Warren Buffet is such a joke

[Tgo01]

First he waits until he's in his 80's to change his mind from donating his fortune after his death to 'gradually' giving his fortune away while he's alive over 10 or 20 years and now this:


Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.

Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.

"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.

Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.

"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.

Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.

"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said

"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."

If he feels so strongly about this why doesn't he take it upon himself to go ahead and pay more taxes? I think people would take him more seriously if he did so.

[BriarFox]

I'm not really sure what your point is, but his opinion piece deserves quoting in full, at least:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?hp


Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

[Inspire]

First he waits until he's in his 80's to change his mind from donating his fortune after his death to 'gradually' giving his fortune away while he's alive over 10 or 20 years and now this:



If he feels so strongly about this why doesn't he take it upon himself to go ahead and pay more taxes? I think people would take him more seriously if he did so.


He's already talked about how he will use the country's laws within the rights of them. IE. He doesn't have to so he's not going to.

Our F-ing congress/senate need to due their duties.

[Tgo01]

I quoted the entire news article from MSNBC. And my point is, once again, if he feels so strongly about this why doesn't he go ahead and pay higher taxes? It's kind of hard to take someone seriously who is worth billions, pays only 6 million a year in taxes and cries that it's unfair that he isn't forced to pay more.

[Tgo01]

He's already talked about how he will use the country's laws within the rights of them. IE. He doesn't have to so he's not going to.

Our F-ing congress/senate need to due their duties.

I just had to quote that Inspire.

[prance1520]

Interesting, is there actually a way you can "donate" more tax money than your expected to pay to the government? I'm not aware of any way you can other than 'forgetting' to take your deductions, but I don't work for the IRS either...

[Deadelf]

I quoted the entire news article from MSNBC. And my point is, once again, if he feels so strongly about this why doesn't he go ahead and pay higher taxes? It's kind of hard to take someone seriously who is worth billions, pays only 6 million a year in taxes and cries that it's unfair that he isn't forced to pay more.

Sorry don't understand your point, the guy is wanting a fairer tax structure and to remove so many of the loop holes that many use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Also from what I've seen and read over the past few years the guy does at least give a lot of money away towards various charities and things that help people.

So again, what is your point? Also you just aren't selling me on the whole concept that he is an idiot and a joke. Basically your remarks lack substance.

[Lord Orbstar]

he is no Dale Carnegie. Fuck him.

[waywardgs]

Interesting, is there actually a way you can "donate" more tax money than your expected to pay to the government? I'm not aware of any way you can other than 'forgetting' to take your deductions, but I don't work for the IRS either...

You can give more if you like. The IRS isn't going to reject a donation.

[Keller]

Interesting, is there actually a way you can "donate" more tax money than your expected to pay to the government? I'm not aware of any way you can other than 'forgetting' to take your deductions, but I don't work for the IRS either...

I actually just spent 5 minutes researching that.

In that time I found no penalty for an overpayment of tax. Under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code, Buffet would be entitled to interest on the overpayment in an amount equal to the interest due on any underpayment.

As far as how to do it, you'd send a check to the IRS I suppose. But then I wonder if you'd be hit with inaccuracy penalties.

In any case, it was a retarded suggestion by Tgo, one which I wasn't even going to respond to until you did.

[Tgo01]

Interesting, is there actually a way you can "donate" more tax money than your expected to pay to the government? I'm not aware of any way you can other than 'forgetting' to take your deductions, but I don't work for the IRS either...

I'm sure there are ways for someone such as Warren Buffet to make it happen. I don't think you give more to the IRS because I think they just send it back. Or perhaps as you said just don't claim every deduction and use every loop hole and unless the IRS audits him and deems he's owed a refund they won't do anything.


Sorry don't understand your point, the guy is wanting a fairer tax structure and to remove so many of the loop holes that many use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Also from what I've seen and read over the past few years the guy does at least give a lot of money away towards various charities and things that help people.

So again, what is your point? Also you just aren't selling me on the whole concept that he is an idiot and a joke. Basically your remarks lack substance.

I'm sorry did I give the impression that I am unable to read? Yes I know what he's doing. My point, for the third time, is he can lead by example. He can take it upon himself to pay more in taxes, he can convince his friends who supposedly want to pay more in taxes to go ahead and volunteer to do so. Then they are in a position to say "See? Higher taxes don't hurt the rich."

By him acting like his hands are tied and he's 'forced' to pay less in taxes he just comes off like he's enjoying the best of both worlds, less taxes and looking like a 'good guy.'

And yes I know he donates a lot of money to charity but his wanting to donate his entire fortune before his death is a very recent idea.

[Keller]

he is no Dale Carnegie. Fuck him.

Who?

[Tgo01]

In any case, it was a retarded suggestion by Tgo, one which I wasn't even going to respond to until you did.

Oh come on Keller, elaborate.

[Valthissa]

Interesting, is there actually a way you can "donate" more tax money than your expected to pay to the government? I'm not aware of any way you can other than 'forgetting' to take your deductions, but I don't work for the IRS either...

yes (http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)


C/Valth

[Bobmuhthol]

My point, for the third time, is he can lead by example.

Your response to this question is going to determine how much of an idiot I think you are for making that argument: do you honestly believe that it would be effective in generating significantly larger national tax revenues for Warren Buffet to hand over money to the government?

[Inspire]

Rich people need to pay more. End of story.

[Keller]

Oh come on Keller, elaborate.

I think it is retarded to say that someone needs to pay more than the law demands in order to argue that the law should demand them to pay more.

Is that clear enough?

[prance1520]

I actually just spent 5 minutes researching that.

In that time I found no penalty for an overpayment of tax. Under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code, Buffet would be entitled to interest on the overpayment in an amount equal to the interest due on any underpayment.

As far as how to do it, you'd send a check to the IRS I suppose. But then I wonder if you'd be hit with inaccuracy penalties.

In any case, it was a retarded suggestion by Tgo, one which I wasn't even going to respond to until you did.

Kudos for actually looking it up, I was pretty sure I didn't remember a "keep the change" box to check on my return.

Anyway, I think Buffet is one of the great minds of our country. If he was crazy enough to run for public office, I'd vote for him in a second. Before this, I would have been against raising the taxes on anyone, but if he says its a good idea, I'm with him.

[g++]

To me he seems sincerely concerned about tax code loopholes in capitol gains. Kind of seems above reproach really. He was pretty candid about the fact that he himself will lose money. The man is already giving all his money away its not like its an act the dude actually cares.

[Tgo01]

Your response to this question is going to determine how much of an idiot I think you are for making that argument: do you honestly believe that it would be effective in generating significantly larger national tax revenues for Warren Buffet to hand over money to the government?

I'll answer that by asking you a question, do you think it would have more or less of an impact than just writing the opinion piece he did? I'm not saying Warren Buffet should just donate money and leave it at that, he makes a lot of valid points and arguments and for the most part I think he's spot on. I don't like his attitude that he's basically forced to pay lower taxes.

[Keller]

Rich people need to pay more. End of story.

Why?

[Tgo01]

I think it is retarded to say that someone needs to pay more than the law demands in order to argue that the law should demand them to pay more.

Is that clear enough?

He can argue all he wants without volunteering to pay more, I just think he's a joke.

[Inspire]

Why?

Because they have more.

I'd personally rather see a flat fair tax and do away with all other taxes.


I want to pay tax on the house when I buy it, but I don't want property taxes. I want a "free ride" when I'm older and forced to live on less.

I want no income tax so that what I earn, is mine. They can have their share when I spend what I earn.

[waywardgs]

The man built his fortune on doing exactly the opposite of what everyone else is doing. This follows suit.

[Keller]

Because they have more.

I'd personally rather see a flat fair tax and do away with all other taxes.


I want to pay tax on the house when I buy it, but I don't want property taxes. I want a "free ride" when I'm older and forced to live on less.

I want no income tax so that what I earn, is mine. They can have their share when I spend what I earn.

Rich people should pay more in taxes, but you support a flat tax.

Can't explain that at all.

[Keller]

He can argue all he wants without volunteering to pay more, I just think he's a joke.

You've mentioned that before.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree if that's the whole of it.

[waywardgs]

Rich people should pay more in taxes, but you support a flat tax.

Can't explain that at all.

Inspire is just stoned, don't pay him any mind.

[g++]

He can argue all he wants without volunteering to pay more, I just think he's a joke.

From wikipedia..The guy has pledged 30 billion to charity I dont understand why you keep pretending hes dodging the taxes. Like he gives a shit?



In June 2006, he announced a plan to give away his fortune to charity, with 83% of it going to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation).[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet#cite_note-102) He pledged about the equivalent of 10 million Berkshire Hathaway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway) Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation) (worth approximately US$30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006),[104] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet#cite_note-103) making it the largest charitable donation in history, and Buffett one of the leaders of philanthrocapitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthrocapitalism).[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet#cite_note-104) The foundation will receive 5% of the total donation on an annualised basis each July, beginning in 2006. (Significantly, however, the pledge is conditional upon the foundation's giving away each year, beginning in 2009, an amount that is at least equal to the value of the entire previous year's gift from Buffett, in addition to 5% of the foundation's net assets.) Buffett also will join the board of directors of the Gates Foundation, although he does not plan to be actively involved in the foundation's investments.[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet#cite_note-105)[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffet#cite_note-106)

[Inspire]

Rich people should pay more in taxes, but you support a flat tax.


In the current system.




Can't explain that at all.

But I'd prefer...

[Keller]

But in your preferred system, rich people would pay less than they do currently.

It seems as though you're just parroting words you've heard other people say without having the feintest idea what mean.

[waywardgs]

From wikipedia..The guy has pledged 30 billion to charity I dont understand why you keep pretending hes dodging the taxes. Like he gives a shit?

Heh.. He's so rich he hired bill gates to spend his money for him. Awesome.

[Inspire]

But in your preferred system, rich people would pay less than they do currently.

It seems as though you're just parroting words you've heard other people say without having the feintest idea what mean.


Derp derp.

In our current system, rich people need to pay more.

In some new made-up system that we don't have. I'll pay less by only paying tax on what I buy, (rich people too).

Sorry poor people. No welfare checks in the new system.

