Warren Buffett - "stop coddling the super-rich"

[B-Fly]

Never was, and I haven't been in other threads. My main issue is the myth that Buffett's trying to spread for political gain - that the US tax code does not function in a progressive manner, despite the progressive tax brackets, with an end game of simply trying to jack up taxes without necessary spending cuts.

Buffett's Op-Ed was occasioned by the unanimous show of hands by the GOP Presidential hopefuls at the Iowa debate indicating that not a one of them would support a deficit reduction plan that was balanced even 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.



So I don't think Buffett was trying to suggest that there's no need for spending cuts. He's been condemning the unwillingness of the GOP leadership to give even the slightest bit of ground on the tax issue.

[Lurker765]

Never was, and I haven't been in other threads. My main issue is the myth that Buffett's trying to spread for political gain - that the US tax code does not function in a progressive manner, despite the progressive tax brackets, with an end game of simply trying to jack up taxes without necessary spending cuts.

What kind of political gain do you think Buffett is angling for? He is a multibillionaire who is 80 years old. What do you see as his political goal?

Do you actually see the 15% capital gains rate as progressive? What is this earned income so vastly different than salary income?

I completely agree with the spending cuts and "don't deserve another dollar to misspend" sentiment.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Well, you just MUST be a Christian Fundamentalist Tea Bagger, then.

I don't think anyone's arguing that you are automatically a Christan Fundy if you're fiscally conservative, only that every Tea Party member who was recently elected seems to be one.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Buffett's Op-Ed was occasioned by the unanimous show of hands by the GOP Presidential hopefuls at the Iowa debate indicating that not a one of them would support a deficit reduction plan that was balanced even 10:1 spending cuts to revenue increases.



So I don't think Buffett was trying to suggest that there's no need for spending cuts. He's been condemning the unwillingness of the GOP leadership to give even the slightest bit of ground on the tax issue.

Can we agree that this isn't the attitude that's going to help fix the situation?

[OaklandA's]

But until our government can show us a scintilla of repsonsible spending behavior - which I'm defining as cutting 60% of our deficit with real spending cuts - they don't deserve another dollar to misspend.

But instead of a 60% spending cut, which by default means cuts to things like MediCare, Social Security, Education, etc. that will negatively impact so many people, why are you so opposed to, say 45% spending cuts and 15% revenue increase?

No one is saying that spending shouldn't be cut. What we are saying is that it is much easier to reduce the deficit with both spending cuts and revenue increase.

[B-Fly]

I could easily find a lot of places where I would be happy to cut federal spending. The problem has always been that it's been darn near impossible to get a sufficient number of people from both sides of the aisle together to agree on where to cut.

[DMT]

What kind of political gain do you think Buffett is angling for? He is a multibillionaire who is 80 years old. What do you see as his political goal?

Do you actually see the 15% capital gains rate as progressive?

I completely agree with the spending cuts and "don't deserve another dollar to misspend" sentiment.

As do I, but like B-Fly said, Buffet was responding to the Republican 'debate' (not much of a debate when everyone agrees) responses. Every sensible person understands the only way comprehensive and lasting deficit reduction can occur is via a combination of spending cuts and increased revenues. If the Republicans are going to pretend otherwise, our situation will continue to worsen. The fact that none of them had the courage to admit this just shows the character of the nominees. Sure, I understand they would be vilified by the right-wing press but there are enough sensible Republican and Independent voters out there who understand what is necessary and that candidate might just get a boost for standing out among the pack.

They could easily frame their answer by starting with a diatribe about the out-of-control spending that has to stop but then segue into the willingness to compromise and do what's best for the country. Seems like a no-brainer to me but I'm obviously not among their target audience.

[Wonderboy]

Can we agree that this isn't the attitude that's going to help fix the situation?

I would have loved two follow up questions:

"How about if it were 1 new tax dollar for every 100 dollars cut?"

"How about if it were 1 new tax dollar for every 1,000 dollars cut?"

[Lurker765]

As do I, but like B-Fly said, Buffet was responding to the Republican 'debate' (not much of a debate when everyone agrees) responses. Every sensible person understands the only way comprehensive and lasting deficit reduction can occur is via a combination of spending cuts and increased revenues. If the Republicans are going to pretend otherwise, our situation will continue to worsen. The fact that none of them had the courage to admit this just shows the character of the nominees. Sure, I understand they would be vilified by the right-wing press but there are enough sensible Republican and Independent voters out there who understand what is necessary and that candidate might just get a boost for standing out among the pack.

