Because you "earn" the income of about 80 people.

Or in otherwords - since the supply of money is limited - you steal the wages of 79 people who would otherwise have an income.

That's called selfish. Plain and simple.
[Not to mention completely cruel & dickish now that we're in a Global Depression]

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

That is really not the function of the taxes. We aren't buying services, we are paying for how much we benefit from society.

If you are super rich you are benefiting more, ergo you pay more.

So the fundamental flaw in your analogy is that your analogy applies a false logical equivalence between buying a product and receiving a benefit. A better analogy is investing in a company. I think that is how Buffet looks at America. We are his favorite investment, and he's saying he wants to double down.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Much is said about a "fair share." By whose measure is a "fair share?" If 3 people are in a room, not knowing their individual assets and they want to buy a $30 item, isn't a fair share $10 a piece? Then 2 of them find that the 3rd is worth 5 times as much as they are, so suddenly a "fair share" is different. They tell the 3rd "your fair share is 5 times what we should pay. No, on second thought, a fair share would be...we pay nothing and you should buy the item and give us some."
A "fair share" would be everybody paying the same amount. Since that's not possible a "fair share" turns into an appropriation that has nothing to do with being "fair." "Each according to his means," was a suggestion, not a mandate.

It seems to me that the people who this is most likely to affect, e.g. the people making more than 1 million dollars a year, are the most likely to be in support of raising taxes.

And by the argument that "those who pay the most should have the most say", I would venture to guess that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have the most say. So you lose Winston, you get no lifetime supply of chocolate.

Also, I can't stand how you pick and chose sentences to address in a rebuttal instead of considering the entirety of the comment. It is annoying habit that you frequently exploit.

You should apologize.

It's not just about paying more - it's about paying a fair share as well.

Those with low incomes pay exactly what they are supposed to because they have no choice.

Those in higher brackets have access to more and more tax write-offs and loopholes. The more you make, the more ways there are to get out of paying. The system is structured by the rich - for the rich. Not only are there more loopholes in the tax system for the rich, when they run out of loopholes, they start shifting money around looking for tax havens. And of course, it's really only the rich who can access those tax havens.

What needs to happen is the government needs to close all the loopholes and set up laws concerning havens. The problem is, only those in power can make those changes. The people with power are the higher wage earners and they aren't going to close the loopholes on themselves. Even if the government did step up to the plate and button down on all the loopholes, the lobbyists, the corporations, the wealthy-earners and so on won't just sit there and let it happen. They will fill the courts, bring in the lawyers and flood everything with red tape to the point that nothing gets accomplished.

So what do you do? We could raise taxes on the rich. It's not the right step but with so many rich people out there fighting to not pay anything, an increase in what they do pay may be a start.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. [...] Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes.

It looks like you just said Clinton's presidency was a success because Bush raised taxes and Clinton reaped the benefits. But obviously there are no benefits to raising taxes, so that couldn't have been what you meant.

I agree about simplifying the tax code. The system is overcomplicated and it leads to tax fraud and/or loopholes. It would be a boon to revenues in itself if millionaires actually paid the 35% rate they're supposed to.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rich, taxes, increase' to 'rich, taxes, increase, warren buffet, this week, wealthy' - edited by xxovercastxx

More happiness isn't a moral argument. It might make more people happy to have capital punishment, but that isn't a moral justification. So do go on and on.

>> ^heropsycho:

Except everyone is happier, everyone has more freedom, everyone is subjected to less crime, everyone's businesses are better off... I could go on and on.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That isn't a moral counter argument. It might be better for economy to have a dictator, but the pressures of commerce shouldn't drive morality, less you get us into our current economic crisis. Economics shouldn't be the founding principal for justification, unless your Ferengi.
>> ^heropsycho:
Because the economy works better for everyone, even you, when that's done an appropriate amount. How much more is debatable, but the basic principle still true regardless.
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80%. Why do you and qm keep claiming the choice is pure communism or capitalism, when there's a middle ground, one that is more capitalist than socialist? Why must the tax rates be 35% or less for everyone, or 80% on everyone, or just the rich?

That's not who you call "neolibs" are advocating. That's not what I am advocating.

It's a BS false choice between two polar opposites.

Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy.

IT'S NOT! Stop misrepresenting what is being suggested by sensible moderates.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Here you go Warren...
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Now you can freely donate as much of your money to the Federal Government as you please.
What's that? You haven't been doing it? In fact, you've been using every tax loophole, shelter, and economic trick in the book to AVOID paying taxes? naNIIIII?
Oh - that's right - you're a smart investor and you know giving money to the Feds is a terrible investment, just like Moody's, the S&P, and every other financial instutution on the planet is saying.
This isn't hard folks. Let's wave a magic wand. POOF! Every neolib fantasy has now come true. We've cut defense spending to only 4% of the budget like every other Euro nation. POOF! The federal government now confiscates 80% of all 'wealth' from every single company, corporation, financial institution, or person who has material goods or cash that exceeds $250,000. What exactly do you think is going to happen?
Any living being with a nervous system knows exactly what will happen. All that money will sluice like so much sewage into Washington, where it will completely dissappear. Poverty will not improve. Wealth disparity will not magically 'reallocate'. Health care will not suddenly become 'free'. Education will not improve. Hunger will not go away. The only thing that will have happened is that PEOPLE will have less freedom.
Buffett has no credibility because he's not doing what he's advocating. There's nothing stopping him from taking every penny he's got and giving it to the Feds. The fact that he hasn't done so proves only one thing... He knows enough to NOT sink his money into a terrible investment.

