at investments than average. Plus, he was born with money. His father was an ultra rightwing quasi Bircher Republican.
-
Strange how that name brand doesn't make the top 10 against many other companies that sells insurance to everyone, on many top 10 lists I looked at. Perhaps because the others concentrate their effort to sell to everyone vs just on Federal Employees
In any case, the issue on whether Buffett is "better than average" in choosing what and how much to invest in, is moot, since that's not in debate, and no one is claiming otherwise. that's just another effort to argue a point never made. The debate is in the hypocrisy of Buffett to claim that raising taxes doesn't affect decision making & opportunistic investment by "the rich", when he's a walking contrary to that
And that fact that you claim he was "born with all that money" is ironically striking, in how you frequently use that as your whipping board, when it happens to be a rich Republican, yet hypocritically, you give him a pass.
-
Really?
Is Buffett running for president, sirs?
I give him a pass only on his statement that (1) he thinks that fatcats like himself should pay more in taxes, and (2) that he won the "ovarian lottery" and that he is a far more successful investor than the average investor.
I also note that Buffett was never in the habit of practicing vulture capitalism and has not been noted for buying companies, taking them over, paying himself huge bonuses and selling off the peaces, throwing employees out of work. Nor does he have a lot of investments in the Cayman Islands.
Geico advertises in nearly every magazine that I subscribe to, as well as the Miami Herald. GEICO advertises on most TV networks. I had my auto insurance with them for 20 years or so, until I found that now that I am retired and drive less, it saves me money to buy it from another carrier, without a cute spokeslizard. It is probably true that Federal employees have a lower accident rate than the average for the nation, just as it is true that TIAA-CREF has much lower rates because they specialize in university, private school and medical employees,who are apparently a better risk.
-
Really?
Yea, really
Is Buffett running for president, sirs?
And that has what to do with his current line of hypocrisy, xo?
I give him a pass only on his statement that (1) he thinks that fatcats like himself should pay more in taxes,
Which no one is stopping him from doing, yet he manages to pay as little as he can, using current tax law
and (2) that he won the "ovarian lottery"
That you hypocritically savage "rich" conservatives for, who are no different, except they don't have a (D) after their name
and that he is a far more successful investor than the average investor.
Once again, arguing a point never made or in dispute ::)
I also note that Buffett was never in the habit of practicing vulture capitalism and has not been noted for buying companies, taking them over, paying himself huge bonuses and selling off the peaces, throwing employees out of work. Nor does he have a lot of investments in the Cayman Islands.
Irelevant to the issue at hand. If you want to try and bash Romney, by all means, start a new thread
Geico advertises in nearly every magazine that I subscribe to, as well as the Miami Herald. GEICO advertises on most TV networks. I had my auto insurance with them for 20 years or so, until I found that now that I am retired and drive less, it saves me money to buy it from another carrier, without a cute spokeslizard. It is probably true that Federal employees have a lower accident rate than the average for the nation, just as it is true that TIAA-CREF has much lower rates because they specialize in university, private school and medical employees,who are apparently a better risk.
And what does ANY of that have to do with the issue that Buffet talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk??
-
He doesn't obey what he, in your image of what he should be, is.
I don't think Buffett is in any way hypocritical in terms of how he defines his role.
Of course, he does not agree with you, and people seem to respect him, perhaps even more than the respect YOU, humbly lowercase s sirs.
Shame on him! Let's raise his taxes and teach him a lesson that will make zero difference to him.
-
I like the Ovarian lottery idea.
All of us here are winners .
Starting as a human egg , we beat the odds in that hundreds of eggs never get the oppurtunity to acheive fertilisation in every potential mother only a few.
And the odds are worse by three orders of magnitude for the sperm of whom there can be only one every potential human father wastes billions of them for each swimmer that succeeds.
Then after that astronomicaly unlikly event the fertilised egg has to implant , where the odds are nearly even for any particular zygote will not.
After all that good luck , the fortune to emerge finally in the USA as a citizen seems like heaps on heaps on heaps of good luck, in the greater part of human history most of us have been born with much less rights and advantages.
As the children of Americans we benefit greatly from the result of generations of human struggle , our parents have co-operated and struggled against one another to produce the society ,the infrastructure and the fortune we take so for granted , as if we had a billion times a billion more right to this than any other former egg.
We owe most of this to our progenitors who we can only pay by doing well for their grandchildren.
-
Keep thinking ofvthe dinner thing
http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/stories/0104150710.htm (http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/stories/0104150710.htm)
But with this twist in reality no one will agree to let the four freeloaders eat with them . Two at best would get away with it and nobody would let the rich guy pay so much. The tax system is a really bad dinner
-
He doesn't obey what he, in your image of what he should be, is.
WHAT?
I don't think Buffett is in any way hypocritical in terms of how he defines his role.
Of course you don't....he's a hard core leftist, who happen to take advantage of this country's capitalistic system to better himself, all the while trashing anyone who apparently does like he, but doesn't support his ideology
Of course, he does not agree with you, and people seem to respect him, perhaps even more than the respect YOU, humbly lowercase s sirs.
Again I'm left to say.....what lowercase x xo??
