Warren Buffett says Increases Taxes on the wealthy!

They never had it so good!

from JoeUser Forums
Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest person in the world just appeared on Lou Dobbs with the following advice. We need to raise taxes for the wealthy to deal with things like Social Security. He further stated that the wealthy NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD in this country and that we need to reduce our trade deficit , our Federal budget deficit and fix Social Security. Mr. Buffett also said it is interesting that the president believes a $100 billion dollar per year problem with Social security 20 years from now is more urgent than a $400 plus billion dollar per year problem today with the federal deficit. This is one of the people who advised George W. Bush in 2001 NOT to cut taxes for the wealthy because there were more important things this country needed to do with that money than to cut taxes for the wealthy. What an interesting perspective from the world's second wealthiest Person.
politics
6,877 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, he has 45 billion.  Let them take 40 billion and leave the rest of us alone!

twerp!

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need Trillions not Billions To bad you Bushies are not more like Mr. Buffett
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Kinda' nice having Warren Buffet back up the posit on the tax situation.

Can someone spell v-i-n-d-i-c-a-t-i-o-n ?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The same bs as usual.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

And we should care...why?

Luckily, we live in a democracy (representative republic anyway). And there is not enough support for further burdening the citizenry with more taxes.

I've already stated what I would do if my income tax rate were higher. I'd switch to being paid via dividends instead of wages (15% taxation instead of 30%+). Perfectly legal -- just ask John Kerry and John Edwards who do this tactic (note that neither Bush nor Cheney pull that trick even though they could).

How about a national consumption tax? I.e. a 2% national sales tax.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think when people recognize that it's either taxing the rich a little more or go bankrupt the vast majority will choose taxing the rich a little more. We can start by returning to the pre 2001 tax rates.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
And we should care...why?

As you know, Draginol, often when our society has problems and we need solutions we ask people setting standards in their respective professional fields what their opinion is on a related matter. This is why Warren Buffet's opine on this matter carries weight. I know your question is simply an attempt to minimize the impact of his statements but just in case you did suffer massive cognitive damage I thought I would explain - for the benefit of everyone.

How about a national consumption tax? I.e. a 2% national sales tax.

..rrrrr - ight. I just met a lady today from Delaware. Apparently they have no sales tax there. She loves living in Missouri now, except for one thing - the state sales tax. She can't believe how much less she buys now, simply 'cause the state government rides her for everything from a pack of gum to a tank of gas, to her phone.

Now I don't support a bloated government robbing people of the majority of their paycheck / salary. I simply don't believe in rolling back any of the taxes on the higher brackets as we are now doing.


Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
When Warren Buffett gives away the majority of his money to the government, I'll listen to him.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
A 2% national sales tax in addition to other taxes could help but it would not be good for the poor and lower middle income workers. To fund everything with a sales tax the "Fair tax Group" says it would take a 23% tax on everything to replace income and SS taxes. That is impossible for all the low and most of the middle income workers. Think of adding 23% to every bill- medical, legal, car repair, food etc. The issue is that current taxes are only providing the money for 75% of what we are spending as a country. That can not continue!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
When Warren Buffett gives away the majority of his money to the government, I'll listen to him.


Why must Buffet give away most of his money. He may be worth lots of millions, but insisting on "most" is just hyperbolic rhetoric. No one is suggesting he give away most. Just a fair share would suffice.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
A fail share to the Bushies is "AS littler as possible" They do not get it - you can not borrow 1/4 of evertything you spend every year. Starting in Jan 2006, the Fed will begin paying out another $65 Billion EVERY YEAR in prescription drug benefits under Medicare. Bush and the GOP passed this new entitlement with NO money to pay for the added cost. WHERE DO WE GET ANOTHER $65 BILLION EVERY YEAR FOR THIS PROGRAM?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why must Buffet give away most of his money. He may be worth lots of millions, but insisting on "most" is just hyperbolic rhetoric. No one is suggesting he give away most. Just a fair share would suffice.



