[quote]Warren Buffett is proposing a higher threshold for an increased tax on the wealthy than President Barack Obama - the “Oracle of Omaha” says he prefers boosting taxes only on those making more than $500,000 a year, according to a New York Times op-ed published Monday.
Obama has proposed a $250,000 limit.
“I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so,” Buffett, who has endorsed Obama, wrote in The Times.
He also suggested a minimum 30 percent tax on income between $1 million and $10 million, and a 35 percent tax on amount above that.
“A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours,” Buffett wrote.[/quote]
[Url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84222.html#ixzz2DNDefYpY]Source[/url]
Perhaps noble.
Easy for him to urge for higher taxes though, why wasn't he advocating them when he was just a start-up investor?
[img]http://puu.sh/1uH4x[/img]
Buffett would be a damn good POTUS in terms of money management. I don't know why he hasn't been appointed as an economic advisor of some sort ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Politics]although Obama did mention the possibility of him being one[/url], though it looks like nothing came of it).
I like his plans, but I always think in the back of my head "He already has an obscene amount of money, why does he care?"
[QUOTE=Zambies!;38605811]"He already has an obscene amount of money, why does he care?"[/QUOTE]
[url=http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/]He did pledge to give away 99% of his wealth[/url].
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;38605842][url=http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/]He did pledge to give away 99% of his wealth[/url].[/QUOTE]
"The man who dies rich dies disgraced"
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;38605842][url=http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/]He did pledge to give away 99% of his wealth[/url].[/QUOTE]
He would still have about 400 million dollars if he gave away that much money.
I don't see why people on $250,000 a year shouldn't have their tax increased. That's over five times what the average US wage was in 2011 - it's still a huge amount of money.
[QUOTE=Strider*;38605926]"The man who dies rich dies disgraced"[/QUOTE]
I don't get it.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;38606705]I don't get it.[/QUOTE]
Money is useless to the dead, put it to good use before you die.
[QUOTE=Strider*;38605737]Perhaps noble.
Easy for him to urge for higher taxes though, why wasn't he advocating them when he was just a start-up investor?[/QUOTE]
"Easy for you to demand tax increases when you're rich, why not try not having so much spare money and then ask?"
"Easy for you to demand tax increases when you're poor, why not try working hard to be a millionaire, and then ask?"
[QUOTE=Mingebox;38606865]"Easy for you to demand tax increases when you're rich, [b]why don't try not[/b] have some much spare money and then ask?"
"Easy for you to demand tax increase when you're poor, why don't try working hard to be a millionaire, and then ask?"[/QUOTE]
???
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;38606893]???[/QUOTE]
Because having a typo obviously invalidates his entire argument.
yes, because 3 question marks obviously means that.
I like how he edited his post to correct it and it still doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Ybbats;38606986]I like how he edited his post to correct it and it still doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
I'm tired
why not try not you know?
He makes his money from investment returns, so he wouldn't be affected. Buffet needs to shut the fuck up or actually start following through on his offers.
[QUOTE=Ridge;38607016]He makes his money from investment returns, so he wouldn't be affected. Buffet needs to shut the fuck up or actually start following through on his offers.[/QUOTE]Yes, this is clearly all about him, and not about anyone else.
[QUOTE=Strider*;38605926]"The man who dies rich dies disgraced"[/QUOTE]
Every man should die rich, with but a dollar in his pocket.
Warren Buffett is the most logical rich person. Hes also really nice
I've found myself saying this a couple of time already, but alas, I'll repeat it again. So far every politician that has advocated taxing the rich has done it only to advance themselves in the public's eyes. Nothing more. After 10 years of promises we've yet to see a result. It's just the way it is. I'm sad, sorry and frustrated, but it won't change anything. The rich are in power and they won't give up their riches just because we want them to. They'll promise it to please us, but never do it. I am well aware that I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but in my eyes, that's just how things are.
Do you think if you borrowed $10 from him he'd ask for it back next time he saw you? Would it matter to him?
[QUOTE=Camundongo;38606722]Money is useless to the dead, put it to good use before you die.[/QUOTE]
it's useful to your kin
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38615965]it's useful to your kin[/QUOTE]
Quote from Buffett:
[quote]This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.[/quote]
He's not giving it all away, just more than 99%. Some of it is left over. That, and his kin already have a steady income.
Plutocracy is a horrible thing, and what's worse is that we've been spiritually-emaciated by a culture of pleasure, apathy, procrastination and an overall lack of balls. This might sounds violent and horrible, but if more people were violently upset by the current plutocratic situation, there'd probably be some actual conflicts going on with the aim of smashing rich hoarders in the guts with baseball bats.
On the flipside, we need mandatory transparency about finances, so we can actually know what the rich are using their big monies on, because at the moment we are in the dark about what the big wigs are doing with humanity's tax money. They should just tell us "we are building a fleet of nuclear subs with which to war against Russian and China" or "we have been funding a secret genetics project with which to combat rampant population growth" or "I can only eat private yachts, ok?! Why are you laughing; it's a serious dietary problem! *single greasy tear*"; at least that way we know what the hell they are doing with the people's money and judge them appropriately.
On a less violent and communist note, having the tax hike on folks that have +$500k salaries is probably a fair strategy for taxing the rich; the multi-millionaires have their tolls to pay, whilst the "lower-income rich" get a reprieve from the higher taxes, before the ceiling of raised taxes lowers to boost their taxes as well.
