• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

Your premise -- that Buffett is not willing to do it -- is false. Buffett is lobbying for a change that would apply to him. In other words, he is willing to do it so long as it's a systemic change.
Right, he is willing to do it so long as everyone else has to as well. How very 3rd grade of him. Again, he would have my support if he put his money where his mouth is. Have him start paying the taxes he wants his countrymen to pay, before FORCING them to do so, and I promise you, he would get a LOT more support for his cause, because he would prove himself to be genuine.

You are making the weak argument that conservatives always make in these cases: that there should be no collective action, when collective action is required, because person X hasn't volunteered by himself.
When person X is the person trying to MANDATE that collective action, I absolutely expect them to participate, and when it's something like this, I absolutely expect them to LEAD THE WAY.
If someone is trying to convince the town that 100,000 sandbags need to be laid down to hold back the river, it's senseless to criticize that man because he hasn't already laid down 20 or 30 sandbags himself.
When someone is trying to force a select few members of the town to start laying down 100,000 sandbags, without actually offering to jump in first, what does it look like? Have we totally forgotten what good leadership is, in this country? Sometimes, to get people to follow you, you have to jump into the fray.

Buffet is not. Buffet is only willing to jump in, so long as everyone else has a guy with a gun to their backs, pushing them in as well. How very noble of the man.


So, for the record, you have not yet answered my question.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force? It's a simple question. It has a simple answer. I just think none of you want to hear it.
 
Right, he is willing to do it so long as everyone else has to as well. How very 3rd grade of him. Again, he would have my support if he put his money where his mouth is. Have him start paying the taxes he wants his countrymen to pay, before FORCING them to do so, and I promise you, he would get a LOT more support for his cause, because he would prove himself to be genuine.

When person X is the person trying to MANDATE that collective action, I absolutely expect them to participate, and when it's something like this, I absolutely expect them to LEAD THE WAY.
When someone is trying to force a select few members of the town to start laying down 100,000 sandbags, without actually offering to jump in first, what does it look like? Have we totally forgotten what good leadership is, in this country? Sometimes, to get people to follow you, you have to jump into the fray.

Buffet is not. Buffet is only willing to jump in, so long as everyone else has a guy with a gun to their backs, pushing them in as well. How very noble of the man.


So, for the record, you have not yet answered my question.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force? It's a simple question. It has a simple answer. I just think none of you want to hear it.

Again, you start with a false premise. He isn't asking everyone else to start first. He is saying that everyone needs to pitch in together, at the same time. He is leading by example by speaking out publicly and advocating for change. That's how a democracy works. If you are lobbying for a new highway interchange you don't go out with a pick and shovel and start building it yourself.
 
Again, you start with a false premise. He isn't asking everyone else to start first. He is saying that everyone needs to pitch in together, at the same time. He is leading by example by speaking out publicly and advocating for change. That's how a democracy works. If you are lobbying for a new highway interchange you don't go out with a pick and shovel and start building it yourself.

A highway is public property, so you can only affect change to it without the consent of the people that own it, the public. Failed analogy, because there is NO RULE at all against him giving more in taxes.

Does he have to? No. But he'll sure as hell garner more support by doing so. He has the ability to put his money where his mouth is, but is NOT, at least, not until everyone else HAS to, as well. So, I'll ask again.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force?
 
Nitpicking the analogy.... I could come up with a closer one, but not necessary.

Here's the key:

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force?

The reason it's argued that it should be done by force is precisely that most people won't do it by choice. How many people do you think would pay taxes if it was 100% voluntary?
 
Yes, because Thomas Jefferson was an infamous fascist....



They sound absolutely militant authoritarian......


j-mac

Are you serious? You read a mission statement which mentions Jefferson and suddenly that is what they are all about? Incredible. This kidnapping of Jefferson fits the MO

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

If you really are a patriotic American who does NOT want to see a type of fascism come to our land, you should invest the time and read this

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
 
Last edited:
When Bush faced increasing unemployment from a recession that he inherited from Clinton, and the effects of 9/11 exacerbated, those gains cuts spurred the lowest unemployment that this country has seen at 4.5%. Now I am sure you'll give me twisted figures to deny this fact. But I don't expect honesty.


j-mac

When are conservatives going to accept the truth. Bush did not inherit a recession from Clinton. The recession started on Bush's term. It would be fair to say that Bush didn't cause the recession of 2001, but to say that he inherited it from Clinton is pure BS. If the recession had started during Clinton's term, you would be truthful in saying that, but it didn't. Now, Obama, did indeed inherit a recession from Bush, yet Republican/conservatives are always eager to blame Obama for the sorry state of the economy that Bush handed him. Notice that the expansion lasted 10 years - all during Clinton's term.


November 26, 2001
This report is also available as a PDF file.The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

The Business-Cycle Peak of March 2001


The NBER said Monday that the recession which began in December 2007 ended in June 2009, which marked the beginning of an expansion. The announcement rules out the possibility of a so-called “double-dip” recession, because any new downturn would be seen as a brand new recession.
‘Great Recession’ over, research group says - Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com










 
No it's better to start two wars borrow money to pay for them that the taxpayer will have to repay with interest rather then help the poor of this country is that what you are saying?

