Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buffet says raise taxes for rich.

Tags:
  • Finance
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 15, 2011 5:54:34 PM

Interesting advice from the third richest man in America. He pays an amzingly low amount of taxes considering he has an estimate 47,000,000,000$ tucked in his mattress.

To quote him from the article:

Quote:
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice,"


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-tax...

More about : buffet raise taxes rich

August 15, 2011 6:10:11 PM

Quote:
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough"

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame

But I know it's my own damn fault.

August 15, 2011 6:11:58 PM

That's becuase he doen's earn an income, therefore doesn't pay an income tax. His wealth comes in the form of dividends on investments.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 15, 2011 6:17:03 PM

Plus Jimmy is just another 'cause of the debt crisis' billionaire. Or anyone making $250 thousand as Obamam refers to billionaires. I like his song. It has paid a lot of dividends over the years
August 15, 2011 6:54:21 PM

badge said:
Plus Jimmy is just another 'cause of the debt crisis' billionaire. Or anyone making $250 thousand as Obamam refers to billionaires. I like his song. It has paid a lot of dividends over the years


Most people making over $250.000 would be millionaires I assume: if you live off $50.000 a year you'll be a millionaire in 5 years with a $250.000 income. So Obama was right to call them rich. Only about 2% of Americans make more than $250.000 according to the IRS (although if you were to believe the republicans every shopowner on every streetcorner makes makes this amount).
August 15, 2011 8:13:59 PM

Gulli said:
Most people making over $250.000 would be millionaires I assume: if you live off $50.000 a year you'll be a millionaire in 5 years with a $250.000 income. So Obama was right to call them rich. Only about 2% of Americans make more than $250.000 according to the IRS (although if you were to believe the republicans every shopowner on every streetcorner makes makes this amount).



Your ignorance is pure entertainment, Gulli, it truly is!! :lol: 
August 15, 2011 8:19:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Your ignorance is pure entertainment, Gulli, it truly is!! :lol: 


I make this much.



August 15, 2011 8:22:50 PM

If I never had to worry about money again.......sigh.

Heating is damn expensive in the northeast. Money always gets so tight in the winter.I only make about 25,000 after taxes a year.....But I have no debt. For the record I have no problem paying more in taxes if they are used responsibly.

Its hard talking about how much is enough when you always been wealthy (Most politicians).
August 15, 2011 10:17:02 PM

Quote:
Heating is damn expensive in the northeast. Money always gets so tight in the winter. If I made I only make about 25,000 after taxes a year


I grew up in the midwest in a three room house with dirt floors, no heat. We turned the oven on and opened the door for heat. When people visited they asked if there was any way they could help. Like do we need food or anything, anyway they could help us. I didn't know what they were talking about. I wondered if they needed anything like a brain. My father came from a family of thirteen during the depression. My mother a family of eight. I worked in high school for $1.60 an hour after school. Worked over the summers too. I still have my check stubs where I was making a buck sixty an hour. I can scan one and post it for you. You can feel jus like like Jimmy Buffet that way. If Buffet gave all his money He owned, it wouldn't begin to make a dent in the record nearly five trillion the captain of the Titanic has run up in two and a half years.

August 15, 2011 10:19:52 PM

wanamingo said:
If I never had to worry about money again.......sigh.

Heating is damn expensive in the northeast. Money always gets so tight in the winter. If I made I only make about 25,000 after taxes a year.....But I have no debt. For the record I have no problem paying more in taxes if they are used responsibly.

Its hard talking about how much is enough when you always been wealthy (Most politicians).



I know. It's a potential crisis as many in the northeast derive their heat during harsh winters from OIL. A hydrogen based steam generator would be ideal. Earl is working on one in his garage.
August 15, 2011 10:32:05 PM

If you read the whole of what he says Buffet is saying there should be 2 more tax brackets. He is not talking about $250,000 and up. He is saying there should be another bracket for people making $1,000,000 and up and yet another for people making $10,000,000 and up. So basically he is only talking about the rich. There is no way to throw someone who is making $1,000,000 a year in the "mom and pop" business category.

Now I will say that any tax increase is BS if they are just going to spend it on crap we dont want/need like giving the government pay raises and starting wars we have no business starting or giving welfare to lazy people for that matter. BUT Buffet does have a point and one thing he says in that interview is that as a percentage he pays less taxes than his secretary. To me that is a strong argument for a flat tax BUT you also have to consider the following.

A flat tax of say 10% could possibly hurt some small business in this way. If your a new business or a struggling business and your total income after business expenses is $40-50k that $4000-5000 tax bill could put a hurt on you. Wile Someone like Buffet who make (I have no idea how much BUT lets estimate???) say $100,000,000 a year pays there $10,000,000 tax bill and still has $90,000,000 left.

Now Im all for making as much money as you can and spending it on what you like and not giving a huge amount over to the government but there is no way around taxes so we really need to come up with a tax system that makes it fare for everybody. Im not sure what that is lol. But Having people who will never need to have a single money worry pay a lower percentage sure does not sound fare to me.

We need to address the problem on both side not just one or the other. We need to make sure the taxes that we do pay are going to the propper places and not being squandered and we also need to make sure that whatever ammont that any person is taxed is a fare amount and not the product of loop holes and tax breaks to any one group rich and poor included.
August 15, 2011 10:36:20 PM

I've said it before and I will say it again.

