Are free to pay extra taxes. You're both RICH. Not the small business own a dry cleaners and make 251k a year rich but actually rich.
You're mystified by the greed today? And Buffett doesn't think it's right that he's paying less taxes than his secretary? (not true by the way) Well nobody said you can't give more of your money to the IRS.
And yet......You don't.
So here's to you Mr. Buffett and and Mr. Sterling. I'm raising my frosted mug of Sam Adams because I can't afford the Iron Horse wine that you guys make and drink. So as you live in the lap of luxury and give your children all the spoils of the world I'm saying go Fuck yourselves with your holier than though attitudes and if you think the government deserves more money you're more than welcome to give them all of yours.
13 comments:
Buffet only pays himself $100,000 a yr salary, the rest is in dividends, and by rest I mean billions. Its a shell game that the uber rich can play so that they can still claim the moral high road of supporting higher taxes that they dont pay.His success is awe inspiring, but he is not a good person...never was.
Whining again about the horrible prospect of the top tax rate going up 3%. Have a little dignity.
gary do you know how to read? Do you know what this post is about?
I don't think you do.
Yes, as usual you are opposing any tax increase on the rich. Supposedly because they if the rich have more money they will hire more people and if their taxes are cut they will leave the country. In fact, the proposed increase is only to the top marginal rate that existed during the Clinton administration, a time of prosperity for the country during which the rich did well. Also it is a fact that the CEOs that have made the most money in recent years have been the ones that have layed off the most people and outsourced the most jobs.
Why are you still arguing in favor of tax increaes. Youve acknowledged tax cuts work. Make up your mind. Or is your position soley based on bitterness and not principle?
On a side note, for the first time in history the outlay of PFI's is greater than tax revenue collected, while the percentage of wealth owned by the top 1% hasnt changed in almost 100 years. Its the poor that suffer most from any
....and if youre going to continue to credit Clinton, can you at least cite one example of his policies that directly were cause for said prosperity.
I acknowledged that tax cuts stimulate the economy to a degree but not enough to pay for themselves. Tax cuts for the poor and middle class also stimulate the economy. Government spending also stimulates the economy: it's what got us out of the Great Depression. The top 1% have gotten vastly richer in recent decades; that's just a fact.
Ok first overall your first sentence is just dumb, "to pay for themselves"??? That doesnt even make sense. Secondly, your second sentence is just flat out wrong. There is no such thing as tax cuts for the "poor". Half this country pay federal tax, and as I pointed out pfi's are for first time greater than rev collected aka a whole lot of slackers such as yourself are riding the bus for free. Govt spending does not stim the economy and it not get us out of the great depression and his down nothing to help the current situation. Lastly, as a percentage the top 5% posess the same amount of wealth today as t hey did 100 years ago, while the amount of poor are expanding because they have no motivation or incentive to succeed...and that is a fact.
Your ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds.
Finally, the point of the post is that the guy in the story (sterling) and Buffett are saying the tax rates should go up and yet they DON'T PAY ANY MORE THAN THEY'RE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO. In fact, I would put real money on it that they have TEAMS of accountants helping them shelter their income and avoid paying more than is required. Just like Joe Biden who thinks it's your patriotic duty to pay more taxes but doesn't pay any extra either.
Why are these scumbags lecturing to the world if they're not willing to do it themselves?
Nobody told them they can't write an extra check to the IRS and yet they don't.
And while we're at it gary you can pay some extra yourself if you think the government is better suited to spend your money than you are.
No one is going to voluntarily give money to the government, obviously. That's why we have taxes. Perhaps the government should hold bake sales?
Some supply-side economists argued that tax cuts would pay for themselves, that is that we could cut taxes and revenue would actually go up. That been shown not to be the case. Everyone agrees that it was government spending in connection with WW2 that got us out of the depression.
We can disagree as to whether the top tax rate should or should not be raised 3% to Clintonian levels but if it is it will not be the end of the world. And if it is not, it will not be the end of the world either, although the deficit will be bigger.
As to your insults, as usual you only show your lack of character.
So, since no one is going to voluntarily give money to the gov't then why should you pay a less percentage than someone who makes more, gary? Let's say you had a job and you made 40K. At 25% you would pay 10K in taxes. Let's say Rhino makes 500K, at 25% he pays 125K. So in essence they do pay more. The only logical reason for making the rich pay more of a percentage is that you are bitter that they make more, plain and simple. It's the lazy man's emotional rationalization and it's pathetic. Get off your ass and do something to contribute or pipe down.
First of all, some people make quite a bit less than 40K. Let's say a sales clerk makes 12K. She can't really afford to pay 25% for taxes and still eat. On the other hand a millionaire can. Seems simple enough. It's called progressive taxation. During the Eisenhower administration the top rate was 91%, no doubt too high. The current debate is between those who want it to be 36% and those who want it back at 39%, where it was during Clinton. We disagree but that doesn't make you a fascist or me a communist.
Taxing the rich isn't the answer. Better management of the money is what is needed. Until the gov't can use tax revenues in a productive manner then I am not in favor of any tax increase on ANYONE.
gary the clerk doesn't pay 25% and in fact doesn't pay anything at all just like 50% of the country doesn't pay anything at all but if you really think we need to raise taxes then how about making the clerk pay a 3% tax? Can she afford 750 a year? Now multiply that 3% by 50% of the entire country. Lets start there and see where we are after that. Spread the burden not just the wealth.
Post a Comment