[AnticorRifling]

What about myklin scales do you report those as earnings?

[waywardgs]

What about myklin scales do you report those as earnings?

Bill Gates does.

[Keller]

Derp derp.

In our current system, rich people need to pay more.

In some new made-up system that we don't have. I'll pay less by only paying tax on what I buy, (rich people too).

Sorry poor people. No welfare checks in the new system.

Are you trolling me?

[Latrinsorm]

I think the main point of Mr. Buffet's statement is to puncture beliefs held by some, namely that the rich a) pay a high % of taxes and/or b) will invest less if the capital gains tax is increased. Of course he would prefer to make more money, but it would not have a chilling effect on his investments if he made less. Whether his perspective is representative of other richers is debatable, of course.

I also think you're reading too much into it, Tgo. You seem to be offended by the tone, or something, and nobody else is seeing it.

[Buckwheet]

I found this part the most informative:



"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income


I have been arguing for a long time now that a 17% flat tax is pretty much all that is needed.

I know he says "taxable income" and in my perfect world all income is taxable because there would be zero deductions or credits.

Conversely, I looked at my tax return last year and I paid in 28% compared to taxable income.

I believe the money I would save would cancel out the deductions.

Anyways, interesting stuff.

Edit:By the way, following the basic taxation brackets Buffet should have paid in over double what he did. He clearly fell in the 35% category.

Edit2: Someone asked what deductions I was referring to, and those would be the child credits specifically. I already max out tax deferred investments.

Edit 3: Someone asked why I picked 17%, and it has to do with population per GDP. The UK batted around a 22% flat tax rate and they also have single payer health care. I believe those factors result in the higher rate over all, but I think our GDP and wealth with non-single payer health care lands us in the 17% bracket and with single payer closer to 20%.

[Fallen]

Buffet probably thinks giving his money to the government alone in the form of higher taxes would be a waste of money. I would suspect he believes he can do more with his money in the form of charities of his choosing. Instead, he chooses to speak out for a universal change in the tax code, which he likely believes is the most effective course of action.

[Buckwheet]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we had a hard cap of lets say 20% flat tax and if we need money to go to war we sell war bonds like we did before.

Let the American people vote with their wallets. If someone like Warren decided to invest lets say 30 billion dollars into war bonds to fund the Iraq war, would it give the super rich power over our military?

I have always wondered what it would be like if Warren, Gates, and that guy from Mexico decided to pool their money and start buying soldiers for hire and cheap Chinese Ak-47s.

Maybe thats what he wants instead of a straight taxation? The ability to control where his money goes. Through taxation it can be used for humanitarian aid or war. He probably isn't big on war.

[kgolfer]

Because they have more.

I'd personally rather see a flat fair tax and do away with all other taxes.


I want to pay tax on the house when I buy it, but I don't want property taxes. I want a "free ride" when I'm older and forced to live on less.

I want no income tax so that what I earn, is mine. They can have their share when I spend what I earn.



Property taxes are revenue generated by a STATE, not federal government. Federal, state, and local taxes will always differ and most likely you will always pay some kind of state/local tax no matter what the federal government does with the tax system.

[Tgo01]

I also think you're reading too much into it, Tgo. You seem to be offended by the tone, or something, and nobody else is seeing it.

You could be right. I used to think Warren Buffet was a great man, but looking at his past statements it seems, to me at least, that he doesn't practice what he preaches when it comes to money.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Rich people need to pay more. End of story.

Define exactly who the rich people are.

[AnticorRifling]

People that don't have to skin myklins for weed...so pretty much everyone that's not a waste of flesh.

[crb]

I am sick and fucking tired of hearing the phrase "Shared sacrifice" and "fair share"

Someone please define what a fair share is? Suppose you make 60% of the income in this country, would your fair share be 60% of the taxes?

No? What number would be fair? And why is that number fair?

The top 1% pay 38% of the federal income tax burden. So... is 38:1 not a fair ratio? What is? 45:1? Someone put a number on it. Because until you put a number on it, you're just spouting hyperbole and political marketing bullshit like the peons on TV.

The top 1% make 20% of all the income in this country, and pay 38% of the income taxes. Is that fair?

The top 5% (which includes the top 1%, of course) make 34% of the income, and pay 58% of the taxes. Just 5% of all households pay for more than half of all income taxes. Is that fair?

The top 10% earn 45.77% of all income, and pay 69.94% of all taxes. Is that fair?

People earning between $113k and $160k are in the 10%-5% range. This 5% subsection earns 11.05% of all income, and pays 11.22% of all taxes. This is probably fair.

People earning between $67k and $113k fall in the 25-10% area. This 15% subsection earns 21.62% of all income, and pays 16.40% of all taxes.

People earning between 33k and 67k fall in the 25-50% area. This 25% subsection makes 19.86% of all income, and pays 10.96% of all taxes. Is this fair?

The 25-50% range makes the same amount of income as the 1% range (which you need $380k to qualify for by the way). Yet, on this 20% share of all income. The top 1% (those dastardly unfairs) pay 38% of all taxes, and out of their own 20% share the middle class play just 10.96% of all taxes. 75% less tax on the same amount of income in real dollar terms.

The top 50% of all taxpayers, which is any household making 33k or above, pays 97.30% of all taxes, and makes 87.25% of all income.

The bottom 50% of all taxpayers make 12.75% of all income, and pay just 2.7% of all income taxes.

This data is from 2008, since then it has shifted more towards the rich. Meaning, the "Rich" pay more, and the "poor" pay less.

So anyways, please, someone, define fair share. I don't understand this word "fair." I think people from all political persuasions use this word to justify whatever ideology they're pushing. "Fair" means different things to different people.

I mean, who can argue with Obama when he says "Everyone should pay their fair share"? We all agree with that? We just define "fair" differently.

So, before you say the same thing as our fearless leader, please, define what you mean. Define a "fair share" and we can all be on the same page.

[AnticorRifling]

So what is your fair solution?

[Keller]

So what is your fair solution?

When it comes to crb, all I have is a final solution.

[crb]

I think it would be fair that if you earned 60% of the income in this country, you paid 60% of the taxes.

I think fair would be getting rid of all refundable tax credits. We shouldn't be paying people to have more kids they can't afford, thats just stupid. Increase the dependent deduction if you want, but get rid of all refundable tax credits.

I think fair would be getting rid of all the various credits, deductions, and phaseouts that favor one type of lifestyle over another. Poorer uneducated people who work, say, as a plumber, are paying taxes to subsidize the wealthier (perhaps) smarter person who went to college and became an accountant and deducts his student loan interest. Poorer people who rent are subsidizing, through the tax law, the interest of wealthier homeowners. Etc. Its all stupid, cut them all, and lower rates.

I do think the hedge fund carried interest loophole should be closed. If you work at something fulltime, pay income tax rates on that income. We allow people who work in real estate full time to deduct passive losses against ordinary income because it is their full time job. Why shouldn't the reverse be true for hedge funds?

Capital gains and dividend rates should stay put. Not only would raising them fuck the markets, no matter what Warren, Water-Carrier, Buffet says. But these are taxes on income that has already been earned and invested. They carry risk, they should be taxed less than regular income. It is not abnormal to do so. In fact, I would LOWER them for poorer people, down to nothing.

And remember, investment gains on investments held less than a year are taxed as income. So your traders and other full time investment types DO pay regular income tax. capital gains is only for long term investors. Or like the family farmer who cashes out his land, etc. Lots of ordinary people get big capital gain scores sometimes.

And yes, people who currently pay no income tax need to pay something. Maybe just 1%, but something. We all need skin in the game. Make the AMT apply to everyone and make it 1%.

That, or, a national sales tax. Straight sales tax, not a sneaky ass VAT. Just a normal retail sales tax.

[crb]

Oh, and to help small business, let schedule-C pass through income be taxed at a lower standard rate, like 25%. Assuming we also reduce the corporate income tax to 25%. That way all businesses pay the same tax. Otherwise small businesses would actually pay more, which is stupid.

[Keller]

I think it would be fair that if you earned 60% of the income in this country, you paid 60% of the taxes.

I think fair would be getting rid of all refundable tax credits. We shouldn't be paying people to have more kids they can't afford, thats just stupid. Increase the dependent deduction if you want, but get rid of all refundable tax credits.

I think fair would be getting rid of all the various credits, deductions, and phaseouts that favor one type of lifestyle over another. Poorer uneducated people who work, say, as a plumber, are paying taxes to subsidize the wealthier (perhaps) smarter person who went to college and became an accountant and deducts his student loan interest. Poorer people who rent are subsidizing, through the tax law, the interest of wealthier homeowners. Etc. Its all stupid, cut them all, and lower rates.

I do think the hedge fund carried interest loophole should be closed. If you work at something fulltime, pay income tax rates on that income. We allow people who work in real estate full time to deduct passive losses against ordinary income because it is their full time job. Why shouldn't the reverse be true for hedge funds?

Capital gains and dividend rates should stay put. Not only would raising them fuck the markets, no matter what Warren, Water-Carrier, Buffet says. But these are taxes on income that has already been earned and invested. They carry risk, they should be taxed less than regular income. It is not abnormal to do so. In fact, I would LOWER them for poorer people, down to nothing.

And remember, investment gains on investments held less than a year are taxed as income. So your traders and other full time investment types DO pay regular income tax. capital gains is only for long term investors. Or like the family farmer who cashes out his land, etc. Lots of ordinary people get big capital gain scores sometimes.

And yes, people who currently pay no income tax need to pay something. Maybe just 1%, but something. We all need skin in the game. Make the AMT apply to everyone and make it 1%.

That, or, a national sales tax. Straight sales tax, not a sneaky ass VAT. Just a normal retail sales tax.


Agree with all of this except the first paragraph. Also agree, conditioned on it being progressive or at least different for different goods/services, with the last paragraph.

I think the progressive nature of taxation is something that crb and I will never agree on.

[Keller]

Oh, and to help small business, let schedule-C pass through income be taxed at a lower standard rate, like 25%. Assuming we also reduce the corporate income tax to 25%. That way all businesses pay the same tax. Otherwise small businesses would actually pay more, which is stupid.