Nothing is stopping old Warren from paying more taxes if he really wanted to. Hell, he could give up just half of his net worth and give everyone in the United States around $115 bucks! Be still my heart!

I could eat a nice steak dinner, drink some aged bourbon, and smoke a nice cohiba with that. It will be as if I was one of them even!

When billionaires start talking about raising taxes they are talking about destroying the middle class. Not taxing themselves.
August 15, 2011 10:40:43 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I've said it before and I will say it again.

Nothing is stopping old Warren from paying more taxes if he really wanted to. Hell, he could give up just half of his net worth and give everyone in the United States around $115 bucks! Be still my heart!

I could eat a nice steak dinner, drink some aged bourbon, and smoke a nice cohiba with that. It will be as if I was one of them even!

When billionaires start talking about raising taxes they are talking about destroying the middle class. Not taxing themselves.

So some one making $1mill or $10mill a year is middle class? Thats what he is talking about , creating those 2 tax brackets and raising the taxes to those people. I would like to here his idea in a bit more detail as in how much he would think is a good amount for those 2 brackets to pay.....
August 15, 2011 10:54:52 PM

I feel adding taxes onto the rich is not the best way to deal with the debt our country faces. They need to find and do away with all the tax loopholes first.
August 15, 2011 11:07:34 PM

mf2780 said:
I feel adding taxes onto the rich is not the best way to deal with the debt our country faces. They need to find and do away with all the tax loopholes first.

Getting rid of loop holes in a lot of cases would mostly raise the tax rate of the higher income people..... There arnt to many $30-50 k a year people enjoying many loop holes. One think that I just thought of that needs to stop asap isfat returns for people who never paid any taxes. I have a friend who is a single mom who is a 1099 independent contractor for a catering company so she pays $.00 in taxes by year end. When she claims her child at tax time she ends up with about a $1000 refund. Now Im not sure she should pay much in the way of taxes if she is close to the poverty live and raising a child by her self but I also dont see why she gets a return when she has not paid any taxes at all.
August 15, 2011 11:16:24 PM

cburke82 said:
Getting rid of loop holes in a lot of cases would mostly raise the tax rate of the higher income people..... There arnt to many $30-50 k a year people enjoying many loop holes. One think that I just thought of that needs to stop asap isfat returns for people who never paid any taxes. I have a friend who is a single mom who is a 1099 independent contractor for a catering company so she pays $.00 in taxes by year end. When she claims her child at tax time she ends up with about a $1000 refund. Now Im not sure she should pay much in the way of taxes if she is close to the poverty live and raising a child by her self but I also dont see why she gets a return when she has not paid any taxes at all.



Tax loopholes are tax law. The mortgage interest deduction is prime example.

Perhaps you have not experienced this particular loophole before?
August 15, 2011 11:24:12 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Tax loopholes are tax law. The mortgage interest deduction is prime example.

Perhaps you have not experienced this particular loophole before?

No I have not lol. Im by no means a tax expert I use turbo tax for god so yeah. But I can see a few areas where the law is not fare as in my example I stated in my last post. Just seems like some people pay to much other to little and most of what does get paid out is used in ways that dont make any sense.
August 16, 2011 2:15:33 AM

The problem with tax loopholes is a lot of the rich are paying a ton of taxes, while others are using loopholes and paying next to nothing. That is what needs to be fixed first. Also the government waste a ton of tax payers money because there seems to be no accountablility. Fix wasteful spending and fix people abusing the tax loopholes. Than there is a good chance we can reduce taxes across the board.

Yes the tax system is so messed up atm that its totally broken. When I was working full time and making a decent salary I paid in a ton of taxes and had to play with my 401k to not owe more at the end of the year. Last year while In school I only worked a few weeks (taking around 18-23 credit hours so not working) and got back more than 3 times what I paid in. Hell I got a bigger tax refund than I did working for those two weeks.
August 16, 2011 2:58:22 AM

Loophole #1: Every taxpayer gets the same deduction for cash donations, ie, they are subtracted from your total income so it's as if you never earned the money. Had you ket (eg) the $1, you would (mayne) have paid some taxes on it. So your loss for donating is something less than $1.

However, property (and stock, etc) donations work a bit differently. Whatever you paid for the stock or property doesn't matter, you get to deduct its current market value.

Why is that a loophole? Ted Turner bought an island in South Carolina for chump change about 30 years ago. 20 years ago he donated it to the state as a preserve. The value of the property was based on "appraisals" which put it over $20 miilion. He got to deduct that from income . . . without ever having paid any tax on the gain. This deduction was worth far more than the <$1 million he paid for this undevelopable island.

Loophole #2: Income on Municipal Bonds is Federal tax free, and state tax exempt if the Municipality is within your tax state. States take advantage of this, knowing that people in the top tax bracket can accept a 40% lower rate of return - or even less, depending on the State - and a Municipal Bond will still be attractive. So the rich can get higher after-tax returns through Munis than through other "safe" investments.

This may be a loophole, but usually its the rich who invest in Munis, and the "people" get to borrow money to finance projects - and in some states, state employee benefits lol - at a much lower interest rate.

The first loophole should probably be closed . . . but it *will* reduce charitable donations significantly. The second loophole should probably not be closed, because it will cost us all a lot more money through higher interest rates.

