Warren Buffet-Great American

[OCA]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44143776/?GT1=43001

[Kathianne]

Send Buffet this link, he can forward it to his friends:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?nc=1271991815942&agencyFormId=23779454

No coddling, no lobbying. Don't even get a tax write off:


Thank you for your contribution which will be deposited to the account "Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt." Your contribution is accepted under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3113 which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to accept conditional gifts to the United States for the purpose of reducing the public debt. These donations are voluntary, and no goods, services, or other considerations are provided to the donors.

[fj1200]

A great American thinks a wasteful inefficient government can do better than its citizens acting privately? I don't think so. Either ignorant to the effect of taxes or a PR move.

[OCA]

A great American thinks a wasteful inefficient government can do better than its citizens acting privately? I don't think so. Either ignorant to the effect of taxes or a PR move.

Wow! A patriot offers to help reduce the deficit personally by owning up and admitting the rich don't pay their fair share and he gets lectured and accused of making a pr move..........cynics.

Since he is one of the world's richest men and a business genius you'll forgive me if I put more stock in his asessment than yours.

[fj1200]

Wow! A patriot offers to help reduce the deficit personally by owning up and admitting the rich don't pay their fair share and he gets lectured and accused of making a pr move..........cynics.

Since he is one of the world's richest men and a business genius you'll forgive me if I put more stock in his asessment than yours.

Income tax rates have little bearing on income tax revenues. His patriotism may be genuine but our government doesn't deserve any higher rates of anyone's income; it would be a waste and counterproductive not to mention sending the bad signal that Congress can be absolved of it's abysmal failure by just upping the tax rates on the rich.

And as Kathianne pointed out, he's free to send in a check.

[OCA]

Income tax rates have little bearing on income tax revenues. His patriotism may be genuine but our government doesn't deserve any higher rates of anyone's income; it would be a waste and counterproductive not to mention sending the bad signal that Congress can be absolved of it's abysmal failure by just upping the tax rates on the rich.

And as Kathianne pointed out, he's free to send in a check.

How about you send a check too FJ, i'm guessing you are part of the 47%.

Warren is right, raise the tax on the rich, he's one of them, his opinion counts more than yours.

[fj1200]

How about you send a check too FJ, i'm guessing you are part of the 47%.

You clearly didn't read my post.


Warren is right, raise the tax on the rich, he's one of them, his opinion counts more than yours.

He's wrong for reasons I pointed out. His opinion matters just as much as mine, one man, one vote and all that. Besides, his opinion is wrong and based on misguided populism while mine is based on facts.

[OCA]

You clearly didn't read my post.



He's wrong for reasons I pointed out. His opinion matters just as much as mine, one man, one vote and all that. Besides, his opinion is wrong and based on misguided populism while mine is based on facts.

I read it, i'm spot on.

He is more successful than you, his opinion carries more weight, end of story.

[OCA]

Hey Evil..............how am I doing? Its happening in this thread too!:laugh2::laugh2:

[fj1200]

I read it, i'm spot on.

Clearly not but whatever, you're reputation is pretty well set.


He is more successful than you, his opinion carries more weight, end of story.

He gets two votes?!? The F' you say!

[OCA]

Clearly not but whatever, you're reputation is pretty well set.



He gets two votes?!? The F' you say!

Rep is spotless, Rino opinions carry no weight concerning rep.

Put in a few more years then maybe you will have importance.

[Abbey Marie]

Mr. Buffet, and his ilk:
1. Are so rich they won't even feel a tax hike.
2. Feel subconsciously guilty for having so much and want to alleviate that guilt.
3. Are erroneously trying to hedge their bets if there is a heaven/hell by "doing good works".

Ergo, their opinions on tax hikes for the wealthy are rather irrelevant.

[OCA]

Mr. Buffet, and his ilk:
1. Are so rich they won't even feel a tax hike.
2. Feel subconsciously guilty for having so much and want to alleviate that guilt.
3. Are erroneously trying to hedge their bets if there is a heaven/hell by "doing good works".

Ergo, their opinions on tax hikes for the wealthy are rather irrelevant.

Abbey I would never have taken you for a cynic!

[logroller]

Wow! A patriot offers to help reduce the deficit personally by owning up and admitting the rich don't pay their fair share and he gets lectured and accused of making a pr move..........cynics.

Since he is one of the world's richest men and a business genius you'll forgive me if I put more stock in his asessment than yours.

Rich but he's put most of his money into a tax sheltered foundation, so now he doesn't pay that much tax on his wealth, so sure, now he's all about raising taxes. I'm sure when he was raking in money during the eighties he had a far different opinion. If you came to me with business advice and said "pay more taxes and give more to charity" I'd show the door. Even with his deep pockets he doesn't hold a candle to the spending power of the US govt. Hell, NYC alone has an annual budget of $66billion, so these big business rich guys are really small fry compared to the political business of other people's money. You wanna see the rich pay, install a VAT, nobody mentions it because it'll work all too well. The problem is it hits everybody, so you cant just say, oh its the rich who aren't paying their fair share. Those people who have worked hard to make 200k a yr are the one getting fucked by these tax increases, it has the effect of keeping themiddle class in the rightful place, ie not rich, that these "rich guy" taxes hit, not the Warren Buffets, theyd have a hard time spending their money away Brewster's million style!

