"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."
do I or do I ?
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!
ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. He wouldn't raise the capital gains tax itself. Obama's plan would simply ensure that no one who earned over a million bucks in a year will pay less than 30% in taxes for that year. That's just a basic level of fairness... I think he should go further.
How stupid am I to think this way?
Albert Einstein was an avowed socialist. You are no Einstein.
But I'm sorry, I've contributed to some of the nasty name calling around here. I'm really going to try not to let my disdain for Republican/conservative/libertarian policies get the best of me from now on.
If you raise Capital Gains .....you give away all incentives for companies from around the world to come here and do business here! You take away incentive to strive and be entrepreneurial! You take away everything from creation of jobs to real estate moguls! You take away contractors, architects, engineers, metal and wood shops and all those jobs! WOW you people are DUMB!
ROMNEY PAYS DOUBLE WHAT ALL YOU PAY! DOUBLE! Get your facts straight!
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. He wouldn't raise the capital gains tax itself. Obama's plan would simply ensure that no one who earned over a million bucks in a year will pay less than 30% in taxes for that year. That's just a basic level of fairness... I think he should go further.
How stupid am I to think this way?
Albert Einstein was an avowed socialist. You are no Einstein.
But I'm sorry, I've contributed to some of the nasty name calling around here. I'm really going to try not to let my disdain for Republican/conservative/libertarian policies get the best of me from now on.
I thought we already gave away all the incentives of companies to start businesses here. Stop making up lies for these people. These people and corporations in the upper eschelons need to pay taxes. Besides when is the last time a corporation had money was concerned enough about creating jobs or kept people on their payroll when it interfered with profit? FACE IT. These people suck off the fat porkbarrel teet of government and dont pay back into the system that made them wealthy in the first place.
has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.
Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.
interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?
also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...
interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.
Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.
interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?
also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...
interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?
I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. H
This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.
has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.
Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.
interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?
also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...
interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?
I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
but that is my point with the question, it isn't the theory I necessarily subscribe to, but it makes sense to me...Asking other people to pay more in taxes isn't that out of line if that money were going to actually help Americans. I think it has more to do with the fact many, many other businessmen, not just buffet, get lots and lots of money from the government. Of all the conspiracy theories that people come up with, I think this one is the least far-fetched. Tax them all more, so they have more to give Warren and the others in the billionaire club. The government taxing the rich more isn't going to benefit the poor in any meaningful way.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
How can you put a price on the risk it takes to start a business?
based on that comment, I don't think we will find a common ground on economic issues
maybe we can both agree that the tax system is fucked up, needs to be blown up, and re-done
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."
do I or do I ?
How many times do I have to tell you not tot start singing a Bodeans song in the middle of a serious discussion?
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. H
This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.
Well sure there's that too. I was simply talking about the rule to ensure that people who make millions simply from investments pay a reasonable share.
I was aware that Obama wants to raise income taxes on couples who earn greater than $250K and I totally support that. 70% of Americans support that. We are massively in debt and we shouldn't have to cut essential services.
I saw today that Obama plans to slash the military budget by nearly $500 billion. Awesome!
Liberals are taking this country back. Republicans don't have anyone that the people trust anymore.
has any one given any thought to the idea that people like buffet and others want more taxes so they can benefit further from government contracts? There is no doubt in my mind that people like Buffet benefit from the government having more money.
Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.
interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?
also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...
interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?
I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
but that is my point with the question, it isn't the theory I necessarily subscribe to, but it makes sense to me...Asking other people to pay more in taxes isn't that out of line if that money were going to actually help Americans. I think it has more to do with the fact many, many other businessmen, not just buffet, get lots and lots of money from the government. Of all the conspiracy theories that people come up with, I think this one is the least far-fetched. Tax them all more, so they have more to give Warren and the others in the billionaire club. The government taxing the rich more isn't going to benefit the poor in any meaningful way.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
How can you put a price on the risk it takes to start a business?
based on that comment, I don't think we will find a common ground on economic issues
maybe we can both agree that the tax system is fucked up, needs to be blown up, and re-done
What does a salary cap have to do with the risk it takes to start a business? Salaries that large only factor in after the business is already successful, no? Look, I don't care how popular my idea (min salary: $50K, max salary: $500K) might be, we still have a progressive income tax for good reason, and it's realistic to make it more progressive... I doubt we'd ever get to taxing 100% of income over $500K... but while the Democratic Party may never be as progressive as I want it to be, I intend to help it at least be a solidly progressive alternative, rather than the wishy-washy party it's been since the 90's. It's not about left vs right. It's about forward vs backward.
