Warren Buffett - "stop coddling the super-rich"

[DMT]

Now, see, why not make this the first point of attack? This is a simple fairness concept that people of any political stripe can get behind - "It's not right for the wealthy to use their money and influence to carve out tax loopholes for themselves." Start with obvious low-hanging fruit that majorities on both sides would like to see picked. Why didn't Obama and his Democratic majority go after this when they had the chance - can you imagine any politician trying to defend this practice in the court of public opinion? These are the kinds of obvious wrongs I was hoping Obama would right as president, vs. initiatives like ramming through an unpopular healthcare boondoggle that was ultimately stripped down to the point of near uselessness.

I honestly didn't follow along too closely, but are you sure this wasn't proposed and shot down because it would (in the warped minds of some) be construed as a tax increase? If it was never even on the table, then that is a huge failure of leadership on Obama's part because I agree that it would be a relatively easy sell to the public.

[cardboardbox]

Sorry to burst CBB's bubble, but your 1st point has already been debunked by OaklandAs.

Did oak somehow prove that the wealthy do not pay a ridiculously disproportionate percent of federal income taxes which was Chancellor's first point?

[senorsheep]

I honestly didn't follow along too closely, but are you sure this wasn't proposed and shot down because it would (in the warped minds of some) be construed as a tax increase? If it was never even on the table, then that is a huge failure of leadership on Obama's part because I agree that it would be a relatively easy sell to the public.

Maybe this another one of Wonderboy's "Obama is not good at promoting his awesomeness" scenarios. LOL. Honestly, if a guy with his rhetorical skills tried and failed to sell something this easy without anyone even noticing, then he wasn't trying very hard.

[OaklandA's]

Did oak somehow prove that the wealthy do not pay a ridiculously disproportionate percent of federal income taxes which was Chancellor's first point?

A simple question for you - if the Top 1% earn 20% of the income, what share of the income tax do you think they should pay?

If you answer 20%, then you are arguing for a flat tax rate. But if you believe in a progressive tax rate system, then of course they are going to pay more than 20% of the income tax. That is the whole point of a progressive tax code.

[OaklandA's]

Start with obvious low-hanging fruit that majorities on both sides would like to see picked. Why didn't Obama and his Democratic majority go after this when they had the chance - can you imagine any politician trying to defend this practice in the court of public opinion? These are the kinds of obvious wrongs I was hoping Obama would right as president, vs. initiatives like ramming through an unpopular healthcare boondoggle that was ultimately stripped down to the point of near uselessness.

Um, do you remember when Obama tried to close the loopholes for the big oil companies earlier this year? Closing these loopholes would have saved $77B over 10 years. Meanwhile, the oil companies have racked up profits of $900B over the last decade, and gas prices are higher than ever. 74% of the U.S. population stated that they wanted these loopholes closed. Yet, even this bill could not get past the filibuster.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22425

[Moonlight J]

Um, do you remember when Obama tried to close the loopholes for the big oil companies earlier this year? Closing these loopholes would have saved $77B over 10 years. Meanwhile, the oil companies have racked up profits of $900B over the last decade, and gas prices are higher than ever. 74% of the U.S. population stated that they wanted these loopholes closed. Yet, even this bill could not get past the filibuster.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/22425

Do nothing Congress.....

[Wonderboy]

Honestly, if a guy with his rhetorical skills tried and failed to sell something this easy without anyone even noticing, then he wasn't trying very hard.

Uhm, in other words, Obama's not trying hard enough to promote his ideas? Isn't that basically the same thing I said?

Sheesh, when did I become your favorite whipping boy? :eek:

[senorsheep]

Um, do you remember when Obama tried to close the loopholes for the big oil companies earlier this year? Closing these loopholes would have saved $77B over 10 years. Meanwhile, the oil companies have racked up profits of $900B over the last decade, and gas prices are higher than ever. 74% of the U.S. population stated that they wanted these loopholes closed. Yet, even this bill could not get past the filibuster.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/22425

I wish he would have attacked it in 2008 when he had some more legislative muscle behind him. And, yeah, that filibuster mess was a pretty sorry laydown, thus my perception that he was not trying all that hard. I find it hard to believe that that was his best effort - Bill Clinton would have mopped the floor with those guys.