[KartRacerBoy]

Income tax rates have little bearing on income tax revenues. His patriotism may be genuine but our government doesn't deserve any higher rates of anyone's income; it would be a waste and counterproductive not to mention sending the bad signal that Congress can be absolved of it's abysmal failure by just upping the tax rates on the rich.

And as Kathianne pointed out, he's free to send in a check.
. .
Come on fj, you're too smart to believe in the unlimited laughter curve. You can't constantly decrease tax rates and expect higher revenues. You do remember the shape of the curve? The Laffer curve was right in the 80s becz marginal tax rates were far above 50%. That's not true anymore.

Remember the 90s? Tax rates increased at one point and revenues still went up. Now at some point tax rates WILL slow growth and therefore revenue will go down. We ain't at that point.

[red states rule]

Is there some reason Warren can't send a check into the government now? In fact anyone who demands we pay higher taxes, did you keep your Bush tax cut and have you sent your check in yet?

The answer to both questions is probably "no"

Most Obama lapdogs want OTHER PEOPLE to pay higher taxes - not them


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/104609" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

A great American thinks a wasteful inefficient government can do better than its citizens acting privately? I don't think so. Either ignorant to the effect of taxes or a PR move.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk081411dAPR20110816124519.jpg

[fj1200]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk081411dAPR20110816124519.jpg

:laugh:

[red states rule]

Of course the Buffets and the Obama lap dogs ignore the amount of taxes currently being paid by the producers


http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

[fj1200]

. .
Come on fj, you're too smart to believe in the unlimited laughter curve. You can't constantly decrease tax rates and expect higher revenues. You do remember the shape of the curve? The Laffer curve was right in the 80s becz marginal tax rates were far above 50%. That's not true anymore.

Remember the 90s? Tax rates increased at one point and revenues still went up. Now at some point tax rates WILL slow growth and therefore revenue will go down. We ain't at that point.

You know, and I never stated otherwise, there is no unlimited Laffer Curve if rates fall to zero then revenues fall to zero and I did NOT make the case for tax cuts here did I? Has anyone proven that income tax rates DO correlate to tax revenues? Based on your 90's example I would say that revenues have more to do with the unemployment rate than tax rates as it fell to (some thought) unsustainable Phillips Curve levels. You also forgot to mention that CG rates fell and CG revenues climbed. BTW, if the Clinton rates were so good for the economy then the Bush 41 rates should have been just as good as both debt deals were of similar size.

If you would like to have ANOTHER Laffer Curve discussion then I'm all for it but don't state my position for me. ;)

I'd be OK with just extending the Bush cuts, or possibly going back to the Clinton rates, with MASSIVE changes in the corporate tax code such as ELIMINATING it. Oh yeah, and rolling back counterproductive regulations.

[soupnazi630]

Wow! A patriot offers to help reduce the deficit personally by owning up and admitting the rich don't pay their fair share and he gets lectured and accused of making a pr move..........cynics.

Since he is one of the world's richest men and a business genius you'll forgive me if I put more stock in his asessment than yours.

Never mind his assessment use your own but before doing so ask yourself a few questions and answer them here.

What constitutes a " fair share " and what makes it fair. Not just in regards to tax contributions but in general?

Why is it fair for one person to pay more simply because he or she HAS more? Why should success be punished?

[KarlMarx]

Is this his scheme to increase taxes on all income over $ 1 million? Here's why it's such a poor idea....

let say you have an Uncle Sam who is a shop a holic and maxes out his charge cards every month... it has become so bad that you can't afford to send your kids to school, buy groceries, and pay the mortgage...

so, your solution to the problem is to give him more money to spend?

[ConHog]

Is this his scheme to increase taxes on all income over $ 1 million? Here's why it's such a poor idea....

let say you have an Uncle Sam who is a shop a holic and maxes out his charge cards every month... it has become so bad that you can't afford to send your kids to school, buy groceries, and pay the mortgage...

so, your solution to the problem is to give him more money to spend?


I know right. My kids have an allowance. If they overspend, I don't reward them by upping their allowance. DUH!!

[red states rule]

Never mind his assessment use your own but before doing so ask yourself a few questions and answer them here.

What constitutes a " fair share " and what makes it fair. Not just in regards to tax contributions but in general?

Why is it fair for one person to pay more simply because he or she HAS more? Why should success be punished?

Your "fair share" would be any amonut they can get from you so they can contniue their spending spree

Like a drug addict, any fix is welcome - no matter how small and regardless how long it will last