I'm asking you if you think Presidents set the tax rates.

Listen to the GOP debates lately?

No.
 
Again, you start with a false premise. He isn't asking everyone else to start first. He is saying that everyone needs to pitch in together, at the same time. He is leading by example by speaking out publicly and advocating for change.

That's not what "leading by example" is. Leading by example means leading with your actions. And for the record one more time:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

If I say "people should grow as much of their own food as possible," and I don't grow any of my own food, am I leading by example by expressing that opinion?


It amazes me that, at a time when the resentment toward the very rich has perhaps never been higher, one extremely rich guy can come out and say, with his hands in the air, "hey, I support higher taxes" and immediately the left wing believes him and is thankful for his spirit of generosity and can't see through the BS that this is a self-preserving PR move.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious? You read a mission statement which mentions Jefferson and suddenly that is what they are all about? Incredible. This kidnapping of Jefferson fits the MO



If you really are a patriotic American who does NOT want to see a type of fascism come to our land, you should invest the time and read this

ALEC Exposed - Alec Exposed

Thanks for the link - I wonder why ALEC hasn't been exposed more avidly in the news? It's sort of obvious that corporations have had a huge control over our laws, but this is just insane!
 
That's not what "leading by example" is. Leading by example means leading with your actions. And for the record one more time:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

That's a sorry example, especially since they are going to pay them. So your suggestion is that if you can get away with not paying taxes because others don't, it's okay (although the article doesn't claim that they are not going to pay it, just that they are behind)? And, also, your suggestion is for people that see the unfairness of tax rates and voice their opinion should be willing to contribute more of their money to taxes, so others can continue to benefit from the unfairness?

From your link:

The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year.




If I say "people should grow as much of their own food as possible," and I don't grow any of my own food, am I leading by example by expressing that opinion?
Buffett isn't suggesting that people volunteer more of their money to the IRS, he is suggesting that the tax rates are unfair to the middle-class. I'm sure that if they changed the tax rates Buffett will be more than willing to pay his share, as is Mark Cuban and others who have brought it up, so your comparison is FAIL.
 
Deductions are strictly voluntary. I would like to know how many folks in the, "please, raise my taxes", crowd voluntarily don't take deductions.
What a lame response. It isn't that Buffett wants to pay more, he is voicing his opinion on how unfair the tax rates are for the middle-class - something that conservatives don't seem to grasp in an effort to stay in step with their millionaire leaders.

Anyone that doesn't understand how to pay more taxes, on their own, doesn't know much about the tax code.
Doesn't surprise me that you miss the whole point.


Take fewer deductions...boom!...you pay more taxes.
Brilliant, in the meantime our country is suffering, your leaders want to protect their money, and you don't mind footing the difference, that is, unless you are one of those millionaires.
 
The point is that once Obama loses this next election they will fade into the background again.

j-mac

Ha,ha, and which of the three critters do you propose is going to beat Obama?

Republican-Choice.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's not what "leading by example" is. Leading by example means leading with your actions. And for the record one more time:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

If I say "people should grow as much of their own food as possible," and I don't grow any of my own food, am I leading by example by expressing that opinion?


It amazes me that, at a time when the resentment toward the very rich has perhaps never been higher, one extremely rich guy can come out and say, with his hands in the air, "hey, I support higher taxes" and immediately the left wing believes him and is thankful for his spirit of generosity and can't see through the BS that this is a self-preserving PR move.

Your argument would hold water if Buffett was saying that wealthy people should voluntarily pay more in taxes, but that's not what he's saying and your argument does not hold water. He isn't holding himself out as a role model. He's saying that, as a matter of pubic policy, the rich should be required to pay higher taxes.
 
Raising the caps on FICA should suffice.

Why, any cutoff makes payroll taxes regressive. Not sure why people want to cling to a seperate set of taxes.
 
Your argument would hold water if Buffett was saying that wealthy people should voluntarily pay more in taxes, but that's not what he's saying and your argument does not hold water. He isn't holding himself out as a role model. He's saying that, as a matter of pubic policy, the rich should be required to pay higher taxes.

I'm pretty sure people can't voluntarily pay more in taxes than they owe. So don't mistake me for saying this is what he should do, or that this is what HE'S saying he should do. I get it. But his own investment firm has had its tax issues. The disagreement definitely isn't that Berkshire Hathaway has been paying too much in taxes since 2002. And that's just convenient as a point of irony.

I also don't see how offering this opinion (that tax policy should have the rich paying more) makes him some role model when he has so much to gain from being both philanthropic as well as being widely perceived as such. When you're that rich, you pretty much have to work on crafting an image as a philanthropist. Any alternative makes you an easy focal point for public wrath.

Don't write this off as cynicism. From the standpoint of anyone with that much money, it's a rational move.
 
