Op Ed From Warren Buffett

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So at 100% it still doesn't cover the negative spending year over year. What about the 15 trillion in debt that we have built up? When do we start fixing that... even at 100% tax rate? Our debt payments already make up 30% of our expenditures.

Yeah, I know, that's bad, I don't disagree. And it gets much worse as healthcare costs rise over the next decades. I get that. That's why we need to attack the problem from all sizes. We need to increase revenue, streamline the federal and state governments, and reduce the amont we spend on Medicare and Medicaid. We must do all these things.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, I know, that's bad, I don't disagree. And it gets much worse as healthcare costs rise over the next decades. I get that. That's why we need to attack the problem from all sizes. We need to increase revenue, streamline the federal and state governments, and reduce the amont we spend on Medicare and Medicaid. We must do all these things.

Smokers dying just after they stop working ( paying taxes ) and before they get much SS and use much Medicare is the best thing we can do.Time to make cigarettes and cigars free.

[mrdannyg 274]

Smokers dying just after they stop working ( paying taxes ) and before they get much SS and use much Medicare is the best thing we can do.Time to make cigarettes and cigars free.

I do think there are some serious potential benefits here. Hell, just allow assisted suicide and you'll be saving millions (billions!) on SS, Medicare.

[brvheart 1,752]

Can't people already kill themselves? Or do you think the legality of the issue is what is stopping people? "I would ****ing end it all right now, if it wasn't illegal."

[El Guapo 8]

The dumb thing about what he said is raising cPitsl gains won't stop some one from making an investment, but it sure as he'll will stop them from selling it.

[SilentSnow 1]

I've already been talking about this for a while, but it looks like it's time for another update. Most people severely underestimate how unevenly wealth is distributed in the United States. The top 1% make 20-25% of annual income and have about 40% of the total wealth. It's estimated that millionaires in the united states are worth about 45 trillion(39 trillion + 6 trillion in tax evasion schemes). You could do a one time 33% wealth tax on only millionaires and pay off the entire national debt tomorrow. We could run our entire yearly government expenses exclusively on money from the top 1% and that group would still have a trillion dollars a year left over. The rich in this country have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of our deficit spending. Their incomes have skyrocketed in the last 30 years as tax rates have significantly decreased. The fair thing is to have those who benefited from the debt pay it back. Instead, Republicans will do everything in their power to screw over the poor and middle class even more than they already have. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/rich-are-...ore-double-2020http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features...currentPage=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.htmlAlso, the "higher tax rate hurts investors" arguments is complete nonsense. We have far more investment money available than we know what to do with. The main problem with our economy is that there isn't enough demand, thus making very little worth investing in. The demand problem can't possibly be fixed by handing the rich even more money than we have already.

[vbnautilus 48]

Can't people already kill themselves? Or do you think the legality of the issue is what is stopping people? "I would ****ing end it all right now, if it wasn't illegal."

First of all, no, not everyone has the ability to kill themselves depending on their medical condition. But more importantly people do not have access to the most humane ways of killing themselves, especially when they are already hospitalized, because those drugs are controlled by doctors that are prevented by law from dispensing them.

[brvheart 1,752]

You could do a one time 33% wealth tax on only millionaires and pay off the entire national debt tomorrow. We could run our entire yearly government expenses exclusively on money from the top 1% and that group would still have a trillion dollars a year left over.

HAHAHAHAHADo you realize how retarded you are? I now believe that you are some sort of community college philosophy instructor on the west coast.If you made every person with a million dollar net worth write a check to the government "tomorrow" for $333,000 you would receive zero dollars and the entire country would immediately go bankrupt. All the small businesses would close, so all the poor people would lose their jobs. 200 million people would be on unemployment/welfare/food stamps.Good idea. I wish someone would have thought of this before now.This post is the "Left" in all of it's economic glory. Like ten posts above you, LLY already showed you the numbers. Taxed at 100% the top 2% can't even cover the yearly deficit, let alone the continually increasing debt load."IT'S SO SIMPLE! JUST MAKE THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE WRITE A CHECK EVEN THOUGH THAT MONEY ISN'T ACTUALLY IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS!!! Then tomorrow, when we get everyone's checks, we will just quick write a 15 trillion dollar check to China. I'm sooooo smart!!!@1111!!!!!11!!!!!"You're right, dude. It was high time that we all had another excellent economics lesson from our very own resident genius. Keep the updates more regular.