Wrong.

Assuming top marginal rates for individuals at 35% and decreased top marginal rates for corporations at 25% with a 15% LTCG, the owner of a flowthough would make $65 on $100 and the owner of a C corp would make $63.75 on $100.

[crb]

What would the business make though keller?

A corporation can choose to keep profits in the business, and thus pay (assumptive) 25% statutory rate.

An s-corp, llc, sole prop, etc, cannot make such a distinction, and is forced to pay the higher rate on all business profits, even those they wish to reinvest into the business. It, in fact, retards small company growth.

Oh, I can agree also that taxation be progressive. But I just see a sales tax as progressive. Wrangler jeans are cheaper than Calvin Klein jeans. Hondas are cheaper than Cadillacs. In exchange for a sales tax we should certainly reduce the income tax brackets further, perhaps with the reduction being weighted towards the poor. But in general, the rich do spend more money, and so would pay more sales tax. Even if, for some individuals, the percentage of their income they spend would be lower. But what does that matter? Only if you have an us vs. them mentality. And some "rich" people still live paycheck to paycheck because they spend too much. Idiots that they are.

Of course you would exempt food.

I also only want a retail sales tax. Adding it to services is a big bucket of fail. Many service businesses are casual, and rarely are they set up to do any tax accounting. Do we really need to put a record keeping burden on the lawn mowers and snow shovelers of america? Come on? Just make it on retail non-food items.

[Ardwen]

I think before we attempt to redefine the personal tax levied against americans we need to fix the corporate tax issues. The abuses their far exceed anything any individual or group of individuals could ever attain.

[Archigeek]

I agree with Buffet on cap gains. I think cap gains and dividend income should be taxed at the same rate as income from a job. Money is money, and no matter how you earn it it should be taxed the same.

The arguement that it's already been taxed is hogwash. If you twist it up enough, you can make that arguement about just about any form of income.

I do however agree with CRB that loopholes need to be closed, and that is part and parcel with equalzing tax rates across income types.

[Warriorbird]

I agree with Buffet on cap gains. I think cap gains and dividend income should be taxed at the same rate as income from a job. Money is money, and no matter how you earn it it should be taxed the same.

The arguement that it's already been taxed is hogwash. If you twist it up enough, you can make that arguement about just about any form of income.

I do however agree with CRB that loopholes need to be closed, and that is part and parcel with equalzing tax rates across income types.

But but closing loopholes is increasing taxes!

[Keller]

What would the business make though keller?

A corporation can choose to keep profits in the business, and thus pay (assumptive) 25% statutory rate.

An s-corp, llc, sole prop, etc, cannot make such a distinction, and is forced to pay the higher rate on all business profits, even those they wish to reinvest into the business. It, in fact, retards small company growth.

First of all, flowthroughs don't pay tax, which is precisely why I focused on the owner's taxation of the entities net taxable income and not the entities taxation of the same.

Second, you can deduct/capitalize money you reinvest in the business. So if you're deducting the expenditures, you pay 0%. Which is greater, 0% or 0%?

Third, if it's an issue, why don't small businesses incorporate?

[Keller]

I think before we attempt to redefine the personal tax levied against americans we need to fix the corporate tax issues. The abuses their far exceed anything any individual or group of individuals could ever attain.

I agree.

[Keller]

I agree with Buffet on cap gains. I think cap gains and dividend income should be taxed at the same rate as income from a job. Money is money, and no matter how you earn it it should be taxed the same.

The arguement that it's already been taxed is hogwash. If you twist it up enough, you can make that arguement about just about any form of income.

I do however agree with CRB that loopholes need to be closed, and that is part and parcel with equalzing tax rates across income types.

How is it hogwash?

By definition a dividend is a distribution of cash from a corporation out of the corporation's earnings and profits (essentially the previously taxed income of the corporation). It's the very definition of what makes a dividend a dividend.

[TheEschaton]

So, to recap, Buffet isn't really a joke, is actually giving away his money at levels none of us could ever comprehend, and still supports raising taxes on himself on a systemic level.

Good thread.

[Keller]

So, to recap, Buffet isn't really a joke, is actually giving away his money at levels none of us could ever comprehend, and still supports raising taxes on himself on a systemic level.

Good thread.

Lists of three always convince me.

[Parkbandit]

Let's say you put a punitive "flat tax" on all millionaires and billionaires.. how high would it have to be to get us out of our debt problem? 50%? 75%? 100%?

[Kuyuk]

Let's say you put a punitive "flat tax" on all millionaires and billionaires.. how high would it have to be to get us out of our debt problem? 50%? 75%? 100%?

I dont think putting a tax on anything will help us "get out" of the problem, it's to help increase revenue to aid in any attempt to "equal out" our problem.

[Tgo01]

So, to recap, Buffet isn't really a joke, is actually giving away his money at levels none of us could ever comprehend, and still supports raising taxes on himself on a systemic level.

Good thread.

Two out of three yes.

[Keller]

Let's say you put a punitive "flat tax" on all millionaires and billionaires.. how high would it have to be to get us out of our debt problem? 50%? 75%? 100%?

Assuming aggregate wealth of the nation is roughly $55T (was 54.2T in 09) and that 25% of U.S. households own 87% of the nation's aggregate wealth, let's say the wealth of "millionaires+" is $47.85T.

Out federal deficit is around $14.5T. So it would take a 30% flat tax on the wealth of "millionaires+" to wipe out the deficit.

Caveat - Really only about 18% of the U.S. population are millionaires, but I couldn't find a number for what portion of the U.S. wealth is held by the top 18% of the U.S. population. So "millionaires+" is more likely in the $750k+ range, based on a guess by me.

[kookiegod]

So, to recap, Buffet isn't really a joke, is actually giving away his money at levels none of us could ever comprehend, and still supports raising taxes on himself on a systemic level.

Good thread.

Agreed.

[Parkbandit]

Assuming aggregate wealth of the nation is roughly $55T (was 54.2T in 09) and that 25% of U.S. households own 87% of the nation's aggregate wealth, let's say the wealth of "millionaires+" is $47.85T.

Out federal deficit is around $14.5T. So it would take a 30% flat tax on the wealth of "millionaires+" to wipe out the deficit.

Caveat - Really only about 18% of the U.S. population are millionaires, but I couldn't find a number for what portion of the U.S. wealth is held by the top 18% of the U.S. population. So "millionaires+" is more likely in the $750k+ range, based on a guess by me.

So, you are talking about seizing their wealth.. not actually taxing their income?

I think this would have gained some serious traction a couple of years ago when Progressives held the House, Senate and White House. DAMN THOSE TEA BAGGERS!

[Keller]

So, you are talking about seizing their wealth.. not actually taxing their income?

I think this would have gained some serious traction a couple of years ago when Progressives held the House, Senate and White House. DAMN THOSE TEA BAGGERS!

I assumed that's what you meant when you said millionaires and billionaires, both of which are measures of accrued wealth.

Did you mean a flat tax on people who make over a million dollars a year?

[Androidpk]

I like the idea of a national sales tax.

[crb]

First of all, flowthroughs don't pay tax, which is precisely why I focused on the owner's taxation of the entities net taxable income and not the entities taxation of the same.

Second, you can deduct/capitalize money you reinvest in the business. So if you're deducting the expenditures, you pay 0%. Which is greater, 0% or 0%?

Third, if it's an issue, why don't small businesses incorporate?

You can deduct certain expenses if made in the same tax year as your profits, against those profits.

Other expenses must be amortized over XX years based on IRS schedules.

Still other expenses might not fall on the same year.

A C-Corp can get away with all that because they choose when and where to return money to shareholders, if at all. Many don't even do it. Profits kept in the business will be only hit by the corporate income tax, which many are proposing to drop to 25%.

An S-Corp has no flexibility. Profits pass through to the owner(s) and taxes are immediately owed. Your business can in fact buy say, $100,000 piece of equipment, reducing your actual business profits for the year to 0 in real dollar terms. However, the IRS may force you to depreciate it over 10 years, so they still see you as having $90k in profits. So you still owe taxes on that 90k, only... you have no money to pay it because you stimulated the economy by investing in new equipment. oops?

That tax rate, by the way, is (at the top, and yes you'd need more than 90k AGI for that bracket) 35%, and people are proposing moving it up to 39.6%.

A C-Corp still has to pay income tax, but if it is 25% it will be lower than what an S-Corp or LLC will pay. You can't just add in what a shareholder distribution would be taxed at because a shareholder distribution is optional.

And if you think incorporating as a C-Corp is such a small thing and would be no big deal for small businesses, you need to go back to school. You're a lawyer, you should know better.

[crb]

So, you are talking about seizing their wealth.. not actually taxing their income?

I think this would have gained some serious traction a couple of years ago when Progressives held the House, Senate and White House. DAMN THOSE TEA BAGGERS!

A wealth tax would require a constitutional ammendment. Just saying...

[Keller]

And if you think incorporating as a C-Corp is such a small thing and would be no big deal for small businesses, you need to go back to school. You're a lawyer, you should know better.

Form an LLC and elect to be classified as a corporation.

Please don't try to lecture me. Irritate me and I'll make you look stupid (again).

I'll respond to the serious part of your post later.

[Parkbandit]

I assumed that's what you meant when you said millionaires and billionaires, both of which are measures of accrued wealth.

Did you mean a flat tax on people who make over a million dollars a year?

No, I meant a flag tax for the millionaires and billionaires on their income. I hadn't heard of anyone proposing to actually seize the assets of millionaires and billionaires.. but I'm sure there are plenty of people on this message board that could get behind an idea like that. I mean, come on.. it's not fair they have so much!

[g++]

It worked for the romans to stave off their collapse. When I repeat history I like to do it with gusto.

[Keller]

No, I meant a flag tax for the millionaires and billionaires on their income. I hadn't heard of anyone proposing to actually seize the assets of millionaires and billionaires.. but I'm sure there are plenty of people on this message board that could get behind an idea like that. I mean, come on.. it's not fair they have so much!

Some years billionaires have extraordinary losses in given years (see 2008). I think what you meant to say is the tax on people making more than a million dollars a year.

