PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Pat Buchanan Challenges Warren Buffett:


petegz28
08-15-2011, 10:13 AM
Pat Buchanan Challenges Warren Buffett: 'Set an Example and Send a Check for $5 Billion to the Federal Government'



The liberal media are predictably fawning over billionaire Warren Buffett's op-ed in the New York Times Monday calling for new taxes on the super-rich.

This led MSNBC's Pat Buchanan on Monday's "Morning Joe" to challenge the Oracle of Omaha asking, "Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):




PAT BUCHANAN: No, I’m writing a note to Warren Buffett. But look, I’m a little fed up with these people who come on, you know, their big op-eds, all these admonitions. Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion. You know, you had a plan up there, I talked to Howie Carr at Boston where the super-rich could contribute an extra amount. It was something like one-tenth of one percent did it. You get all this noise from these big rich folks. Let them send checks and set an example instead of writing op-eds.

Indeed.

Of course, the liberals in the media never seem to think about this hypocrisy.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/15/pat-buchanan-challenges-warren-buffett-set-example-and-send-check-5-b#ixzz1V6vvrlfp

ROYC75
08-15-2011, 10:53 AM
Put up or shut up!

jiveturkey
08-15-2011, 11:01 AM
This type of argument has always been retarded IMO.

It's similar to the anti-war crowd telling pro-war folks that they have to fund it our wars.

CoMoChief
08-15-2011, 01:24 PM
This type of argument has always been retarded IMO.

It's similar to the anti-way crowd telling pro-war folks that they have to fund it our wars.

what?

jiveturkey
08-15-2011, 01:28 PM
what?That should say anti-war crowd.

Telling a billionaire that wants to see tax increases to volunteer his own money is similar to telling a pro-war individual to volunteer their own money to pay for the wars they support.

Both situations are retarded and both of have happened.

BigCatDaddy
08-15-2011, 01:31 PM
I don't think Warren has much problem parting with his money.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/index.htm

Jaric
08-15-2011, 01:37 PM
That should say anti-war crowd.

Telling a billionaire that wants to see tax increases to volunteer his own money is similar to telling a pro-war individual to volunteer their own money to pay for the wars they support.

Both situations are retarded and both of have happened.

So it's retarded to ask people to put their money where their mouth is?

Brainiac
08-15-2011, 01:41 PM
That should say anti-war crowd.

Telling a billionaire that wants to see tax increases to volunteer his own money is similar to telling a pro-war individual to volunteer their own money to pay for the wars they support.

Both situations are retarded and both of have happened.
Analogy fail.

The situations aren't the same at all.

There's nothing impractical about telling a billionaire who wants billionaires to pay more taxes that nothing is stopping him from sending a check to the IRS.

alnorth
08-15-2011, 02:02 PM
This is a very silly argument: "oh yeah, well... but... uhh, oh yeah, if you want to pay more in taxes then send a check!" *smiles smugly* *assumes he won the argument*

Either the super-rich are paying their fair share or they are not. The merely "rich", who are high-end professionals and rely on a fat salary, generally do pay plenty of taxes. The super-rich do not. Asking the messenger carrying the bad news to pay, while ignoring the fact that he's right is just dumb.

Stewie
08-15-2011, 02:04 PM
There's a difference between being wealthy and having a high income. Is he suggesting that people wealthy people need to be taxed on their assets?

alnorth
08-15-2011, 02:05 PM
There's a difference between being wealthy and having a high income. Is he suggesting that people wealthy people need to be taxed on their assets?

no, he is not.

Direckshun
08-15-2011, 02:07 PM
You can't write a check directly to the government except to make a payment on the debt, and I have no idea if you can donate this much money to it.

Besides, Warren Buffet advocates more progressive taxation to fund the functioning of the government, and this stunt would do pretty much do nothing to rectify the issue.

|Zach|
08-15-2011, 02:07 PM
This is a very silly argument: "oh yeah, well... but... uhh, oh yeah, if you want to pay more in taxes then send a check!" *smiles smugly* *assumes he won the argument*

Either the super-rich are paying their fair share or they are not. The merely "rich", who are high-end professionals and rely on a fat salary, generally do pay plenty of taxes. The super-rich do not. Asking the messenger carrying the bad news to pay, while ignoring the fact that he's right is just dumb.

http://www.howtodothings.com/files/u10023/how-to-hit-a-baseball.jpg

loochy
08-15-2011, 02:07 PM
no, he is not.

