No clue. Do you?

 

No. Just wondering since they are referenced so much on here.

No. Just wondering since they are referenced so much on here.

 

They are referenced a lot. I don't know how many groups there are like this that do these types of forecasts but they seem to be one we hear about often.

My point is that they are wrong.

 

Why?

Why?

 

Because when tax breaks were given in the Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush (43) adminstrations the economy grew. Now I know that is not a guarentee that it will work again, but the track record is better than the government's efforts to spend money. Just to name a few programs that have gone overbudget, as originally proposed, even allowing for inflation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, various ag programs and Bush's drug aid to the elderly. They all may have benefitted someone, but at what cost to us all? Putting us on the verge of financial ruin similiar to what is happening in Europe at this time.

Bush's tax cuts did allow for an increase in the economy, but the housing bubble, with other factors, lead us down the path we are currently in. And B. Frank was the one to help lead us there when he refused to do anything about Fannie and Freddie. Which I believe he even alluded to the fact he was wrong in not doing something when it was first suggested.

Therefore I believe we need to starve government to reduce its bloated, wasteful ways.

Yeah, Warren Buffet's such a flaming liberal.

 

If Warren Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes is there any reason he couldn't just give the US government a billion dollars.

I hear some liberal left always saying they needed to pay more but none who voluntarily pay more than their tax bill.

I think, shockingly, that we've gotten off track. To me the issue to debate is the claim made by Warren Buffet that "rich folk" should be paying more taxes.

 

This coincides with the debate about extending the "Bush tax cuts" to all .

 

CBO says that extending to all would result in the economy only getting back between 10 cents and 40 cents for every dollar of lost tax revenue.

They go onto say that that most "cost effective" of the options is to let the cuts for the top earners expire but to extend the cuts to the others for one year.

 

The Tea Party and others like them say we should be able to pay for any cost or expense enacted. It doesn't seem like extending the tax cuts to all accomplishes that.

 

One common claim is that tax cuts to upper-income business owners would allow them to hire more. CBO says that's not true especially when those owners still have the challenge of actually SELLING THINGS in this economy. Seems to be logical.

 

So if we're interested in true debate and good discussion I vote we use these stated opinions and analysis generic theory.

 

First, in response to the bolded, where did the CBO say the rest of the money went? Under a mattress? Doubtful. People, including the CBO, seem to forget that money not collected by the govt in the form of taxes, goes somewhere. It doesn't disappear. Some gets spent on the wealthy expanding their businesses and creating job. Not all of it, granted. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets used to purchase cars, homes, go on vacations, etc., all of which supports and creates jobs in those industries. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets deposited in banks, which banks critically need to lend money to other businesses, yes small businesses, for those businesses to create job; to lend to individuals to purchase homes, cars and other needs. What doesn't get used by the bank in that manner gets paid out in dividends, dividends that are received by shareholders and spent by them or paid out as salaries and bonuses and spent by those folks, thus creating jobs in the industries producing the goods purchased. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets invested in stocks and bonds, which creates commission checks that the brokers spend to buy cars, homes, take vacations further supporting and creating jobs in those industries.

 

The point here is that money not collected in taxes goes somewhere, and it's not under the mattress. Every where it goes creates jobs in one manner or the other.

 

Second, not to your post but to the thread, I find Buffett to be one of the biggest hypocrits on the face of this earth. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping him, Gates or anyone else from donating a large part of his wealth to the govt if he genuinely believes he should be paying more.

 

Third, Buffett is not wealthy in my opinion. I consider myself wealthy. Buffett is mega, mega, mega wealthy. He could pay 75% of his income in taxes and still have enough left over to do absolutely everything he could possibly imagine. So it's quite easy for him to say he should pay more. I'm not in that position. I don't have any problem with him making so much money; heck that's what this country is all about. I do have a problem with him telling me that I should be forced to pay more taxes because he thinks he should be paying more. He said "I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." as he expressed his support for not extending the tax cuts to households making more than $250,000 a year. Well, I'm at the high end of the tax bracket like him, but I am no where close to being a person like him financially. His househould won't miss the higher taxes one bit; mine will.

 

Fourth, if I had all his wealth, I would not worry about the estate tax either. The beneficiaries of his estate would be absolutely fine if the estate tax took an amazingly large chunk of his net worth upon death. My beneficiaries won't be in quite the same position.

 

Fifth, it's easy for Buffett to say the govt should get more because he agrees with many of the ways that the govt spends taxes. I don't. Buffett to me is one of those folks that when he likes something he thinks everyone should be forced to do the same, as opposed to just doing it voluntarily himself.

 

I commend Buffett for his charitable givings and his work. Bully for him. But his constant "everyone should be forced to do what I think I should be doing or I am doing" crap really gets a tad bit old. There are very, very, very few Americans that are in his situation. When he has donated so much of his net worth and income to the federal govt and charities that he is on my level, has my responsibilities with two kids in colleges, lives in the same caliber of home that I do, and has the same amount in his retirement plan that I do, then and only then do I think his thoughts on taxes and charitable giving will be meaningful to me. Until then, those thoughts are utterly irrelevant.

 

I'm sorry but based on what I know of Buffett, he's just a rich, old blow hard. Some business person recently spent $2.6MM to have lunch with Buffett (which I assume Buffett donated to some great cause. One can wonder if the winning bidder would have paid so much if the winning bidder had been forced to pay much higher taxes to the govt, thus resulting in the charity receiving less). Frankly, I'd rather spend lunch with a good old Kentucky folk than dining with Buffett. I'd learn more and have a better time.