[Parkbandit]

Some years billionaires have extraordinary losses in given years (see 2008). I think what you meant to say is the tax on people making more than a million dollars a year.

Ok, let's go with your scenario... how much do you think we can milk them for? Let's just say we demand a flat rate of 25% of their income.. how much do you think that would be.. and how long would it take for us to pay off the debt using that money?

Edited: Fuck that.. 25%? That's not enough from those rich fuckers... let's take 50%.

[Keller]

Ok, let's go with your scenario... how much do you think we can milk them for? Let's just say we demand a flat rate of 25% of their income.. how much do you think that would be.. and how long would it take for us to pay off the debt using that money?

Edited: Fuck that.. 25%? That's not enough from those rich fuckers... let's take 50%.

Slow down and think.

What is "my scenario"?

[Bobmuhthol]

These are really rough numbers, but US GDP in 2007 was approximately $14 trillion, and households with an income over $250,000 earn 11.9% of national income. Thus, about $1.7 trillion is earned by households with an income greater than $250,000, and if all that income were taxable and taxed at 50%, the government would collect $850 billion.

But what's the point of even considering this? No one has suggested it.

[Keller]

These are really rough numbers, but US GDP in 2007 was approximately $14 trillion, and households with an income over $250,000 earn 11.9% of national income. Thus, about $1.7 trillion is earned by households with an income greater than $250,000, and if all that income were taxable and taxed at 50%, the government would collect $850 billion.

But what's the point of even considering this? No one has suggested it.

What would happen if you included non-sentient taxpayers into the calculation?

[Kembal]

An S-Corp has no flexibility. Profits pass through to the owner(s) and taxes are immediately owed. Your business can in fact buy say, $100,000 piece of equipment, reducing your actual business profits for the year to 0 in real dollar terms. However, the IRS may force you to depreciate it over 10 years, so they still see you as having $90k in profits. So you still owe taxes on that 90k, only... you have no money to pay it because you stimulated the economy by investing in new equipment. oops?



...

What? Go look up MACRS. The IRS doesn't do straight-line depreciation, it's accelerated. And hell, one of the measures passed in the stimulus allowed companies to claim all the depreciation immediately on equipment they bought up to a certain amount. That's still on the books as of now.

[crb]

These are really rough numbers, but US GDP in 2007 was approximately $14 trillion, and households with an income over $250,000 earn 11.9% of national income. Thus, about $1.7 trillion is earned by households with an income greater than $250,000, and if all that income were taxable and taxed at 50%, the government would collect $850 billion.

But what's the point of even considering this? No one has suggested it.

Static accounting fail.

There is a finite amount of income. If the government takes more, people have less. If people have less, they spend less, invest less, and if they're a business, hire less.

You can't just raise taxes on people and assume you'll have the same level of investment or consumer spending. You can't just raise taxes on business and assume you'll have the same level of hiring.

There is an opportunity cost built into tax increases.

Now, depending on which side of economics you agree with, that cost will actually result in the tax increase being a net negative for government revenue, OR it won't. But there is a cost, and that means if you see 1.7 trillion in income, and pass a 50% tax, you will not get 850 billion. You'll get less.

[Bobmuhthol]

Holy shit shut the fuck up. Debating a point I never argued fail.

[crb]

...

What? Go look up MACRS. The IRS doesn't do straight-line depreciation, it's accelerated. And hell, one of the measures passed in the stimulus allowed companies to claim all the depreciation immediately on equipment they bought up to a certain amount. That's still on the books as of now.

A. For the purposes of forum posting I did not want to look up the actual depreciation schedule for my mythological piece of equipment. So I didn't. It wouldn't have changed the point of the argument in the least, so... whats your problem?

B. If you want to really be a nerd and say I didn't use the appropriate IRS depreciation schedule on my mythological piece of equipment. Fine, throw out that whole example, here is another one: How about the scenario of inventory being unable to be expensed until it is sold. A manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or retailer cannot expense inventory it has expensed capital to purchase until it is sold. So the IRS can levy a tax on profits that exist on paper, even if your bank account says $0. Which fucks you, you have to take out a loan to pay the taxes. The least you could do is have it not fuck you as hard by not taxing small businesses more than large businesses.

C. Stimulus? Really? The corporate jet tax break that Obama wants to repeal? That is what you're talking about? Its only 50%, and it has a bunch of restrictions on it, and it doesn't apply to everything. I had $50,000 capital purchase (oh no keller I mentioned it kinda!) disallowed for it.

[crb]

Holy shit shut the fuck up. Debating a point I never argued fail.

Your math was fail. Not my fault.

[Bobmuhthol]

No it wasn't.

[Keller]

Your math was fail. Not my fault.

His math was pretty basic and it was correct.

You assumed he was continuing that calculation year-over-year, which was an incorrect assumption.

[crb]

His math was pretty basic and it was correct.

You assumed he was continuing that calculation year-over-year, which was an incorrect assumption.

You and PB were arguing about what tax rate the right should be taxed at to close the deficit. This story problem is a real world situation, an answer should reflect the real world dynamics of the economy. The fact is, you can't come up with revenue figures for a policy change using the basic math he used. Sorry for pointing that out. :break:

[Bobmuhthol]

PB asked an unrealistic question; I provided an unrealistic answer. I'm not trying to solve the real problem because even if I did no one would listen to me. You're not informing anyone of anything.

[Keller]

I saw nothing in there about how his math was wrong.

[crb]

I agree with Buffet on cap gains. I think cap gains and dividend income should be taxed at the same rate as income from a job. Money is money, and no matter how you earn it it should be taxed the same.

The arguement that it's already been taxed is hogwash. If you twist it up enough, you can make that arguement about just about any form of income.


The argument that it has been taxed already as ordinary income is not hogwash, but nor is it the only argument.

Wait, there is more.

By definition, a tax is a disincentive to an activity. This is why there are carbon taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. Even the income tax is a disincentive to work. Taxes on investments are disincentives to invest. No matter what that old Obama water-carrier says, you will get less investment if you raise investment taxes (Which, by the way, Obama ALREADY did in the Obamacare bill, so they're already going up.)

In the most simplistic terms, if you want to call income income. If you sell a stock and you pay 35% income tax on the gains, you have 20% less gains to reinvest in a new stock. So you will invest less. Not exactly rocket science.

Higher taxes on investment will make it harder for businesses that rely on investments to raise capital. This will reduce the ability for businesses to expand, which will slow GDP and lower employment growth.

It will make anyone who needs debt, from the Federal Government, to Corporations, to you and me with our mortgage, pay more for it. Since there will be less capital available to invest because the government is now taking a bigger chunk of it.

There won't be less stock brokers, or professional investors like Buffett, and yes people who invest in companies full time like Buffett will continue to do that activity, but they'll have less money to do it with, and that will affect the economy. To say that there won't be less investment capital in the marketplace is equivalent to saying the government can take a bigger bite of a pie but have there be no less pie remaining than if they had taken a smaller bite. It is ludicrous. Of course there will be less investment capital.

This is all factual, purely a result of supply and demand in the marketplace.

You also have to consider that capital gains taxes are largely optional. The investor chooses when to recover them. If you passed a law to raise capital gains rates to ordinary income rates in 2012, everyone who is able to will sell investments in 2011. This extra selling activity will push prices down, making anyone who has an investment poorer. This includes the wealthy stock investor, but also anyone who owns real estate, and anyone who has a pension or 401k. We'd have selling pressure push asset prices lower.

Then, after the new tax rate went into affect, people would avoid selling assets to avoid the tax. Which means the government would actually collect less revenue. So in your drive for "fairness" you've actually managed to hurt GDP growth, hurt employment, raise mortgage rates, and the government is collecting less tax revenue even though the rate is higher. This has happened before, you see this pattern everytime capital gains rates change.

If you only raised the dividend tax you'd end up with corporations merely changing the way they return cash to shareholders. Using cash to buy a smaller company in a merger raises the shareholder stock value allowing them to sell it at a higher price and get a capital gain. Doing a share buyback does the same. If dividends were taxed at a higher rate than capital gains you'd see most dividend stocks cancel their dividends and switch to share buybacks.

So taxing capital gains higher has serious consequences, and if you try to do it just with dividends companies will switch payout methods.

Then, there is risk. Investing is risky, working a job is not. You will get your paycheck if you're working. You could lose all your money investing. That risk should warrant a lower tax rate, it is a different activity. So risk is another reason to treat them differently.

Then there is reliability. Do you really want the government to rely on tax receipts from such unpredictable activity? What happens when you get a year like 2008? Stocks go down, real estate goes down, everyone has losses. No revenue for Uncle Sam. Sure, unemployment went to 10% or so, from 5% or so, so maybe income tax receipts dropped 5%, capital gains tax receipts dropped far far far more. So the larger share of the tax burden you shift onto investment income, the more unreliable your tax base will be, which can result in significant sudden deficits. California ran into this mess as they had budgeted based on all the high flying silicone valley stock option income (in addition to just being a fiscal basket case).


Finally, if you really believe "income is income and should be treated the same" you would be for investment losses (and for that matter passive activity losses) being deductible against ordinary income, right? Each of those things would have serious consequences. Or, would you really make it a double standard and say income when positive is all the same, but when negative is entirely different?

[Bobmuhthol]

If you sell a stock and you pay 35% income tax on the gains, you have 20% less gains to reinvest in a new stock.

Pardon?


Investing is risky, working a job is not.

Pardon?


Then there is reliability. Do you really want the government to rely on tax receipts from such unpredictable activity?

Do you not see how this completely contradicts all of your previous points?

[crb]

capital gains tax rates are currently 15%, 35-15=20.

[Archigeek]

Static accounting fail.

There is a finite amount of income. If the government takes more, people have less. If people have less, they spend less, invest less, and if they're a business, hire less.

You can't just raise taxes on people and assume you'll have the same level of investment or consumer spending. You can't just raise taxes on business and assume you'll have the same level of hiring.

And yet, you can apparently cut taxes and money rains down from the sky. It would seem to me that we've spent a good number of years proving that theory wrong.

[Archigeek]

The argument that it has been taxed already as ordinary income is not hogwash, but nor is it the only argument.

Wait, there is more....

...is entirely different?