Of course he isn't.

Garcia Bronco
08-15-2011, 02:24 PM
You can't write a check directly to the government except to make a payment on the debt, and I have no idea if you can donate this much money to it.

Besides, Warren Buffet advocates more progressive taxation to fund the functioning of the government, and this stunt would do pretty much do nothing to rectify the issue.

All he need to do is write the check and send it to the IRS. They also take cash.

Garcia Bronco
08-15-2011, 02:25 PM
This type of argument has always been retarded IMO.



Hardly. If he wants to run his mouth...then he should put it up. Otherwaise he's no better than the dipshits that try to run this country.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 02:47 PM
You can't write a check directly to the government except to make a payment on the debt, and I have no idea if you can donate this much money to it.

Besides, Warren Buffet advocates more progressive taxation to fund the functioning of the government, and this stunt would do pretty much do nothing to rectify the issue.

Gifts to the United States Government
How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Link (http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

Stewie
08-15-2011, 03:05 PM
no, he is not.

Whew! I thought for a minute there the Gates, Buffetts and Kennedys were going to be forced to pay these new taxes. It's only for people that actually work every day and make a nice living. Got it.

ChiTown
08-15-2011, 03:10 PM
You can't write a check directly to the government except to make a payment on the debt, and I have no idea if you can donate this much money to it.



LOL. Uh, yeah, they will take your money any way you want to give it to them. It most certainly doesn't have to be attached to debt. It's called a gift, and they also except, Visa, MC AMEX, Diners and Discover..........

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 03:12 PM
The idea is stupid because Buffet wants to reform a continually-operating system, not stop or fix a one-time problem. Like the moral of giving a man a fish, Buffet is saying he wants to teach the man to fish.

They are very different things.

mnchiefsguy
08-15-2011, 03:14 PM
The idea is stupid because Buffet wants to reform a continually-operating system, not stop or fix a one-time problem. Like the moral of giving a man a fish, Buffet is saying he wants to teach the man to fish.

They are very different things.

How is raising anyone's taxes going to teach Congress to spend less and be more responsible?

Jaric
08-15-2011, 03:16 PM
The idea is stupid because Buffet wants to reform a continually-operating system, not stop or fix a one-time problem. Like the moral of giving a man a fish, Buffet is saying he wants to teach the man to fish.They are very different things.

He could start by teaching our government how to effectively run a business...

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 03:20 PM
How is raising anyone's taxes going to teach Congress to spend less and be more responsible?

That's a loaded question. Some might not think spending less is a goal, or that it doesn't contradict raising taxes. Also, some, and I think Buffet would be one of them, say that raising taxes is the more responsible move.

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 03:22 PM
He could start by teaching our government how to effectively run a business...

At the risk of sounding too serious, that's not their job.

mnchiefsguy
08-15-2011, 03:28 PM
At the risk of sounding too serious, that's not their job.

It is not his job to advocate tax hikes either, but one would think helping our government by teaching them some fiscal responsibility would be a good patriotic thing, whether it is his job or not.

Are you in favor of any cuts in spending then? Or do you truly believe that only raising taxes is the answer?

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 03:34 PM
It is not his job to advocate tax hikes either, but one would think helping our government by teaching them some fiscal responsibility would be a good patriotic thing, whether it is his job or not.

Are you in favor of any cuts in spending then? Or do you truly believe that only raising taxes is the answer?

It's no one's job to advocate tax hikes or cuts -- people just do it because it's a free country and they have a say in it.

Buffett no doubt believes that raising taxes is fiscally responsible.

Am I in favor of any cuts in spending? Yes, I think there can be and should be cuts. I think Buffett would agree.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 03:39 PM
This is a very silly argument: "oh yeah, well... but... uhh, oh yeah, if you want to pay more in taxes then send a check!" *smiles smugly* *assumes he won the argument*

Either the super-rich are paying their fair share or they are not. The merely "rich", who are high-end professionals and rely on a fat salary, generally do pay plenty of taxes. The super-rich do not. Asking the messenger carrying the bad news to pay, while ignoring the fact that he's right is just dumb.

I love this and the standard, "Oh you want to raises taxes on the rich? Well why not raise them to 100%? That will solve EVERYTHING! Wahhhhh...."

Sounds like a 6-year-old throwing a tantrum because you took away one of his toys.

Both arguments are so dumb they're not even worth responding to.

