Warren Buffett on Income Taxes

#126
#126
eqs189.jpg
 
#127
#127
Another response to Buffet. Some good points here.

Harvey Golub: My Response To Buffett And Obama - WSJ.com

What gets me most upset is two other things about this argument: the unfair way taxes are collected, and the violation of the implicit social contract between me and my government that my taxes will be spent—effectively and efficiently—on purposes that support the general needs of the country. Before you call me greedy, make sure you operate fairly on both fronts.
Click to expand...
 
#128
#128
I would like to see how he gets to the 80-90% number. And I personally do not care how high estate taxes get. I don't mind if everyone earns their own. What work incentive lost by those looking to pass on inheritance will be gained by the recepients who now have more incentive to work.
 
Last edited:
#131
#131
Then why do you spout off about something that will not concern you?
The income and property has already been taxed once. Do you believe that it should be taxed again and given to the people that have less?
 
#132
#132
Weezy said:
I would like to see how he gets to the 80-90% number. And I personally do not care how high estate taxes get. I don't mind if everyone earns their own. What work incentive lost by those looking to pass on inheritance will be gained by the recepients who now have more incentive to work.
Click to expand...

and reduce the incentive for others to work? I will never understand why people are so willing to give other people's money to the gov't
 
#134
#134
There's a give and take in everything. If one tax is more detrimental to the other than I prefer it. Let's not be simpletons. Fighting the defecit requires increased revenue and cutting spending. I prefer increasing the estate tax more than any other tax out there. And I won't shed a tear because somebody only got $5.2 Million as opposed to $5.6 Million from thier dead grandfather.
 
#135
#135
Weezy said:
There's a give and take in everything. If one tax is more detrimental to the other than I prefer it. Let's not be simpletons. Fighting the defecit requires increased revenue and cutting spending. I prefer increasing the estate tax more than any other tax out there. And I won't shed a tear because somebody only got $5.2 Million as opposed to $5.6 Million from thier dead grandfather.
Click to expand...

Easy to say when you are the one "taking" and not the one giving.
 
#137
#137
you're trying to decide their second tax rate. The gov't got their cut already and doesn't need to steal anymore
 
#139
#139
Weezy said:
There's a give and take in everything. If one tax is more detrimental to the other than I prefer it. Let's not be simpletons. Fighting the defecit requires increased revenue and cutting spending. I prefer increasing the estate tax more than any other tax out there. And I won't shed a tear because somebody only got $5.2 Million as opposed to $5.6 Million from thier dead grandfather.
Click to expand...

lord almighty, what else will u grant the govt cause your angry someone has money?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#140
#140
Weezy said:
There's a give and take in everything. If one tax is more detrimental to the other than I prefer it. Let's not be simpletons. Fighting the defecit requires increased revenue and cutting spending. I prefer increasing the estate tax more than any other tax out there. And I won't shed a tear because somebody only got $5.2 Million as opposed to $5.6 Million from thier dead grandfather.
Click to expand...

If grandpa knows he can't pass on his legacy to his family, he will not feel the need to earn so much more than he can spend. Now, we have less jobs and less wealth created for society. All because some jerkwads in DC think they have a right to the money earned by someone else. No thanks.
 
#141
#141
utgibbs said:
As far as taxation goes, we can look to the maxims of Adam Smith (which I have distilled for soundbyte culture):

1. Simple
2. Transparent
3. Progressive

Although the flat taxes meet the first two criteria, they fall over on the third. We need progressivity to feature as the foundation of all tax policy.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't #3 "stable" and not "progressive"?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#142
#142
paul1454 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't #3 "stable" and not "progressive"?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

direct quotes:

1. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

2. "The tax each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, and the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to ever other person."

3. "Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it."

4. "Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the State."

distilled:
1 - percentage instead of head tax
2 - stable
3 - easy to manage and pay
4 - absolute minimum necessary

You can't expect a devotee of Marx to understand Smith.
 