[senorsheep]

Sheesh, when did I become your favorite whipping boy? :eek:

I dunno, I can't see your original Join Date anymore...

[onejayhawk]

Just because people screw up the practical application of something doesn't make it an Bad idea. If the field is unfair, then get used to people trying to even it out.

Either make it fair or take the corrections as they come--OR admit you just don't give a **** about anyone else but yourself (not meaning you personally, just anyone who adheres to this 'Tough ****" mantra).

It really is that simple.

You sidestep the point. I challange you assumption that there is a GOOD IDEA. Put it another way, the field is level when everyone has a gripe. What you are doing is trying to eliminate all the gripes, at least for those you support/protect. This is fundamentally unfair to those outside your group.

Should I tell them Tough ****?

J

[Wonderboy]

I dunno, I can't see your original Join Date anymore...

Since I was about 16...oh, sorry. I thought you meant my joint date.

[senorsheep]

The economic collapse and the reasons for it do tend to weigh against the "rightfully earned" concept. "Moneyball" author Michael Lewis laid it out masterfully in "The Big Short' book of last year.

So, because reprehensible Wall Street schmucks took shortcuts and stole their loot, honest businessmen in Colorado who busted their asses and built their fortunes the right way - employing thousands of people and spurring critical economic activity that benefited thousands more along the way - should share their fate? Bill Gates should be punished right along with Bernie Madoff?

I am all for punishing cheaters and other bad actors harshly, but I want no part of doing it through our tax codes, which nets the good fish right along with the bad. The sentiment that "They stole it, so we'll recover it via higher taxes" is rooted in fallacious logic and class bigotry every bit as noxious as Rush Limbaugh's lemmings bloviating that all people receiving public assistance should be treated like welfare cheats.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Now, see, why not make this the first point of attack? This is a simple fairness concept that people of any political stripe can get behind - "It's not right for the wealthy to use their money and influence to carve out tax loopholes for themselves." Start with obvious low-hanging fruit that majorities on both sides would like to see picked. Why didn't Obama and his Democratic majority go after this when they had the chance - can you imagine any politician trying to defend this practice in the court of public opinion? These are the kinds of obvious wrongs I was hoping Obama would right as president, vs. initiatives like ramming through an unpopular healthcare boondoggle that was ultimately stripped down to the point of near uselessness.

Why is it I'm agreeing with you more and more.

[DMT]

So, because reprehensible Wall Street schmucks took shortcuts and stole their loot, honest businessmen in Colorado who busted their asses and built their fortunes the right way - employing thousands of people and spurring critical economic activity that benefited thousands more along the way - should share their fate? Bill Gates should be punished right along with Bernie Madoff?

I am all for punishing cheaters and other bad actors harshly, but I want no part of doing it through our tax codes, which nets the good fish right along with the bad. The sentiment that "They stole it, so we'll recover it via higher taxes" is rooted in fallacious logic and class bigotry every bit as noxious as Rush Limbaugh's lemmings bloviating that all people receiving public assistance should be treated like welfare cheats.

Raising taxes on the Bill Gates' of the world would not change their lives one bit so your argument sounds ridiculous (to me at least) when you use him as an example.

Although I agree that punishing the cheats is a laudable goal, most government regulatory agencies have had their budgets slashed and so are unable to pursue the cheaters as they should. And why have their budgets been slashed? To 'shrink government by cutting spending'!

[GwynnInTheHall]

You sidestep the point. I challange you assumption that there is a GOOD IDEA. Put it another way, the field is level when everyone has a gripe. What you are doing is trying to eliminate all the gripes, at least for those you support/protect. This is fundamentally unfair to those outside your group.

Should I tell them Tough ****?

J

My point is and I challenge YOU to refute it, is that not all income is "rightfully earned" as Sheep stated and thus subject to correction as to make those who've been unfairly put at a disadvantage by unethical and/or those who knowingly abuse a flawed system in gaining their wealth.

Life is as fair as you demand it to be and that's always a good idea to strive to accomplish, however, you may encounter resistance from those who've been benefiting from their dependence that most folks will do nothing to make it fair.

Now we can debate what is fair and what is not, but if you're trying to tell me that "Life's not fair so just suck it up" then of course we'll never see eye to eye on this, not that I ever thought we would.

Edit: Your group should be Mankind-or for all you Xenophobes, at the very least least, Americans