Taco John
08-15-2011, 03:41 PM
This reminds me of how leftists I know will get worked up about the poor they see on the street, talk about how something should be done, and when you ask them what they've done, they stammer and say that they shouldn't have to get involved, the government should take care of it. Apparently we can tax the poor away.

AustinChief
08-15-2011, 03:41 PM
Pat is an idiot. He used to be somewhat relevant, but the fact that he is on MSNBC tells just how much of a joke he has become.

Buffett is 100% correct in saying that the super-wealthy are NOT paying there fair share. The problem is... even if you taxed them at an equitable rate, it isn't going to solve the problem.

The fact that we should fix the loopholes that force the middle class to pay more then there fair share of the tax burden does NOT change the fact that spending is out of control and needs to be reduced.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2011, 03:42 PM
At the risk of sounding too serious, that's not their job.

Them why do businesses spend so much time dealing with the government? Shouldnt they understand business if they plan to meddle in it and demand such things as hiring people, expanding, innovation?

AustinChief
08-15-2011, 03:43 PM
This reminds me of how leftists I know will get worked up about the poor they see on the street, talk about how something should be done, and when you ask them what they've done, they stammer and say that they shouldn't have to get involved, the government should take care of it. Apparently we can tax the poor away.

Actually Warren Buffett has done FAR MORE than his share towards helping the US economy and bailing the government out. If this were Sean Penn spouting off then I'd agree with you but Buffett has earned his spot at the table when it comes to this discussion.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 03:47 PM
I love this and the standard, "Oh you want to raises taxes on the rich? Well why not raise them to 100%? That will solve EVERYTHING! Wahhhhh...."Actually, it wouldn't.

Garcia Bronco
08-15-2011, 04:14 PM
You can take Warrens entire net worth of 50 billion and not even pay the NEW interest on the debt for one year. Think about it.

Spending is our problem...not taxing.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 09:56 PM
Pat Buchanan is also a nut job who thinks we should have appeased Hitler and let him run wild in Eastern Europe.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9231/51fqncwgcelbo2204203200.jpg

Buchanan’s interpretation generally holds that British and American participation in both WWI and WWII was avoidable if British leaders had recognized that Germany was no threat to the vital interests of the British Empire. Banking his thesis on such supposed benevolence from Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler, Buchanan criticizes various British policies of the 1920s and 1930s (who doesn’t?), and argues collaterally with Hitler’s statements disclaiming fundamental conflicts with Britain. The weakness in Buchanan’s line of thinking, of course, is that by 1939, Hitler’s international word was worthless; yet Buchanan hinges his case on what might have happened had Britain let Hitler go after Poland in 1939 as it had Czechoslovakia. Speculating a better future had the West permitted Nazi Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe, Buchanan cites the historical costs of Britain and France having at last drawn the line against aggression.

2bikemike
08-15-2011, 10:11 PM
I wonder how much Warren pays to have his taxes done to keep him at the 15-17% effective tax rate?

I know I am solidly in the upper middle class and my effective tax rate is about the same as Warrens. I don't have a problem with that.

However what I would like to see is simplify everything and lower the rates on everybody. Doing taxes is a pain in the ass when you have a lot of different things going on. I have given up on trying and just pay a pro to get mine done. Its fairly expensive and I still have to gather all the information for my tax guy which is pretty time consuming.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-15-2011, 10:14 PM
How is raising anyone's taxes going to teach Congress to spend less and be more responsible?

Reverse Psychology! Sure it's devious and underhanded but it works.

Bewbies
08-15-2011, 10:15 PM
Someone pass this to ol Warren please.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Dave Lane
08-15-2011, 10:18 PM
This is a very silly argument: "oh yeah, well... but... uhh, oh yeah, if you want to pay more in taxes then send a check!" *smiles smugly* *assumes he won the argument*

Either the super-rich are paying their fair share or they are not. The merely "rich", who are high-end professionals and rely on a fat salary, generally do pay plenty of taxes. The super-rich do not. Asking the messenger carrying the bad news to pay, while ignoring the fact that he's right is just dumb.

God damn it Al stop making sense, you are going to get banned. Hell I may have to report this post as its in DC.

Jenson71
08-15-2011, 11:10 PM
Warren Buffett, by the way, is kind of weird and squirrelly.

Bowser
08-15-2011, 11:17 PM
Warren Buffett, by the way, is kind of weird and squirrelly.

He's uber rich, therefore "eccentric".