I'm pretty sure people can't voluntarily pay more in taxes than they owe. So don't mistake me for saying this is what he should do, or that this is what HE'S saying he should do. I get it. But his own investment firm has had its tax issues. The disagreement definitely isn't that Berkshire Hathaway has been paying too much in taxes since 2002. And that's just convenient as a point of irony.

I also don't see how offering this opinion (that tax policy should have the rich paying more) makes him some role model when he has so much to gain from being both philanthropic as well as being widely perceived as such. When you're that rich, you pretty much have to work on crafting an image as a philanthropist. Any alternative makes you an easy focal point for public wrath.

Don't write this off as cynicism. From the standpoint of anyone with that much money, it's a rational move.

When you're as rich as Buffett is it really doesn't matter what people think about you.
 
When you're as rich as Buffett is it really doesn't matter what people think about you.

I dunno Adam, there's some crazy angry anti-establishment folks out there. Sure you can pay for your own army of bodyguards, but no one likes to live that paranoid. If you're well-known as the guy that donated billions to charity and is pretending to agree with the OWS protesters, rather than as the guy who's worth billions and doesn't care what people think about him, you're likely to sleep a little better at night.
 
Ha,ha, and which of the three critters do you propose is going to beat Obama?

Republican-Choice.jpg

There are more than 3 candidates for the GOP nomination, and more than two parties in the election.
 
Nitpicking the analogy.... I could come up with a closer one, but not necessary.

Here's the key:



The reason it's argued that it should be done by force is precisely that most people won't do it by choice. How many people do you think would pay taxes if it was 100% voluntary?

Finally. Someone has answered my question.

Now, next question.

How should I view a person who built his fortune on evading taxes, currently owes the IRS up to his nipples, but is advocating an increase in his over all taxation, and through HIS increase, also increase everyone else's in his pay scale?
 
Thanks for the link - I wonder why ALEC hasn't been exposed more avidly in the news? It's sort of obvious that corporations have had a huge control over our laws, but this is just insane!

Because our news media are just subsidiary pieces of the very same corporations involved with ALEC.
 
Your argument would hold water if Buffett was saying that wealthy people should voluntarily pay more in taxes, but that's not what he's saying and your argument does not hold water. He isn't holding himself out as a role model. He's saying that, as a matter of pubic policy, the rich should be required to pay higher taxes.

If there were some way to put THIS line way at the beginning of this thread, none of this arguing would ever have happened. The language used up till now made it sound more like "Buffet and some other rich dudes want to raise taxes because they feel they, and others like them, can afford to shoulder more burden."

Which is just saying the same thing, but in a different way. NOW Buffet sounds less disingenious. NOW it just sounds like typical democrat mantra, but from a different source.

If I said we should have a capital gains tax that is comparable to the income tax at the higher income levels, but NO INCREASES on income taxes at any level...would you agree?
 
If I said we should have a capital gains tax that is comparable to the income tax at the higher income levels, but NO INCREASES on income taxes at any level...would you agree?

I'm not sure what that means. Comparable how?

My personal belief is that we should immediately create a top tax rate of something like 50% for income over $1 million dollars. Once the economy is on a more solid footing -- say, unemployment at 7% and GDP growth at 3% -- that rate should remain in effect and all of the Bush tax cuts should be rescinded.

In addition we should reform Medicare by implementing limited means testing, permitting negotiation of Rx prices, and moving to a France-type provider compensation model. And we should, of course, cut defense spending considerably. We could also raise the SS retirement age slightly and increase the SS tax cutoff.

If we do all those things we will not have a debt problem.
 
I'm not sure what that means. Comparable how?

My personal belief is that we should immediately create a top tax rate of something like 50% for income over $1 million dollars. Once the economy is on a more solid footing -- say, unemployment at 7% and GDP growth at 3% -- that rate should remain in effect and all of the Bush tax cuts should be rescinded.

In addition we should reform Medicare by implementing limited means testing, permitting negotiation of Rx prices, and moving to a France-type provider compensation model. And we should, of course, cut defense spending considerably. We could also raise the SS retirement age slightly and increase the SS tax cutoff.

If we do all those things we will not have a debt problem.

The debt problem will only get worse. You'll just end up creating a situation where you end up receiving less tax revenue that you are now.
 
Buffet alone is not going to change anything just with his money, true.

It took a while, but you got it!!!!

But then, even a pebble tossed into a pond can eventually become a wave. If you're not willing to toss the pebble, why would you expect to try to force others to do it for you? You gotta start somewhere...and I would be a LOT more behind these people if they were willing to start that SOMEWHERE by choice, rather than trying to start right out with the application of federal force against their fellow man.

Its not Buffet's decision as to whether we eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. It will be decided by the majority of Americans next November, and the place the majority of America has decided to start is by eliminating the tax cuts given to the rich over the last 30 years.
 
It took a while, but you got it!!!!



Its not Buffet's decision as to whether we eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. It will be decided by the majority of Americans next November, and the place the majority of America has decided to start is by eliminating the tax cuts given to the rich over the last 30 years.

How is that going to happen, when the Republicans are going to sweep the elections.
 
Back
Top Bottom