Politics – Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies
If Warren Buffet feels like paying more taxes he should make out a check to the U S Treasury. His friend Obama is talking about raising taxes, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and doubling Capital gains tax. He does realize 100 million or so Americans hold capital investments, right? That is a lot of voters to p*ss off.
ani, you do realize that under Bush, taxes have gone up for about 270,000,000 Americans. Only the top richest Americans have seen their taxes go down, and that is because under Bush, there has been a concerted effort to transfer wealth from current and future generations of middle class workers to today`s idle rich and crony corrupted crooks.
Unless you are among the top 1% richest Americans or are a war profiteer, you should be ******ed off already, and McCain promises to continue the transfer of wealth away from the middle class.
270,000,000? That means that there is .001 percent unemployment rate. That is awesome!
With your grasp of math, it is small wonder even George W. Bush can pull the wool over your eyes while he fleeces you.
First, the 270,000,000 number has NOTHING to do with employment or unemployment. Second, 30,000,000 is 10% of 300,000,000; not .001%.
So I made a math error? Big deal.
How is George Bush fleecing me when he is lowering my taxes?
he's only putting it off .. soon the checks his administration wrote.. will begin to bounce...
like the old Fram commercials...
"you can pay me NOW or you can pay me LATER"
well it's later than most people think....
It doesn't matter WHO gets elected.. taxes are going to go up... even mr. read my lips... had to do that... it is inevitable..
If you are in the top tax bracket, then you did get a tax break from Bush. Those in the middle class got a shell game instead. A very modest decrease that was immediately offset by spending changes by the Federal Government. Because of that shell game, nationwide property taxes have skyrocketed. States are under stress to raise revenues.
For the first time in modern history, we have gone through a period of economic growth but seen real income for the middle class and poor shrink. Only the wealthy have benefited.
Now all this is before we even start thinking about paying off the $10 trillion debt that the Republicans have run up. With 100,000,000 taxpayers in America, that amounts to $1,000,000 per household. Hope you got a REALLY big tax cut from Bush so you can write that check.
The RepugniCons have been borrowing all this money to transfer it to the uber rich and to their defense contractor cronies. These people are multinationals. When the bill comes due, do you seriously think they will stick around and pay it.
No! They will just move on and leave it to the struggling middle class and poor to pay for their party.
We are not rich. We are retired, make very small amount from other incomes, so no. I don't believe the taxes went up on just the poor. The middle and upper income tax people pay more then their share, so the very poor pay nothing. Thats fine, but don't pretend it was tax cuts for the rich. I pay as much as I consider fair, and I will not vote for a tax increaser in any party.
In real terms, as I just explained above, taxes went up on the poor and middle class because they will be left to pay off the massive debt that tax cuts for the rich have created.
If you make a small amount, you might end up with taxable income of $7,000. If so, you got a tax cut of 5%, or $350. Unfortunately, minor changes in cost of living, property taxes, etc will erase that cut in a heartbeat. Cost of living, food, gasoline, home heating is a huge slice of your total income.
The top bracket fell from 39.6% to 35%, or just 4.6%. But that applies to people earning taxable income (after all deductions) of $357,700 per year. Let's take an example of a CEO of a major corporation who earns salary and bonuses of $100,000,000. His taxes dropped by $460,000. Increases in cost of living have virtually no impact on such a person. Cost of food, gasoline, etc. is just a very tiny fraction of their income.
The top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes.
Will you only be satisfied when they pay 100%?
JUMP:
"The top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes."
I'd like to see your documentation. The documentation shows that the top 1% of income owners earn 57% of the national income yet only pay 20% of the national taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/national/29ri...
"The top 1% owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before, according to a CBO analysis. For every group below the top 1%, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7% for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57% for the poorest fifth of Americans."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/
"The CBO study found that the wealthiest 20% saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4% of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5%. The top 1% saw their share fall to 20.1% of the total, from 22.2%. Taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase."
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib239
"Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed a sharp increase in income inequality over the past few years. The increase in income inequality was greater from 2003 to 2005 than over any other two-year period covered by the CBO data. Over these years, an amazing $400 billion in pre-tax dollars was shifted from the bottom 95% of households to those in the top 5%."
