buffett rule

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs.
--Warren Buffet, noted Socialist.

does distribute the rest to society have to mean give more to the government and allow them to decide what part of society it goes to...just a thought

I won't speak for Warren, but I can guess from that statement that he trusts the government to invest in education, scientific research (both combined account for 4% of government spending), medicare, SS, etc.
I feel that the distribution should go to repairing and restoring the foundation of our society, of our country: infrastructure, scientific research, medical research, education, single-payer (maybe), etc. it should not go to handouts.
I realize that giving more $$$ to the government to invest/spend is a very, very difficult argument to make. Especially since 9/11. But, I, and others, will still make it.

mikepegg44 wrote:

we can argue numbers and theories until we are blue in the face...about who gets what from where...it isn't going to change. You are set in the idea that the current government system is a problem...and so am I...we just believe in very different solutions.
But the overall question remains...what is fair? why should I rely on a group of elected officials who have been shown to be serially corrupt, to pick what is fair? to pick what should win? to pick who should be benefited the most from the entire country's income... how can fairness fluctuate with the election season? how can obvious political grand standing and games like this one be seen as actually trying to be more fair?
You can talk about the fairness of Arod's salary vs a firemens all you want, my or your values shouldn't be forced onto others by the government...plain and simply, there is far too much of that happening now, and giving them more money will only allow that to continue.

Yes. We believe in different solutions (maybe not very).
Fairness, for me, is investing in programs that do two things:
1. Restore the foundation of the country
2. Employ workers through this restoration
3. Take care of our elders.
4. Invest in programs tat benefit all.

I'll put the ARod vs. fireman's salary discussion to rest. I just think it is ludicrous to have a system that benefits/rewards those (incredibly unfairly in terms of $$$) in sports or entertainment more than those who risk their lives on a daily basis.

mikepegg44 wrote:

do you agree with this statement > The smaller the federal government is, the less power they have to continue manipulating the economy for the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns...and also > the benefits to society from the federal government's spending are felt equally by all...

Questions are too narrow to answer. You are already answering your own questions, albeit in a subtle manner.
The system the government has in place benefits the rich and the corrupt. it has nothing to do with size, but more to do with structure and implementation.
I think the free-market libertarianism of Alan Greenspan and Hank Paulson can lead to far more manipulation, inequality, and corruption

whygohome

In response to Inlet's last post. The post would be far too long if I quoted the whole thing.

1. Good point.

But if they fail, then they enter the work force just like we have had to. I'm not sure what you are saying here, and I can't say I agree or disagree.
it still doesn't convince me that those in entertainment or sports should have salaries that can be as much as 200-300 times more than an individual who risks their lives every day for their country, or for society.

What about teachers, fireman, soldiers, cops, nurses who are the best in their craft? How many of them make over a million dollars a year?

This still does not address the gross inequality of pay where someone who can hit a ball with a stick gets rewarded at 200-300 times the rate as a teacher, fireman, soldier, etc.
Saying that this is how our system works doesn't mean anything to me. it is still a system that lands us in this situation of gross income inequality.
You or I do not get the opportunity to star in commercials or advertisements. Actors and athletes do. They will never be in poverty--unless they're morons--and they will always have ways to make more money. A lot more money.

2.

I concede. Asking is maybe not the best word, BUT, in this case, someone who makes 10, 20, 30 million dollars a year is not harmed by this "asking."
And, I don't agree with the harshness of "pay or go to jail." I know the law, but that takes it a bit too far when we are dealing with multimillionaires. It's simply not relevant to what I was saying.

3.

Let's start a new discussion on this topic. I have different views as far as small businesses are concerned. I would slash taxes in half for small businesses, and I am very close to supporting single-payer, which, in my opinion, would lift a huge burden off of small businesses. By the way, no president in history, not Reagan, not Bush I, noone, would ever support GE paying $0 (or close to it) in taxes. That needs to be fixed


4.

They'll still invest. I disagree with this theory



5)

Drop the AMT and reform the tax code. It's been 26 years.

6

Okay. It is subjective. And....?

Jason P

The whole Buffet Rule is a distraction from the bigger issue .... over-spending. It gets the public obsessed with class warfare instead of demanding accountability from our elected leaders.

This rule will not fix our budget problem if implemented. $47B over ten years is chump-change. We need to redirect focus at the main issue, which is spending.

whygohome

Jason P wrote:

The whole Buffet Rule is a distraction from the bigger issue .... over-spending. It gets the public obsessed with class warfare instead of demanding accountability from our elected leaders.

This rule will not fix our budget problem if implemented. $47B over ten years is chump-change. We need to redirect focus at the main issue, which is spending.

I disagree that the Buffett rule is a distraction. It was never intended or marketed as a solution to the debt.
We have had carte blanche since 9/11. It is killing us. I still feel though, that at this point, we need more revenue and less spending. We have the ability to do both. Unfortunately, 21% of our budget goes to the military. And 20% goes to healthcare.

No politician from either party is taking a serious approach to cutting spending.
They fear the single-issue voters too much.