Shame on him! Let's raise his taxes and teach him a lesson that will make zero difference to him.
What the frell? Why would I want to "punish him"?....I say lower his taxes, allow him to better invest, make more money, buy more things, help create more jobs, which in turn generates more tax revenues from the increase in income taxes and payroll taes of more folks being employed
-
Keep thinking ofvthe dinner thing
http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/stories/0104150710.htm (http://www.citydebate.com/florida/miamibeach/stories/0104150710.htm)
But with this twist in reality no one will agree to let the four freeloaders eat with them . Two at best would get away with it and nobody would let the rich guy pay so much. The tax system is a really bad dinner
I like that story, it is a thought experiment .
So what is the diffrence between that story and reality?
-
Nobody would except such a arrangement for dinner.
-
Nobody would except such a arrangement for dinner.
That certainly begs a question, why do we accept something like that arrangement for taxation?
And another question...
How does the US Government comare with a restraunt kitchen for effeciency and markup?
-
Sigh.
Investing in current stock does not create jobs. If I buy 1000 shares of Coca-Cola or GEICO stock or BNSF stock, it will not cause any of those companies to hire a single employee, because I am not buying the stock from the companies, I am buying the stock from someone who bought it earlier and sold it because they needed the money, or thought that some other stock was a better investment.
Warren Buffett can be described in many ways, but to call him a "hard core leftist" is utterly ridiculous. The people he benefits the most and always have benefited the most are those who own shares in Berkshire Hathaway, which come in two sizes, one goes for $131,916 per share and $88.08 per share.
The beta on BRK-B is .29, which means that it is not a very risky stock. A beta of 1.0 is average.
The term "ovarian lottery" is one Buffett uses rather often, I do not know whether he invented it, and I see that it could apply to anyone who is born to some degree. He uses it to refer to those who are born to parents who educate their children well, pass along genes for various talents and perhaps an inheritance as well.
I can't say I agree with him on every issue, but I do find him to be a nicer guy than Carl Icahn, Jack Welsh or Mitt Romney. He entreats the super rich to pass on their money to the less fortunate,and does not seem to have such a large ego that he feels a need to not collaborate with Bill Gates on his campaign to eradicate Guinea worm, malaria, bilharzia and other nasty tropical diseases. Doing this creates jobs as well, though perhaps not as many as in the US as in Africa and tropical countries,
-
Sigh.
SIgh....
Investing is only new once , but if the stock could not be resold at a profit , who would ever invest that one time?
-
Precisely.
-
That is a rather feeble argument. If A buys stock from B,it does not cause any company, anywhere to hire anyone.
-
It's a very sound arguement....If many invest, as in A-Z buys stock in B, B is far more likely to expand and hire more
-
But it can lo back fire if one person or group started buyingba massive amount for the goal of controling the company . The company might do a poison pill to stop them.
-
Might, yes....that's the system....there are no guarantees. Companies do go under. check out all the "Green companies" that went belly up with our tax dollars. If anyone invests in any companies, it should be individuals, not the Government. And if the Government is going to subsidize A, its needs to subsidize most of the rest of the alphabet....that way its not the Government risking our tax dollars on what it wants, but taking a more diverse effort, as most investement folks would advocate
-
That is a rather feeble argument. If A buys stock from B,it does not cause any company, anywhere to hire anyone.
That most of our businesses depend on investment to come into existance is a feeble arguement ?
Wow , your standard of strengh is high.
-
Most investment in business is not related to the stock market.
Again,buying stock from some other stockholder does not cause any company to hire workers. It would be more of an incentive to buy robots in some industries.
-
Most investment in business is based on the notion that the business will hopefully do better, thus maximising that investement....as in expand....as in improve...as in then need to hire more employees.
The stocks going up or down simply validate the original risk of investing in the 1st place ::)
-
The stock market opens the investment business to the small player.
There is a huge advantage to the large investor , but without the stock market the small investor would be totally shut out.
When you buy a few shares , often the seller is harvesting a profit , or if taking a loss is harvesting what he can.
The big investors sell sometimes just so that they can buy something new. Since money is very fungable in the stock market a big buyer is very likly to trade holdings old for new.
A diving stock market DIRECTLY removes value from the pool of investment that funds old and new investment, in tight money times it is hard to get a new business started and hard to get an old business expanded.
It isn't because anyone likes it that way, and it isn't because anyone anyone hates it that way, proper regulation prevents cheating , not the flow of tides .
-
Sirs says "Of course you don't....he's a hard core leftist, who happen to take advantage of this country's capitalistic system to better himself, all the while trashing anyone who apparently does like he, but doesn't support his ideology"
What evidence do you have that Buffett is a hard core leftist? What defines a hard core leftist in your mind. And who is he trashing?
-
His rhetoric and who he supports
And he'd be trashing both conservatives and libertarians who support a more constitutionally founded limited government
But seriously, you want to talk about me vs the hypocritical double speak Buffett is pushing? ???
-
What about his rhetoric seems especially hard core and of the left. I notice you dodged my request for a definition.
And when did he trash conservatives and libertarians? Is this you projecting or did he actually do it?
Yeah i want to talk about your assertion that Buffett is a hard core leftist. He well may be, but you haven't backed up that assertion.
