Warren Buffet is Right!! Raise Taxes on the Super Rich
In this video it makes complete sense Tax the Super Rich because the money has to come from somewhere to pay off this debt dumb azz tea baggers
-
-
Warren Buffet doesn't understand that billionaires like Warren Buffet allocate capital more efficiently than the government.
...And how generous of Warren Buffet to advocate stealing other people's money. What a hero.
Comment -
all these rich people want to complain about raising taxes yet they suppovely donate money to charity each year that is 100 times more than the taxes. If they can afford to buy a yacht or house, they have the money to pay the taxes on it
They want to take , not give, most donate so they can get tax deductions and some pay themselves a nickle a year as salaryComment -
YEAHHH!!!!!
cause me and my family tree is nothing but a bunch of fukkin losers that have never done anything with ourselves!!!
and if I can't have everything for nothing... than they shouldn't be able to have anything even though they were smarter and worked harder than me!!!!
They'll just take their business elsewhere, (OTHER COUNTRIES) and WE WILL ALL SUFFER... But who fukkin cares.... IM A LOSER THAT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT NOTHING!!!!!!Comment -
So i guess you only want 10% of your check every pay periodComment -
why do rich people think they work harder then others???? Even if they did , its not the issue.Comment -
He does know there is a line in the tax form to donate extra money, right? I wonder why he doesn't do that...Comment -
None of you are "mega-rich". Read his fukking statement for Christ's sake. If you are making less than $1,000,000 a year and you are betting 6 team parlays for 10 pts at SBR he is not going to "steal" your money.Comment -
He gave away $1.93 billion for charity. Did you even give away $1.93?Billionaire Warren Buffett has given away $1.93 billion in company shares to charity this year, after pledging to give away 99% of his wealth to good causes in 2006.
The money is split between five charities – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Sherwood Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, the NoVo Foundation, and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
The donation follows last month’s online auction to have lunch with the business legend, which raised $2.63 million for the Glide Foundation, a diverse, cutting-edge church and nonprofit offering innovative programs to poor and marginalized people. The foundation serves 700,000 free meals a year and provides dozens of other social services on a $12 million budget, according to Cecil Williams, the foundation’s chief executive officer and minister of the associated church.
Read more: http://www.looktothestars.org/news/4...#ixzz1V9E3jZDnComment -
-
thats because they will only contribute what they want. not what the country needsComment -
-
What the country needs is to stop spending all this money we don't have. Just jacking up the taxes on the super rich, without changing our attitude towards spending, will only make the problem worse. I would support a temporary tax hike on the super rich, as long as it is accompanied by massive spending and tax reform. Its time to start living within our means.Comment -
Why should the super rich be punished for a government ran by mornons?Comment -
The super rich do pay a lot of our taxes already i believe the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of the income tax, however taxes now are at historical lows, which I find it hilarious that this TEA party thing was invented, the 'taxed enough already'. Is ******* hilarious considering it is a bunch of poor white folks who pay almost no taxes.
My point you can raise taxes on corporations and the super rich, but I would put some clauses in there for small buisness owners who may have '250,000' but really its not 250k.
I would make sure if anything we protect small business owners because they margins are sooooooo small.Comment -
They're basically the highest in the world. There is no reason to tax businesses that much.
Our problem isn't revenue, its spending. Just raising taxes on the rich wont fix everything, and until we address the REAL problem, there is no reason to talk about tax hikes. Fix the spending issue, then worry about temporarily raising taxes on the super rich to cut down our debt a bitComment -
clinton raised taxes on the rich in 1993 and it had an immediate effect.Comment -
I've never seen someone so easily swayed by the same silly argument. The fallacy you cling to so dearly is a sad one. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Your logic is:
- A occurred, then B occurred.
- Therefore, A caused B.
Do you not see the problems with this form of logic and argumentation?Comment -
I agree about tax cuts not being the problem but raising them for those that can afford it the most cant hurt towards contributing to the end goal of cutting the deficit...Combined of course with somehow reducing spending (good luck trying to find a politician that will willingly go against the masses...Real vote winner there)Comment -
2points here if Warren wants to pay more he can send a 2 billion dollar check any day he wants, but alas its not that he wants to pay more he wants others to, the second which was said earlier, there is no business in this country that does not pass along a tax increase on their business to the customer. there are idiots out there that still think that a business pays their social security tax portion on their checks. HEY IDIOT that is money they could have payed you instead it goes to a government ponzi scheme! A business owner is the same as us he goes to work to make money. Class envy has destroyed this country. If 50% of the people are not paying taxes i think they must be doing ok then.Comment -
I agree. The problem is that raising the taxes on the super rich is like slapping a band aid on a gunshot wound to the chest. It might make it look a little better, but doesn't address the real problem.
I just want to see spending dealt with first, then revenue if neededLast edited by rsnnh12; 08-15-11, 09:00 PM.Comment -
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Comment