[brvheart 1,752]

First of all, no, not everyone has the ability to kill themselves depending on their medical condition. But more importantly people do not have access to the most humane ways of killing themselves, especially when they are already hospitalized, because those drugs are controlled by doctors that are prevented by law from dispensing them.

If they weren't pussies they could have a relative bring them a gun. Get creative: is my motto.

[ShakeZuma 585]

The argument isn't just that they'll have less money to invest, but that they'll be less interested in investing; invest a smaller proportion in addition to a smaller amount.The first part is just simple math. Take more of their income, they'll have less to invest. No one argues that. The proportion aspect is where things get touchy.I think we all know the solution - cut down income taxes. Way down, especially on the wealthy. But increase estate taxes. Like a crazy, ridiculous amount. 95% of amounts over $1MM. 99% of amounts over $100M. Just rape people. No loopholes, or any of the BS people use to transfer wealth either. Anything that isn't a legitimate operational corporation gets hit. Since we're all selfish pigs, it shouldn't affect investment. Investors are more efficient than the government, so growth in wealth is maximized. Republicans are happy! And government revenues increase in the long run. Liberals are happy!I think I should go to sleep.

no, that isn't the argument that he's making. he's saying people won't stop investing because of higher rates. buffett is making the non-investment argument as a red herring, and that's the problem when the real argument is that higher taxes destroys wealth. now what guapo said is true, in that higher capital gains taxes will affect when people sell. and if capital gains taxes do exceed the expected risk/reward ratio from any given investment, then no, people won't invest then either. but what buffett's implying, that taxes will be raised and people will simply stop investing as some sort of protest, is very misleading and distracts from the real arguments about the negative macro effects of raising taxes on higher wage earners and investors.as for the second part, I'm assuming you're just joking, but just in case, here is my sarcastic reply: hey great idea! I always thought that whole "right to property" thing was stupid anyways!

[akoff 0]

I've already been talking about this for a while, but it looks like it's time for another update. Most people severely underestimate how unevenly wealth is distributed in the United States. The top 1% make 20-25% of annual income and have about 40% of the total wealth. It's estimated that millionaires in the united states are worth about 45 trillion(39 trillion + 6 trillion in tax evasion schemes). You could do a one time 33% wealth tax on only millionaires and pay off the entire national debt tomorrow. We could run our entire yearly government expenses exclusively on money from the top 1% and that group would still have a trillion dollars a year left over. The rich in this country have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of our deficit spending. Their incomes have skyrocketed in the last 30 years as tax rates have significantly decreased. The fair thing is to have those who benefited from the debt pay it back. Instead, Republicans will do everything in their power to screw over the poor and middle class even more than they already have. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/rich-are-...ore-double-2020http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features...currentPage=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.htmlAlso, the "higher tax rate hurts investors" arguments is complete nonsense. We have far more investment money available than we know what to do with. The main problem with our economy is that there isn't enough demand, thus making very little worth investing in. The demand problem can't possibly be fixed by handing the rich even more money than we have already.

oh my...you want those who have benefited from the debt to pay it back? you really want to raise tax on the poor?? they already have 3, 4 5 generations living on welfare and no life skills, you want to get rid of SS and the Meds, you want to close the doors on franny and freddie....damn democrats really do hate poor people.

[SilentSnow 1]

HAHAHAHAHADo you realize how retarded you are? I now believe that you are some sort of community college philosophy instructor on the west coast.If you made every person with a million dollar net worth write a check to the government "tomorrow" for $333,000 you would receive zero dollars and the entire country would immediately go bankrupt. All the small businesses would close, so all the poor people would lose their jobs. 200 million people would be on unemployment/welfare/food stamps.Good idea. I wish someone would have thought of this before now.This post is the "Left" in all of it's economic glory. Like ten posts above you, LLY already showed you the numbers. Taxed at 100% the top 2% can't even cover the yearly deficit, let alone the continually increasing debt load."IT'S SO SIMPLE! JUST MAKE THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE WRITE A CHECK EVEN THOUGH THAT MONEY ISN'T ACTUALLY IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS!!! Then tomorrow, when we get everyone's checks, we will just quick write a 15 trillion dollar check to China. I'm sooooo smart!!!@1111!!!!!11!!!!!"You're right, dude. It was high time that we all had another excellent economics lesson from our very own resident genius. Keep the updates more regular.

Your post shows the "Right" in all their glory. Absolute ignorance of the facts, yet completely derisive towards those that are aware. LLYs post lists total "income" as 7.7 trillion. Our economy is 15 trillion. Clearly those numbers do not account for all income. If they are measuring household income, then the proportion of non-household income not shown is disproportionately taken by the rich. Your idea about what would happen contains so many misconceptions that I hardly know where to begin. But it doesn't matter what I post since there is literally no fact that you wouldn't be willing to ignore.