-
I'll think about it
-
I'm sure the class is eagerly awaiting your reply. I know i am.
-
I suppose I could pull a.... he who shall not be named, and claim I have no obligation to answer any direct question. I don't feel like. I'll get back to you
-
Please do.
-
http://www.biography.com/people/warren-buffett-9230729 (http://www.biography.com/people/warren-buffett-9230729)
http://www.youtube.com/ (http://www.youtube.com/)
Biography Channel - Warren Buffett (1/4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBXAd635XyU#ws)
I am not sure that "liberal"or "conservative" either one would be a really complete description, Warren Buffet has built his fortune largely on a strong understanding of what makes a business valuable , being patient and being really good with math.
Other than being very good with math I don't see why he couldn't be a genuine Liberal.
But...
Not long ago he set the record for charitable gift, and he used his OWN MONEY, ..... that is not a liberal.
-
I wonder how Fatman is doing.
-
Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10#)
-
Given a choice between Buffett and Friedman, I'd say Buffett knows more.
One of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune did a documentary on being filthy rich and interviewed Friedman and pretty much made a fool of him. It is on Youtube.
-
You mean a mockumentary.....like well, pick pretty much any one of Michael Moore's comedies
-
I looked him up on youtube. pretty interesting. very confident about what drives invation. woulds love to argue with him about that. espeacially about einstien was motivated by money.
-
Warren Buffett disowned his son Peter's adopted daughter, Nicole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Lineage), in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary, The One Percent.
Sounds like a hard core leftist to me.
-
If you say so. How does one "disown" a family member? How do they "own" them in the 1st place? Is there a preset monetary value, based on family rankings? I must have missed that class
-
How does one disown a family member?
They quit speaking to them or supporting them in any way. Happens all the time in rich as well as poorer families.
But that has little to do with your assertion that Buffett is a hard core leftist. Not sure why you are dodging explaining the charge.
-
You just said so yourself. Are you dodging your own assertion now?
And disown seems to mean not own any more...unless....you're using it figuratively, and not literally....kinda like, I was
-
You just said so yourself. Are you dodging your own assertion now?
Oh that is weak.
And disown seems to mean not own any more...unless....you're using it figuratively, and not literally....kinda like, I was
No i was quoting wikipedia which i assume was using the literral.
disown (third-person singular simple present disowns, present participle disowning, simple past and past participle disowned)
To refuse to own or to refuse to acknowledge one’s own.
Lord Capulet and his wife threatened to disown their daughter Juliet if she didn't go through with marrying Count Paris.
Usage notes
Particularly used of parents regarding their children, and stronger than the similar estrange, which can also be used of children regarding their parents, or of siblings.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disown (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disown)
Kindly define the term "hard core leftist" when used figuratively vs when used literally.
-
So, your passing the buck to wikipedia for their use of disowning, which again has the literal connotation of no longer owning, which of course, takes me back to my original query, of is there a preset monetary value, based on family rankings? Perhaps its wikipedia "projecting".
Hmmmm, inquiring minds, and all that, since they can't answer
-
I believe the definition speaks for itself. Feel free to search other online resources if you feel that this definition is inadequate.
I see no mention of chattel, though your Argumentum ad absurdum, seems to indicate that you believe that family is made up of shareholders with certain values assigned.
But that's ok. If you can't back up your claim that Warren Buffett is a hard core leftist, I understand. It's what you do, it's who you are.
-
Own....as in belonging to, as in ownership, as in being in possession of. Disown would technically be the no longer owning of whatever was being owned in the 1st place. I mean if we're going to focus on being hyperliteral & play these semantic games with me, you so enjoy, vs actually debating the topic(s) at hand. I think I understand, it's what you do...it's who you are.
-
Given a choice between Buffett and Friedman, I'd say Buffett knows more.
One of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune did a documentary on being filthy rich and interviewed Friedman and pretty much made a fool of him. It is on Youtube.
How about what he said there on this Donahue segment?
Any errors in that ?
-
funny thing about families disownment is alot of times the parents don`t understand why the children don`t call or visit. I`m serious. I see it alot in inter-racial couples
-
If you can't look up a word and understand it's definition, i can't help you.
And apparently your decision to neither define hard core leftist or provide examples as to how Warren Buffett would fit into that definition, leads me to believe that you become very uncomfortable with having your assertions challenged because your assertions are gospel and should not be challenged.
We all have our idiosyncrocies, and while mine isn't loaded with a bunch of demeaning insults, it is straightforward, and apparently others with a similar disposition of believing their word as gospel, like myself, can't be bothered with either backing up where I'm wrong and/or just throw garbage. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/and-then-there-are-other-ways/msg147100/#msg147100)
-
I just wiki warren,not exactly a normal family dynamic to begin with. but his relatively simple lifestyle makes sense for him to do investments. His lifestyle allows him a more personal view of spending trend no computer would be able to gather. he even pointed out he rarely uses a computer.
-
apparently your decision to neither define hard core leftist or provide examples as to how Warren Buffett would fit into that definition, leads me to believe that you become very uncomfortable with having your assertions challenged because your assertions are gospel and should not be challenged.