What does a salary cap have to do with the risk it takes to start a business? Salaries that large only factor in after the business is already successful, no? Look, I don't care how popular my idea (min salary: $50K, max salary: $500K) might be, we still have a progressive income tax for good reason, and it's realistic to make it more progressive... I doubt we'd ever get to taxing 100% of income over $500K... but while the Democratic Party may never be as progressive as I want it to be, I intend to help it at least be a solidly progressive alternative, rather than the wishy-washy party it's been since the 90's. It's not about left vs right. It's about forward vs backward.
if you cap annual income (not really just salary cap) what would be the point of innovation? business drives innovation...Apple didn't come up with the ipad for the betterment of mankind. they did it to make money.
If you invest in a company, get it started from scratch, do all the things it takes to be successful, why should your income be capped...it doesn't make sense to me...
progressive tax structure is fine, and i think it is working to the extent it does...the top 10% pays about 70% of the taxes...the top 1% pays about 40...that seems to be in line with the amount of wealth they control...I don't know how much more progressive it can get.
I just want you to know this the government cannot spend your money better than you can...the government cannot take care of you and everyone else better than you can on your own.
agree to disagree.
good luck moving the party further to the left...the ideas are there, but the spine just doesn't seem to be among the current group of law-makers.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
What does a salary cap have to do with the risk it takes to start a business? Salaries that large only factor in after the business is already successful, no? Look, I don't care how popular my idea (min salary: $50K, max salary: $500K) might be, we still have a progressive income tax for good reason, and it's realistic to make it more progressive... I doubt we'd ever get to taxing 100% of income over $500K... but while the Democratic Party may never be as progressive as I want it to be, I intend to help it at least be a solidly progressive alternative, rather than the wishy-washy party it's been since the 90's. It's not about left vs right. It's about forward vs backward.
if you cap annual income (not really just salary cap) what would be the point of innovation? business drives innovation...Apple didn't come up with the ipad for the betterment of mankind. they did it to make money.
If you invest in a company, get it started from scratch, do all the things it takes to be successful, why should your income be capped...it doesn't make sense to me...
progressive tax structure is fine, and i think it is working to the extent it does...the top 10% pays about 70% of the taxes...the top 1% pays about 40...that seems to be in line with the amount of wealth they control...I don't know how much more progressive it can get.
I just want you to know this the government cannot spend your money better than you can...the government cannot take care of you and everyone else better than you can on your own.
agree to disagree.
good luck moving the party further to the left...the ideas are there, but the spine just doesn't seem to be among the current group of law-makers.
$500K a year isn't enough to motivate people to do great things and create innovation? I find that impossible to believe. I also think that the innovations that are truly valuable are not achieved when greed is the motivator.
Why should anyone earn more than the President of the United States (for example)? Why not motivate our best and brightest into taking public service jobs? I recently saw that in Finland, teachers are very well paid, and that it's very competitive to become a teacher. They are as well respected as doctors, and probably as brilliant too.
Instead we motivate people to exploit cheap labor as best as they can and produce as much junk as possible so long as it sells.
We need to reorganize our priorities, as a people, and we can improve the quality of life for every individual.
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. H
This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.
Well sure there's that too. I was simply talking about the rule to ensure that people who make millions simply from investments pay a reasonable share.
I was aware that Obama wants to raise income taxes on couples who earn greater than $250K and I totally support that. 70% of Americans support that. We are massively in debt and we shouldn't have to cut essential services.
I saw today that Obama plans to slash the military budget by nearly $500 billion. Awesome!
Liberals are taking this country back. Republicans don't have anyone that the people trust anymore.
The cure for out of control spending isn't going back to the ATM for more $.
I'm for taxes being part of the cure. But until the spending is curtailed, I don't trust them with any more of anyone's $.
The military cutbacks being announced seems to be a good plan. We need a different idea of what our military should be capable of as well as what they should be involved in.
Comments
do I
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
The Buffett Rule that Obama endorses only applies to those with incomes (including capital gains) above $1 million for the year. He wouldn't raise the capital gains tax itself. Obama's plan would simply ensure that no one who earned over a million bucks in a year will pay less than 30% in taxes for that year. That's just a basic level of fairness... I think he should go further.
How stupid am I to think this way?
Albert Einstein was an avowed socialist. You are no Einstein.
But I'm sorry, I've contributed to some of the nasty name calling around here. I'm really going to try not to let my disdain for Republican/conservative/libertarian policies get the best of me from now on.