Tax law is complicated, as even these two simple examples show. And every change has unintended consequences.
August 16, 2011 3:37:48 AM

Tax law is so complicated that the truly wealthy can afford to pay a horde of accountants to look for loopholes, err, closely examine existing tax laws.

August 16, 2011 4:28:58 AM

Tax law is pretty screwed up. I think they should just settle all the complaints by giving everyone a flat tax. I'm "middle class" and I think it might hurt me, but you really can't argue that a flat tax isn't fair.

And set all loopholes to expire in 2015--when tax shifts to the flat tax with no special rules and it's that simple. Then the government gets to layoff 80% of IRS employees because nobody's confused anymore.

It'll screw over non-profits...since less people/corporations will donate to save money but I think non-profits should be the first to get screwed when the economy goes down the toilet (I donate a lot, btw).

A whole lot of government systems/organizations need to be gutted and simplified to something that actually works effectively. That's not gonna happen, but it would be nice.
August 16, 2011 6:12:17 AM

Unfortunately, the tax code is neither the problem nor the solution to what ails us. We've got structural problems with the economy, and with the so-called entitlement programs. And while there's certainly room to argue that some people should pay more income taxes, no reasonable tax increases can possibly provide enough revenue to eliminate the current annual deficit, let alone the staggering unfunded future liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and - yes - Obamacare.

We no longer manufacture very much, and since the world is flat most workers are or shortly will be competing with everyone else in the world.

People talk about the large gap between rich and poor in this country, but fail to recognize the HUGE gap between the poor in this country and and the poor in other countries. Again, since the world is now flat, that huge supply of competitive workers around the world will cause a continued hemorrhaging of jobs from the US. Unions cannot save those jobs.

Even Conservatives should read Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat 3.0". He's a "Progressive", but he does a great job of showing the problems in simple terms, and poses some surprising answers . . . considering the source lol. It's a great book if you're interested in a better understanding of what we face.
August 16, 2011 6:43:56 AM

Attack the entitlement programs? I don't think that will fix the economy outright either. But sure, cut them so long as you don't cut Planned Parenthood. Because I doubt you want the poor reproducing faster. That won't help anyone.

If you want to cut medical expenses, I suggest you go at the root of the problem though--not merely abolishing medical coverage for the non-wealthy. Medical care needs a legitimate reform. Obama's plan to reform it failed (well, in 95% of it's purpose anyhow).

But just as entitlement could use cutting--the U.S. probably doesn't need to build more $10B aircraft carriers when we've already got more ships in the water than the rest of the world combined--especially when I can't even tell you what a ship is good for in a war anymore. If you're not island hopping the Pacific losing thousands of soldiers for worthless islands, a HUGE naval fleet is a waste.

U.S. Unions need arbitration and busting in many areas. Now they should not lose collective bargaining rights, but many businesses (manufacturing especially, like the Auto Industry) cannot be profitable with the ridiculous concessions they've made to unions. Employers should provide safe working conditions, a lunch hour, and some minimal amount of time off. Anything beyond that should be on the negotiating table.

I guess I'm not very sympathetic to the "poor". My family members who are poor and on welfare earned their lot in life. They spend the many of their years not working and on welfare or trying to sue someone. Does anyone have an example of someone they know who's poor enough so they struggle to make end's meet who just had bad luck? Most I've known had drug problems or never actually attempted to succeed [legally]. And ALL the poor people I know have a nicer TV than I do and better video game systems too.

I am sympathetic to poor in other countries who actually are malnourished--and not because of deficiencies in the nutritional value of McDonald's.


Anyhow...there's a lot to fix. Not much of it will get fixed. But at least the government will have a LOT more money once we wrap up some of these expensive wars.

So long as someone like Michelle Bachman doesn't end up President and start another "Crusade-type" holy war, things will get better. I can guarantee you we wouldn't have been in Iraq if it was a Catholic Nation (Notice Hugo Chavez is still in power--and Venezuela has oil too!).
August 16, 2011 4:15:03 PM

dalauder said:
Attack the entitlement programs? I don't think that will fix the economy outright either. But sure, cut them so long as you don't cut Planned Parenthood. Because I doubt you want the poor reproducing faster. That won't help anyone.

If you want to cut medical expenses, I suggest you go at the root of the problem though--not merely abolishing medical coverage for the non-wealthy. Medical care needs a legitimate reform. Obama's plan to reform it failed (well, in 95% of it's purpose anyhow).

But just as entitlement could use cutting--the U.S. probably doesn't need to build more $10B aircraft carriers when we've already got more ships in the water than the rest of the world combined--especially when I can't even tell you what a ship is good for in a war anymore. If you're not island hopping the Pacific losing thousands of soldiers for worthless islands, a HUGE naval fleet is a waste.

U.S. Unions need arbitration and busting in many areas. Now they should not lose collective bargaining rights, but many businesses (manufacturing especially, like the Auto Industry) cannot be profitable with the ridiculous concessions they've made to unions. Employers should provide safe working conditions, a lunch hour, and some minimal amount of time off. Anything beyond that should be on the negotiating table.

I guess I'm not very sympathetic to the "poor". My family members who are poor and on welfare earned their lot in life. They spend the many of their years not working and on welfare or trying to sue someone. Does anyone have an example of someone they know who's poor enough so they struggle to make end's meet who just had bad luck? Most I've known had drug problems or never actually attempted to succeed [legally]. And ALL the poor people I know have a nicer TV than I do and better video game systems too.