You can believe that....you'd be wrong. Even he who shall not be named, debunked that conclusion, when he was still on speaking terms with me, at the time he was responding, I think to Xo. But far be it for me to try and rattle any sense into yas
-
You can believe that....you'd be wrong.
Then stand and deliver son, make your case concerning Buffett being a hard core leftist, else we would be know you wrong.
-
I hope you're having fun.......I doubt anyone else is however, not to mention all this effort to......what exactly? The topic was Buffett, and his duplicity when it comes to talking the talk, but walking 180degrees in the other direction. But here you are expending ALL this energy, and yea, demands to how sirs defines a descriptive reference he uses to what it is to be a hard core leftist. Since its merely descriptive, I could give you lots of references and examples, but......to what end? So that you can microsemantically attempt to tear them down?
This little exercise was extended on my part to help highlight a very interesting turn of events. Yea, I'll get to the question "how does sirs define hard core leftist" in a moment. Not too long ago, I was being routinely chastised by several folks, including yourself, for supposedly badgering someone(s) to answer a question. I wasn't, as I was clearly highlighting how my questions weren't being responded to, which was fine. But I was still scolded, and even now have Xo making ongoing comments on how he's not obligated to answer anything he doesn't want to. Which again is fine. Yet look how much effort you're expending on something as so trivial as how sirs defines a descriptive term, badgering for an answer, and immediately claiming how uncomfortable I must be at having my assertions challenged because my assertions are supposedly gospel and should not be challenged. Good gravy. As even he who shall not be named referenced, I DO make an effort to back up my opinions with facts, but not necessarily mere descriptive terms, such as hard core leftist
But to placate Bt's unfaultering need to know, in sirs' descriptive OPINION, a hard core leftist is someone who pushes liberal causes, to a near blinding level. No other ideology can be considered. No objective counter-arguement to the cause can be accepted, it must be either rationalized away or simply rejected out of hand, as either radical, racist, fascist, or greedy. They support politicians who have a consistent heavy liberal voting record, and policies consistent with establishing an ever expanding bludgeoning Government footprint, all in the name of making things "fair"
It's someone who claims he pays less in taxes than his secretary, omitting the fact he's lumping 2 different taxing mechanisms, as if they were one and the same
I hope that helped. Your semantic knife awaits
-
Well thank you for finally defining what in your OPINION, a hard core leftist would look like.
That is half the equation. The other half is tying Buffett to your definition.
But to placate Bt's unfaultering need to know, in sirs' descriptive OPINION, a hard core leftist is someone who pushes liberal causes, to a near blinding level. No other ideology can be considered. No objective counter-arguement to the cause can be accepted, it must be either rationalized away or simply rejected out of hand, as either radical, racist, fascist, or greedy.
What liberal causes has Buffett blindingly pushed other than stating as a wealthy man he would have no problem paying a higher tax rate. Where did he stiffle opposing opinion? When did he demonize anyone? If his philantrophy is any indication of his political thoughts, by pledging half his wealth to private charities indicates that he doesn't believe government to be the be all end all provider of solutions. I'm sure you would find many on the right who agree with that philosophy.
They support politicians who have a consistent heavy liberal voting record, and policies consistent with establishing an ever expanding bludgeoning Government footprint, all in the name of making things "fair"
Did you know he was a financial adviser to Schwarzenegger. Was Arnold a hard core Leftist?
Are you aware that he is in favor of cutting govt spending to 21% of GDP while keeping taxes at 18.5%. Not balanced, but better than Obama is proposing.
I don't have a problem with a guy volunteering his own quintile to pony up, i have a problem with those in other quintiles saying raise taxes on thee but not me.
And quit playing the victim, you don't wear it well.
-
Arnold was a Rhino, who has embraced the Green movement, and saddled this state with some of the worst legislation to hit this state, be it cap and trade or the final solutions act......all while driving his hummer & private jets
He may not be "hard core", since he doesn't fit all the parameters I referenced, but he's certainly no conservative
And what's with this guff about stifling opinion?? Rejecting is not stifling, though he does demonize conservatives
And quit playing the semantic card shark. You don't bluff well
-
No bluffing needed.
I asked you to define your hard core leftist slur
and
tie it to Buffett
As far as i am concerned you failed.
No other ideology can be considered.
ie other ideologies are stifled.
Oh BTW . Can you provide an example where he demonized conservatives?
-
Buffett is not a politician, he just has political opinions. He is Waaaaaay smarter than sirs.
It is absurd to call him a left winger. Give up, sirs, you have been defeated.
-
No bluffing needed.
I asked you to define your hard core leftist slur
and
tie it to Buffett
As far as i am concerned you failed.
As far as I'm concerned, you failed in your flawed conclusion, semantic knife not withstanding
-
Well if you did tie Buffett to your hard core left definition, and you did name those conservatives he demonized i must have missed it. Perhaps you can provide the link, else you know, you simply were wrong.
-
I've seen and heard his comments regarding conservatives and their positions on taxes, Norquist being the latest example. You can ignore them, or rationalize them however you need to so they fit your template. As it is, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. Your mileage may vary
-
Finally, 68 posts into thread it is revealed that Buffett may have said something mean about Grover Norquist. What he said that was derogatory will be revealed in coming episodes. Stay tuned folks, it could get interesting.
