I would like to see the anti-Warren Buffett, the Bizarro one I mean. I would like to see him or her tell the story of how the continuation of the Eisenhower-era low rates the top bracket now pays has created jobs. And I would like for that person to point to the jobs that have been created and the jobs that are continuing to be created. Where's that guy? Or woman? Because the cuts the "job creating" rich wanted (or that the Republicans wanted for them) are in place. And somehow the jobs are not. It's not because the rich can't afford to hire; they can. But if a company creates widgets and no one can afford to buy them, why would they hire someone to make more widgets?
Just imagine how bad unemployment would be if we didn't cut taxes on the rich? Just because you can't see it, don't imagine it isn't there. No, don't try to calculate it, just imagine it. Remember, ignorance is strength. Low taxes on the rich are double-plus good. But why are we talking about this when there are terrorists out there who hate us for our freedoms? Speaking of, I think it's almost time for our two minutes of hate.
Do you think the rich should pay tax? If so how much? At what point is the tax too low and at what point is the tax too much?
The Bush tax cuts had a net cost of about $2 trillion to the government - though I believe that assumes no effect on the economy, and that's ALL the cuts rather than just the wealthy. The problem with all these arguments is that we don't have access to the counter-factual - it's all theoretical as to how many jobs might have been created in the alternative scenarios. Historically, there's no evidence of better job createion in post tax-cut periods as opposed to post tax-hike periods. For every period of fantastic job growth after a tax cut (1980's), there is an example of no growth after a tax cut (2000's) or high growth after a tax hike (1990s). The only thing we really know is that tax cuts reduce short-term revenues to the government - that is pretty clearly shown in the historical data.
Yes. It's too low when you have an economic environment where most new income flows to the super-rich (as we have now). It's too high / unfair when you have an economic environment where relatively little of the new income flows to the rich. Over the last decade, something like 80% of the new wealth in the country has gone to the top 1% (I don't remember the exact stats). That indicates the wealthy are having no problem making money and thus that the tax rate has not been some kind of unfair burden on them.
There's no perfect chart and you can use a variety of measures, but here's one that was posted here recently: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-09-17-Plutocracy_graphic.jpg When that chart spikes, you probably should be raising taxes on the wealthy. When that chart crashes, the rich are probably taxed relatively too much.
tax breaks for the rich won't fix the economy. Tax increases on the rich won't fix the economy. Its all a sideshow distraction. Getting resources out of bombing third world countries and into productive industries at home would contribute to a healthy economy (rather than just a productive military industrial complex) but neither party wants to do that.
True, but taxing the rich more will help reduce deficit and hopefully eventually reduce the debt. The two biggest problems in this country are military spending and health care costs, if you fix these two problems, you pretty much solves all debt deficit issues. However, getting the two parties to solve these will be a tall order that is not likely to happen within my lifetime I think.
No one has suggested that increasing taxes (on anyone) will fix the economy. What it will do is help reduce the deficit, which limits other things that government can do to help fix the economy.
if the middle class didn't buy all those shiny new tows, where would the economy be. the problem is income distribution
I think this is a good point. Tax policy is a pretty small lever on a pretty big social phenomenon -- the growing income class disparity. Maybe we could mitigate some of the pain of deficits with tax reform and spending cuts, but it doesn't do much for the improverishment of the middle and lower class. If the growth of our prosperity ended up in the bank accounts of these people instead of the rich, we wouldn't need to talk about singling out rich people for tax hikes; we also might not be scratching our heads trying to figure out how to get the economy going again.
There is a big difference between raising taxes on those making over a Million and 10 Million versus $250,000. I agree that certain tax loopholes afforded to the super-rich need to be closed down.
The European periphery states either failed to regulate their yahoo financial services sector (Ireland/Iceland), or were effectively providing extensive social services with high tax evasion/low tax rates (Greece). Countries with balanced budgets enabled by taxation systems that can provide for spending, and strong regulation, have fared quite well (ex: Norway/Denmark/Sweden/Germany)
Whoa now, that's giving them too much credit--well, unless we're talking about that creationist museum in Kentucky...
The ones that really get pissed off are the the mainly working class followers of the famed economist baby doc Ron Paul. Income and all taxes are theft. What does Buffet know about business or economics compared to Ron Paul?T
I have really been largely a fan of Buffet since he said in response to praise about how he and Gates started one of the biggest charities in the world with $ 100 billion how much good they could do. Buffet responded that though it was a lot of money it was nothing compared to what the US government could do with its money. I know, the conservative/libertarians will hate him even more.