And who decides what a "fair share" is. The col, you maybe?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Answer - Congress. We MUST have tax revenue equal to what we are spending. Cut what is acceptable to the majority first, make sure we are enforcing the existing tax laws and then increse tax revenue to finish the job of balancing the budget and begin repaying the debt we have piled up. NOTHING else is a solution. The current path will end up in bankruptcy. The Associated Press has her story this morning the Treasury Department may have to reinstitute 30-year bonds because they are having difficulty raising the revenue to finance a huge deficit.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
WHERE DO WE GET ANOTHER $65 BILLION EVERY YEAR FOR THIS PROGRAM?


Scrap the program. Why should I pay for someone elses meds?

That bill was simply a large Socialist program to start with, it does not matter if a Dem. or Republican got the bill through congress. It should never have been past IMO.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Without Bush and GOP it would not have been passed. Now where does the money come from? Now we must increase revenue to pay for it!
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Now we must increase revenue to pay for it!


Scrap it, and we will not need to increase revenue.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
That will never happen. Get ready to write a check! This was brought to you by "YOUR BOY" George
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
This was brought to you by "YOUR BOY" George


I'm am much happier saying and saluting a President Bush right now then ever wanting to a President Kerry.

While you never say anything good about Bush, don't think just because I voted for him that I only say good things.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have supported Bush with his "Road Map" in the Middle East. I also agreed with the 6 party talks with North Korea (we need China) and I agree we should make Social Security solvent for our children and grandchildren. Where I do not support him is when his policies do not solve our problems. The Bushies are behind him even when he is leading them off a cliff.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wake me up when Buffet's reasoning makes sense.

As far as I can tell, he thinks we should raise taxes on the rich simply because they can afford it and we need the money.

Personally, I'm in favor of basing my budget on what I can afford, rather than what some other guy can afford.

If taxing everybody equally would put an unsupportable burden on the low and middle classes, then I say by all means, let us put an unsupportable burden on the low and middle classes.

A disproportionate tax on the rich is just a way for to hide the real costs of our programs. If we all had to pitch in equally for what we get, maybe we'd finally start thinking about what our programs cost, and whether or not we're getting our money's worth.

Rather than dealing with ineffiencies, instituting real reform, or facing the truth about useless services, raising taxes on the rich just allows us to demonize a particular minority group.

Suddenly, it's all the fault of the Rich: they're not buying us all the goodies we want. People need to stop acting like spoiled children at Christmas time, and figure out how to pay for their own goods and services.

Also, I'm pretty sure Buffet can afford to give away more money. Wake me up when he taxes himself to below my annual income. Once he drops below that point, I'll happily match him, donation for donation, tax hike for tax hike. And I'll keep that up so long as his net annual income does not exceed mine. Wake me up when he puts his money where his mouth is.

But until that day...
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wake me up when Buffet's reasoning makes sense.

As far as I can tell, he thinks we should raise taxes on the rich simply because they can afford it and we need the money.

Personally, I'm in favor of basing my budget on what I can afford, rather than what some other guy can afford.

If taxing everybody equally would put an unsupportable burden on the low and middle classes, then I say by all means, let us put an unsupportable burden on the low and middle classes.

A disproportionate tax on the rich is just a way for to hide the real costs of our programs. If we all had to pitch in equally for what we get, maybe we'd finally start thinking about what our programs cost, and whether or not we're getting our money's worth.

Rather than dealing with ineffiencies, instituting real reform, or facing the truth about useless services, raising taxes on the rich just allows us to demonize a particular minority group.

Suddenly, it's all the fault of the Rich: they're not buying us all the goodies we want. People need to stop acting like spoiled children at Christmas time, and figure out how to pay for their own goods and services.

Also, I'm pretty sure Buffet can afford to give away more money. Wake me up when he taxes himself to below my annual income. Once he drops below that point, I'll happily match him, donation for donation, tax hike for tax hike. And I'll keep that up so long as his net annual income does not exceed mine. Wake me up when he puts his money where his mouth is.

But until that day...
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
To pay our bills we need $ 600 plus billion dollars more each year. The question is who best can afford little more in taxes that answer is the rich. The tax rates that were in effect prior to Bush did not hurt the rich in fact they did better than any other group during the 90s. We need to return the tax rates on the wealthy to what they were prior to Bush, cut the pork and make sure we collect the taxes that are due and we should have a shot at balancing the budget. After all Bush said we needed a tax cut to return a projected surplus that did not exist so there should NOT be a tax cut since there was no surplus to return.