I was going to quote it all and respond to your very lengthy arguement piece by piece, but I think I'm just going to go with this:

While you've written an opinion piece about as long as Warren Buffet's, I am going to go with my gut and stick with his position on when people invest and don't invest their capital.

[Back]

http://www.demotination.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/reganomics.jpg

[Archigeek]

Trickle Down FTW (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G_FjJ4fIbpA/TjtVwRthuGI/AAAAAAAAMOM/ZGDt6Woq5Yg/s1600/trickle-down-capitalism.jpg)

[Tsa`ah]

yes (http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)


C/Valth

Isn't there also the conscience fund ... or is this the same?

[crb]

And yet, you can apparently cut taxes and money rains down from the sky. It would seem to me that we've spent a good number of years proving that theory wrong.

Federal tax receipts increased after bush cut taxes.
GDP grew very strongly after bush cut taxes.
We had the longest period of months with consecutive job gains in our nation's history after bush cut taxes.

Look it up.

[crb]

I was going to quote it all and respond to your very lengthy arguement piece by piece, but I think I'm just going to go with this:

While you've written an opinion piece about as long as Warren Buffet's, I am going to go with my gut and stick with his position on when people invest and don't invest their capital.

Why people invest and what people invest is irrelevant to my argument, and Buffett knows it too, he is purposefully leaving it out because he knows it defeats his argument. So he is arguing against a strawman. You gotta understand he has become a bit of a partisan in his old age and he is just trying to prop up his guy.

Like I said, people will still invest, they will just invest less, because they have less, because the government is taking more. All those dire consequences are birthed from the fact that there ends up being less investment capital in the world. Thats just basic math. If the government takes more in taxes, the individual has less left over. The individual may still make an investment, but he'll invest less money, because he has less money. Less money going into bonds, higher interest rates. less money going into stocks, lower market values. Less money going into new businesses (or secondary offerings in the market, IPOs, etc) less business acess to capital, less business growth, less employment growth, less GDP growth.

Or do you really think someone who has less money can invest the same amount of money as when they had more money? The logic would appear to be sound but you persist in questioning it.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.demotination.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/reganomics.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/motivator3114c6f6162230239a613730130291d5658b186b. jpg

[Archigeek]

Why people invest and what people invest is irrelevant to my argument, and Buffett knows it too, he is purposefully leaving it out because he knows it defeats his argument. So he is arguing against a strawman. You gotta understand he has become a bit of a partisan in his old age and he is just trying to prop up his guy.

Like I said, people will still invest, they will just invest less, because they have less, because the government is taking more. All those dire consequences are birthed from the fact that there ends up being less investment capital in the world. Thats just basic math. If the government takes more in taxes, the individual has less left over. The individual may still make an investment, but he'll invest less money, because he has less money. Less money going into bonds, higher interest rates. less money going into stocks, lower market values. Less money going into new businesses (or secondary offerings in the market, IPOs, etc) less business acess to capital, less business growth, less employment growth, less GDP growth.

Or do you really think someone who has less money can invest the same amount of money as when they had more money? The logic would appear to be sound but you persist in questioning it.

Actually he addresses it directly.

As for more income available, who's income? Mine or someone else's? Is mine somehow worth less than the billionaire who pays a lower tax rate than I do? And for what it's worth, I invest regularly and have typically income from work, capital gains and dividends every year. I just don't see how one should be given preferential treatment over another.

[Parkbandit]

Actually he addresses it directly.

As for more income available, who's income? Mine or someone else's? Is mine somehow worth less than the billionaire who pays a lower tax rate than I do? And for what it's worth, I invest regularly and have typically income from work, capital gains and dividends every year. I just don't see how one should be given preferential treatment over another.

Preferential? How do you figure?

You forget you still pay FAR LESS in taxes than the evil rich people, right? Even Buffett admits to paying over 6 million in income taxes.

And yes, yours is worth less than the billionaire.. since the billionaire is spending hundreds and thousands times more than you are. Or are you of the mindset that 100>1,000,000?

[Archigeek]

Preferential? How do you figure?

You forget you still pay FAR LESS in taxes than the evil rich people, right? Even Buffett admits to paying over 6 million in income taxes.

And yes, yours is worth less than the billionaire.. since the billionaire is spending hundreds and thousands times more than you are. Or are you of the mindset that 100>1,000,000?

How do I figure? Like this: capital gains and dividend income are taxed at lower rates than what I typically pay on my work income, and then I get the pleasure of adding FICA on top of that, neither of which are paid on Cap Gains or Dividend income. When you're at the top of the income pile, it's a slim bet that you're making much of your income via a salary. So the end result is that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage tax rate, based on his income, than I do.

That's what I mean by preferential: dividend and cap gains tax rates are lower compared to what most people who gain them would pay if all income forms were taxed at the same rate.

[Back]

We need to tax the rich to create jobs to strengthen America’s infrastructure. Giving them tax breaks sure as hell isn’t doing it.

[4a6c1]

I know. I like how the fun new jive dance is "NEED TAX CUTS TO CREATE JOBS HURR" when it's obvious to everyone that actually works for a living that manufacturing jobs have been leaving the country at crazy rates for at least as long as those tax cuts have been active.

[4a6c1]

And as for Mr. Buffet, he's obviously trying to get into heaven right now. He did it the right way. A sinners life and a saints death. Good for him.

[Tgo01]

And as for Mr. Buffet, he's obviously trying to get into heaven right now. He did it the right way. A sinners life and a saints death. Good for him.

Rojo knows what's up.

[Tgo01]

Warren Buffet is such a... 08-16-2011 01:08 AM you are a dunce.

I'll admit I'm disappointed in the lack of quality rep from this thread.

[Delias]

I like the idea of a national sales tax.

Too late. The nation was sold a long time ago.

[crb]

How do I figure? Like this: capital gains and dividend income are taxed at lower rates than what I typically pay on my work income, and then I get the pleasure of adding FICA on top of that, neither of which are paid on Cap Gains or Dividend income. When you're at the top of the income pile, it's a slim bet that you're making much of your income via a salary. So the end result is that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage tax rate, based on his income, than I do.

That's what I mean by preferential: dividend and cap gains tax rates are lower compared to what most people who gain them would pay if all income forms were taxed at the same rate.

This is the main difference between a liberal and a conservative.

For liberals, tax policy is all about "fairness." They have an idea of "fairness" in their mind and want tax policy to match it. Warren Buffett is an exception, the third richest man on earth. Your typical wealthy investor is a retired person who has worked all their life, maybe in a high wage field, maybe building a business or inventing something, then retires and lives off of investments. These people are wealthier than you, and yet their tax rate is lower than yours because they live off investments now. You view this as unfair, it goes against the thesis of your beliefs that a wealthier person would pay a lower tax rate than those under him, regardless of how he got there.

For conservatives tax policy is about economic growth. Conservatives want the US to remain the most powerful country in the world, and you can't do that with anemic growth. Growing the economy also happens to be the best way to increase jobs, reduce poverty, and increase standard of living. Growing the economy is also the best way to increase federal revenues and decrease federal deficits. Conservatives will support tax policy a liberal might see as unfair, not because they're "owned by the rich" (factually, in recent elections Democrats have gotten far more money in donations, overall, and from industries like Wall Street), but because that tax policy is seen as good for the economy as a whole.


One view is about bringing the bottom up. The other view is about bringing the top down.

In the end, if you're really jealous of Warren Buffett, quit your job and become an activist investor. No one is stopping you. Start flipping businesses.

[Warriorbird]

This is the main difference between a liberal and a conservative.

For liberals, tax policy is all about "fairness." They have an idea of "fairness" in their mind and want tax policy to match it. Warren Buffett is an exception, the third richest man on earth. Your typical wealthy investor is a retired person who has worked all their life, maybe in a high wage field, maybe building a business or inventing something, then retires and lives off of investments. These people are wealthier than you, and yet their tax rate is lower than yours because they live off investments now. You view this as unfair, it goes against the thesis of your beliefs that a wealthier person would pay a lower tax rate than those under him, regardless of how he got there.

For conservatives tax policy is about economic growth. Conservatives want the US to remain the most powerful country in the world, and you can't do that with anemic growth. Growing the economy also happens to be the best way to increase jobs, reduce poverty, and increase standard of living. Growing the economy is also the best way to increase federal revenues and decrease federal deficits. Conservatives will support tax policy a liberal might see as unfair, not because they're "owned by the rich" (factually, in recent elections Democrats have gotten far more money in donations, overall, and from industries like Wall Street), but because that tax policy is seen as good for the economy as a whole.


One view is about bringing the bottom up. The other view is about bringing the top down.

In the end, if you're really jealous of Warren Buffett, quit your job and become an activist investor. No one is stopping you. Start flipping businesses.

For conservatives tax policy is about how to pay as little as possible because they don't really give a fuck. For liberals tax policy is about how to maintain what are now (same cuts!) revenue destroying tax cuts because they're afraid of being labeled themselves.

1. no soul, 2. no balls

[Parkbandit]

We need to tax the rich to create jobs to strengthen America’s infrastructure. Giving them tax breaks sure as hell isn’t doing it.

Maybe instead of riding your hippie bicycle down the street, you should actually purchase a vehicle and put gas in it... since gas is already taxed... to "strengthen America's infrastructure". It's about 50 cents a gallon.

[Parkbandit]

For conservatives tax policy is about how to pay as little as possible because they don't really give a fuck. For liberals tax policy is about how to maintain what are now (same cuts!) revenue destroying tax cuts because they're afraid of being labeled themselves.

1. no soul, 2. no balls

LUL. CONSERVATIVES ARE SELFISH!!!!!

[crb]

For conservatives tax policy is about how to pay as little as possible because they don't really give a fuck. For liberals tax policy is about how to maintain what are now (same cuts!) revenue destroying tax cuts because they're afraid of being labeled themselves.

1. no soul, 2. no balls

That may be true, there is that old saying.

"If you're not a liberal when young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when old, you don't have a head."

Eventually starry-eyed dreamers tend to turn into realists. Some more quickly than others.

[waywardgs]

It's better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.

[Warriorbird]

LUL. CONSERVATIVES ARE SELFISH!!!!!