Norquist is a lobbyist. I hope that wasn't to harsh a slur so that i am not mistaken for a hard core leftist.
::)
-
You can ignore them, or rationalize them however you need to so they fit your template. Bravo
-
Hard to ignore or rationalize the alleged slurs without a slur being produced to look at.
I'm sure the class is noticing.
-
One need not be a leftist to recognize Norquest for the evil fat SOB that he is.
-
I don't see what Norquists weight has to do with anything, but the whole tax pledge deal is kind of stupid.
How many on the right have called for a flat or fair tax where everyone pays so they have skin in the game.
Well if some people do not pay tax on their income, advocating a streamlined flat/fair tax would raise the taxes on that class, and voila tax pledge broken.
Oh I hope that wasn't too harsh on old Grover. I'd hate to be considered a hard core leftist.
-
Hard to ignore or rationalize the alleged slurs without a slur being produced to look at.
I'm sure the class is noticing.
I'm sure they already have (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/bds-check-out-buffettitis/msg147421/#msg147421) But just as expected, the uber sematic scapel came out, and has tried every bit of rationalizing. Demand an example of a conservative being derided, sirs provides it, and its immediately poopoo'd....hey, its just a lobbiest, and and and you still didn't provide the exact quote, and and and you're just wrong. And if you don't admit it....well.....you just can't be bothered with having your assertions challenged
Well if some people do not pay tax on their income, advocating a streamlined flat/fair tax would raise the taxes on that class, and voila tax pledge broken.
Oh I hope that wasn't too harsh on old Grover. I'd hate to be considered a hard core leftist.
Hmmm, are you consistently supporting liberal causes?? Liberal candidates?? Calling anone that disagrees with you racist or greedy?? Do you purposely distort how taxes are paied to imply an underling pays more taxes than you do??
-
Buffett is clearly describing the situation accurately when he says that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does,
-
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/fortune/1205/gallery.500-CEO-political-donations.fortune/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/fortune/1205/gallery.500-CEO-political-donations.fortune/index.html)
His money is Democrat.
-
Hard to ignore or rationalize the alleged slurs without a slur being produced to look at.
I'm sure the class is noticing.
I'm sure they already have (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/bds-check-out-buffettitis/msg147421/#msg147421) But just as expected, the uber sematic scapel came out, and has tried every bit of rationalizing. Demand an example of a conservative being derided, sirs provides it, and its immediately poopoo'd....hey, its just a lobbiest, and and and you still didn't provide the exact quote, and and and you're just wrong. And if you don't admit it....well.....you just can't be bothered with having your assertions challenged
Well if some people do not pay tax on their income, advocating a streamlined flat/fair tax would raise the taxes on that class, and voila tax pledge broken.
Oh I hope that wasn't too harsh on old Grover. I'd hate to be considered a hard core leftist.
Hmmm, are you consistently supporting liberal causes?? Liberal candidates?? Calling anone that disagrees with you racist or greedy?? Do you purposely distort how taxes are paied to imply an underling pays more taxes than you do??
I'm sorry did you provide it? What did he say, when did he say it, to whom did he say it, and in what context.
I saw nothing of the sort from you.
Quit the semantic knife BS and back up your assertions or admit that you can not.
You made the claim. Not I.
-
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/bds-check-out-buffettitis/msg147450/#msg147450) Your mileage may vary (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/bds-check-out-buffettitis/msg147421/#msg147421)
-
I'm sorry i do not see what Buffett is alleged to have said, to whom, about what, and in what context concerning Grover.
The best you have done is this:
I've seen and heard his comments regarding conservatives and their positions on taxes, Norquist being the latest example.
in you reply #68
Posting dead end links doesn't cut it.
-
RICH LEFTIES AND THEIR TAXES
Ah, the hypocrisy of tax-hikers who do everything they can to avoid the taxes they wish to impose on others.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: He tried to avoid $500K in his home state’s sales and excise taxes by docking his newly purchased $7 million 76-foot yacht in Rhode Island.
Massachusetts lowered its state income tax in 2001. Given the presumably large number of rich people who pine to pay more taxes, the state allowed tax filers to check a box and voluntarily pay the old, higher rate. In a liberal state of over 3 million tax filers, how many volunteered to pay the higher rate in 2004? A tiny fraction of 1 percent – 930 taxpayers.
Among those who refused to pay the higher rate? Sen. Kerry and Rep. Barney Frank. In Frank’s case, he refused to pay the higher rate because, he says, “I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions.” Instead, Frank said, “I’ll donate the money myself.”
John Edwards, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate: His wife, Elizabeth, once called him a person of “character” because Edwards voted against his own economic “interests” by voting for higher taxes. Well, OK, but like billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who urges higher taxes, Edwards is less than keen on paying them. As a lawyer winning major jury awards, John set up a subchapter S corporation to pay himself through dividends – and thus avoid $600K in Medicare payroll taxes.
Kennedy patriarch Joe Kennedy: The late Ted Kennedy and his family shield their money through a series of complicated family trusts first begun by father Joe Kennedy. The trusts transfer wealth from generation to generation while avoiding estate taxes.
