patrick.net

They can voluntarily pay more any time they want to.

What they are saying in "Tax . . . more" is actually:

"Tax the kulaks just below us even more so we have more to feed at the government spending trough."

Kulak:

The word kulak originally referred to independent farmers in the Russian Empire who emerged from the peasantry and became wealthy following the Stolypin reform, which began in 1906.

According to the political theory of Marxism-Leninism of the early 1900s, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants.[1] Vladimir Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.”[2] Marxism-Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers). In addition, the planned economy of Soviet Bolshevism required the collectivization of farms and land to allow industrialization or conversion to large-scale agricultural production. In practice, these Marxist-Leninist theories led to years of conflicts and disruption of agriculture when kulaks resisted expropriation of their private property, and Soviet officials responded with violent political repression.[1][3]

--wikipedia

Charles Koch already responded. He said No. He asked why someone as astute as Warren Buffett, who spends his own money perhaps better than anyone else on the planet, would want to send more of his money to other people to spend it for him.

These admissions by the wealthy that they want to be taxed more is a cry for help. They don't know what to do with their money.

The social contract has been busted. Greed rules. Some rich people are willing to pay higher taxes because they know that taxes are cheap compared with anarchy. Some rich want to hang on to every dime.

Note that the Koch brothers are heirs to great wealth. They started a foot from home plate and now complain when others do not get a single.

OurBroker says

The social contract has been busted. Greed rules. Some rich people are willing to pay higher taxes because they know that taxes are cheap compared with anarchy. Some rich want to hang on to every dime.

wtfcapinv says

These admissions by the wealthy that they want to be taxed more is a cry for help. They don't know what to do with their money.

They are advocating taxing other people's income more so they can get the money via government handouts (bailouts and interest payment on government bonds). If Buffet really wanted to pay more, he can pay more voluntarily or propose an asset tax! especially on billionaires like himself.

I will believe their alleged good intentions when they stop lobbying for bailouts and government contracts, and stop collecting interest payment from the Treasury . . . voluntarily paying as high a rate as their secretaries would be a good start too (no law preventing Buffet doing that).

>>>FDR and his fellow Keynesians in Germany, Italy, Japan and Soviet Union caused the mutual slaughter.

FDR and people overseas also had ten fingers and drank milk as children. So what. As I recall, there was a bombing at Pearl Harbor that got us into World War II.

OurBroker says

FDR and people overseas also had ten fingers and drank milk as children. So what. As I recall, there was a bombing at Pearl Harbor that got us into World War II.

FDR entered the arms race in 1936 after Keynesian policies in civilian projects were exposed to be a waste of money. People had less clue about how much a tank or battleship was worth, so the military spending functioned as a convenient cover for funneling taxpayer money to the super-rich in war spending. FDR's contemporaries in Germany, Italy, Japan and Soviet Union did the same thing; some started before he did. After that, it was only a matter of looking for ways to get into the war. FDR finally found it via Japan after months of actually fighting Germans on the high seas without declaration or congressional authorization.

What do you think Krugman's repeated assertions that war would be good for economy is about?

people who want higher taxes, simply propose higher taxes by income brackets. They never talk about getting rid of tax loopholes.

Obama's proposal was to increase taxes on couples making 250,000 (or individuals making 200,000) a year was based on income with a HUGE marriage penalty. It did nothing about taxes on appreciation (such as stocks or real estate which should have been addressed instead).

Buffet enjoys all the loopholes in the tax code for charitable giving, capital gains, etc... none of these would go away and make wealthy pay more of the share. Basic tax increases would simply force more pain onto the middle class.

FDR = decades of high taxes and prosperity

War gains? Really?

You're impossible.

futuresmc says

When the flood gates from the Iron and Bamboo curtains opened up, allowing companies to outsource overseas, the United States response SHOULD have been to tariff (not elimate) trade with cheaper labor markets. That counterpressure should have remained proportionate, until the communist and formerly communist nations began to restructure and start developing from the increased FAIR trade brought them.

