Posted on 05/05/2008 7:28:18 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
Think about this: of all the issues facing America today, the deciding one for Warren Buffett is "who promises to stick-it most to the wealthiest Americans the most on taxes"? And as everyone knows (and history has shown), jacking up tax rates even selectively has awful consequences for the economy, for jobs, AND for government revenues.
Buffett is the proof that one can be both an idiot and an genius at the same time.
And of course, Buffett's income is sheltered and structured so that if the tax burden shifts more to the upper brackets than today, he will not have to pay one penny more. Methinks he's a hypocrite, too.
It’s about control.
here’s the most compelling argument for lowering taxes on the rich:
if it cost you 600 to move money into a tax shelter to save 1000 in taxes would you?
if it cost you 600 to move money into a tax shelter to save 500 in taxes would you?
“And of course, Buffett’s income is sheltered and structured so that if the tax burden shifts more to the upper brackets than today, he will not have to pay one penny more. Methinks he’s a hypocrite, too”
BINGO!!!
And of course the reason he won’t pay an estate tax when he passes on is he is putting all of his excess cash into foundations.
The top 5% pay what percentage of the total income taxes?
Buffett and Gates are pull-up-the-ladder guys.
Perhaps he knows this?
Moving to 'tax the ultra-rich' would effectively pit the IRS against the one group who can correctly deal with them via taxshelter shell games.
In effect, there are no multi-billionaires vis-a-vis the income tax segments. Gate and Buffet have 'reasonable' salaries, but their real 'wealth' is all at arms length.
So moving the tax burden to these non-existant people would (1) satisfy the class warfarists, and (2) reduce the taxes on the mid-class, too, while (3) not really gaining anything for the spenders in Washington.
If you are extremely wealthy, and you can manipulate the government into destroying your competitors, your wealth becomes more valuable..............
The frumpy and grumpy billionaire living in Omaha, has done a fantastic PR job of appearing to be anything but an elitist. But politics do not lie, living in Omaha and dining at Dairy Queen does not make one immune from being an elitist.He is in an elitist just like Barry and makes Obama’a sugar mama billionaire Oprah look like a populist.
He is a red dupe and a dumbass then.
The Marxists seek to eliminate the middle class. EVERYONE above the poverty level will have a tax increase under Clinton-Obama.
I didnt hear a thing they said, Liz Claman kept me distracted.
When the fatcat rich a&&holes on the Left stop sheltering their money from the taxes they think “rich people” need to pay more of, I will concede that they are at least being honest in their sincerity of playing class war politics.
The really rich who support these tax increases either know that it won’t effect their long term interests..or will demand pay increases from their corporations to cover the tax increases..thus passing the tax increase back along to consumers.
I try to seperate politics from my investment decisions..but I won’t buy Microsoft or Berkshire due to these political positions..why make them richer?
But if Hillary and Obama can manage to get the oil stocks down..I will buy some more.
Billionaires like Buffett and multi-millionaires will always be able to strcuture their enormous assets into trsust that avoid tax liability.
What Buffett wants to do is to impose crippling taxes on people whose net worth is between $500,000-$2,000,000 or so.
People who are doing very well, but who are not so wealthy that they are able to retain a team of lawyers to set up and maintain a carefully structured system of trusts.
In other words, Buffett wants to tax his potential competition into penury so he and his tier of the superrich can breathe easier.
Who said anything about reducing the tax on the middle class? They are for eliminating ALL taxes on the poor including any contribution TO the Socialist Security system.
Only the poor would pay no taxes under the “soak the rich” scheme.
That, among other things, is immoral.
Buffet makes a big deal that his investment income is given more favorable tax treatment than his secretary’s wages. But the supposed genius misses an important point. When people earn interest, dividends, or capital gains, they typically do so on money that has already been taxed. IOW, the principal usually comes from wages which were already taxed the same way that his secretary’s salary is.
Is this concept that difficult to understand? I have taken a grand total of one elementary economics course in my life and I get it.
I have not seen either Gates or Buffet talk about whether or not total government spending is too much. If they are talking about massive tax increases for the wealthy (and by extension the middle class later on) they must believe that the amount of government activity at all levels is insufficient. They are both big tax increase guys because they are both big government guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.