The late Ohio Democratic Sen. Howard Metzenbaum: A liberal’s liberal, Metzenbaum enjoyed a lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action of 95 (100 being perfect) and a zero from the American Conservative Union. He never met a tax hike he did not like. He moved to Florida when he retired from the Senate. Why Florida? No state estate or personal income taxes.
“Civil rights” leader and MSNB-Hee Haw host Al Sharpton: Though he supports increasing taxes on the rich, Sharpton, it seems, fails to do his part as a member of the 1 percent. As of last year, according to the New York Post, Sharpton owed $3.5 million in state and federal income taxes. His nonprofit, the National Action Network, as of 2011 owes nearly $900K in unpaid federal payroll taxes.
What do these individual instances of hypocrisy say about whether taxes should be increased on the so-called rich?
First, contrary to Buffett’s assertion, people absolutely make decisions and change behavior in response to taxes. Compare the economies of Texas and California, two border states with similar immigrant populations. Texas is a no-income-tax, right-to-work, business-friendly state with substantially less regulation than the Obama-like high-tax (especially on the “the rich” and on business), forced unionism, heavily regulated state of California. Texas also has one of the lowest per-capita spending rates, while California has one of the highest.
The result?
According to Investor’s Business Daily, state gross domestic product growth in Texas was 3.3 percent in 2011 and 5.2 percent in 2010, while California was 2 percent in 2011 and 1.7 percent in 2010. Texas has created more than twice as many new jobs as California and has a below-the-national-average jobless rate of 6.8 percent. California’s unemployment rate is 10.2 percent.
From 2008 to 2011, Texans’ median hourly wages rose 8 percent, while Californians’ rose 5.7 percent. And per-capita personal income during those years rose 1.3 percent in Texas, while falling almost 1 percent in California. California’s poverty rate is 23.5 percent, to Texas’ 16.5 percent, and Texas spends less on education, while its students outperform their California counterparts.
Second, because people change behavior in response to taxes, raising them can result in getting less revenue. John Kennedy said, “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low – and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.”
The Congressional Budget Office just issued a report on what would happen to the economy if Congress fails to retain the Bush-era tax rates. Keeping the Bush-era rates for all but the rich, the CBO says, adds 1.25 percentage points to GDP. Retaining tax rates for all, including the rich, however, adds 1.5 percent to the economy. In other words, raising taxes on the rich lowers economic output. Does a quarter of a percentage matter? The CBO says it will “only” reduce job growth by about 200,000 jobs – although other reputable studies put the number at 700,000 jobs.
Taxes matter. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/rich-lefties-and-their-taxes/)
-
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/fortune/1205/gallery.500-CEO-political-donations.fortune/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/fortune/1205/gallery.500-CEO-political-donations.fortune/index.html)
His money is Democrat.
So? His brother donates GOP. Donations don't define either as hard core anything anymore than you voting for Jim Marshall makes you a hard core leftist.
-
What a great memory! I voted for Marshal, but not recently.
Where your treasure is , there your heart is also.
The best evidence I can find that Warren Buffet is left of center , is the stuff he seems to say , that same stuff that President Obama likes to quote and the stuff that gets a "rule" named after him.
I think Warren is very canny and what he says may be said for an effect he wants rather than reflecting his deepest thoughts, but how can I know?
What he says is what I have to go on.
-
And based on your writings i would say you are right of center. Does that make you a hardcore righty?
-
And based on your writings i would say you are right of center. Does that make you a hardcore righty?
I like to think so , and if what I write conveys my thoughts well this is the impression you should be getting.
But by hard core , do you mean frozen , inflexable , thoughtless?
I would not like to make that impression.
-
But by hard core , do you mean frozen , inflexable , thoughtless?
There is no telling . In the context of this thread it could be you walked by a militia man (genuine or FBI plant , as the case may be) set on blowing up the Atlanta Federal Reserve and gotten some of that hard core on ya.
I think the whole point of that line of description was to demonize the messenger so as to have the message dropped like a hot potato. What was worse was hard core got in the way of the hypocrite dance.
A whole lot of that going on these days.
You asked me once what makes a good debate. Best i can tell is you need to understand the other sides point of view. In other words you need to be able to listen, and its hard to listen when you are screaming evil devil at the same time.
-
I like the point you are making.
Probly to much to argue with it .
So.. Back to Warren Buffet, if he is in frount of the parade , does not mean he is leading it?
I am not sure he is a "hard core " anything , but he seems willing to be usefull to the left in its aim to increase the role of government in the lives we lead.
If investment income gets taxed at a rate just as high as income tax , will anyone ever get wealthy with good investment ? Will anyone invest in anything?
-
...and here's one of the strangest parts....all this effort in order to wrap around 1 descriptive phrase, all the while ignoring the points made regarding the supposed "evil devil". Makes one wonder.....why?
-
...and here's one of the strangest parts....all this effort in order to wrap around 1 descriptive phrase, all the while ignoring the points made regarding the supposed "evil devil". Makes one wonder.....why?
That is one of the best benefits!