I am sympathetic to poor in other countries who actually are malnourished--and not because of deficiencies in the nutritional value of McDonald's.


Anyhow...there's a lot to fix. Not much of it will get fixed. But at least the government will have a LOT more money once we wrap up some of these expensive wars.

So long as someone like Michelle Bachman doesn't end up President and start another "Crusade-type" holy war, things will get better. I can guarantee you we wouldn't have been in Iraq if it was a Catholic Nation (Notice Hugo Chavez is still in power--and Venezuela has oil too!).

I agree that being involved in two wars that we dont need is not cool for our budget and we really should pull out now with the least ammount of troops left there to keep order. One administration made the mistake of starting that process and now the next one is also making a mistake by staying there so long, Didnt GWB declare that we won that war in Iraq like 10 years ago lol.

I think a flat tax with a poverty line would be good. Basicly everybody pays 10% unless you make below a set amount per year then you dont pay BUT you also dont get any crazy refunds. I say this because I dont think a collage student working there way through school that has a part time job making 10k per year should have to pay $1000 worth of taxes as that would be hurtful to them. So if you make $60k you pay $6k make $100 billion you pay $10 billion and then you do this... Any lage surplus has to be used in a way that improves the country or given back to the people. So if they end up with a $30000000000 surplus somehow they cant spend it on a war or going in to save some country from them selves but it could be used for new schools or invested in our country by way of scholarships. Stuff like that that will have an end effect of improving our country and the people as well. I fee for other less fortunate country's but If we have this huge deficit in our spending and we are cutting funding to schools and cops and important things like that, then we dont need to spend $0.01 on Libya or Iraq or any other country until we are in a much better state ourselves.
August 16, 2011 10:59:27 PM

cburke82 said:
I agree that being involved in two wars that we dont need is not cool for our budget and we really should pull out now with the least ammount of troops left there to keep order. One administration made the mistake of starting that process and now the next one is also making a mistake by staying there so long, Didnt GWB declare that we won that war in Iraq like 10 years ago lol.

I think a flat tax with a poverty line would be good. Basicly everybody pays 10% unless you make below a set amount per year then you dont pay BUT you also dont get any crazy refunds. I say this because I dont think a collage student working there way through school that has a part time job making 10k per year should have to pay $1000 worth of taxes as that would be hurtful to them. So if you make $60k you pay $6k make $100 billion you pay $10 billion and then you do this... Any lage surplus has to be used in a way that improves the country or given back to the people. So if they end up with a $30000000000 surplus somehow they cant spend it on a war or going in to save some country from them selves but it could be used for new schools or invested in our country by way of scholarships. Stuff like that that will have an end effect of improving our country and the people as well. I fee for other less fortunate country's but If we have this huge deficit in our spending and we are cutting funding to schools and cops and important things like that, then we dont need to spend $0.01 on Libya or Iraq or any other country until we are in a much better state ourselves.


10% won't cut it, that might generate maybe 1/3 of the current budget. That's the problem with a flat tax: you'll have to tax the sh*t out of the middle class and the poor to make it work, although it would really help if the rich really paid all the taxes they're supposed too on all of their income, not just salary/bonuses but also dividents, etc... and no Swiss bank accounts either.
August 16, 2011 11:18:57 PM

Gulli said:
10% won't cut it, that might generate maybe 1/3 of the current budget. That's the problem with a flat tax: you'll have to tax the sh*t out of the middle class and the poor to make it work, although it would really help if the rich really paid all the taxes they're supposed too on all of their income, not just salary/bonuses but also dividents, etc... and no Swiss bank accounts either.


Apparently you don't know what a flat tax is. I'm sure taxing the *** out of the middle class is the result of the flat tax. Doing that projection thing again are we?
August 16, 2011 11:25:55 PM

The "Alternative Minimum Tax" was installed to force "millionaires" to pay their taxes. It uses a flat rate of 28% and eliminates many deductions.

Unfortunately, the threshhold income was never indexed, and now many who are middle class are subject to that rate. Doubly unfortunate, apparently dividends and Muni income are not included in the calculation, otherwise good ol' Warren would be paying FAR more than 17% overall.

Just shows Congress doesn't know wtf it's doing.

FYI, last tax season I did a return for someone with AGI of ~$350k. When we went back and added up all of the readily identifiable taxes he paid during the year, he spent 54% of his income on taxes . . . Fed & State income, FICA & Medicare (not including what his employer paid on $108,000 max) personal income tax, property tax on 2 houses, etc.

People don't realize that its not just income tax. A lot of Federal mandated spending is taxed and done at the state level now. Which is why property taxes have skyrocketed while municipalities no longer collect garbage, sweep streets, provide sewer and water, have full time fire departments . . . like the used to. Citizens now pay for all of that separately, a hidden tax increase of significant size.
August 16, 2011 11:33:41 PM

Buffet pays less of a % of his income than his secretary because his gains are all long term capital gains which are taxed at 20% no matter how much you make. It IS a flat tax on capital gains. Raising capital gains tax would have a severe impact on the US stock market. It would also be political suicide to raise it because any loss in market value for years could be directly blamed on the President, regardless of what actually caused that particular downturn.