 

Oh, and to the original post in this thread. The great and wonderful Buffett's empire includes HH Brown. A shoe manufacturer, which based on what I found on the internet, has moved a lot of jobs overseas since Buffett acquired it. Sort of ironic isn't it?

Edited December 3, 201015 yr by leatherneck

Uh oh LN, don't pull the curtain back on the mighty OZ!

Was if Buffett who was going to invest in wind power? Even if it was not him, just think of all the energy and heat he can produce with all his hot air.

Well said LN.

First, in response to the bolded, where did the CBO say the rest of the money went? Under a mattress? Doubtful. People, including the CBO, seem to forget that money not collected by the govt in the form of taxes, goes somewhere. It doesn't disappear. Some gets spent on the wealthy expanding their businesses and creating job. Not all of it, granted. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets used to purchase cars, homes, go on vacations, etc., all of which supports and creates jobs in those industries. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets deposited in banks, which banks critically need to lend money to other businesses, yes small businesses, for those businesses to create job; to lend to individuals to purchase homes, cars and other needs. What doesn't get used by the bank in that manner gets paid out in dividends, dividends that are received by shareholders and spent by them or paid out as salaries and bonuses and spent by those folks, thus creating jobs in the industries producing the goods purchased. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets invested in stocks and bonds, which creates commission checks that the brokers spend to buy cars, homes, take vacations further supporting and creating jobs in those industries.

 

The point here is that money not collected in taxes goes somewhere, and it's not under the mattress. Every where it goes creates jobs in one manner or the other.

 

?

 

I think you've misinterpreted my post. The CBO says that if all of the tax cuts are extended for every tax dollar not collected the GDP would expand by 10 to 40 cents for every dollar spent ie a bad ROI. The way I read it the impact on the economy of the extra dollars in the paycheck is already taken into account.

LN - my guess is your house is as nice if not nicer than Warren's. That's one area he hasn't splurged.

Doubtful. People, including the CBO, seem to forget that money not collected by the govt in the form of taxes, goes somewhere. It doesn't disappear. Some gets spent on the wealthy expanding their businesses and creating job. Not all of it, granted. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets used to purchase cars, homes, go on vacations, etc., all of which supports and creates jobs in those industries. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets deposited in banks, which banks critically need to lend money to other businesses, yes small businesses, for those businesses to create job; to lend to individuals to purchase homes, cars and other needs. What doesn't get used by the bank in that manner gets paid out in dividends, dividends that are received by shareholders and spent by them or paid out as salaries and bonuses and spent by those folks, thus creating jobs in the industries producing the goods purchased. What doesn't get spent in that manner gets invested in stocks and bonds, which creates commission checks that the brokers spend to buy cars, homes, take vacations further supporting and creating jobs in those industries.

 

Second, not to your post but to the thread, I find Buffett to be one of the biggest hypocrits on the face of this earth. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping him, Gates or anyone else from donating a large part of his wealth to the govt if he genuinely believes he should be paying more.

 

Third, Buffett is not wealthy in my opinion. I consider myself wealthy. Buffett is mega, mega, mega wealthy. He could pay 75% of his income in taxes and still have enough left over to do absolutely everything he could possibly imagine. So it's quite easy for him to say he should pay more. I'm not in that position. I don't have any problem with him making so much money; heck that's what this country is all about. I do have a problem with him telling me that I should be forced to pay more taxes because he thinks he should be paying more. He said "I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it." as he expressed his support for not extending the tax cuts to households making more than $250,000 a year. Well, I'm at the high end of the tax bracket like him, but I am no where close to being a person like him financially. His househould won't miss the higher taxes one bit; mine will.

 

Fourth, if I had all his wealth, I would not worry about the estate tax either. The beneficiaries of his estate would be absolutely fine if the estate tax took an amazingly large chunk of his net worth upon death. My beneficiaries won't be in quite the same position.

 

I'm sorry but based on what I know of Buffett, he's just a rich, old blow hard. Some business person recently spent $2.6MM to have lunch with Buffett (which I assume Buffett donated to some great cause. One can wonder if the winning bidder would have paid so much if the winning bidder had been forced to pay much higher taxes to the govt, thus resulting in the charity receiving less). Frankly, I'd rather spend lunch with a good old Kentucky folk than dining with Buffett. I'd learn more and have a better time.

 

Oh, and to the original post in this thread. The great and wonderful Buffett's empire includes HH Brown. A shoe manufacturer, which based on what I found on the internet, has moved a lot of jobs overseas since Buffett acquired it. Sort of ironic isn't it?

 

Well said LN :thumb:

LN - my guess is your house is as nice if not nicer than Warren's. That's one area he hasn't splurged.

 

I doubt it. Based on this link:http://myfinancialobjectives.com/2010/03/warrant-buffetts-humble-abode/, his current 5 bedroom home is worth $700,000 and his second home in CA is worth $4MM. My less than 1,500 SF, 3 bdroom home in Ft. Thomas is not worth any thing close to $700,000 and my second home in Bracken County is even farther away (much, much farther away) from being worth $4MM. I'll agree that he hasn't splurged on his main home though.

I don't have an issue with the "Rich" paying the same percentage as me. They still are paying more money wise because of the percentage.

 

I understand why a company wants to go and have cheap labor over seas.

 

What I don't understand is why the United States don't increase Taxes on companies from over seas? Give companies an incentive to stay in the US. If a Company can't sale to the United States they will struggle. So, tax them to death until they move it to the US.

Isn't Buffet the guy who bought up so much of the US textiles industries and shipped all of those jobs to China, Mexico, and Honduras? Fruit of the Loom, Jockey, Hanes, Russell, etc.

Can you be for extending the tax cuts AND for decreasing debt which leads to us borrowing more money from China/Russia/oil producing countries/Iran?