Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billionai

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by AbyssalMage » Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:25 pm

Gunny Burlfoot wrote:It's you're, not your.
And people who attack other peoples grammar tend to be (A) an English Teacher, (B) OCD to a certain point, or (C) have a superiority complex. Considering I hate spelling (English class in general, I prefer Math/History/any other core class really) and you understood the meaning of the sentence, I think everything worked out.
And I am to take your response as serious? Plucking a couple words out of context and using them as ad hominem attacks on me?

And even though your second statement is an associative ad hominem, I will say that my views align more or less with Ron Paul, although I never watch Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. I look at figures on how much the US GDP is and how much the Obama budget calls for, and know there is no way to sustain that level of spending.
Then you know the level of spending from 2008 to the end of 2009 was a temporary budget and not one he planned to continue, correct? Because most of that budget included the Stimulus and Bail-Out (Which 80% has been paid back last I heard. But I have no clue how accurate that statistic is/was honestly) And the budget was still LESS than Bush when you remove those to (oops, two :roll: ) expenditures. But you know all of this so I'm just repeating what you know but leave out.
I do enjoy reading a certain libertarian economist's articles such as the excerpt found below, that demonstrates the utter folly of going after the "rich" as a source of governmental "revenue" to fix Congress's spending problem.
In 2011, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
What he does not go into is that over 46 percent of US households pay NO net federal income tax payment after all the filings are done; most of those households' non-payments are due to their low income (<$30,000/year) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... ID=1001547
Which leaves only 42% of US households to shoulder the burden of the rest of the federal spending from August to December 2011.
The statistics I saw was 51%, not 46%, but I guess with the +/- 3 to 4% most analysis and survey's have we are both withing the margins for error. What you failed to mention once again (because you know all about this with your Libertarian leanings) is that removing the Bush tax cuts (or heck, just removing the tax cuts discussed in the OP) the money we, as a country, are short, DISAPPEARS!!!! Now, here is where it gets really scary. If you tax the 46-51% of Americans who don't pay federal taxes (But still pay EVERY OTHER TAX!) you would have to tax them 50% of their income to make up for the the Bush Tax cuts vs. letting a bunch of Tax cuts that should of expired to expire.

Another thing not in the discussion are Tariffs. We need to repeal, as a country, many of the treaties that we have signed that have hurt the American Tax system. Tariffs were a major source of income for the US Government while also protecting US Jobs and Companies, which then provides another tax base. Although the "Free Market System" works on paper and I support in theory, its obvious that it doesn't work in reality. I'm not encouraging removing everyone of the treaties at once, but over time I think this is something that needs to be done slowly until "the system" works.

And finally, just to point it out once again because you are obviously aware of it. If the current Tax system worked (Bush Tax Cuts) then the money the Rich are hoarding would be in the hands of their workers which would then circulate through the country instead of rotting in a bank until they feel like spending it. And the US wouldn't be going from a 3-class system to a 2-class system (Which it is). And 2-class systems historically don't (never) work, just pointing out what you know once again.
The US cannot afford this level of spending. It must cut spending, not merely cut the INCREASE in spending over the next decade, which is what the recent "debt deal" was. It must cut spending. Buffet's suggestion of raising tax rates will not come close to fixing the US debt. In the extreme scenario listed above, tax rates can be raised to 100% on everything higher than $250K and even that extreme measure still does not solve the US debt problem, so I am at a loss as to where you think the 2012 US Government Budget of 3.7 trillion dollars is coming from, especially with all the wealth in the country being gutted in one year in the example above.
Actually every model I have seen (that isn't on Fox "news") shows the opposite of what you are saying. So either you do watch Fox "news" or you watch/listen to an affiliate because only conservative models show it not working.
However, I feel that all this is wasted effort; since it doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas, you will simply dismiss the above as more "nonsense".
Well, yes I consider it "nonsense" because every independent news source says otherwise. I would NOT consider it "preconceived" only because independent news agency's and government analysis shows differently. Its also (one of the reasons) why S&P downgraded the US, because the budget cuts only included cuts. Now whether you agree with S&P or not (I personally don't) the other credit agencies cited that we WILL HAVE TO RAISE TAXES (at a later date) otherwise they will ALSO lower our credit rating in "the future." How long "the future" is: days, months, or years, they didn't specify. So its very possible if the economy improves (I'm kinda pessimistic about this) then Taxes would never have to be raised. So take it as you would like. Play "Russian Roulette" or remove the Bush Tax cuts. Personally I'll remove the Bush Tax cuts and reinstate them "if" and "when" the Country can afford them. So that's 10-20 years from now regardless of how you look at it at the soonest.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:17 am