How would that tax revenue be directed? More money for the Pentagon? The idea that bureaucrats can create more "fair" trade than consumer choice is absurd. What is so fair about some bureaucrats telling you you need to pay more for whatever you need so he can be paid more?

There is indeed a problem with the current world trade model. The problem being that effective tax rate on Americans are too high! The US consumers and domestic companies are paying too much to maintain the globe-spanning military . . . which primarily benefits American companies operating overseas. If American company operating overseas have to worry about their investment run the risk of being seized by local tinpot dictators, they'd not be as quick in shipping production lines overseas.

The US and Western Europe can no longer be the buyers of last resort, yet the rest of the world never developed a middle class capable of picking up the purchasing slack

What do you think just happened in Libya? Do you think the rising middle class in those countries are better off parking their money with their own governments or with the US (banks are owned and operated by governments in the fiat money world)? If the answer is to park in US dollars, how can they earn dollars except for exporting goods to the US in exchange? The trade deficit is the direct result of government deficit. The more interventionist the government is domestically and internationally, the more the twin deficits.

Reality says

The problem being that effective tax rate on Americans are too high!

Again. Data be damned.

1950-1970 = higher taxes and healthy economy
Now = extrememly low tax rates and crappy economy

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The problem being that effective tax rate on Americans are too high!

Again. Data be damned.

1950-1970 = higher taxes and healthy economy

Now = extrememly low tax rates and crappy economy

The high nominal tax rate at the top brackets did not mean squat as few if any paid at the top brackets. The overall overt taxation as per centage of GDP has been steady around 20% for many decades.

What happened after around 1970 was the Vietnam War and War on Poverty started by LBJ (1968), and subsequent default on the Brettonwoods gold link by Nixon (1971) after years of gold price manipulation by both Nixon and LBJ while printing money to fund the two wars in an Keynesian experiment. The delinking opened the flood gate for massive deficit spending.

The real government burden on economy is not just the overt/explicit tax burden, but also this deficit spending taking a big bite out of the economy. Since currently the federal government is "borrowing"/printing morethan 40% of what it spends, the real government expenditure is over 30% of GDP! higher than it's ever been in peace time.

It gets worse than that: because the way GDP is put together, every dollar that the government spends is counted as GDP regardless how uneconomic it is. If we think of government services as "safety net" / "insurance" that the left allegedly believe (and I think it should be), corporate income and individual income should subtract that insurance payment before arriving at their own income (i.e. their contribution to the economy after cost of operation; insurance is part of cost) . . . and if the insurance company loses money, the net loss should be subtracted from the calculated size of the economy. In other words, the size of the real economy is at least 30% less than the GDP number claims to be . . . that makes the government bite of the economy roughly half the entire real economy if not more!

Paralithodes says

Why isn't he "LITERALLY" giving his money to the Federal Government? He can fix the situation between his taxes and those of his secretary with his own credit card, at:

Because he is trying to suggest policy initiatives that would help the country. But you already knew this--you are just making the same ridiculous argument as the rest of the FOX news crowd. I expected better of you.

tatupu70 says

1950-1970 = higher taxes and healthy economy
Now = extrememly low tax rates and crappy economy

Where do you come up with your effective tax rate calculations/data? Just curious ... because there are numbers thrown all over oblivion that never match up.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Why isn't he "LITERALLY" giving his money to the Federal Government? He can fix the situation between his taxes and those of his secretary with his own credit card, at:

Because he is trying to suggest policy initiatives that would help the country. But you already knew this--you are just making the same ridiculous argument as the rest of the FOX news crowd. I expected better of you.

Right. The "policy initiatives" that he is suggesting is raising taxes on the ultra wealthy. The argument is that they are not taxed enough. Those on the left almost always use terms such as that we need to "ask" the wealthy to "contribute their fair share." So, what exactly is "ridiculous" about actually asking them to do so?

(BTW... And I expected better of you than to blindly throw out the FOX news ad hominem.)

That's just DSK kissing the ground, happy to be alive talk.

