Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think Buffet is greedy. He earned every penny he made. The question is - does he deserve such a low tax rate simply because of the METHOD with which he earned his income.
Ken
Sure.
Buffet pays himself $100,000/year and has for a very long time.
The profits Buffet earns on capital gains is redirected back into growth for the companies he runs.
I would think it would be obvious what the results of that were by the fact that he employs about 271,000 people.
You can see the benefits Berkshire Hathaway provides here:
Quote:
BHHC offers excellent benefits programs for its employees. While packages vary depending on location and employment status, they can consist of a wide array of benefits including:
And the redirection of that capital in the hands of people who know how to use it is the entire point of low capital gains tax rates.
Certainly you don't think that if the government took more of BHHC's capital that it would be more effective at putting it to work. Politicians are in direct opposition to efficient growth unless you're talking about growing committees, hearings and the bureaucracy.
The governments of those nations did agree to enact austerity measures. Those governments were elected to represent the people of those nations.
And a household with no money will have to cut their expenditure, no matter how much they oppose it. If you have no money left, then you got to cut. You can't spend money you don't have.
Quote:
Those nation's enacted austerity measures. Your point about it not being done of free will is completely irrelevant to the damage that austerity measures have done in those nations.
No, it isn't. If austerity can not be avoided, then it is not austerity's fault. The problem is what you did that forced you to do austerity.
What forced them to do austerity. Out of control spending!
Goes hand and hand with weak immigration policies.
Yes -- it's pretty absurd that Americans think anything is better here --- add up the combined unemployment and welfare rates of working age individuals -- our true unemployment rate would be higher than 25%.
Liberals here are just more clever. They've divided welfare handouts into a large number of overlapping programs, they decided that only the free cash to women having babies they can't afford - "TANF" is the only giveway program they will call welfare.
The number of babies being born to Medicaid households is insane and getting much worse. Illegals pour over the border with sky high birth rates to babies they could never afford so they will be given many handouts by the government. The number on food stamps is beyond ridiculous, and even college students who simply don't feel like working can just apply for and be handed food stamps.
We're a very socialist nation with cradle to grave welfare and the work ethic is a long gone thing of the past.
And the redirection of that capital in the hands of people who know how to use it is the entire point of low capital gains tax rates.
Certainly you don't think that if the government took more of BHHC's capital that it would be more effective at putting it to work. Politicians are in direct opposition to efficient growth unless you're talking about growing committees, hearings and the bureaucracy.
Sure. I understand all that. I'm just not convinced that someone who makes a million dollars in salary is any less likely to put that money back to work than someone who makes a million on capital gains. Why should one be rewarded and the other penalized when they both make the same amount of money? Folks making that kind of money will do SOMETHING with that money - no matter HOW they make it. They don't stick it under their mattress. They invest it SOMEWHERE. So why should a person who makes big money off capital gains pay less than someone who made the same amount of money via salary.
Sure. I understand all that. I'm just not convinced that someone who makes a million dollars in salary is any less likely to put that money back to work than someone who makes a million on capital gains. Why should one be rewarded and the other penalized when they both make the same amount of money? Folks making that kind of money will do SOMETHING with that money - no matter HOW they make it. They don't stick it under their mattress. They invest it SOMEWHERE. So why should a person who makes big money off capital gains pay less than someone who made the same amount of money via salary.
Ken
Because in general capital means investment in business. You know capital can be in many different forms from labor to machines to actual money. The important thing is that capital generally goes towards, at the bare minimum, the communist type theory of corporations and at best goes towards the entire economy. Whereas a "salary" of such goes mostly towards selfish goals of wealth building.
Maybe in general there's no real difference but that's at least the theory. I tend to think, at some point, self interest only goes so far in perpetuating the economy. So if a person earns $100 million for themselves in a salary it's probably not going to perpetuate anything but the upper echelons on society via Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Whereas capital increases tend to perpetuate job growth or at the very least investments into technology which, at the very least, enriches the most educated in a society.
Our economy is moving away from service based to technology based so something has to give.
Because in general capital means investment in business. You know capital can be in many different forms from labor to machines to actual money. The important thing is that capital generally goes towards, at the bare minimum, the communist type theory of corporations and at best goes towards the entire economy. Whereas a "salary" of such goes mostly towards selfish goals of wealth building.
Maybe in general there's no real difference but that's at least the theory. I tend to think, at some point, self interest only goes so far in perpetuating the economy. So if a person earns $100 million for themselves in a salary it's probably not going to perpetuate anything but the upper echelons on society via Ferrari, Porsche, etc. Whereas capital increases tend to perpetuate job growth or at the very least investments into technology which, at the very least, enriches the most educated in a society.
Our economy is moving away from service based to technology based so something has to give.
Well, as I said, I understand the theory, I'm just not sure that actually plays out that way. The reward from investing capital should come from the investment - not from a government tax break. Folks who want their money to grow WILL invest it somewhere (no matter how they made it) - while folks who just want to spend their money will just spend it (again, no matter how they made it).
And the redirection of that capital in the hands of people who know how to use it is the entire point of low capital gains tax rates.
Certainly you don't think that if the government took more of BHHC's capital that it would be more effective at putting it to work. Politicians are in direct opposition to efficient growth unless you're talking about growing committees, hearings and the bureaucracy.
So you're saying we should give billionaires (much) lower tax rates than everyone else, because they know how to use the money ??
Your idea that you're giving anyone something because you didn't first take it before they could use it is laughable.
So you're saying I want to take money from the rich, before they can use that money to help everyone else ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