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
"By 2010, an astonishing 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1%. Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts, 80% of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won't take effect until after 2005. Tax cuts for the 19% of taxpayers making between $73,000 & $356,000 this year will grow little over the next 4 years, but then will dwindle thereafter."
Will blanket tax cuts stimulate the economy? Perhaps, but at great cost to government income that is needed for national defense, infrastructure (roads/bridges), budget deficits, etc. What is needed is a SMART, responsible tax code. One that stimulates the economy with the minimum budgetary costs. Greenspan and others have praised Clinton for his smart tax policy and rebuked Bush for his irresponsible one.
http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm
"The Clinton plan would provide the child tax credit to four million children in near-poor and lower-middle-income working families who wouldn't qualify under the Senate bill. It would provide the credit to six million such children who would not qualify for the credit under the House bill.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm
"President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest taxpayers."
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
"The design of Bush's tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary costs."
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
"The early returns on the effects of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and shifted projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. Because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation has been notably worse since the end of World War II."
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...
"The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"Note that the DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Bill Clinton left office--a 221% increase."
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
"Now, here are the monthly Dow Jones closing averages since George W. Bush has been President. Relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 12800--a meager 20% increase."
Actually, it's the top 10% of wage earners that pay 90% of the Fedral income tax.
Prove it. Post your documentation.
U.S. Income Tax BurdenThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) further breaks down the income brackets by the Top 1%, the Top 5%, and the Top 10% of wage earners. ...
www.allegr...
GLOBALWARMER:
"Actually, it's the top 10% of wage earners that pay 90% of the Fedral income tax."
I do not see your statistic anywhere. The statistic I DO see is that the top 1% pay 29% of the taxes.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
"The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes."
However, your data dated 1999 is almost a DECADE old. Newer data from the CBO DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your claim that the top 10% pay 90% of all taxes. In fact, the 2004 CBO report says that the top 1% pay only 20.1% of all taxes and that the top 20% pay 63.5%, NOT 90%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/
"The CBO study found that the wealthiest 20% saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4% of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5%. The top 1% saw their share fall to 20.1% of the total, from 22.2%. Taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase."
While the top 1% pay 29% of all taxes, they also earn 57% of the nation's corporate wealth. Perhaps a fairer tax code would have the top 1% pay 57% of the taxes since they own 57% of the nation's wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/national/29ri...
"The top 1% owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before, according to a CBO analysis. For every group below the top 1%, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7% for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57% for the poorest fifth of Americans."
By the way, these are the SAME people who opposed an Iraq War funding bill because they didn't want to pay a measly 0.5% tax increase applicable only to those making over $500k annually.
Despicable.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...
"The war spending would provide $163 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year. But Democrats are focusing more on their add-ons, especially the big increase in the GI Bill and an extension of unemployment insurance for people whose benefits have run out. The two items have led the White House to promise to veto the measure.
The House also was poised to approve an extra tax on the wealthy. The new revenue would help cover the 10-year, $52 billion cost of bolstering the GI Bill and providing those veterans with a college education. Republicans and business groups are balking at the 0.5% increase in tax rates on income topping $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples."
I find it interesting that you use the "earned" when referring to how these people made their money. Because that's exactly how they obtained their wealth: they earned it. Unless, of course, their last name is Kennedy.
I find it interesting that you:
1) Can't locate the statistic you quoted (top 10% pay 90% of the taxes) from YOUR OWN article.
2) Have apparently run out of arguments to make and have instead resorted to directing impertinent, gratuitous ad hominems at the Kennedies.
3) Hold the hypocritical notion that the Kennedy family didn't earn their money. Well, this wealth had to come from somewhere. It didn't magically appear in their bank accounts. Patriarch Joe Kennedy EARNED his fortune through real estate.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/peopleeve...
"Joseph Kennedy Sr., started from a SOLIDLY MIDDLE CLASS family in Boston.
The Kennedy real estate holdings became legendary: family compounds at Hyannis Port on Cape Cod, in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York City. Joe Kennedy owned Hialeah Race Track in Miami. In 1945 Kennedy formed a trust to buy the Merchandise Mart, which sold in 1998 for $625 million."
"Patriarch Joe Kennedy EARNED his fortune through real estate."
He was a bootlegger, John.
He was a SUSPECTED bootlegger, never convicted. He was a VERIFIABLE real estate magnate.