#143
#143
RespectTradition said:
direct quotes:

1. "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

2. "The tax each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, and the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to ever other person."

3. "Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it."

4. "Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the State."

distilled:
1 - percentage instead of head tax
2 - stable
3 - easy to manage and pay
4 - absolute minimum necessary

You can't expect a devotee of Marx to understand Smith.
Click to expand...

Who is the Marxist devotee?

Thanks for proving me right as rain, although I'd like some clarification on what you mean in #1 by "percentage." If you want to play the "flat tax" game, you will get done by AS himself.

But thanks again. Exactly as I said. :hi:
 
#144
#144
utgibbs said:
Who is the Marxist devotee?

Thanks for proving me right as rain, although I'd like some clarification on what you mean in #1 by "percentage." If you want to play the "flat tax" game, you will get done by AS himself.

But thanks again. Exactly as I said. :hi:
Click to expand...


You are a Marxist.

Please give me a direct quote from Adam Smith that advocates a progressive tax rate.

Percentage is a particular type of proportion.
 
#145
#145
RespectTradition said:
You are a Marxist.

Please give me a direct quote from Adam Smith that advocates a progressive tax rate.

Percentage is a particular type of proportion.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts.

We've been through this ad infinitum on this board, and I warned you how wrong you would be.

Adam Smith was a man of the Enlightenment, a moral thinker (the bourgeoisie assiduously avoid Moral Sentiments). In his own historic time, his mechanical ideas were progressive, reasonable. They are not so suited to our own historic time. However, his maxims, his ideas regarding morality, are still pertinent and important.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
Click to expand...

Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chap 2, Article II

There are a host of other supporting quotes besides.

The "flat tax" interpretation is pure propaganda - unread in Adam Smith.
 
Last edited:
#146
#146
Does "not very unreasonable" sound to you like he earnestly believed that more than he did his proportion, which he stated over and over? Or wad his lack of conviction lost on someone like you, who is dying to make something up in support of Utopian idiocy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#147
#147
BigPapaVol said:
Does "not very unreasonable" sound to you like he earnestly believed that more than he did his proportion, which he stated over and over? Or wad his lack of conviction lost on someone like you, who is dying to make something up in support of Utopian idiocy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

BPV,

There are several other examples in WoN of Smith's support for progressive taxation, as I've gone over many, many times.

I like to refer to Moral Sentiments as well:

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise , or , at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.
Click to expand...
 
#148
#148
utgibbs said:
BPV,

There are several other examples in WoN of Smith's support for progressive taxation, as I've gone over many, many times.

I like to refer to Moral Sentiments as well:
Click to expand...
So, you're buying into the relative wealth argument and justifyingit because he identified it as a cause of corruption? We know it exists and is going to exist with or without money, but you take his point to try and support your lie that he was some huge advocate of massively disproportionate taxation? Nice work.

Why not just read Dr. Seuss and make shiz up?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
Do liberals have no conception of what the term "not yours" means? Someone in a different thread claimed that liberals weren't greedy... but their whole premise is that they should be able to take wealth that does not belong to them then use it to either benefit them directly or do things they want done "morally".

We live in a civil society and there will always be a place for taxes to support common defense, build roads, operate gov't, provide PD/FD services, etc. But people who spend as much time as modern libs decrying the application of someone else's moral standards... shouldn't be trying to impose theirs when it comes to relieving the needy or "leveling the playing field". "Fair" is a subjective and moral word.
 
Last edited:
#150
#150
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion
Click to expand...
The progressive income tax with itemized deductions has utterly failed to do this. The super rich pay lower percentages than the small business owner. John Kerry's effective rate for instance was ridiculously low.

If you really want to achieve this end then the Fair Tax is the plan for you. The flat tax with a high standard deduction also works... say no taxes on the first $80K-$100K. That would GUARANTEE that the rich pay "something more" than that proportion."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top