T-post Tom
08-16-2011, 02:00 AM
Pat Buchanan's answer to an honest and cogent argument: stupidity

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Published: August 14, 2011

Editorial: The Truth About Taxes (August 7, 2011)


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. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Stewie
08-16-2011, 05:09 PM
This whole thing is just stupid. Warren is worth $40 billion by not paying taxes for nearly 60 years... BUT NOW ANYONE WITH A DECENT INCOME SHOULD PAY UP! I'M WARREN! DO IT DAMMIT! I'VE GOT MINE AND YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT, BITCHES!

Now he thinks he should pay a few million of his annual income (it doesn't touch his wealth garnered when he didn't pay taxes). What a hero! Actually, a fucking tool!

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 05:16 PM
This whole thing is just stupid. Warren is worth $40 billion by not paying taxes for nearly 60 years... BUT NOW ANYONE WITH A DECENT INCOME SHOULD PAY UP! I'M WARREN! DO IT DAMMIT! I'VE GOT MINE AND YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT, BITCHES!

Now he thinks he should pay a few million of his annual income (it doesn't touch his wealth garnered when he didn't pay taxes). What a hero! Actually, a ****ing tool!

Couldn't agree more. F Warren Buffett

Amnorix
08-16-2011, 11:36 PM
I can see why he pisses some of you off so much -- it must be upsetting to see one of the, if not THE, smartest guy in the room so upset the party line for the rich and Republican.

He's the Oracle of Omaha, but he's just a "tool". Got it. ;)

wazu
08-16-2011, 11:50 PM
This whole thing is just stupid. Warren is worth $40 billion by not paying taxes for nearly 60 years... BUT NOW ANYONE WITH A DECENT INCOME SHOULD PAY UP! I'M WARREN! DO IT DAMMIT! I'VE GOT MINE AND YOU CAN'T TOUCH IT, BITCHES!

Now he thinks he should pay a few million of his annual income (it doesn't touch his wealth garnered when he didn't pay taxes). What a hero! Actually, a fucking tool!

This is spot-on. You can tax Warren Buffett at 100% at this point. He's uber-rich, and it won't matter.

Or course, the key issue is that the federal government already has an absurd amount of revenue coming in. Not being able to balance the budget with trillions coming in every year is just ridiculous. Taxes aren't the problem, spending is.

2bikemike
08-17-2011, 12:53 AM
You know what this all comes down to is Perception on what is fair.

IMHO Fair is everybody pays the same percentage. You can't get any fairer than that. Hell I would eliminate all the bullshit and 3/4 of the IRS and just flat tax every nickel of income / Profit.

Earn $20,000 pay $2,000
Earn $200,000 pay $20,000
Earn $2,000,000 Pay $200,000

Amnorix
08-17-2011, 01:19 AM
You know what this all comes down to is Perception on what is fair.

IMHO Fair is everybody pays the same percentage. You can't get any fairer than that. Hell I would eliminate all the bullshit and 3/4 of the IRS and just flat tax every nickel of income / Profit.

Earn $20,000 pay $2,000
Earn $200,000 pay $20,000
Earn $2,000,000 Pay $200,000


Fair? The guy making $20K can't pay for food and shelter for chrissakes, and you're taking the same percentage from him. The federal tax has always been progressive for the very reason that a flat tax isn't fair, it's regressive in effect.

suzzer99
08-17-2011, 07:52 AM
But it sounds so simple? How can something that sounds simple be wrong?

suzzer99
08-17-2011, 07:56 AM
Why should the rich pay more in taxes? Um, because they pretty much get to tailor govt to make them even more rich.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/16/news/economy/starbucks_boycott_washington/

Only 0.04% of Americans give in excess of $200 to candidates, parties or political action committees -- and those donations account for 64.8% of all contributions.

Change the system? Fine. But until then it's beyond a no-brainer to ask the rich to pay more for the privilege of making their own rules.

mlyonsd
08-17-2011, 07:59 AM
You know what this all comes down to is Perception on what is fair.

IMHO Fair is everybody pays the same percentage. You can't get any fairer than that. Hell I would eliminate all the bullshit and 3/4 of the IRS and just flat tax every nickel of income / Profit.

Earn $20,000 pay $2,000
Earn $200,000 pay $20,000
Earn $2,000,000 Pay $200,000Yup.

VAChief
08-17-2011, 08:07 AM
You know what this all comes down to is Perception on what is fair.

IMHO Fair is everybody pays the same percentage. You can't get any fairer than that. Hell I would eliminate all the bullshit and 3/4 of the IRS and just flat tax every nickel of income / Profit.