Paralithodes says

Right. The "policy initiatives" that he is suggesting is raising taxes on the ultra wealthy. The argument is that they are not taxed enough. Those on the left almost always use terms such as that we need to "ask" the wealthy to "contribute their fair share." So, what exactly is "ridiculous" about actually asking them to do so?

I think that's been asked and answered.

My understanding is that each of Buffett's children will receive an inheritance which is relatively small compared to his estate. As to running a foundation, that is not the same as being a beneficiary.

You can see the Gate's foundation tax returns at:

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/91-1663695/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-trust.aspx#

OurBroker says

My understanding is that each of Buffett's children will receive an inheritance which is relatively small compared to his estate. As to running a foundation, that is not the same as being a beneficiary.

You can see the Gate's foundation tax returns at:

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/91-1663695/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-trust.aspx#

I'm not advocating that government bureaucrats would manage resources better than private foundations; hence I'm not saying they should be taxed . . . however, let's get real here, when you are managing billions of dollars, especially with no board of directors to fire you, what's the exact difference between ownership vs. managing power?

"Charitable" foundations are standard ways of passing family wealth in modern high tax countries.

Do I think they are evil? Not at all! They can probably manage resources in the long run better than politicians and government bureaucrats can. . . and in turn benefit the peons more. I just wish the same family foundation crowd would stop huffing at the next rung down who do not have as much money in the families to preserve.

@Ourbroker

>The social contract has been busted. Greed rules. Some rich people are willing to pay higher taxes because they know that taxes are cheap compared with anarchy. Some rich want to hang on to every dime.

Well said. Some realize that preventing extreme inequalities of income is worth it in the long run rather that trying to "hang on to every dime" even past a net worth of $1,000,000,000.

>There is indeed a problem with the current world trade model. The problem being that effective tax rate on Americans are too high! The US consumers and domestic companies are paying too much to maintain the globe-spanning military . . . which primarily benefits American companies operating overseas.

Agreed here. Side note...if McCain had been elected president would this spending have really been reduced?

American in Japan says

>There is indeed a problem with the current world trade model. The problem being that effective tax rate on Americans are too high! The US consumers and domestic companies are paying too much to maintain the globe-spanning military . . . which primarily benefits American companies operating overseas.

Agreed here. Side note...if McCain had been elected president would this spending have really been reduced?

Obama was a better tool than McCain for shutting up the anti-War Democrats. . . . just like W was a better tool than any Democrat President to expand government and add Part D to MediCare.

I have concluded long time ago that the two parties are a sham. Presidents are put in place to sell out their most ardent supporters. What's that old saying, if you are in the back pocket of some politician, be prepared to be sat on!

I would like somobody to wrigt full definition of goverment...
So,it is monopoly of what and I want to hear the rest.
Students of low school and others give us full definition of goverment.
Thank you!

It's actually a colorized version of a black and white photo. And, regardless of when taken, it is iconic.

Kowalsky says

I would like somobody to wrigt full definition of goverment...
So,it is monopoly of what and I want to hear the rest.
Students of low school and others give us full definition of goverment.
Thank you!

The fundamental monopoly is "the use of violence."
From there, the government is able to become a monopoly in whatever field it moves into . . . primarily because being funded by tax (money extorted through threat of violence) it does not face the primary determinant in free market competition: generating more value (as judged by the consumers) than the cost of the input factors.

Thank you.
So,stop the planet Earth,I need another one, this goverments are not in my function...I am one of those who are on other side of being reach.Well,it is me,what can I do?

Nomograph says

Reality says

LOL

When ideologically-driven people get backed into a corner by reality, they typically deflect by saying things like "Ha" or "LOL", then they mentally run away. This helps to alleviate the unpleasant emotions associated with conflict.

At some point, Reality, you are going to have to come to grips with the huge discrepancy between ridgid ideology and, well, reality.

You can start facing reality by addressing the real points I made before or after "LOL" instead of commenting on what is essentially a punctuation mark.

I have noticed that you have been unable to make any substantive points besides content-free personal attacks. What does that say about your neo-plantation ideology?