[mrdannyg 274]

This post is the "Left" in all of it's economic glory.

To be clear, that argument had basically nothing to do with economics. Discussions like "what would happen if tax rates are 100%" are math, not economics. "Math" might be a generous term for SS, but to represent it as one philosophy's economic basis is a stretch.

as for the second part, I'm assuming you're just joking, but just in case, here is my sarcastic reply: hey great idea! I always thought that whole "right to property" thing was stupid anyways!

dead people have no rights!(this post, and the last one on the same topic, are not serious)

[mrdannyg 274]

HAHAHAHAHADo you realize how retarded you are? I now believe that you are some sort of community college philosophy instructor on the west coast.If you made every person with a million dollar net worth write a check to the government "tomorrow" for $333,000 you would receive zero dollars and the entire country would immediately go bankrupt. All the small businesses would close, so all the poor people would lose their jobs. 200 million people would be on unemployment/welfare/food stamps.Good idea. I wish someone would have thought of this before now.This post is the "Left" in all of it's economic glory. Like ten posts above you, LLY already showed you the numbers. Taxed at 100% the top 2% can't even cover the yearly deficit, let alone the continually increasing debt load."IT'S SO SIMPLE! JUST MAKE THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE WRITE A CHECK EVEN THOUGH THAT MONEY ISN'T ACTUALLY IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS!!! Then tomorrow, when we get everyone's checks, we will just quick write a 15 trillion dollar check to China. I'm sooooo smart!!!@1111!!!!!11!!!!!"You're right, dude. It was high time that we all had another excellent economics lesson from our very own resident genius. Keep the updates more regular.

Why would they get $0? Maybe because everyone is laughing or moving to Canada, but they'd still get a few bucks. Sure, the stock market would fall 50% (and probably another 40% or so in the next week), the majority of businesses would close, the banks would fall, etc. But the government would still get some cash out of the deal!Hell, let's take SS plan one step farther. Hire every unemployed person as either a border guard or money collector. Take 50% from everyone, no matter how their assets are held. Close the banks, markets, and every business. Sure, we'll all have to become farmers or something, but we'd get rid of the debt!Oh, and we'd have to sell pretty much every major city to foreigners, since real estate has no value if there are no buyers. So I guess we'd all move to Iowa and be farmers. Might be crowded.I bet we could pay off the debt though!Or, maybe not.Discuss.

[iZuma 764]

dead people have no rights!

tell that to the judge in my latest necrophelia trial

[mk 11]

What about the 15 trillion in debt that we have built up? When do we start fixing that... even at 100% tax rate? Our debt payments already make up 30% of our expenditures.

Debt service is more like 6% of the budget, not 30% fwiw.And I find it comical that this forum is so hilariously anarcho-capitalist that hball can make claims that have 0, as in, like, no basis whatsoever in reality, and people say nothing.He claims "taxing the rich has near zero effect on tax revenue collected".Let me ask you, H, what is the largest source of federal revenues?This forum has gone so far off the deep end it's almost funny.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Debt service is more like 6% of the budget, not 30% fwiw.And I find it comical that this forum is so hilariously anarcho-capitalist that hball can make claims that have 0, as in, like, no basis whatsoever in reality, and people say nothing.He claims "taxing the rich has near zero effect on tax revenue collected".Let me ask you, H, what is the largest source of federal revenues?This forum has gone so far off the deep end it's almost funny.

If I call out Henry on everything he says that I disagree with the Cato Institute will stop following me on Twitter and and I need all the followers I can get.

[vbnautilus 48]

If they weren't pussies they could have a relative bring them a gun. Get creative: is my motto.

Well obviously we are talking about pussies here, they are trying to kill themselves!

[SilentSnow 1]

Why would they get $0? Maybe because everyone is laughing or moving to Canada, but they'd still get a few bucks. Sure, the stock market would fall 50% (and probably another 40% or so in the next week), the majority of businesses would close, the banks would fall, etc. But the government would still get some cash out of the deal!