They could easily frame their answer by starting with a diatribe about the out-of-control spending that has to stop but then segue into the willingness to compromise and do what's best for the country. Seems like a no-brainer to me but I'm obviously not among their target audience.

I was curious what chancellor sees as the political gain to Buffett personally --his motivation to do this. I certainly understand what the Democrats have to gain, but my impression is that chancellor sees Buffett as gaining something from his statements. If chancellor was just referring to the Democratic machine I can understand those sentiments.

But, why would an 80 year old billionaire do this as a personal issue. How does this advance his political agenda?

[senorsheep]

That's fine with me, but is everything on the table including defense? Are you open to reducing the military, ending the 2 wars and our presence overseas along with the obvious reductions/re-tooling of the entitlement systems?

Hey, look, I found some conservatives who are willing to cut defense. I don't really understand why these socially conservative Christian fundamentalist lapdogs who never challenge Republican leadership would rise up against their masters like this, but here it is!

Linky: http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...n-defense-cuts

**********

Tea Party activists say the Pentagon should be targeted for cuts by the “supercommittee” created in the debt-ceiling deal.

Groups affiliated with the conservative grassroots movement say defense cuts should be on the table as the supercommittee tries to compile at least $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts.

...


Tea Party activists say defense programs should come under the same knife as any other taxpayer-funded programs, and that massive national security budgets were not exempt from their definition of “big government.”

“The liberty movement is about the fundamental limitation of government, and that doesn’t have departmental boundaries with regards to this principle,” said Chris Littleton, co-founder of the Ohio Liberty Council.

[chancellor]

I was curious what chancellor sees as the political gain to Buffett personally --his motivation to do this. I certainly understand what the Democrats have to gain, but my impression is that chancellor sees Buffett as gaining something from his statements. If chancellor was just referring to the Democratic machine I can understand those sentiments.

But, why would an 80 year old billionaire do this as a personal issue. How does this advance his political agenda?

Personally? None. Those who he's personally invested (not financially, but personally) in from a political standpoint? Absolutely. Shoot, given that he's almost parroted the Obama line, it makes me wonder who was the chicken and who was the egg.

[Lurker765]

Personally? None. Those who he's personally invested (not financially, but personally) in from a political standpoint? Absolutely. Shoot, given that he's almost parroted the Obama line, it makes me wonder who was the chicken and who was the egg.

Thanks for the explanation.

I find his message more earnest since he not only has little to gain from it, but it actually could impact him personally in a negative fashion. His comments seem to me to be more along the line of what is "fair" and equitable for a society. If he was just saying "tax the rich" I would ignore it more, but he is saying that "here is a loophole that is mostly exploited by the very rich and does not fit in our progressive tax system".

That resonated with me when I was filling out my taxes over the last few years and I couldn't believe that I owed ZERO taxes on my capital gains. I was so stunned that I got another tax preparation software package to verify the one I was using and even after double checking I then did it all by hand to triple check the conclusion I owed nothing on over ten thousand dollars in capital gains. How is this fair?

I'm certainly not going to donate more money to the government to make up for this feeling of unfairness since I agree with you that spending should come down. But I also realized at that point that the capital gains tax rates are just a method for rich people to pay rates lower than most citizens.

This is what Buffett has pointed out and in what (to me) is an honest manner. Not driven by politics, but one that he has championed for years. Certainly before Obama came along.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Right after you give me your proposal for $1 trillion in spending cuts per year, I'm wide open to moving back to the Clinton era tax percentages Oakland As loves so much. How they're structured, I don't much care. Want to go after capital gains? Hey, go for it. Want to raise the top tax bracket? Sure.

But until our government can show us a scintilla of repsonsible spending behavior - which I'm defining as cutting 60% of our deficit with real spending cuts - they don't deserve another dollar to misspend.

Oh that the Republican Party would have that sort of sensibility.

[chancellor]

Oh that the Republican Party would have that sort of sensibility.

At the end of the day, I think they would. Sadly, I doubt we'll find out since no one has proven willing to put any really significant cuts on the table.

[Moonlight J]

At the end of the day, I think they would. Sadly, I doubt we'll find out since no one has proven willing to put any really significant cuts on the table.

How far can we take a $1 to $1 cut in entitlements vs defense spending?