The problem is that an income tax is a tax on productivity. Those that produce more are taxed more. That's backwards IMO. I'd like to move to a consumption tax which is basically a national sales tax on certain goods and services with the highest tax on luxury goods. A consumption tax would promote investment and would increase the value of used goods. IMO, we as a country spend way too much on stuff that we end up just throwing away after a couple years even though they are perfectly workable products.
August 16, 2011 11:37:49 PM

Gulli said:
10% won't cut it, that might generate maybe 1/3 of the current budget. That's the problem with a flat tax: you'll have to tax the sh*t out of the middle class and the poor to make it work, although it would really help if the rich really paid all the taxes they're supposed too on all of their income, not just salary/bonuses but also dividents, etc... and no Swiss bank accounts either.

The point is you would combine a flat tax wile also cutting spending in areas where its not required. Also I was just using 10% as a nice round number. I dont know what % it would take to give the government a reasonable budget to work with. I would say no matter what your political alliance the fact that there is a huge gap developing between the rich and poor and the fact that the middle class is shrinking should be of concern. As far as how you fix that its hard to say. There is really no way for the government to force a company to hire workers here for a middle class wage. They could spend more money on making it easy for people who want to go to school be able to do so. If your not from a well off family or extreamly smart so that you get a full ride scholarship it can be hard to get a good education past high school.

I was watching somthing on cnn and I wish I remember who was talking about it but he was talking about how the government would have been better off in the long run spending all that stimulus money paying for people to go to collage, not just new students but also people who have an education in a job sector that is diminishing as well. Thats the short version he explained it in much better detail but it made a lot of sense.
August 16, 2011 11:49:33 PM

autoboy said:
Buffet pays less of a % of his income than his secretary because his gains are all long term capital gains which are taxed at 20% no matter how much you make. It IS a flat tax on capital gains. Raising capital gains tax would have a severe impact on the US stock market. It would also be political suicide to raise it because any loss in market value for years could be directly blamed on the President, regardless of what actually caused that particular downturn.

The problem is that an income tax is a tax on productivity. Those that produce more are taxed more. That's backwards IMO. I'd like to move to a consumption tax which is basically a national sales tax on certain goods and services with the highest tax on luxury goods. A consumption tax would promote investment and would increase the value of used goods. IMO, we as a country spend way too much on stuff that we end up just throwing away after a couple years even though they are perfectly workable products.

Consumption tax is also a nice Idea but I dont think the government will ever go for that. They would have no way of making sure they got a certain amount of money lol. There are pluses and minus with anything like this. You could say that taxing spending would reduce spending as a side effect that would then cause business to make less and possibly pay less or not hire the same amount of employees. What buffet was saying about adding 2 new brackets to the people who make over $1mill per year made sense. He is right in saying that it would not make sense for someone with that much income to shy away from investing based on a higher tax rate. In other words would you rater invest $500,000 and make a 8% return and then pay an extra % of that gain in the form of a tax OR just park that $500,000 in the bank and let inflation eat at it and gain nothing.

Personally I believe that somebody like Buffet knows more about what raising taxes will do to the economy than any senator or congressman will ever know. Lets not forget that he makes all his money in the stock market and has been one of the most successful investors of our time. So if raising taxes in the manner he is suggesting would end up in an overall loss to the stock market why would he even bring up that subject?
August 17, 2011 12:31:07 AM

cburke82 said:
. . . What buffet was saying about adding 2 new brackets to the people who make over $1mill per year made sense. . . . Personally I believe that somebody like Buffet knows more about what raising taxes will do to the economy than any senator or congressman will ever know.


Agreed. But let's keep in mind that what Buffet proposes is vastly different from what Obama proposes. Obama uses words like "millionaires and billionaires" while meaning $250k+/yr . . . and IMO he really intends to reach down lower. Buffet is talking $1mm+/yr. Buffet's suggestion is way out of "small business" territory.
August 17, 2011 12:37:23 AM

Twoboxer said:
Agreed. But let's keep in mind that what Buffet proposes is vastly different from what Obama proposes. Obama uses words like "millionaires and billionaires" while meaning $250k+/yr . . . and IMO he really intends to reach down lower. Buffet is talking $1mm+/yr. Buffet's suggestion is way out of "small business" territory.

Well so is $250k per year as a small business would write off business expenses so any "small" business making a profit of $250k per year is not that small in my book. but the thread is asking about what buffet said thats why I was leaning in that direction so hard :) .
August 17, 2011 12:47:50 AM

The DEMS can go right ahead and raise their taxes. I'll keep mine where they are thanks. Buffet can give every dime He ownes to taxes and it wouldn't make a dent in the nearly five trillion in debt Obama has ran up in two and half years. I haven't watched Communist News Network (CNN) since 2006. MSNBC since 2004. Obama's networks must be ramming it straight up the pipeline to you tax experts.
August 17, 2011 3:52:22 PM

badge said:
The DEMS can go right ahead and raise their taxes. I'll keep mine where they are thanks. Buffet can give every dime He ownes to taxes and it wouldn't make a dent in the nearly five trillion in debt Obama has ran up in two and half years. I haven't watched Communist News Network (CNN) since 2006. MSNBC since 2004. Obama's networks must be ramming it straight up the pipeline to you tax experts.