Earn $20,000 pay $2,000
Earn $200,000 pay $20,000
Earn $2,000,000 Pay $200,000

Would you be in favor of lifting the payroll tax cap on Social Security as well? The percentage amount deducted becomes regressive at about $107,000 if I remember correctly. I know it is supposed to be a return on what you pay in, but it functions more like all other taxed government programs yet overwhelmingly is funded by the lower and what's left of the middle class.

FishingRod
08-17-2011, 08:29 AM
Fair? The guy making $20K can't pay for food and shelter for chrissakes, and you're taking the same percentage from him. The federal tax has always been progressive for the very reason that a flat tax isn't fair, it's regressive in effect.

I don’t think fair and progressive tax should collide in a sentence. The reason the Tax is progressive is not that it is fair,it is that our Government wants more money and power. The current convoluted overly complex and illogical tax code we are currently operating under confuses the masses and allows our representatives to hand subsidies and deductions to our corporations and citizens with one hand behind their back and then get up to the podium and convince the masses that the companies are cheating the system for taken advantage to the deductions that were passed by congress in the first place. They wield the deductions and credits to suit their own ideals in behind the scenes social engineering.
They want people to be married so (those that they choose to allow to marry) let’s give them a credit. People should own homes so let’s let them deduct the interest on the mortgage payments. Now naturally Rich guys like our congressmen and senators get to deduct a great deal more interest than the average Joe so when appealing to the masses these are called loopholes and they can be indignant that they are unfair since the guy with the $1,000,000 house gets to deduct far more than the guy with the $100,000 home. So back to the idea of a flat tax being unfair, the first guy making 20K uses the same highways, is protected by the same armed forces, and is eligible to receive far more Government assistance than they guy paying 100 times as much in taxes. Who is really getting the short end of the stick? Also a Flat tax, should it ever get serious consideration would never start at dollar 1. To get it passed it would have to give a better deal to the bottom 50-60% than they currently have. So it would be Zero taxes on the first 30-40K and the X % after that. I would be for removing the ceiling on SS if a consumption or Flat-ish tax came to pass.

Bewbies
08-17-2011, 09:34 AM
I can see why he pisses some of you off so much -- it must be upsetting to see one of the, if not THE, smartest guy in the room so upset the party line for the rich and Republican.

He's the Oracle of Omaha, but he's just a "tool". Got it. ;)

You do know his politics yes? The richest among us lean way left because they have already got theirs.

2bikemike
08-17-2011, 09:46 PM
Would you be in favor of lifting the payroll tax cap on Social Security as well? The percentage amount deducted becomes regressive at about $107,000 if I remember correctly. I know it is supposed to be a return on what you pay in, but it functions more like all other taxed government programs yet overwhelmingly is funded by the lower and what's left of the middle class.

Personally I would like to see Social Security completely revamped or abolished. It is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme in its current form. It should never have been set up the way it is now. Every nickel placed into social security should have been deposited into an IRA or 401K style account for the person contributing. I also believe it was incredibly short sighted to reduce contributions in the last round of failed economy stimulation.

That being said I don't see how anything can be done now to correct the problem without increasing contributions. So yes I would say we should increase the amount above the $107K ceiling.

2bikemike
08-17-2011, 10:14 PM
Fair? The guy making $20K can't pay for food and shelter for chrissakes, and you're taking the same percentage from him. The federal tax has always been progressive for the very reason that a flat tax isn't fair, it's regressive in effect.

I still don't see how its not fair. 100% of what you earn is what you earn Flat taxed at 10% and what you have left is 90% of what you earned.

Since my life experiences have taught me about personal responsibility I say yeah its fair. If you don't like making $10 an hour get off your ass and do something about it. Its not the rich guys fault someone is making $10 an hour. It the fault of the guy who smoked dope all through school didn't learn shit and never learned a skill or a trade.

The people being coddled are the ones too lazy or too stupid to better themselves. So we keep giving them handouts and breaks. You got the liberal mentality telling them we will take care of you. IMHO it does nothing but enable them to keep doing what their doing. Which is nothing.

BTW I was the dumbass who smoked dope all through school and didn't learn shit. However I learned one valuable lesson. Which is if you don't have a skill or a trade your screwed especially if your poor to begin with. So I gave 6 years of my life to Uncle Sam to make sure I could adequately support myself and drag myself out of poverty.