If your logic is sloppy , if your facts are poorly founded , if there is some flaw in your opinions of any kind, how do you know?
In the adversary is your own strength.
-
So.. Back to Warren Buffet, if he is in frount of the parade , does not mean he is leading it?
Not necessarily. He may be a useful tool. Perhaps he settled on allowing Obama to tout the Buffett tax in his classwarfare rhetoric as a balm for refusing to donate hugely to his superpacs.
I am not sure he is a "hard core " anything , but he seems willing to be usefull to the left in its aim to increase the role of government in the lives we lead.
or he is at a stage in his life where he feels the need to give of his wealth cause he knows he can't take it with him. His charitable trusts far outweigh whatever increased amounts he would pay in taxation. And he certainly has the right to acknowledge that the capital gains reductions helped his accumilation of assets tremendously.
It's kind of like the disability discussion in the other thread. It makes sense to consider the needs of the disabled when renovating or building a new structure, especially at tax payer expense. But do we need to go that extra step and sign a UN Treaty because of it. Its a local issue that some want to make universal.
-
Where I work there is a long walkway that includes four flights of stairs going up the hill, and at the top is the handicap parking.
This was all built for government use since the ADA .
Law fails to overcome poor planning .
To make up the diffrence , people who have handicaps too severe to handle the steps have special pass to drive up to the hangar.
I think the ADA is a good law , but it is better to have good attitude and good planning if what you want is success .
There is no reason to build a new building that is inaccessable , why not even better than the requirement?
-
If investment income gets taxed at a rate just as high as income tax , will anyone ever get wealthy with good investment ? Will anyone invest in anything?
========================================================
In the 1960's the tax rate was the same, and the percentages for tax brackets were higher. Warren Buffett certainly got wealthy under those rates, so that is a proven fact. And there were no lack of investors, either.
The rate for invested income IS the same NOW, for day traders and anyone who does not hold the stock for a calendar year,
by the way. This is a huge segment of the market.
-
If investment income gets taxed at a rate just as high as income tax , will anyone ever get wealthy with good investment ? Will anyone invest in anything?
========================================================
In the 1960's the tax rate was the same, and the percentages for tax brackets were higher. Warren Buffett certainly got wealthy under those rates, so that is a proven fact. And there were no lack of investors, either.
The rate for invested income IS the same NOW, for day traders and anyone who does not hold the stock for a calendar year,
by the way. This is a huge segment of the market.
Are you sure you are right about this?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States)
To me it seems as if, that if I want to invest , I have to pay taxes on my earnings, then with the remainder take a risk , which if it pays off , I then have to pay taxes again and if there has been inflation while I held the investment, I have to pay tax on the inflation.
With the economy in severe need of investment right now , is this actually a good time to make these taxes more stringent?
-
Nope.....as most economists would tell us....as would common sense. Especially when the taxes being pushed, after the fact ampounts to ....what was it....7% of the our debt? 7% with the repercussions of sending us into another recession, with ever decreasing revenues & creating an even a worse debt to push on those children, and their children's children.
But boy, we sure stuck it to those rich folk, didn't we. And that's really what matters here, isn't it
-
The mind of an invester is a funny thing. I understand trying the geting the most bang for your buck. So of course they would grumble about paying taxes. But that kind thinking can also risk thier money.
Say you invested in b of a and it gained a $100 and you sold it. Then found out if you held for one day you would of gotten another ten dollars but if one more hour it would drop dramaticly. Other invester would highly likely chastised you for not going for the extra ten despite you made a good profit and the extra ten would of been very risky. I actually seen this happen mant times. Many gripe about the loss but never said they should of quit when they were ahead.
-
The mind of an invester is a funny thing. I understand trying the geting the most bang for your buck. So of course they would grumble about paying taxes. But that kind thinking can also risk thier money.
Say you invested in b of a and it gained a $100 and you sold it. Then found out if you held for one day you would of gotten another ten dollars but if one more hour it would drop dramaticly. Other invester would highly likely chastised you for not going for the extra ten despite you made a good profit and the extra ten would of been very risky. I actually seen this happen mant times. Many gripe about the loss but never said they should of quit when they were ahead.
Everything has margins.
Every impediment to investing chopps some investors off of the margin, people who are only barely able or willing to invest loose the ability and willingness .
There is a huge social utility in making lots of money availible for consumption , another social utility , a diffrent one , for making money availible to investment .
Taxes have a social utility , but taxes can grow to soak up too much of the availible money , leaving little for the society to run on.
-
Taxes now are historically low, at least the income tax is.
Investors will always invest, just as gamblers will always gamble, and for the same reason: they think they are smarter and luckier. About half the individuals who trade in the markets are day traders, after the fast buck.
-
Taxes now are historically low, at least the income tax is.
Investors will always invest, just as gamblers will always gamble, and for the same reason: they think they are smarter and luckier. About half the individuals who trade in the markets are day traders, after the fast buck.
The historical low for income tax is 0%.
Day traders may be half or more of the trades , but they are far less than half the money .
Investors do not have to invest in American industry, what kind of gammbler chooses a game that has his winnings reduced before he claims them? Why not invest where there is a less rigged game?