So then you watch the pinnacle of un biased news that being Fox News Im sure lol.
August 17, 2011 4:06:44 PM

cburke82 said:
So then you watch the pinnacle of un biased news that being Fox News Im sure lol.


When you consider CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS. ABC, PBS. etc. etc. making up the Obama train Lame Stream Media, Fox does pretty well with it's 'Bias' agenda...Har. Make me laugh some more. Fox was created with the purpose of offering an alternative to the liberal Lame Stream Media when Clinton News Network was in full swing. Now your one hundred percent more educated than when you staggered in here with your Lame Stream Media education regarding the history and success of Fox and Lame Stream Media politics. Haha. LOL. Hehe [:badge:1]
August 17, 2011 4:34:43 PM

badge said:
When you consider CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS. ABC, PBS. etc. etc. making up the Obama train Lame Stream Media, Fox does pretty well with it's 'Bias' agenda...Har. Make me laugh some more. Fox was created with the purpose of offering an alternative to the liberal Lame Stream Media when Clinton News Network was in full swing. Now your one hundred percent more educated than when you staggered in here with your Lame Stream Media education regarding the history and success of Fox and Lame Stream Media politics. Haha. LOL. Hehe [:badge:1]

The "News" on Fox new is constantly contradicting themselves and anybody who thinks that that is no a biased news company is kidding themselves. I'm not saying any other new channel is unbiased but to talk crap about CNN and the watch Fox and believe your watch a form of new more accurate than the other channels you listed is a joke. You seem to love to talk about how much the deficit has increased under Obama and I wont argue that he is a good president but the republicans didn't do any better with Bush. The deficit was raised under him as well. So trying to talk about how the "liberals" and there evil President raised the deficit so high is just ignoring the fact that this all started under a republican president.
August 17, 2011 5:03:02 PM

You are flattering yourself.

Here's a related image you would never see on CNN that 'hippest' of all news channels all-encompassing worldwide news coverage champion. Consider it educational.



CNN News Breaking News Flash Important Update!

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his candidacy for president Saturday in South Carolina. He's a fervent evangelical Christian. The Democrats are already demanding to know why, if he loves Jesus so much, is he trying to kick him out of the White House.

This concludes CNN's important breaking news Flash! update for today so far. Stay tuned for further updates and something really 'hip' for all you teenage years voters.






August 17, 2011 6:43:51 PM

cburke82 said:
The "News" on Fox new is constantly contradicting themselves . . .
Please give two examples to support your point. Otherwise you just heard this on MSNBC.

cburke82 said:
. . . and anybody who thinks that that is no a biased news company is kidding themselves.
Nice to hear you say this . . . NOW. For years we complained the mainstream media did not provide all of the facts nor ask the important questions because of bias. You folks denied there was any bias lol. As for Fox, the commentary is biased to the right, the news is not. And that is the difference.

cburke82 said:
I'm not saying any other new channel is unbiased but to talk crap about CNN and the watch Fox and believe your watch a form of new more accurate than the other channels you listed is a joke.
The news is not more accurate . . . they all make mistakes. But on Fox the news is both more timely and more complete. Fox does not selectively cover or delay covering the news. It may appear biased to you, but only because there's so many stories you never see on the other networks. Especially during a presidential election cycle lol. OTOH, I've never had to say "Gee, I didn't see that NBC news item on Fox". So who's getting hosed?

cburke82 said:
You seem to love to talk about how much the deficit has increased under Obama and I wont argue that he is a good president but the republicans didn't do any better with Bush.
Actually the numbers say he did better on the deficit for his years in office, but there's no denying he ran up debt. That's why there is a Tea Party movement . . . because establishment republicans would lead us to a semi-capitalistic bankruptcy only a little slower than democrats would lead us to a socialistic bankruptcy.

cburke82 said:
The deficit was raised under him as well. So trying to talk about how the "liberals" and there evil President raised the deficit so high is just ignoring the fact that this all started under a republican president.
What happens during a president's term is HIS. You inherit the past as well as the future. Just ask Bush 43 who inherited the bursting of Clinton's Internet bubble and economic impacts of 911. And dealt with both btw, without the whining.

The Dems have you convinced this is a "debt limit" problem. It's not. It is a TOTAL DEBT problem. In the last 3 years (two without approved budgets and one budget submitted to howls of congressional laughter on both sides of the aisle) we have run up the equivalent of perhaps 15 years of "normal" deficits. That spending, plus all the previous, for which ALL politicians are responsible to one degree or another, has put us very very near the limit of fiscal possibility.

Stop worrying about who caused it. It doesn't matter whether it was you or your wife that ran up the credit card bills . . . the credit card is (nearly) full, its time to get spending in line with realistic revenue. Stop printing money and taxing every one of us with future inflation. And address the even higher debts that past promises will force in the next years to come.

Start worrying about who can AND WILL fix it. Obama won't. IMO, McCain wouldn't have either. Maybe there's enough pressure now that someone else will.
August 17, 2011 7:13:06 PM

Twoboxer said:
Please give two examples to support your point. Otherwise you just heard this on MSNBC.

Nice to hear you say this . . . NOW. For years we complained the mainstream media did not provide all of the facts nor ask the important questions because of bias. You folks denied there was any bias lol. As for Fox, the commentary is biased to the right, the news is not. And that is the difference.