AbyssalMage wrote: That analogy is like saying...
You poured a glass of water, along with everyone else, into a Texan watering hole. Eventually it still dries and your still left with a drought. Yeah, makes you (and everyone else) feel good, but your not solving anything or doing anything productive. But then again, you seem to have trouble looking past "the present."
My point was not an analogy. It was what was or is.

Your analogy is an analogy. But it is a poor one. Like most are. Analogies are very poor debate devices if your audience has a brain. They are bad in the first place, because they are rarely accurate or good analogies.

Our US economy works only when people buy stuff and services from other people. There is no watering hole analogy that even close to resembling that. I pay you to do something, after someone pays me to do something, that is how our economy works. The semblance of a watering hole, just is not there. When you stop paying me, or I stop buying your stuff, the economy slows down. The president, no matter who that is, has very very little effect on whether I buy your stuff or you buy my service. WE, all of us, have more power than he does. You know that washer and dryer you have been putting off buying, that is somebody's job(a bunch actually). If you don't buy, then nothing moves, including money. I don't have a PhD in Economics, but I know that; it's pretty simple stuff.
At least you "don't mind really spending money on the military." Its the only thing positive I could say.
Well, Libertarians are usually against military spending. I am not really. Let us just say that we have 100,000 troops. And we are not at war. We just have them, sitting around at bases, doing exercises, and wargames and such. We still need to pay them, right. They need to get paid for just being there. Let us just say for argument that 100,000 troops cost us 1,000,000 dollars just to sit around each year. If we put them in a combat zone, they get an additional combat pay of what 30%, so we are paying an additional 30%. No big deal, and they are doing what they want to be doing. Killing people and blowing shit up. That's why they joined the military in the first place, they wanted to kill people and blow shit up.

Then you haven't read your history or studied it for that matter.
Yes, I have. You should read The Art of War by Tsun Tsu.

The purpose of war is to make other people do what you want, or take their things and stuff(natural resources). Usually both.

We don't do that, because we think we are the good guys. The world thinks we are the bad guys, no matter what we do. Why not just be bad guys then? Makes more sense if we take all their shit, if they are going to hate us regardless if we are good or bad. If the world thinks we are the bad guys, lets be the bad guys. And make and take some shit for ourselves. They think we are bad already, whats the difference? They all think we are Imperialist already, lets just go over and be Imperial then. Pax Americana Uber Alles.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:21 am

Analogy A. edit: It's not 101, 101 is higher education, this is basic remedial stuff.

A dog is to wolf.
As cat is to lion.

A hat is to head.
As glove is to hand.

A boy is to man.
As girl is to woman.

They have to be similar.



The economy is a Texas waterhole.
As money is to water.

That don't work. The economy is not like a Texas waterhole. Money is not like water. No workie.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Fyyr wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote: That analogy is like saying...
You poured a glass of water, along with everyone else, into a Texan watering hole. Eventually it still dries and your still left with a drought. Yeah, makes you (and everyone else) feel good, but your not solving anything or doing anything productive. But then again, you seem to have trouble looking past "the present."
My point was not an analogy. It was what was or is.

Your analogy is an analogy. But it is a poor one. Like most are. Analogies are very poor debate devices if your audience has a brain. They are bad in the first place, because they are rarely accurate or good analogies.

Our US economy works only when people buy stuff and services from other people. There is no watering hole analogy that even close to resembling that. I pay you to do something, after someone pays me to do something, that is how our economy works. The semblance of a watering hole, just is not there. When you stop paying me, or I stop buying your stuff, the economy slows down. The president, no matter who that is, has very very little effect on whether I buy your stuff or you buy my service. WE, all of us, have more power than he does. You know that washer and dryer you have been putting off buying, that is somebody's job(a bunch actually). If you don't buy, then nothing moves, including money. I don't have a PhD in Economics, but I know that; it's pretty simple stuff.
Analogies work because they take something complicated and makes it so you can understand or comprehend something and makes it personal. Some analogies are better than others but they all try to do the same thing. In my case, I was definitely trying to show how when you (or the rest of us) spent our tax rebate check, it didn't work and was only a short term fix. So I used an analogy because you have trouble understanding much of anything. I could of simply stated that your spending of a tax return did absolutely nothing long term but I'm sure you would of debated that also.