It's not selfish. Lower end wealthy folks often don't think that they need a successful society to become higher end wealthy folks. Thus things like education and the functions of government (other than durp, military, cus gotta have manliness!) aren't important. Attempting to help out others is "weakness!" This is sadly mistaken.

It can go too far in the opposite direction, obviously (insert tired welfare queen anecdote) , but your average lower end wealthy person (Tgo1) has a sort of categorical blindness where they can't see how giveaways to corporations are bad and attempting to provide for the general welfare of society so we improve ourselves is good.

Then they rage at the people who's places they should be reaching for, the people who get it, like Warren Buffet.

[Parkbandit]

It's not selfish. Lower end wealthy folks often don't think that they need a successful society to become higher end wealthy folks. Thus things like education and the functions of government (other than durp, military, cus gotta have manliness!) aren't important. Attempting to help out others is "weakness!" This is sadly mistaken.

Promoting self responsibility doesn't mean to not help others out when they need it... actually, it's quite the opposite.



It can go too far in the opposite direction, obviously (insert tired welfare queen anecdote) , but your average lower end wealthy person (Tgo1) has a sort of categorical blindness where they can't see how giveaways to corporations are bad and attempting to provide for the general welfare of society so we improve ourselves is good.

I believe I am far better to give away my money than me to send a check to the IRS and hope it reaches people who actually could use it.



Then they rage at the people who's places they should be reaching for, the people who get it, like Warren Buffet.

You believe that 'average lower end wealthy [people]" are striving to become the next Warren Buffett? That's silly.

[Parkbandit]

It's better to have a bleeding heart than none at all.

That's fine you believe that.. just don't force me to bleed with you. If you want to continue to piss away your money, then that is your choice. I believe that simply giving away money to people sitting around is doing them far more harm than it is good.

I HATE to quote the Bible.. but give a man a fish and feed him for the day... teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. I may or may not have hacked that quote up.. but you get the idea.

[crb]

Related:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/warren-buffetts-fiscal-innumeracy/

and

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/stop-coddling-warren-buffett

[Warriorbird]

Promoting self responsibility doesn't mean to not help others out when they need it... actually, it's quite the opposite.



I believe I am far better to give away my money than me to send a check to the IRS and hope it reaches people who actually could use it.



You believe that 'average lower end wealthy [people]" are striving to become the next Warren Buffett? That's silly.

Promoting self responsibility? Really? Companies don't magically decide to help people. Companies chase more money. It's the nature of them. Charity exists but it alone does not cover the deep flaws with society.

Without governmental support societal flaws are never addressed.

The libertarian utopia, the "free market solving everything" is bullshit. Wealth seeks more wealth and entrenches itself. Trickle down is as much of a myth as the idea that you can fix everything solely through the government.

"But but! Charities!" Yeah.

The 1890's were actually pretty awful. Laissez faire does not help people.

[Parkbandit]

Who has stated that "Free market solves everything"? Could you quote anyone here making that case? Oh look, WB is back at his old tricks again... fabricating positions so he can finally manage a response.

I've never, ever stated that I believe in a strict free market society with no government regulations. No one is asking we should take the country back to 1890... not sure why you chose that decade... if I were you I would have used like 1850, then you can also accuse me of wanting slavery back.

Please stop being retarded.

[crb]

A free market solves most things, actually. I'll plant my flag on that position.

Liberals tend to equate a free market with anarchy though, and then argue against anarchy. These are not the same things. A free market requires a government. It requires regulations (such as against monopolies). It requires the rule of law to enforce contracts and property rights.

The free market and the profit motive have been the primary driving force that has improved the standard of living for billions of people worldwide. It is the driver behind the progress of civilization. The world over there are countless examples of free market reforms begetting economic growth begetting less poverty and more prosperity. When the opposite is tried, you get failure.



Companies don't magically decide to help people. Companies chase more money.

Funny, the easiest way to make money is to create a product that helps people. You get it? Free markets work from the bottom up, not the top down. When companies have the freedom to respond to the marketplace, the consumer dictates what products and services are offered, and at what price. It is a democratic process.




Without governmental support societal flaws are never addressed.


Funnier. With government support what has been solved? Poverty rates are higher today. So what has your great society done? Blacks still are poorer and incarcerated more often. What has your affirmative action done? Bureaucracy is really good at mantaining the status quo, not much else.

[Tgo01]

It can go too far in the opposite direction, obviously (insert tired welfare queen anecdote) , but your average lower end wealthy person (Tgo1) has a sort of categorical blindness where they can't see how giveaways to corporations are bad and attempting to provide for the general welfare of society so we improve ourselves is good.

Wait what? You have me confused with someone else or did you arrive at this conclusion based on my dislike of Warren Buffet in this thread?

[Warriorbird]

Funnier. With government support what has been solved? Poverty rates are higher today. So what has your great society done? Blacks still are poorer and incarcerated more often. What has your affirmative action done? Bureaucracy is really good at mantaining the status quo, not much else.

This'd make sense if you thought history started in the 1970s.

[Rinualdo]

Funnier. With government support what has been solved? Poverty rates are higher today. So what has your great society done? Blacks still are poorer and incarcerated more often. What has your affirmative action done? Bureaucracy is really good at mantaining the status quo, not much else.


Just wow...

[Parkbandit]

Just wow...

I know.. can you believe he spelled "maintaining" as "mantaining"?

Mantaning sounds like something Latrinsorm could 'get behind'...

[crb]

I know, wow, the failure of government social programs in the 1900s is astounding isn't it?

You want to talk about how, despite exponentially increasing education spending in real inflation-adjusted terms, kids are doing poorer in school too?

[crb]

Related:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2011/08/16/should_warren_buffett_pay_more_taxes

[AnticorRifling]

I know.. can you believe he spelled "maintaining" as "mantaining"?

Mantaning sounds like something Latrinsorm could 'get behind'...


I'll admit I lol'd.

[Rinualdo]

I know, wow, the failure of government social programs in the 1900s is astounding isn't it?

You want to talk about how, despite exponentially increasing education spending in real inflation-adjusted terms, kids are doing poorer in school too?

Are you seriously suggesting that without government intervention and social programs, minorities would be better off? What possible evidence do you have to support that more blacks are in jail, poorer, and that affirmative action has had no positive impact on society.

[Warriorbird]

Are you seriously suggesting that without government intervention and social programs, minorities would be better off? What possible evidence do you have to support that more blacks are in jail, poorer, and that affirmative action has had no positive impact on society.

Segregation would've just ended! The monopolies would've just ended! Wealth would've magically spread out to the middle class!

It's even funnier when you consider the reverse of corporate vs individual taxes over the course of that same 20th century that crb's trying to make claims about.

[crb]

Are you seriously suggesting that without government intervention and social programs, minorities would be better off? What possible evidence do you have to support that more blacks are in jail, poorer, and that affirmative action has had no positive impact on society.

Are you seriously suggesting that with government intervention and social programs, minorities are better off? What possible evidence do you have to support that less blacks are in jail, poorer, and that affirmative action has had no negative impact on society?

You're like Obama with his stimulus statistics. Create 3 million jobs, nope. Keep unemployment below 8% nope. Fall back on "Create or Save 3 million jobs" that way it is impossible to disprove.

Anyways....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/us/prison-rates-among-blacks-reach-a-peak-report-finds.html

But I suppose even more would be in prison if not for social engineering by the government?

[crb]

Segregation would've just ended! The monopolies would've just ended! Wealth would've magically spread out to the middle class!

It's even funnier when you consider the reverse of corporate vs individual taxes over the course of that same 20th century that crb's trying to make claims about.

Segregation would have ended. Its bad business to ignore a portion of a population who can be your customers. Foot Locker used to sell basketball shoes to white kids in the suburbs, now they sell timberline boots to black kids in the cities. They found a market and they served it. A good business decision.

You know I've already said that a free market requires a government to protect against monopolies, so fuck yourself on that one.

And wealth has magically spread out to the middle class. Do you know how much standard of living has increased in the last century? Do you have any fucking clue? Even just the last 20 years? Just look at, say, the number of homes with air conditioning.

You seem to require the economy to make the poor or middle class equal to the rich and successful. They will never be equal, not in a free country. There will always be a relative difference. What matters is what kind of standard of living the middle class can enjoy. And that has gone up significantly. Think of all the things the average family has now that they didn't have 20 or 30 years ago.

[crb]

Oh, and also, civil rights aren't exactly the same thing as government transfer payments, welfare, jobs program boondoggles, public housing boondoggles, the community reinvestment act, and everything else. Its probably easy just to play the race card and pretend I said that niggers should sit in the back of the bus. But antidiscrimination laws aren't what I was referring to, and you know it.

[Rinualdo]

Most of what you said in the last 3 posts are too filled with willful ignorance to respond to, but I will add this.
For every single social program that has fraud, waste, and abuse associated with them- and there are a lot, I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class.

[NocturnalRob]

Most of what you said in the last 3 posts are too filled with willful ignorance to respond to, but I will add this.
For every single social program that has fraud, waste, and abuse associated with them- and there are a lot, I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class.
Challenge. Go.

[Latrinsorm]

By definition, a tax is a disincentive to an activity. This is why there are carbon taxes, cigarette taxes, etc. Even the income tax is a disincentive to work. Taxes on investments are disincentives to invest. No matter what that old Obama water-carrier says, you will get less investment if you raise investment taxes (Which, by the way, Obama ALREADY did in the Obamacare bill, so they're already going up.)You seem to be conflating two points here, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to clarify. Are you stating that taxes are literally disincentives, that a person is less inclined to invest if capital gains taxes are higher? Or are you instead stating that a person is less able to invest if taxes are higher, due to having less money to invest?
Or do you really think someone who has less money can invest the same amount of money as when they had more money? The logic would appear to be sound but you persist in questioning it.The government does not keep all the money it collects in taxes. Certainly the taxed individual cannot invest the money he paid in taxes, but he can certainly invest the money he gets from having a more skilled employee whose education was funded by the government, or from an upgraded telecommunications infrastructure funded by the government, or from a broader distribution of wealth in the consumer population, etc.