The news is not more accurate . . . they all make mistakes. But on Fox the news is both more timely and more complete. Fox does not selectively cover or delay covering the news. It may appear biased to you, but only because there's so many stories you never see on the other networks. Especially during a presidential election cycle lol. OTOH, I've never had to say "Gee, I didn't see that NBC news item on Fox". So who's getting hosed?

Actually the numbers say he did better on the deficit for his years in office, but there's no denying he ran up debt. That's why there is a Tea Party movement . . . because establishment republicans would lead us to a semi-capitalistic bankruptcy only a little slower than democrats would lead us to a socialistic bankruptcy.

What happens during a president's term is HIS. You inherit the past as well as the future. Just ask Bush 43 who inherited the bursting of Clinton's Internet bubble and economic impacts of 911. And dealt with both btw, without the whining.

The Dems have you convinced this is a "debt limit" problem. It's not. It is a TOTAL DEBT problem. In the last 3 years (two without approved budgets and one budget submitted to howls of congressional laughter on both sides of the aisle) we have run up the equivalent of perhaps 15 years of "normal" deficits. That spending, plus all the previous, for which ALL politicians are responsible to one degree or another, has put us very very near the limit of fiscal possibility.

Stop worrying about who caused it. It doesn't matter whether it was you or your wife that ran up the credit card bills . . . the credit card is (nearly) full, its time to get spending in line with realistic revenue. Stop printing money and taxing every one of us with future inflation. And address the even higher debts that past promises will force in the next years to come.

Start worrying about who can AND WILL fix it. Obama won't. IMO, McCain wouldn't have either. Maybe there's enough pressure now that someone else will.

As far as specific examples I wish I had wrote down the exact programs that this happened on but the commentary on fox news likes to forget things that have happened in the past and only speak in the future and present. For example I saw an interesting montage on the daily show (before you say this was biased it was followed up by a montage making Obama also look like an a@@ hat lol). In this montage were several clips where several different commentators were saying how the democrats like to sling mud and how un ethical it is followed buy clips of those very same commentators slinging mud in very much the same way they were complaining about. Also an example of what im speaking of would be this. When They speak of GWB they love to talk about how he did a good job and was the victim of inheriting Clintons mess that stemmed from 8 years of his presidency. But when they speak about Obama they dont mention anything of the sort about how Obama has the same problem coming into office after 8 years with GWB in office.

And it seems that when talking about Democratic presidents in general they follow this creed. The economy was in its best state for a long time wile Clinton was in office. If you were to bring this up on fox news you would hear all about how this was because Regan and the first Bush did such a great job and that what you saw during the Clinton admin was based on there work not his. So if it really does take that long for things to come around why then if you watch fox news is all of the current mess not GWB's fault? He was in office for 8 years so surely if his policy was so great we would be climbing out of the recession and heading into a period of economic growth... But instead its getting worse if anything. I dont side with one or the other because I think that the system in general is broken.

It takes so much money to get elected now that by the time anybody makes it to office as a congressman senator or president, they owe so many special interest groups favors that they cant focus on whats good for the country. Instead they focus on keeping those groups happy so they can get re elected when the time comes. This happens on both sides of the isle. I think both sides have things they are bad at and both sides have things they are correct at trying to accomplish. The problem is they seem to be less interested in working together and it just gets worse every year. If people where closer to the middle and were willing to work with each other we could turn things around, instead people seem to have a need to be left or right one way or the other when there is no reason you cant just be in the middle and do whats best for the country as a whole instead of some left or right wing agenda.
August 17, 2011 7:23:36 PM

Or ignoring Ron Paul in the straw polls.

Or straight up saying Fox offers a counterpoint to liberal media, while at the same time saying its fair and balanced.

But stay on topic gentlemen make a faux news thread if theres a viable debate there.
August 17, 2011 7:27:17 PM

wanamingo said:
Or ignoring Ron Paul in the straw polls.

Or straight up saying Fox offers a counterpoint to liberal media, while at the same time saying its fair and balanced.

But stay on topic gentlemen make a faux news thread if theres a viable debate there.

I tried to stay on topic but it just ended up at that point lol. I dont know why you asking about Buffet made Badge bring up Obama but he did so here we are lol. On the topic I say that Buffet know how the stock market works more than any other one person I can think of. So if he thinks its a good idea and would not affect the market then it should at least be looked into further.
August 17, 2011 7:46:26 PM

mentioning anything makes Badge bring up Obama.

Yeah this guy is one of the richest guys in the world. And not by accident.
August 17, 2011 7:54:55 PM

Considering Buffet utalizes every tax break available to him and has his entire life, this thread regarding Buffet's stand up 'philosophy' regarding his view on the nation's tax rate status speaks to his bigotry.

Edited for Writer's embellishments.
August 17, 2011 8:08:16 PM

cburke82 said:
I tried to stay on topic but it just ended up at that point lol. I dont know why you asking about Buffet made Badge bring up Obama but he did so here we are lol. On the topic I say that Buffet know how the stock market works more than any other one person I can think of. So if he thinks its a good idea and would not affect the market then it should at least be looked into further.



1. Fox - you are confusing commentary/opinion with the news reporting. example: Bill O'reilly is a commentator and of course is biased. Shep Smith is a newscaster, and actually a bit of lefty. Just becuase Fox's commentary is biased doesn't mean the news reporting is also.