First of all, I was posting those as hypothetical examples proving that Bravehearts claims about wealth were absolutely false. But let's suppose that these were actual proposals. A 1 time deficit elimination tax of 33% and only tax the rich from now on. Could the rich move to Canada or anywhere else? No. At least not rationally. You only have a rational incentive to move if tax rates are significantly lower somewhere else. I don't know the exact number, but in general the US taxes the rich far less than other rich countries. Let's estimate the rich get taxed at 18%, while somewhere else they get taxed at 35%. Taxes could be almost doubled without them having any rational incentive to leave. But even at a 70% tax rate(about what it would take for the top 1% to entirely fund the government) they would still have a large incentive not to leave. First, the one time tax would already be gone. So would the top 1% do better in another country at half the tax rate? Unlikely. First of all, if they moved they would lose their US business, which would probably make them much poorer even with the lower tax rates. Second, they know perfectly well that the "anyone can succeed" meme is just BS. They would be much better off being less rich in the US than trying to start over somewhere else. But what about the businesses? First of all, even if you took a third of their wealth, the average millionaire in America would still have a massive amount left over. But how much you have in your bank account is nearly irrelevant. Whether you have a million or 10 billion in your bank account, your business decisions would be virtually the same. A business is either profitable or not. If in rare cases a business owner did not have enough liquid assets to pay the tax then banks would be willing to lend them enough to keep the business. You also have to consider that Hblask is correct that who pays a tax depends on elasticity, but the implications aren't even remotely what he thinks they are. If you taxed the rich 100%, the poor would still pay taxes indirectly through decisions the rich made about the economy. So if it depends on elasticity, then why does it matter who we tax? The difference between taxing the rich vs poor is that the rich have the flexibility to change things, while the poor tend to absorb taxes as a loss since they have little ability to change their situation. Also, money tends to flow from poor to rich. One of the main reasons our economy is doing poorly right now is that the poor and middle class have run out of money to give to the rich(lack of demand is the euphemism economists use). If you hand money to the rich the economy stalls because they are already spending as much money as they want and the money won't be put to work. If you give money to the poor the money will be spent and spread throughout the economy. I'm sure you are getting really excited to explain why this is so wrong, but it explains the facts perfectly. In the last 30 years, the rich have paid a lot less taxes and have become a lot richer. The poor have gotten poorer and also some of the middle class. Our economic performance(employment) in the last 10 years was the worst in modern history, at a time where the rich were the richest and tax rates were the lowest in decades. If you are going to disagree with me you'd better have an awfully good explanation for this. The banks wouldn't fail since they would still have a massive amount of money in them. The stock market might decline since much of this wealth is stored in stocks. However, the stock market has less connection to actual wealth than it ever has. After a temporary adjustment people would probably figure out that stock prices have little to do with whether a company is viable. Also, don't bother with the false "but company A went out of business when its stock declined" argument. A general stock decline is massively different than a relative one for one company.

[Balloon guy 158]

I agree with SS, it is the best option for the government to get into the habit of nationalizing people's bank accounts when they see fit.If they only take 33% then that just shows you how good the government is.

[mrdannyg 274]

A business is either profitable or not. If in rare cases a business owner did not have enough liquid assets to pay the tax then banks would be willing to lend them enough to keep the business.

In before brvheart!Just wanted to point out you are completely wrong about this. Unquestionably, not even close. You make three points here. I'd like to say that each one is more wrong than the next, but I can't. Like the colour black, each one is so completely devoid of rightness that they cannot be differentiated.

[SilentSnow 1]

I agree with SS, it is the best option for the government to get into the habit of nationalizing people's bank accounts when they see fit.If they only take 33% then that just shows you how good the government is.

What you fail to grasp is that the deficit will be paid no matter what. Either through higher taxes, lower economic growth or both. It has already been "nationalized" to use your stupid and misleading word. The question now is who will pay it? The rich, who were massive beneficiaries of the deficit spending- or the poor, who hardly seemed to benefit at all.

[iZuma 764]

from reading that last long post from silent snow, I slapped myself on the head so much in disbelief, that I have actually beat myself retarded, and I can now finally understand his posts! I'm excited! businesses and rich people don't alter their behavior because of taxes! also kitten black tie runboat fuggy buttons!

[mrdannyg 274]

from reading that last long post from silent snow, I slapped myself on the head so much in disbelief, that I have actually beat myself retarded, and I can now finally understand his posts! I'm excited! businesses and rich people don't alter their behavior because of taxes! also kitten black tie runboat fuggy buttons!

It is transparent that you're just prepping an insanity defence for when the people find all those raped corpses of trashy single mothers. AND THEIR RAPED CHILDREN.#rape

[CindyLou 11]

I now believe that you are some sort of community college philosophy instructor on the west coast.

Somebody should do a poll where we guess Snow's occupation.I'm going with "small business owner." He seems to have a pretty good grasp of how businesses operate.