I see you STILL can't find your misquoted, or should I say fabricated, statistic in your own source.
LOL.
In the 1920s, Joseph Kennedy, the patriarch of the political clan, made his fortune during Prohibition as a bootlegger partnering with the likes of Frank Costello and Diamond Joe Esposito. Kennedy kept these alliances secret from his sons, who were being groomed for political leadership. Some believe this cost him big-time. Political pundits, such as Burton Hersh and Seymour Hersh (no relation?), have blamed the origin of "The Kennedy Curse" on Joseph P. Kennedy's shady dealings.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
rhettdejesus1975
Helixbuilder
layhandy
darwinm701977
cocacolerrr
domfosnz
mannatech
getbackerzoo
RiversYoselin
SusanTucker
ColinStewart
leeharris1969
434Fletcher
TaylorPo
HalleH
msaleem
halenurevirgen
at01102002
bibicusiusisius
alamala
MidnightPrism
newsarefree
EngineerTiat
TemplarScribe
deadlyhaiku
dissent
loverman
Alexia
rbtburgess
spectra
chiefee351
_kam0_
dirtyfratboy
idyll
Ciera Marie
expursuit
158)
This is the same guy that told Tom Brokaw that the Federal Income Tax system is completely screwed up because he pays a lower rate of taxes then the Receptionist who works for him.
It's no secret that the only way we are going to get out of the financial hole that the Bush Administration has dug us is to reverse the tax cuts on the Warren Buffet's. He seems to be OK with that.
And it looks like he thinks that Senator Obama is the best person to get us out of the REST of the holes GWB has gotten us into.
If Buffett wants to pay higher taxes why not just donate to lower our debt? That will help the debt and keep the average joe from having to cough up a huge tax increase that some of the politicians in this election will require if elected.
He will lbe helping the debt by paying higher taxes, which he knows he can afford and is willing to do! The tax increases Obama recommends will only be on the highest income brackets, people like himself, Hillary, McSame, and the Warren Buffets (most of whom, unfortunately, do not share his same spirit of generosity and fair play.)
HOUSEMD:
"If Buffett wants to pay higher taxes why not just donate"
You mean like this?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortu...
"Within months, Warren Buffet would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion. Buffett has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable. Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations.
The number of shares earmarked to be given have a huge value today: $37 billion. That alone would be the largest philanthropic gift in history. And if Buffett is right in thinking that Berkshire's price will trend upward, the eventual amount given could far exceed that figure."
Some people have a social conscious. How much have you given HOUSEMD, ANIOKLY, etc.?
For a minute there I was afraid that Jimmy Buffet had endorsed Obama...whew! What a relief!
You mean Warren Buffet's portrait accompanying the article wasn't a big enough give away?
Humor passed over a Lib's head again...what a shocker.
Don't worry. We're definitely laughing at you.
That's some hilarious stuff. What a sense of humor!
Admittedly, it's not as clever as your feigned mix up between a Parrothead's idol and a foremost expert of the modern American economy. I guess you think nothing elicits a chuckle like a pun on someone else's last name--indeed I'm sure Jerry Seinfeld himself would agree with you that puns represent the pinnacle of comedy and that this specific pun would be the best he's ever heard.
But like I said, we're definitely laughing...at you.
Spoken like a sneering, self-important, elitist Lib. Don't you have some Plebians to ridicule somewhere?
Indeed. In fact, one of those Plebians is being ridiculed right now, although more through his own doing than mine.
LOL.
Right. Those who can't do, vote for Democrats.
I think you're living proof against the validity of your own statement.
LOL.
Pathetic.
so the $37 BILLION buffet donated to charity in 2006 isn't enough?
homey,
What average Joe are you talking about?
If the tax cuts of 01 are reversed, how much are you going to be hit for? Unless you're making $200K plus (the average Joe makes $30K) a tax hit of 10% means $2K, most of which will be offset in another deduction. The average Joe won't get hit and they won't have to depend on getting a $600 check in order to buy groceries for the month.
Besides, the real winners of the 01 tax cuts and government largess are the same corporations whose CEOs, on average, are raking in $900 for every $1 Mr. Average Joe makes.
Trickle-down economics was a failure in 84 and it's a failure today. The only trickle-down Mr. Average Joe gets is the virtual urine in the face.