Banks aren't lending because there is too much risk they won't get paid back. That is absolutely the only reason banks don't lend. period. Banks make lots of money when credit is loose. We just promised our future earnings to bail out alot of bank's most toxic debt load and they still are afraid of lending for mortgages and it is much more difficult to get approved for a loan... they are very much aware of alot more toxic debt on the books for commercial loans and banks have to be very careful right now or they will go belly up. The economy sucks right now for only one reason. We have too much debt. When you don't have too much debt then you can create huge debt bubbles, like the tech bubble, the real estate bubble, the credit card bubble, the government spending bubbles etc. Those bubbles will cause economic expansion but in the end they result in default. When you can't pay back what you owe your debt is excessive.
Maybe I'm lost here, but I'm reading that she thinks rich people don't pay taxes? Huge corporations that aren't owned by a single proprietor get through the loopholes (Exxon). But rich people do pay taxes that pay for the schooling and police force. In fact they pay more than the normal folk. I don't hear much from the small business or factory owners saying they want to pay 0 so I don't know at all, what she's trying to get at here.
Thanks for yet another installment of random platitudes about debt and credit. Reminds me of Phil Hartman playing Frankenstein on old SNL's..."FIRE! NO LIKE FIRE! FIRE BAAAAD!"
If you look at the actual numbers, people who live off of investment income pay far less as a percentage of income than working people.
Well, maybe you should work on understanding the contextual clues, including the subject at the center of the thread. If you really wanted to know what was going on, you could figure out what the question was that she responded to when she said it.
To add to juicy's response. Taxes are still being paid. A rich person doesn't use the road any more than an average working guy does, he may in fact use it less. I wouldn't say the richer guy uses public services like police, ambulances and whatnot any more than an average or below average guy uses them, again I'm sure the argument can be had that he uses them much much less. The timber, metal, electrical components ect used to build the rich guys factory or what have you, he paid for those, it's not like he's taking advantage of anyone. In fact he's actually helping out more than the average guy who isn't spending $750,000 in labor and supplies to get the place up and running. Same can be said for schooling, rich guy will pay property tax to pay for schooling even if he pays out of pocket to send his kids to a private school. Again, paying for services he doesn't need or use. Mrs. Buffet's quote I would hope is taken out of context because even though she's terribly rich, in my view she's coming across as extremely ignorant in her point. I am by no means rich or well off, I'm 26 I work for a small business owner who makes more in a month than I do in a year. I have my own place, car, I have a little $ saved up, but if I stopped working today, I'd be in trouble next month.
Good. Then you wont have a problem fixing the imbalance that such a small number of people are using.
The quote is saying that people who make abnormal profits should remember that society made it possible and they should stop feeling entitled.
I'm sorry, that question wasn't posted on here, just her quote was. It does very little intellectual honesty for me to do background work to find out the reasoning behind her quote when the question itself isn't what's being discussed, just her quote is what's being passed around.
I understand the reasoning behind the quote, but again, no one is saying "I want to pay zero in taxes" no one is throwing around that argument. They want to pay less, but then don't you? I know I do, it seems it's cool and socially acceptable to say the rich people shouldn't pay less, but those who earn less should pay less.
Difference between us is you are confident you could fix everything and I am certain I don't have any idea what will work. I like to do this for fun, you are making points, so my platitudes are intended to be pointless. I think it's worth a post when people dribble on about borrowing money like that will work long term. There is no doubt in my mind that our economy has reached a line we never intended to cross. I don't know how much a trillion $ is- but that is exactly why I don't have an answer just a platitude about debt.
I do not. I've always wondered how it seems reasonable that a person in the 25% bracket pays 15% on LTCG, and a person in the 35% bracket also pays 15%. Simplify the corporate tax code, lower corporate rates, and in turn, raise taxes on LTCG/Qualified dividends.
That is the imbalance fixing that I was talking aabout. So unless I'm missing something, you do agree.
No, I don't care to pay less in taxes. When it happens, great, but I'm doing okay with my current tax load. But, nothing about that quote is addressing an argument to pay zero taxes, so I don't know that you do understand the quote. She's addressing a common fairy-tale of the Self-Made Man. People who think that those who made themselves wealthy did it by themselves. Most of the country is afflicted with this notion, which is obviously false, and then go on to argue that we have some moral obligation to let these self-made men keep the money they 'earned.' This argument would have you believe that having rich people pay more (in dollars or percentages or whatever) than others is 'theft' or 'redistribution' as if the original distribution were just. In the end, there's no moral tax code. There's only votes. The wealthy had the votes to push capital gains to 15%. Now, they may not have enough to keep it there.
The thing is the 'self-made man' didn't do it off the backs of the workers and materials without compensation (going to keep it in modern terms). The fact she brings up workers education that "the rest of us paid for" is utter ridiculous. The rich guy did help pay for that education. "Police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for" again, that is too ignorant of a comment to defend. The rich guy did and does pay for those services, and again pays MORE than the guy he's paying to work for him does. Her last part about taking a big hunk of it but the social contract says you should pay some of that forward. I'm 100% behind that, but she's saying that in response to something, as if those rich people already weren't paying it forward. They are. I would strongly argue a lot, if not everything she's talking about, boils down to taxes.
You should be careful when climbing such slippery slopes. You might fall. (Actually, if you had read the article, you'd notice that the plan is to roll many of the functions of those departments into others with the same purpose.)