And although analogies may be poor debate devices according to you, you have to consider you audience. If I'm writing a scientific piece is a scientific journal, an analogy would be very bad choice to use. But if I'm trying to explain that same scientific article to a town or city where the average citizen (in my audience) only completed high school, then an analogy may be needed. Now lets go a step further and you have two people (you and me) discussing the merits of taking a road trip across America to a bunch of college students (So they have a bit of education). You stand up and give a long speech about the historical landmarks they will see, the money they will be infusing into the economy, and the things they will learn. Now I give the same long speech but instead I use analogies to help relate their interests to what they will encounter on this road trip. Both speeches work, but by using analogies I make it personal to them where yours is just factual and mechanical. Mechanical works in scientific journals, it doesn't work to the average person.

Because you couldn't understand my analogy, we'll assume I used a bad one like you stated.
My analogy was in response to your following example/statement:
Bush's tax cuts affected me. I got a stimulus check, a couple of them. What did I do with them, I spent them. Which was the plan, and that stimulated the economy in my own little way. Just like everyone else who got a cut and rebate check.
A watering hole is a place where animals gather (A local economy). Now, if everyone takes a glass (Tax Check) and pours some water (spends money) into the watering hole (Money into the local economy), it will eventually fill up (Local economies will have more money and everyone is happy because the economy is stimulated and businesses will continue to spend more because everyone is spending more). Popularly called "trickle down economics" popularized by Reagan and conservatives.

That's the first part of the analogy. See I may of explained it poorly, but the analogy works.

Now the second part of the analogy says that the watering hole (economy) eventually dries up still(again). That's because just like a watering hole, if the amount of money going into the economy isn't replenished, it eventually dries up. And I know you have read the reports that Big Business's are hoarding billions of dollars while simultaneously laying off (or already laid off) hundreds of workers.

The third part talks about how you feel. You stated:
...{I} stimulated the economy in my own little way.
That to me sounds like you are giving yourself a "pat on the back." Just like putting water (money) in a watering hole (economy) makes you feel good because everyone would then have access to water (more money). But the problem is you don't deal with the DIRECT problem, that is, why do you need to keep adding water (money) into the watering hole (economy)? If that problem isn't addressed everyone is wasting their time.

So my analogy may of not been the best :mrgreen: , but it gets the point across. And if you personally have a problem with analogies, I'm sorry. There is a reason people have used them for hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of years!
At least you "don't mind really spending money on the military." Its the only thing positive I could say.
Well, Libertarians are usually against military spending. I am not really. Let us just say that we have 100,000 troops. And we are not at war. We just have them, sitting around at bases, doing exercises, and wargames and such. We still need to pay them, right. They need to get paid for just being there. Let us just say for argument that 100,000 troops cost us 1,000,000 dollars just to sit around each year. If we put them in a combat zone, they get an additional combat pay of what 30%, so we are paying an additional 30%. No big deal, and they are doing what they want to be doing. Killing people and blowing shit up. That's why they joined the military in the first place, they wanted to kill people and blow shit up.
I guess my point is they do more than "sitting around bases, doing exercises, and wargames and such" and the fact that are military keeps shrinking bothers me. I guess we had two totally different experiences while in the military. And considering that enlisted are the best "per-dollar" investment the Federal Government invests in, I consider it money well spent (Officers are a different topic/feeling).
Then you haven't read your history or studied it for that matter.
Yes, I have. You should read The Art of War by Tsun Tsu.

The purpose of war is to make other people do what you want, or take their things and stuff(natural resources). Usually both.