-
Investors do not have to invest in American industry, what kind of gammbler chooses a game that has his winnings reduced before he claims them? Why not invest where there is a less rigged game
actually they do and the market hasn`t faired well by it. pass three years alot of investors has put thier money in very conservative ventures like u,s, bonds. but such investments are very low yeild and boring so eventually they are trickling back
-
And where is the game less rigged?
Casinos are rigged, and the house takes most of the money.The stock market is not rigged any more in the US than anywhere else,and a lot less so than in some places, China being a good example.
The income tax has been with us since 1916. Income tax rates are the lowest they have been in decades.
-
The answer as to WHY they should be raised, when it doesn't even dent the debt, but has the distinct ability at depressing any job expansion and increasing unemployment, not to mention the steering us into yet another recession, remains strikingly untouched.
I think we can all guess the why, by this time
-
Rates should be raised because the cost of government needs to be paid for.
And of COURSE it would serve to raise revenue.
Dummy.
-
Rates should be raised because the cost of government needs to be paid for.
They ARE being paid for. Stop growing government and make it even easier to pay for
And of COURSE it would serve to raise revenue.
Barely a dent in the short term, and non-existent in the long term, so again WHY raise them when it'll generate decreased expansion, decreased economic growth, decreased employment, and throw us into another recession??
And why isn't exactly what Obama begged for last year, all of a sudden, "not enough now"? Not enough what?, when it doesn't even dent the debt any greater than 7%??
Dummy.
Idiot
-
WHY raise them when it'll generate decreased expansion, decreased economic growth, decreased employment, and throw us into another recession??
=================================
Because this assertion is totally FALSE ratbag rightwing crap.
-
Most economists are now ratbag rightwing? Wow Even dems like Howard Dean acknowledge the looming recession awaiting us. I guess he's switched sides as well, and didn't tell anyone
-
And why isn't exactly what Obama begged for last year, all of a sudden, "not enough now"? Not enough what?, when it doesn't even dent the debt any greater than 7%??
-
WHY raise them when it'll generate decreased expansion, decreased economic growth, decreased employment, and throw us into another recession??
=================================
Because this assertion is totally FALSE ratbag rightwing crap.
I guess I could be wrong , but I don't see the falseness.
When the government subtracts money from the economy , it has no effect on the economy?
I do not beleive in perpetual motion machines for this same reason.
-
The government does not cause money to vanish. The government could spend it on building a highway or a bridge, or even on weapons. It is quite likely that the government will create as many jobs with the money as the private sector.
-
The government does not cause money to vanish. The government could spend it on building a highway or a bridge, or even on weapons. It is quite likely that the government will create as many jobs with the money as the private sector.
No .
The government cannot make the economy .
Do you believe in Oroborous?
http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html (http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html)
Oroborus in mythology lasts forever by eating itself, but in the real world any such system runs down shortly.
The Government will make 20% fewer jobs with the money it takes from the economy than the economy would have made with the same money untaken.
That is my estimate , what is yours?
You might be more carefull than I am and refine the loss to greater accuracy.
But....
If it isn't negative , it is not real.
-
The government could spend it on building a highway or a bridge, or even on weapons. It is quite likely that the government will create as many jobs with the money as the private sector.
...as in more public sector jobs, and bigger government --> that requires increased tax dollars to do both. Private sector jobs don't require tax dollars. They simply require government to stop making job growth more and more difficult
-
if the government builds a bridge, workers are hired,and they pay their rent or house payments with the money they make. Money received from taxes has the same impact on the economy as money from the private sector.
It is pretty certain that tax money for infrastructure is unlikely to end up in some Cayman Islands hedge fund.
I do not actually give a rat's ass about the size of government: what is important is the government using the money to provide the services that are needed. The cockamamie idea that the government must be "starved" to prevent it from doing its job has never resulted in anything but bigger deficits and less competence when idiot Republicans are in charge.
-
I do not actually give a rat's ass about the size of government
And THERE in lies the problem of our greece-like journey
-
if the government builds a bridge, workers are hired,and they pay their rent or house payments with the money they make. Money received from taxes has the same impact on the economy as money from the private sector.
It is pretty certain that tax money for infrastructure is unlikely to end up in some Cayman Islands hedge fund.
I do not actually give a rat's ass about the size of government: what is important is the government using the money to provide the services that are needed. The cockamamie idea that the government must be "starved" to prevent it from doing its job has never resulted in anything but bigger deficits and less competence when idiot Republicans are in charge.
Yep , there are no creatures in nature that are mostly nervous system by weight.
There have been several nations that sported governments that outsized their base of support.
Nature is smarter than we are , not just a little bit.
You think that fewer cheats will be born into a socialistic society?
If government is where the money is ,that is where the cheats will be also.
-
Well said
-
There is less cheating in Scandinavia than the US, and they are certainly more socialistic than we are.
There is much less rotten in the State of Denmark than in the State of Louisiana, for sure.
-
There is less cheating in Scandinavia than the US, and they are certainly more socialistic than we are.
There is much less rotten in the State of Denmark than in the State of Louisiana, for sure.
They are more socialistic than Louisiana?
Wow , how totally beside the point that is.
If there is only one real cheat in Norway , then he is wherever the money is.