Does anyone think this money will be used for the good of the people? Any tax increase should be accompanied by legislation that makes it a crime to spend any increase in revenue on anything but the national debt.
interesting side notes: berkshire hathaway owes back taxes. if Buffet says people like him should pay more, why is the company haggling over the amount they owe? shouldn't they just pay what the IRS says they owe?
also, berkshire hathaway received around 200 million in government contracts in 07, cannot find any other data as of right now in a quick search...
interesting that a man whose company benefits greatly from government contracts and spending would want higher taxes isn't it? my question stands...does anyone think that the raise in revenue from a tax like this will go to benefit the people or pay for the debt?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't want to overly defend Buffett, but it's not uncommon for companies to owe back taxes or for it to take years to sort out with the IRS. Is there a scheme to tax millionaires for the purpose of enriching Buffett? That seems far-fetched to me.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
I really wish Barack Obama was a socialist. I also wish we didn't have a President or Senate, but a Prime Minister who presides over a multi-party parliament, but getting back to reality... I think that in this election, there is a clear choice between two imperfect parties.
This in addition to raising income taxes on those "millionaires" that make as a couple >$250,000. And here I thought Obama was an educated man. Must have skipped math class.
The issue here is tax fairness. Economic fairness, really.
but that is my point with the question, it isn't the theory I necessarily subscribe to, but it makes sense to me...Asking other people to pay more in taxes isn't that out of line if that money were going to actually help Americans. I think it has more to do with the fact many, many other businessmen, not just buffet, get lots and lots of money from the government. Of all the conspiracy theories that people come up with, I think this one is the least far-fetched. Tax them all more, so they have more to give Warren and the others in the billionaire club. The government taxing the rich more isn't going to benefit the poor in any meaningful way.
I think annual incomes should cap out at about $500 grand. I just don't see how it's possible to justifiably earn more than that.
How can you put a price on the risk it takes to start a business?
based on that comment, I don't think we will find a common ground on economic issues
maybe we can both agree that the tax system is fucked up, needs to be blown up, and re-done
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well sure there's that too. I was simply talking about the rule to ensure that people who make millions simply from investments pay a reasonable share.
I was aware that Obama wants to raise income taxes on couples who earn greater than $250K and I totally support that. 70% of Americans support that. We are massively in debt and we shouldn't have to cut essential services.
I saw today that Obama plans to slash the military budget by nearly $500 billion. Awesome!
Liberals are taking this country back. Republicans don't have anyone that the people trust anymore.
What does a salary cap have to do with the risk it takes to start a business? Salaries that large only factor in after the business is already successful, no? Look, I don't care how popular my idea (min salary: $50K, max salary: $500K) might be, we still have a progressive income tax for good reason, and it's realistic to make it more progressive... I doubt we'd ever get to taxing 100% of income over $500K... but while the Democratic Party may never be as progressive as I want it to be, I intend to help it at least be a solidly progressive alternative, rather than the wishy-washy party it's been since the 90's. It's not about left vs right. It's about forward vs backward.
if you cap annual income (not really just salary cap) what would be the point of innovation? business drives innovation...Apple didn't come up with the ipad for the betterment of mankind. they did it to make money.
If you invest in a company, get it started from scratch, do all the things it takes to be successful, why should your income be capped...it doesn't make sense to me...
progressive tax structure is fine, and i think it is working to the extent it does...the top 10% pays about 70% of the taxes...the top 1% pays about 40...that seems to be in line with the amount of wealth they control...I don't know how much more progressive it can get.
I just want you to know this the government cannot spend your money better than you can...the government cannot take care of you and everyone else better than you can on your own.
agree to disagree.
good luck moving the party further to the left...the ideas are there, but the spine just doesn't seem to be among the current group of law-makers.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
$500K a year isn't enough to motivate people to do great things and create innovation? I find that impossible to believe. I also think that the innovations that are truly valuable are not achieved when greed is the motivator.
Why should anyone earn more than the President of the United States (for example)? Why not motivate our best and brightest into taking public service jobs? I recently saw that in Finland, teachers are very well paid, and that it's very competitive to become a teacher. They are as well respected as doctors, and probably as brilliant too.
Instead we motivate people to exploit cheap labor as best as they can and produce as much junk as possible so long as it sells.
We need to reorganize our priorities, as a people, and we can improve the quality of life for every individual.
you all make me laugh!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
The cure for out of control spending isn't going back to the ATM for more $.
I'm for taxes being part of the cure. But until the spending is curtailed, I don't trust them with any more of anyone's $.
The military cutbacks being announced seems to be a good plan. We need a different idea of what our military should be capable of as well as what they should be involved in.
because they work.