Actually, considering we're in an economic crisis, and that the poor are making personal cuts just to survive, if the rich have a surplus of money, they should consider spending more so that all those dollars, pounds, roubles, yen, euros, etc, re-enter circulation and restimulate the economy. Also, the UN should drop the war on terror and begin a new "war"; the "war" on plutocracy, taking action against fat cats who hoard their monies in offshore bank accounts. If we cracked down on money-laundering schemes like we cracked down on those supposed terrorist organisations in the Middle East, we'd hopefully have arrests of the thieving dragons who dared to hoard the people's money (not just the people's money, but the nation's money) in those glistering Alpine caverns, and all that stolen gold is returned to the nations from whom they were stolen.
That'd be the plan, but in all actuality we'd probably need an internationally-funded military organisation like UNATCO or XCOM (not the best examples but whatever), dedicated to hunting down money launderers (we're coming for you Switzerland), paedophile rings (watch out Vatican City), massive hate crime (Uganda would piss itself), and other such degeneracies that plague humanity (including terrorist cells because hey why not). If anything, it would work well as a pitch for a surprisingly-dark tongue-in-cheek version of G.I. Joe to be aired on [adult-swim].
In short, do the rich really NEED all that money unless they have expensive [B]needs[/B] rather than expensive wants? If they can metabolise the same foods as us, get entertainment from the same sources as us, and wipe their asses with the same toilet paper as us, why do they think they need all this expensive stuff? It's not like their behinds can only bear the velvet touch of a 50 dollar bill, or that they can only metabolise liquid gold, or that they can only get it up if they have a lapdance from an altar boy; they're still human so they should lower their standards a little. Instead of stuffing your face in a bucket of crabs every week, why not get a bucket of fried chicken? Instead of a glass of champers after work, why not enjoy a glass of lemonade with a splash of spirits? Instead of maintaining a harem of gorgeous Filipino boys, why not keep a hooker full-time as a "concubine on a salary", or even simply get a girlfriend/boyfriend? Ok, I lied about this being "in short", but my point still stands; the rich could stand to lower their standards and not treat luxuries as a regular thing, thus lowering their need for money and extravagant things, and making them more "inclined" towards lowering their salary.
Having a nice thing every now and then makes the experience all the more satisfying, and making one's pleasures routine ruins their "magical" quality; being on a chocolate bar a day is kind of bleh, but if you only have it every now and then, like a personal treat at the end of the week, it tastes all the sweeter, not to mention you feel better about things that you've put a lot of effort into, like how I'd feel indifferent to any old footstool, yet I feel somewhat attached to my own blue footstool that I "crafted" myself back in 2007-9 (it was some time back then, and I made it myself as part of design technology at Drapers). The more effort you put into getting something, the more appreciation you have for it, like spending so many hours harvesting Sandstone and Gold in Minecraft to painstakingly recreate the Great Pyramid of Giza as opposed to going into Creative Mode and just selecting Sandstone and Gold Blocks from the Creative Inventory.
Long story short, rich people don't need all these expensive things all the time; sure they can have it once in a while, but otherwise they could afford to become a bit more humble and less eager to hoard and squander vast piles of gold.
Unless it's for furthering science. Then it's ok in my books.
ironman, what the fuck?
[QUOTE=ironman17;38616353]Plutocracy is a horrible thing, and what's worse is that we've been spiritually-emaciated by a culture of pleasure, apathy, procrastination and an overall lack of balls. This might sounds violent and horrible, but if more people were violently upset by the current plutocratic situation, there'd probably be some actual conflicts going on with the aim of smashing rich hoarders in the guts with baseball bats.
On the flipside, we need mandatory transparency about finances, so we can actually know what the rich are using their big monies on, because at the moment we are in the dark about what the big wigs are doing with humanity's tax money. They should just tell us "we are building a fleet of nuclear subs with which to war against Russian and China" or "we have been funding a secret genetics project with which to combat rampant population growth" or "I can only eat private yachts, ok?! Why are you laughing; it's a serious dietary problem! *single greasy tear*"; at least that way we know what the hell they are doing with the people's money and judge them appropriately.
On a less violent and communist note, having the tax hike on folks that have +$500k salaries is probably a fair strategy for taxing the rich; the multi-millionaires have their tolls to pay, whilst the "lower-income rich" get a reprieve from the higher taxes, before the ceiling of raised taxes lowers to boost their taxes as well.
Actually, considering we're in an economic crisis, and that the poor are making personal cuts just to survive, if the rich have a surplus of money, they should consider spending more so that all those dollars, pounds, roubles, yen, euros, etc, re-enter circulation and restimulate the economy. Also, the UN should drop the war on terror and begin a new "war"; the "war" on plutocracy, taking action against fat cats who hoard their monies in offshore bank accounts. If we cracked down on money-laundering schemes like we cracked down on those supposed terrorist organisations in the Middle East, we'd hopefully have arrests of the thieving dragons who dared to hoard the people's money (not just the people's money, but the nation's money) in those glistering Alpine caverns, and all that stolen gold is returned to the nations from whom they were stolen.
That'd be the plan, but in all actuality we'd probably need an internationally-funded military organisation like UNATCO or XCOM (not the best examples but whatever), dedicated to hunting down money launderers (we're coming for you Switzerland), paedophile rings (watch out Vatican City), massive hate crime (Uganda would piss itself), and other such degeneracies that plague humanity (including terrorist cells because hey why not). If anything, it would work well as a pitch for a surprisingly-dark tongue-in-cheek version of G.I. Joe to be aired on [adult-swim].[/QUOTE]
Spot on. That's why I'm frustrated. The world should be amids a revolution right now. Against any and all who live their lives with more money than they could possibly ever spend in 10 lifetimes. Instead the most we do about it is be vocal on an internet forum.
That has to be a parody or something
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
