Warren Buffet: "Stop cuddling the Super-Rich"

[Nausicaa]

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
by Warren E. Buffett

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...ness&seid=auto

[CWOJackson]

A new term for the same old class warfare distraction, cuddling the super-rich.

I hate to break this to you Naus but soaking your so-called super rich will accomplish next to nothing and is simply a slogan to try and distract people from the real problem.

Let's take a quick look at what soaking the rich...uh, I mean the new "super-rich" would accomplish. Obama claims that soaking the "super-rich" will generate will boost revenues by $750 billion over a decade.

Wow!

Except, that $750 billion over a decade is $75 billion per year out of a deficit that is running a trillion a year for the last three years.

In other words, simply taking money away from the wealth generators who could reinvest it, and giving it to politicians to doll out for votes, is sound economic principles in this situation rather than actually fixing the real problems.

[Brett_Henderson]

Warren started this nonsense years ago.. stating that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes, than his secretary.. It makes a great sound-bite.

If we applied personal income rates to capital gains income, the upside/downside in placing capital at risk, gets skewed way to the downside. Remember.. +/- a percent or two, makes breaks an investment.. All it would result in, is lessened investment, and yank mucho dollars out of the private-sector.

ANYway, as can be seen by anyone who looks into it (and per CWO's post), the "wealthy" make up a small percentage of the population.. wacking them with higher taxes will have little or no effect on revenue.. a miniscule percentage of just the deficit, let alone the debt... and taking $75B out of free-market circulation, will definately offset economic growth, by at least, that $75B...

It's classic class warfare.. pointless and destructive..

[Nausicaa]

I thought you weren't answering my posts anymore.

[Brett_Henderson]

**Naus buffer OFF**

I'm not.. I waited for some else to do it.. then added my opinions to the discussion..


**Naus buffer ON**

[von Bek]

I really thought you'd come back with some kind of flat tax proposal in which Buffet would pay the same flat rate but on a larger proportion of his income than his secretary. Instead you've opted for the exact same "cuddle the rich" option that Nausicaa is complaining about. I'm disappointed.

[Brett_Henderson]

I really thought you'd come back with some kind of flat tax proposal in which Buffet would pay the same flat rate but on a larger proportion of his income than his secretary. Instead you've opted for the exact same "cuddle the rich" option that Nausicaa is complaining about. I'm disappointed.

Aww.. you'll get over it...

Make no mistake, I'm all for a completely different tax system (mostly consumption-based).. but under the current system, you cannot tax profits made off money put at risk, the same way you tax a salary. There's a fine-line when weighing the risks of an investment.. raisng capital gains, throws a wrench in it all.

[CWOJackson]

I really thought you'd come back with some kind of flat tax proposal in which Buffet would pay the same flat rate but on a larger proportion of his income than his secretary. Instead you've opted for the exact same "cuddle the rich" option that Nausicaa is complaining about. I'm disappointed.

What part of "soaking the rich" will only amount to $75 billion a year don't you understand? Granted, it would take a Republican Senator a couple of days to throw that kind of money away but a Democrat can flush $75 billion of someone else's money in a heartbeat.

[Brett_Henderson]

Ponder your statement...

Buffet would pay the same flat rate but on a larger proportion of his income than his secretary.

It's no longer a flat-rate, when it's apply to a "progressive" portion of income.

[von Bek]

OK, you don't understand the concept of a flat income tax, but I'm not going to waste the time it takes to explain it to you.