We don't do that, because we think we are the good guys. The world thinks we are the bad guys, no matter what we do. Why not just be bad guys then? Makes more sense if we take all their shit, if they are going to hate us regardless if we are good or bad. If the world thinks we are the bad guys, lets be the bad guys. And make and take some shit for ourselves. They think we are bad already, whats the difference? They all think we are Imperialist already, lets just go over and be Imperial then. Pax Americana Uber Alles.
Then again, you haven't read or studied your history. Tsun Tsu is important because of the theories and strategies of how to conduct war's and will always remain relevant for those reasons, nothing else. Occupation of another country has never worked with the sole exception of the colonization of The North America's & Australia (mainly) because disease killed off the majority of the original inhabitants (In regards to N. America). That's the only exception in Modern History (last 2000-3000 years). In every other case, the inhabitants assimilate, and then overthrow their occupiers. South Africa (or Kuwait, but that was external expulsion) is the most recent example I can think of but I'm sure people here can add more modern examples of recent failed Occupations.
The fact that the US is seen as the "Bad Guy" is for a variety of reasons. But that shouldn't prevent us from having a global presence or using political pressure against regime's. Please note I didn't say military pressure. I know you feel that's the role of the military but again that is a study of history. Countries who use their military in such a role, don't tend to remain a country very long. As one of my old commanders once said, "you don't release a bunch of attack dogs and expect everything to turn out correctly." Yeah, I know you hate analogies but if you have trouble understanding it, just go buy a bull dog (trained to attack everything) and release it the next time you think its the best way to solve your problem.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:46 am

Analogies work because they take something complicated and makes it so you can understand or comprehend something and makes it personal.
They are usually lies, disguised as argument. (Like statistics).



I am smart enough to understand points without having them dumbed down for me, in any event. They only work because the average IQ of an American is 100, and half of them are dumber than that.
I could of simply stated that your spending of a tax return did absolutely nothing long term but I'm sure you would of debated that also.
You could have. It was like the small parachute that opens the big parachute behind a rocket car on Bonneville. See how stupid analogies are?
Because you couldn't understand my analogy, we'll assume I used a bad one like you stated.
My analogy was in response to your following example/statement:
Oh, I understand it Mage, I just dismissed it, twice. Analogies in general are bad, yours was a bad analogy on top of that.

Anyway, I think you are calling me dumb with that line. I don't think the rest of your post deserves me reading further, or an answer. I hope that Tudamorf reads your long ass post now, or Pan, cuz i aint.
Last edited by Fyyr on Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:07 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:52 am

Fyyr wrote:They are usually lies, disguised as argument. (Like statistics).

I am smart enough to understand points without having them dumbed down for me, in any event.
People who think statistics are lies are usually those who can't comprehend what they mean.

Unless you mean the data behind the statistics are also lies; of course anyone can falsify data (including you).

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:57 am

Tudamorf wrote: People who think statistics are lies are usually those who can't comprehend what they mean.

Unless you mean the data behind the statistics are also lies; of course anyone can falsify data (including you).
Take the study in the Newsweek article I posted a month ago, as an example

And it was all 'statistical', if you read the original report with the data like I did. And it was all lies. The premise was bad, the data was bad, the conclusions were bad.

I assure you I know what statistics are, and how to calculate them, and to do them, and how they work.

If you read her data, the only viable conclusion that you come away with for sure, is that M-F Transsexuals are the only men who are not rapists.

No one tells you in the Newsweek article that the sample population size was only 100 Boston men. I didn't read it there. That is how statistics are used against the less than 100 IQ Americans which make up half of them. It is a lie, out and out lie, to change peoples behavior in some way.

The scientist had an preconceived conclusion. Found a sample population which reflected her conclusion, only sampled 100 subjects(100 were the control group), and then pushed her numbers, from that study into her conclusion. And the Farley somehow sold that to mainstream media. It is a perfect model of how bad science happens. It happens regularly.
Last edited by Fyyr on Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:14 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:04 am

AbyssalMage wrote:And considering that enlisted are the best "per-dollar" investment the Federal Government invests in,
I can't think of a poorer return on investment than our military is.

Not even welfare, or bridges to nowhere.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:06 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:And considering that enlisted are the best "per-dollar" investment the Federal Government invests in,
I can't think of a poorer return on investment than our military is.

Not even welfare, or bridges to nowhere.
I agree, we should be annexing the real estate and natural resources of countries we take over. That would definitely push the military into the black.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Buffett Urges Congress to Raise Taxes on ‘Coddled’ Billi

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:10 am

Fyyr wrote:Take the study in the Newsweek article I posted a month ago, as an example

And it was all 'statistical', if you read the original report with the data like I did.
What statistics? All I saw was editorializing. Statistics involve numbers and equations, not feelings or ideas.

Post Reply