Here is an example of story none of them reported: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ohio-business-owner-ter...

I heard an phone interview with this guy on Beck's radio program this morning. He has been dealing with this shite for over 40 years from the unions. Not peep, even from Fox.

2. Buffet is a globalist, George Soros style; and off course supports the global redistribution of ALL wealth. Except his of course.
August 17, 2011 9:36:47 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
1. Fox - you are confusing commentary/opinion with the news reporting. example: Bill O'reilly is a commentator and of course is biased. Shep Smith is a newscaster, and actually a bit of lefty. Just becuase Fox's commentary is biased doesn't mean the news reporting is also.

Here is an example of story none of them reported: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ohio-business-owner-ter...

I heard an phone interview with this guy on Beck's radio program this morning. He has been dealing with this shite for over 40 years from the unions. Not peep, even from Fox.

2. Buffet is a globalist, George Soros style; and off course supports the global redistribution of ALL wealth. Except his of course.

Your are correct sir. I did say news when I should have said commentary my bad :)  If I had warren buffets money I would also take advantage of every possible tax law lol And I do now try to fine every possible way to pay less (within the letter of the law f coarse lol) But what he is saying does have some credibility. I know he does donate a bunch for tax breaks, at least some good comes from that.
August 17, 2011 9:54:58 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
1. Fox - you are confusing commentary/opinion with the news reporting. example: Bill O'reilly is a commentator and of course is biased. Shep Smith is a newscaster, and actually a bit of lefty. Just becuase Fox's commentary is biased doesn't mean the news reporting is also.

Here is an example of story none of them reported: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ohio-business-owner-ter...

I heard an phone interview with this guy on Beck's radio program this morning. He has been dealing with this shite for over 40 years from the unions. Not peep, even from Fox.

2. Buffet is a globalist, George Soros style; and off course supports the global redistribution of ALL wealth. Except his of course.

As far as unions go they can do good but I have also been trying to explain to people for some time now that they can also due alot of very bad things. There are school districts in my area that have off site teachers lounges because the unions have made it so hard for the schools to fire teachers who are not doing there jobs. So it is cheaper for the schools to keep these teachers on the payroll and have them not working and drinking coffee and playing cards that it would be to pay the legal fees that they would incur if they fired the teachers for under performing.

I also had the pleasure of meeting a person who worked for ford before the american auto industry took a crap. And there union had Ford so far over the table that if they wanted to slow production of any of there plants due to not needing anymore cars for any time period, they would still have to pay there workers as if the plant was in full swing. So what you ended up with was 50 plant workers getting paid $35 per hour sitting around the plant playing cards wile doing zero work. He told me that Ford figured that if they had to pay them they would at least make them come in even if there was no work to do.

That would be just 2 examples that I know of as to how a union can go to far. Is it good for the workers, yes I guess. But The business has to spend way more money than they should for labor. So the end result is they over spend on labor but you get a crap product because they have to cut cost somewhere else. The schools cant afford to pay for new books or more class rooms because they have people on payroll doing nothing just because the union would try to sue the crap out of them if they tried to let them go. And the car makers spend so much more money on labor that to stay competitive with there pricing they have to cut costs that end up with the product quality taking a nosedive.

Then of course you see things like what happens in the story you linked. But if fox or cnn or msnbc or any of those stations started to sound even the least bit like they were saying the unions were wrong im sure they would be painted as being against the common worker. I feel like unions should be there soly to make sure that the working conditions and things like that are up to par, but things like salary and benefits should not be regulated by unions but by the job market. If I work for a union and am doing a poor job and some non union worker wants to take that job and work for less with better results then I dont see why that company should not be able to let me go and hire the new guy. Also things like mandated pay raises that are based on how many hours you have worked and not on effort or how well you do your job are total BS.
August 17, 2011 9:55:12 PM

Thanks for confirming our knowledge of how just another uninformed Lame Stream Media CNN viewer has evolved. There is a line on your 1040EZ available to donate as much as you want to the IRS for the income you earn while you are searchin' for your lost shaker of salt.



Edit for Obama comment to winnebago. See if He notices it. OBAMA SUCKS DONKEY D***!

August 17, 2011 10:53:11 PM

My problem with Fox News isn't that they selectively report stories that support their agenda--everyone does that, or that they provide a commentary on events. It's that they fail to distinguish when they switch between unsupported fabricated commentary (such as making up things like "Death Panels") and News. Most other news networks have commentary shows separate from News shows and don't put a commentator next to the anchor who adds their opinion as if it's fact in the middle of actual facts. That confuses a lot of people.

For example, most Americans thought invading Iraq was related to catching terrorists responsible for 9/11. That is a failure of major news agencies to provide clear information consistently.

The following is my opinion, not necessarily fact: For me the real kicker is, "Was it a failure? Or did Fox News want people to think Iraq had something to do with 9/11?" That's why I'm critical of Fox News--because they're VERY irresponsible in providing clear information to the public.


Anyways...taxes: I was saying the tax code needs to be reformed so that it's significantly easier to apply correctly. I'm not saying it will fix the budget. Taxes alone won't fix the budget. There need to be major budget cuts. But taxes need to be simplified so that the budget can be figured out. Also--ALL member of Congress and the Executive branch need to take a 20% pay cut (or larger) because they don't do their jobs anyways.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!