I'd buy your argument if it weren't for the fact that he's been so repeatedly successful over decades of investing. There's luck in everything, but consistent results over that long of time isn't luck.

>> ^Mashiki:

>> ^heropsycho:
I like how qm called Buffet a baffoon. Spot on. It would be different if Buffet were like some economic, investing super-genius. Like he's the most successful investor in the US, psssshhh...
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpres
s.com/2011/03/demotivational-posters-cant-tell-if-trolling.jpg

Investing is 20% skill, 70% luck, and 10% understanding how to play the system. So yes, much like other investors, myself included who've made money hand over fist. He is a buffoon, a lucky one, but still a buffoon.

Except everyone is happier, everyone has more freedom, everyone is subjected to less crime, everyone's businesses are better off... I could go on and on.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

That isn't a moral counter argument. It might be better for economy to have a dictator, but the pressures of commerce shouldn't drive morality, less you get us into our current economic crisis. Economics shouldn't be the founding principal for justification, unless your Ferengi.
>> ^heropsycho:
Because the economy works better for everyone, even you, when that's done an appropriate amount. How much more is debatable, but the basic principle still true regardless.
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

Warren Buffet is saying that people who make more than a $1000K a year need to pay more than 15%. He advocates returning to the Clinton tax rates. And he thinks that job creation occurs when the rich are taxed and the middle class is supported by a lower tax rate.

You should read his NY Times article. It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out. The truth is the economy grows more when the middle class (incomes less than $500K) are taxed at a lower rate than the upper class (greater than $500K). Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity. We need to tax the rich. It is our only hope along with leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Two wars were never economically sustainable. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

>> ^heropsycho:

I like how qm called Buffet a baffoon. Spot on. It would be different if Buffet were like some economic, investing super-genius. Like he's the most successful investor in the US, psssshhh...
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpres
s.com/2011/03/demotivational-posters-cant-tell-if-trolling.jpg


Investing is 20% skill, 70% luck, and 10% understanding how to play the system. So yes, much like other investors, myself included who've made money hand over fist. He is a buffoon, a lucky one, but still a buffoon.

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise. And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked. We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall. Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable. The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for that kind of claim whatsoever.

>> ^quantumushroom:

this is what we've been trying to tell you QM, the system doesn't work when only a few contribute...the system works when ALL contribute based on what they can afford.
I totally agree, so why does the bottom 50% of Americans pay NO income tax? The wealthy already pay a disproportionately high percentage of all taxes and I have yet to find a liberalsifter who admits this.
I well understand that Scrooge McDuck won't miss a few more shovelfuls of gold coins swiped by federal bulldozers, but lets review reality:
1) The "extra" money attained by "soaking" Scrooge and Rich Uncle Pennybags (from the Monopoly game) will be pi$$ed away, like the 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR lost to fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. The federal mafia is composed of sh1tty stewards of our money.
2) The Hawaiian Dunce has spent 3 trillion in 3 years with little or nothing to show for it. So what magical number of dollars is going to make everything all right? A quadrillion?
3) When the socialists raise taxes, the wealthy of 2011 have their accountant press a few buttons on their computating machines, sending their $$$ overseas, invested in more stable markets. Apparently many already have, probably the moment they knew Obama was elected.
4) Liberal say, "Rich man not know difference he still rich." But there's now less money to invest and less money to create jobs. Now some liberalsifter will say, "This graph indicates that the rich don't create jobs with their ill-gotten gains."
BUT, if you're honest with yourselves, you'll know that one million dollars has a much better chance of creating jobs in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors than the government "Department of Creating Jobs" which probably spends that much just on office furniture.
5) The debt limit 'debate' is total BS, always has been. Here is what happened: taxocrats burned through tax money at an alarming rate and there weren't enough elected Republicans to stop them. THAT'S why Moody's got scared and US was downgraded. Republicans can't communicate for sh1t anyway, and so the socialists and their media lapdogs managed to blame the right for this mess.
6) Warren Buffoon likes to be liked, I get that, but he should still STFU and make a real gesture. Giving a symbolic billion dollars to the federal mafia should do it. He won't miss it.

That isn't a moral counter argument. It might be better for economy to have a dictator, but the pressures of commerce shouldn't drive morality, less you get us into our current economic crisis. Economics shouldn't be the founding principal for justification, unless your Ferengi.

>> ^heropsycho:

Because the economy works better for everyone, even you, when that's done an appropriate amount. How much more is debatable, but the basic principle still true regardless.
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd call me a socialist. That of course makes me a communist, since socialism and communism according to you are the same thing. ROFL...

So in short, everyone even remotely to the left of qm is a communist apparently.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like how herobozo can praise a billionaire like Warren Buffoon. What a refreshing change!
Had Buffoon said any other thing than his current socialist gibberish, hero and friends would demand Buffoon be hung from a lamppost just like all the other evil billionaires. (Yeah, I can link too)

>> ^heropsycho:
I like how qm called Buffet a baffoon. Spot on. It would be different if Buffet were like some economic, investing super-genius. Like he's the most successful investor in the US, psssshhh...
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpres
s.com/2011/03/demotivational-posters-cant-tell-if-trolling.jpg