For someone who is insisting upon dynamic accounting, you seem to take an artificially constrained view on this point.
Funnier. With government support what has been solved? Poverty rates are higher today. So what has your great society done? Blacks still are poorer and incarcerated more often. What has your affirmative action done? Bureaucracy is really good at mantaining the status quo, not much else.The lot of the impoverished person in 2011 is categorically superior to the lot of the impoverished person in 1911. Same goes for black people, female people, blind "people"...
I HATE to quote the Bible.. but give a man a fish and feed him for the day... teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. I may or may not have hacked that quote up.. but you get the idea.If it makes you feel better, that quote isn't from the Bible.

[Hulkein]

Are you trolling me?

rofl

[Parkbandit]

For every single social program that has fraud, waste, and abuse associated with them- and there are a lot, I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED


• 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants, $10,797,000 total funding
• 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach Program
• 1994 Institutions Research Program, $1,017,000 total funding
• 8(a) Business Development, $4,077,000 total funding
• 97.063 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Disaster Resistant Universities
• Abandoned Infants, $12,052,000 total funding
• Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Program, $158,600,000 total funding
• Abstinence Education, $40,895,000 total funding
• Academic Research Enhancement Award, $31,987,000 total funding
• Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Activity, $5,565,000 total funding
• Adjustable Rate Mortgages
• Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools, $49,182,000 total funding
• Adolescent Family Life Research Grants, $1,000,000 total funding
• Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects, $25,000,000 total funding
• Adoption Assistance, $1,622,700,000 total funding
• Adoption Incentive Payments, $35,249,000 total funding
• Adoption Opportunities, $27,103,000 total funding
• Adult Education_National Leadership Activities, $9,169,000 total funding
• Adult Education_State Grant Program, $574,372,000 total funding
• Advanced Education Nursing Grant Program, $20,000,000 total funding
• Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships, $16,000,000 total funding
• Advanced Placement Program, $23,534,000 total funding
• Advanced Technology Program, $156,704,000 total funding
• Aerospace Education Services Program, $6,569,000 total funding
• African Elephant Conservation, $1,062,000 total funding
• Aging Research, $834,318,000 total funding
• Agricultural and Rural Economic Research
• Agricultural Health and Safety Programs, $9,000,000 total funding
• Agricultural Inspection
• Agricultural Management Assistance, $3,600,000 total funding
• Agricultural Research_Basic and Applied Research, $15,411,000 total funding
• Agricultural Statistics Reports, $151,329,000 total funding
• Agriculture on Indian Lands, $4,144,000 total funding
• Aid To Tribal Governments, $32,130,000 total funding
• AIDS Education and Training Centers, $33,900,000 total funding
• Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program, $260,000,000 total funding
• Air Information Center
• Air Pollution Control Program Support
• Air Transportation Centers of Excellence, $7,500,000 total funding
• Airport Improvement Program, $3,400,000,000 total funding
• Airway Science
• Alaska Native Educational Programs, $33,302,000 total funding
• Alaska Native Serving and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Education Grants, $3,338,000 total funding
• Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities, $2,982,000 total funding
• Alaska Salmon Enhancement
• Alaska Subsistence Management, $4,200,000 total funding
• Alaskan Indian Allotments and Subsistence Preference_Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, $137,000 total funding
• Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training, $11,240,000 total funding
• Alcohol Open Container Requirements, $112,000,000 total funding

[Parkbandit]

• Attestations by Employers Using Non-Immigrant Aliens in Specialty Occupations, $2,491,000 total funding
• Attorney Fees_Indian Rights, $992,000 total funding
• Automated Flood Warning Systems (AFWS), $534,000 total funding
• Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces, $35,447,000 total funding
• Avian Influenza Indemnity Program
• Aviation Education, $130,000 total funding
• Aviation Research Grants, $30,000,000 total funding
• Aviation Research Grants, $50,000,000 total funding
• Bank Enterprise Award Program, $17,008,000 total funding
• Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship Program, $3,000,000 total funding
• Basic and Applied Scientific Research, $480,000,000 total funding
• Basic Center Grant, $49,171,000 total funding
• Basic Scientific Research, $150,000,000 total funding
• Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science and Engineering, $220,000,000 total funding
• Basic/Core Area Health Education Centers, $15,800,000 total funding
• Beach Erosion Control Projects, $2,500,000 total funding
• Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Implementation Grants, $9,941,000 total funding
• Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship, $1,600,000 total funding
• Bilingual Education_Professional Development, $64,430,000 total funding
• Bilingual/Bicultural Service Demonstration Grants, $2,950,000 total funding
• Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
• Bioenergy Program, $150,000,000 total funding
• Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards, $17,006,000 total funding
• Biological Sciences, $586,890,000 total funding
• Biomedical Research and Research Training, $1,834,000 total funding
• Biometry and Risk Estimation_Health Risks from Environmental Exposures, $45,500,000 total funding
• Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research, $697,000 total funding
• Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum Development Program, $27,706,000 total funding
• Blind Rehabilitation Centers, $63,765,000 total funding
• Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, $412,840,000 total funding
• Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse, $1,690,189,000 total funding
• Blood Diseases and Resources Research, $371,719,000 total funding
• Boating Safety, $17,500,000 total funding
• Boating Safety Financial Assistance, $60,000,000 total funding
• Boll Weevil Eradication Loan Program, $100,000,000 total funding
• Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies, $1,672,000,000 total funding
• Bonding Assistance Program, $15,000,000 total funding
• Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, $51,401,000 total funding
• Bridge Alteration
• Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements
• Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements, $73,100,000 total funding
• Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants and Cooperative Agreements , $3,000,000 total funding
• Buildings and Facilities Program
• Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, $272,000 total funding

[Parkbandit]

• Challenge Cost Share, $9,754,000 total funding
• Charter Schools, $218,702,000 total funding
• Charter Schools Facilities Financing Demonstration, $37,279,000 total funding
• Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Technical Assistance Grants Program, $220,000 total funding
• Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, $85,230,000 total funding
• Chesapeake Bay Program, $15,000,000 total funding
• Chesapeake Bay Studies, $7,000,000 total funding
• Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities, $34,386,000 total funding
• Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants, $21,883,000 total funding
• Child and Adult Care Food Program, $1,856,368,000 total funding
• Child Care Access Means Parents in School, $16,099,000 total funding
• Child Care and Development Block Grant, $2,087,910,000 total funding
• Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund, $2,717,000,000 total funding
• Child Care Provider Loan Forgiveness Demonstration
• Child Nutrition Discretionary Grants Limited Availability
• Child Support Enforcement, $4,351,674,000 total funding
• Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects, $1,500,000 total funding
• Child Support Enforcement Research, $1,800,000 total funding
• Child Welfare Services Training Grants, $7,411,000 total funding
• Child Welfare Services_State Grants, $289,320,000 total funding
• Childhood Blood-Lead Screening and Lead Awareness (Educational) Outreach for Indian Tribes, $1,212,000 total funding
• Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Projects_State and Local Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance of Blood Lead Levels in Children, $31,781,000 total funding
• Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment, $199,000,000 total funding
• Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities, $3,000,000 total funding
• Children's Justice Grants to States, $17,000,000 total funding
• Chiropractic Demonstration Project Grants, $1,159,000 total funding
• Christopher Columbus Fellowship Program, $887,000 total funding
• Citizen Corps
• Citizenship Education and Training, $30,000 total funding
• Civic Education_ Cooperative Education Exchange Program, $11,852,000 total funding
• Civil Rights Compliance Activities, $33,902,000 total funding
• Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons, $10,034,000 total funding
• Civil Rights Prosecution, $13,151,000 total funding
• Civil Rights Training and Advisory Services, $7,243,000 total funding
• Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants
• Claims Against Foreign Governments
• Clean Vessel Act, $10,000,000 total funding
• Clearinghouse Services, Civil Rights Discrimination Complaints, $8,740,000 total funding
• Climate and Atmospheric Research, $44,000,000 total funding
• Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, $688,000 total funding
• Closed-Circuit Televising of Child Victims of Abuse
• Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, $390,848,000 total funding

[Warriorbird]

Segregation would have ended. Its bad business to ignore a portion of a population who can be your customers. Foot Locker used to sell basketball shoes to white kids in the suburbs, now they sell timberline boots to black kids in the cities. They found a market and they served it. A good business decision.

You know I've already said that a free market requires a government to protect against monopolies, so fuck yourself on that one.

And wealth has magically spread out to the middle class. Do you know how much standard of living has increased in the last century? Do you have any fucking clue? Even just the last 20 years? Just look at, say, the number of homes with air conditioning.

You seem to require the economy to make the poor or middle class equal to the rich and successful. They will never be equal, not in a free country. There will always be a relative difference. What matters is what kind of standard of living the middle class can enjoy. And that has gone up significantly. Think of all the things the average family has now that they didn't have 20 or 30 years ago.

Segregation would have never ended. Economic actors will work to maintain cheap labor to the detriment of society as a whole.

"You know I've already said that a free market requires a government to protect against monopolies, so fuck yourself on that one."

Ah. Yet you want to encourage preferential tax breaks and loopholes for some companies, because you support the Republican Party, and closing a loophole is a tax increase?

"And wealth has magically spread out to the middle class. Do you know how much standard of living has increased in the last century? Do you have any fucking clue? Even just the last 20 years? Just look at, say, the number of homes with air conditioning. "

And that's certainly not due to the robber barons. Laissez faire caused economic stagnation and an atrophy of the middle class. Those people saw it themselves and worked to spawn some of the Progressive policies that allowed wealth to spread out to everyone, to really give Americans upward mobility. Your magical return to the 1890s world would return to all the ugly sides of that era. They hated some regulation too!

I don't require the middle class to be equal to the "upper class." I understand that everyone gaining more money to spend means everyone gaining more money to spend. Rich people don't get rich by giving it away. They also don't get rich when nobody has money to buy their products.

I want people to feel able to buy wine. I'd rather I pay more taxes and my Grandpa pay taxes than take a bigger bite out of government services that will help people become better members of society so they can do so and do so all their lives.

You want people to afford IT services. Similar principles hold.

