Stop Coddling the Super Rich - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-16-2011, 02:55 PM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,718
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Semi-related, from a not-quite-as-rich-but-still-pretty-darned-rich CEO:

Business & Technology | Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Don't contribute to politicians | Seattle Times Newspaper

(Ignore comment section, which is full of people still butthurt over Schultz selling the Sonics.)
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 12:09 AM   #17
Cin
Blue Crack Addict
 
Cin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: in the gutter, looking at the stars. . .and smiling
Posts: 21,900
Local Time: 01:22 AM
I admit I don't know a huge amount about Warren Buffett but after reading his editorial I'll find out. He seems to really have his head on straight despite the mega bucks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
The counter argument I hear all the time when someone like Buffet comes out and speaks like this is that he can "cut a check to the gov anytime if he wants to pay more"
again, excuse my ignorance but isn't Mr Buffett one of the big philanthopists?
__________________

__________________
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 09:15 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,983
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cin View Post
again, excuse my ignorance but isn't Mr Buffett one of the big philanthopists?
Yes he is, he gives most of his money away and his heirs won't get anything..or very little. He started The Giving Pledge with Bill Gates-if you sign it you promise to give at least half your wealth to charity. Mark Zuckerberg was the last well known person to sign it. None of that goes to the govt, but of course you could argue that they're saving the govt money by doing things with that money that the govt doesn't have to do.

Maybe one day they can start something like that to give to the govt.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 10:31 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,983
Local Time: 10:22 AM
I can only hope and pray that the mass exodus would include him. Please, please, please.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about taxes. Warren Buffett made another splash with his op-ed in the New York Times saying it’s just not right that he, a billionaire, pays 17 percent in taxes when his secretary and receptionist pay more. Isn’t he right about that?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you something. I view it — there’s many different views on that. And I can also tell you that a lot of people will go elsewhere to do business if you start taxing them. Many, many people, and I know people and I deal with —

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But 17 percent isn’t much for a billionaire.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I deal with Wall Street all the time. I know all of them. And you’re going to have people– you’re going to have a mass exodus. You already have an exodus out of this country. But you’re going to have a mass exodus of business out of this country when you start taxing too high. Now, I will tell you —

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That didn’t happen during the Clinton years. And the– if we just go back to that, those rates.

DONALD TRUMP: And times have also changed. But if you go back to certain companies, Exxon Mobil, the oil companies, for us to be subsidizing oil companies is absolutely insane. And frankly, the oil companies really facilitate OPEC. The worst abuser we have is OPEC. And the biggest problem this country has, China’s a big problem, but OPEC’s even worse.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 01:36 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 09:22 AM
The man is so detached...

He completely avoids the question.

Why aren't the receptionists who are getting taxed at a higher % not leaving in a mass exodus?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 11:47 PM   #21
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,607
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
DONALD TRUMP: Well, I deal with Wall Street all the time. I know all of them.
you hear that? donald trump knows EVERYONE on wall street. all of them.
 
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2011, 01:21 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,692
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
Matt Damon is a job creator!
What kind of jobs are we talking about here?
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2011, 02:30 PM   #23
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Fiscal Times, Aug. 21
Quote:
On Monday, financier Warren Buffett ignited a tax debate by recommending a tax increase on the super-rich.

...It's axiomatic among Republicans that taxes on the rich are the single most important factor determining economic growth. If that were true, then the period from 1988 to 1990, when the top rate was just 28%, should have been the most prosperous in recent American history. During that time we had the lowest top rate since 1931. But although 1988 started out okay with a real GDP growth rate of 4.1%, it fell to 3.6% in 1989 and just 1.9% in 1990. Conversely, the period from 1993 to 2000, when the top rate rose from 31% to 39.6%, should have been a period of dismal growth. But in fact, that period was the most prosperous in recent American history. Real GDP growth averaged 3.9% per year--more than 50% above the average postwar growth rate. Then there should have been a burst of even faster growth when the top rate was reduced in the 2000s to 35%--a rate that is still in effect. But during that period, real GDP growth has averaged just 1.8%--30% below the average postwar rate.

So where is the data supporting the argument that taxes on the rich are the sine qua non of growth? I don’t see it. On the contrary, the data from the last several decades would in fact support the opposite conclusion--that higher tax rates on the wealthy stimulate growth. It is worth remembering that throughout most of Ronald Reagan’s presidency the top rate was 50%, and Republicans believe his economic policies are the gold standard that we should try to emulate in every way possible.
Quote:
One reason why Republicans may grossly overestimate the economic significance of the top income tax rate is because over time the income level at which the top rate takes effect has fallen sharply. It now applies to a relatively modest amount of income. In the past, one needed to be very wealthy indeed before paying $1 of income taxes at the top statutory rate. When the income tax was established in 1913, the top rate didn’t begin until someone made at least $500,000--that’s more than the threshold for the top rate today, which is $374,000. But of course there has been a vast amount of inflation since 1913. In 2010 dollars, the threshold in 1913 was actually $11 million per year. Obviously, very, very few people were affected by the top rate at that time.

...During the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt raised the top rate to 79%--a policy universally condemned by right wingers ever since. What they never mention is that he also sharply raised the income threshold at which the top rate applied. Under Herbert Hoover, the top rate began at an income of just $100,000, but under Roosevelt the threshold increased to $5 million per year--almost $80 million in today’s dollars. It is said that when the top rate was increased in 1936, only one person in the United States--John D. Rockefeller--was affected. During World War II, the threshold for the top rate fell to just $200,000 and has never gotten much above it since. When Reagan took office, the top rate began at an income of $215,000. And although he reduced the top rate, few people realize that he also lowered the income threshold for it to just $85,600, which wasn’t very much income to be considered rich even in 1992. In 2010 dollars, that was less than $200,000 per year. Furthermore, when Reagan reduced the top rate to 28% in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the income threshold was further reduced to just $30,000--a little over $50,000 in today’s dollars. However, when Bill Clinton raised the top rate in 1993, he also dramatically raised the income threshold from $86,000 to $250,000--$377,000 today. While George W. Bush lowered the top rate, he did nothing to change the threshold income level at which it became effective. Since Clinton’s time, the only change in the top rate’s income threshold has been indexation for inflation, which has kept it around $370,000 in 2010 dollars.
Quote:
It may be true, as those on the left like to point out, that any household with an income of $370,000 is very well to do. But it’s not rich by any reasonable definition of the term. Therefore, average people who may aspire to make that much some day are reasonably concerned when there is talk of raising the top rate. The obvious compromise is for those like Mr. Buffett who believe that the top rate should be increased, for both financial and distributional reasons, to make clear that they are talking only about people who really are rich. The top rate ought to stay at 35% for those in the $370,000 to $1 million income range. But those making $1 million can easily afford to pay 40%, which was the top rate in the 1990s, and those making $10 million annually could pay 50%, the top rate under the Reagan administration.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com