[Parkbandit]

• Community Prosecution and Project Safe Neighborhoods, $3,687,000 total funding
• Community Relations Service, $9,412,000 total funding
• Community Services Block Grant, $641,935,000 total funding
• Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards_Community Food and Nutrition, $7,238,000 total funding
• Community Services Block Grant_Discretionary Awards, $51,984,000 total funding
• Community Technology Centers, $9,941,000 total funding
• Community-Based Family Resource and Support Grants, $33,205,000 total funding
• Compensation and Working Conditions, $83,536,000 total funding
• Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents, $1,438,000 total funding
• Competitive Training Grants, $60,000,000 total funding
• Compliance Assistance_Support for Services to the Regulated Community and Other Assistance Providers, $1,329,000 total funding
• Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances (SED), $49,547,000 total funding
• Comprehensive Geriatric Education Program(CGEP)
• Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers, $27,654,000 total funding
• Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration, $233,613,000 total funding
• Computer and Information Science and Engineering, $604,650,000 total funding
• Congressionally Identified Construction Projects
• Congressionally-Identified Projects, $34,533,000 total funding
• Conservation Assessment Program, $820,000 total funding
• Conservation Grants Private Stewardship for Imperiled Species, $7,408,000 total funding
• Conservation Law Enforcement Training Assistance, $505,000 total funding
• Conservation Project Support, $2,792,000 total funding
• Conservation Research and Development
• Conservation Reserve Program, $1,882,592,000 total funding
• Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application (KD&A) Program, $100,186,000 total funding
• Consolidated Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreements, $19,783,000 total funding
• Consolidated Tribal Government Program, $65,710,000 total funding
• Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works, $9,899,000 total funding
• Construction Reserve Fund, $11,000 total funding
• Consultation Agreements, $52,211,000 total funding
• Consumer Credit Protection
• Contraception and Infertility Research Loan Repayment Program, $1,000,000 total funding
• Cooperating Technical Partners, $33,000,000 total funding
• Cooperative Agreements for State Treatment Outcomes and Performance Pilot Studies Enhancement, $1,100,000 total funding
• Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Comprehensive Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs, $201,000,000 total funding
• Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Diabetes Control Programs and Evaluation of Surveillance Systems, $27,606,000 total funding
• Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health Status of Minority Populations, $5,224,000 total funding
• Cooperative Agreements to Support Comprehensive School Health Programs to Prevent the Spread of HIV and Other Important Health Problems, $1,451,000 total funding

[Parkbandit]

• Demonstration to Maintain Independence and Employment, $8,000,000 total funding
• Denali Commission Program, $55,000,000 total funding
• Denton Program, $50,000 total funding
• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT 2003, $10,000,000 total funding
• Depository Libraries for Government Publications, $34,253,000 total funding
• Desegregation of Public Education, $4,793,000 total funding
• Development and Coordination of Rural Health Services, $900,000 total funding
• Development and Promotion of Ports and Intermodal Transportation, $141,000 total funding
• Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants, $111,497,000 total funding
• Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance, $11,561,000 total funding
• Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research, $531,925,000 total funding
• Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research, $411,931,000 total funding
• Direct Housing_Natural Disaster, $250,000 total funding
• Direct Housing_Natural Disaster Loans and Grants, $1,750,000 total funding
• Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements, $685,000 total funding
• Disabilities Prevention, $31,800,000 total funding
• Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP), $81,615,000 total funding
• Disadvantaged Business Enterprises_Short Term Lending Program, $8,000,000 total funding
• Disadvantaged Health Professions Faculty Loan Repayment and Fellowship Program, $2,136,000 total funding
• Disaster Housing Program, $316,000 total funding
• Disaster Legal Services, $58,000 total funding
• Disaster Reserve Assistance
• Disaster Unemployment Assistance, $6,836,000 total funding
• Discovery and Applied Research, $111,740,000 total funding
• Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property, $47,307,000 total funding
• Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property for Parks, Recreation, and Historic Monuments, $1,026,000 total funding
• Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants, $34,853,000 total funding
• Distribution of Library of Congress Cataloging, $7,356,000 total funding
• Distribution of Receipts to State and Local Governments, $184,071,000 total funding
• Doctoral Dissertation Research Grants, $400,000 total funding
• Dollar Home Sales
• Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property, $11,775,000 total funding
• Donations/Loans of Obsolete DOD Property, $2,750,000 total funding
• Dropout Prevention Programs, $4,971,000 total funding
• Drug Abuse Research Programs, $724,554,000 total funding
• Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, $39,643,000 total funding
• Drug Prevention Program
• Drug-Free Communities Support Program Grants, $50,012,000 total funding
• Early Childhood Educator Professional Development, $14,814,000 total funding
• Early Doctoral Student Research Grants, $150,000 total funding
• Early Learning Fund, $33,580,000 total funding
• Early Reading First, $94,439,000 total funding
• Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, $10,480,000 total funding
• Economic Adjustment Assistance, $40,420,000 total funding
• Economic Development_Support for Planning Organizations, $23,521,000 total funding
• Economic Development_Technical Assistance, $8,790,000 total funding

[Parkbandit]

• Emergency Rehabilitation of Flood Control Works or Federally Authorized Coastal Protection Works
• Emergency Shelter Grants Program, $159,056,000 total funding
• Emerging Markets Program, $10,000,000 total funding
• Employee Benefits Security Administration, $124,040,000 total funding
• Employment and Training Administration Evaluations, $8,986,000 total funding
• Employment and Training Administration Pilots, Demonstrations, and Research Projects, $57,751,000 total funding
• Employment Discrimination Project Contracts_Indian Tribes
• Employment Discrimination_Age Discrimination in Employment
• Employment Discrimination_Equal Pay Act
• Employment Discrimination_Private Bar Program
• Employment Discrimination_State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agency Contracts, $30,000,000 total funding
• Employment Discrimination_Title I of The Americans with Disabilities Act
• Employment Discrimination_Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $323,516,000 total funding
• Employment Opportunities for Lower Income Persons and Businesses
• Employment Programs for People with Disabilities, $47,426,000 total funding
• Employment Projections Data
• Employment Service, $787,000,000 total funding
• Empowerment Zones Program
• Empowerment Zones Program, $14,912,000 total funding
• Endangered Species on Indian Lands, $1,539,000 total funding
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Dissemination, Outreach, Training and Technical Analysis/Assistance
• Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program, $24,749,000 total funding
• Engineering Grants, $565,130,000 total funding
• English Language Acquisition Grants, $597,374,000 total funding
• Environmental Education and Training Program, $1,695,000 total funding
• Environmental Education Grants, $2,750,000 total funding
• Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program, $20,000,000 total funding
• Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Grants Program, $1,500,000 total funding
• Environmental Justice Hazardous Substances Research Small Grants to Community Groups, $500,000 total funding
• Environmental Management_Indian Programs, $6,496,000 total funding
• Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants, $500,000 total funding
• Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants-Program Support, $8,000,000 total funding
• Environmental Protection_Consolidated Research
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program, $200,000,000 total funding
• Environmental Sciences, Applications, Data, and Education, $6,174,000 total funding
• Epidemiologic Research Studies of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Selected Population Groups, $23,445,000 total funding
• Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance Program, $16,000,000 total funding
• Epidemiology Cooperative Agreements, $3,250,000 total funding
• Equal Employment Opportunity, $8,042,000 total funding
• Equal Opportunity in Housing
• Even Start_Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations, $4,938,000 total funding

[Parkbandit]

• Federal Reimbursement of Emergency Health Services furnished to Undocumented Aliens
• Federal Ship Financing Guarantees, $25,020,000 total funding
• Federal Student Temporary Employment Program
• Federal Summer Employment
• Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, $770,455,000 total funding
• Federal Surplus Property Transfer Program
• Federal Transit Grants for University Research and Training
• Federal Transit Managerial Training Grants
• Federal Transit Technical Assistance
• Federal Transit_Capital Investment Grants, $4,587,380,000 total funding
• Federal Transit_Formula Grants, $3,818,689,000 total funding
• Federal Transit_Metropolitan Planning Grants, $93,059,000 total funding
• Federal Work-Study Program, $998,502,000 total funding
• Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, $3,318,000 total funding
• Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, $9,100,000 total funding
• Fire Management Assistance Grant, $49,460,000 total funding
• First Responder Counter-Terrorism Training Assistance
• Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, $1,000,000 total funding
• Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Programs on Indian Lands, $10,775,000 total funding
• Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program
• Fisheries Disaster Relief, $1,000,000 total funding
• Fisheries Finance Program, $236,000,000 total funding
• Fishermen's Contingency Fund, $140,000 total funding
• Fishermen's Guaranty Fund
• Fishery Products Inspection and Certification, $15,799,000 total funding
• Flood Control Projects, $25,000,000 total funding
• Flood Insurance, $110,472,000 total funding
• Flood Mitigation Assistance, $3,035,000 total funding
• Flood Plain Management Services, $9,000,000 total funding
• Fogarty International Research Collaboration Award, $5,418,000 total funding
• Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate Fellowship Grants, $2,768,000 total funding
• Food and Drug Administration_Research, $15,223,000 total funding
• Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, $75,800,000 total funding
• Food Donation, $166,575,000 total funding
• Food for Education, $49,175,000 total funding
• Food for Peace Development Assistance Program (DAP), $145,362,000 total funding
• Food for Progress, $122,700,000 total funding
• Food Stamp Program Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships
• Food Stamps, $19,423,936,000 total funding
• Foreign Assistance to American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA), $17,102,000 total funding
• Foreign Investment Financing, $800,000,000 total funding
• Foreign Investment Insurance, $1,800,000,000 total funding
• Foreign Language Assistance, $16,546,000 total funding
• Foreign Language Incentive Program
• Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, $34,500,000 total funding
• Foreign-Trade Zones in the United States, $1,050,000 total funding
• Forest Land Enhancement Program

[Parkbandit]

• Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities, $209,885,000 total funding
• Grants to States for Incarcerated Youth Offenders, $19,882,000 total funding
• Grants to States for Operation of Offices of Rural Health, $6,900,000 total funding
• Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High-Risk Pools, $40,000,000 total funding
• Grants-in-Aid for Railroad Safety_State Participation
• Great Apes Conservation, $1,063,000 total funding
• Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research, $1,050,000 total funding
• Great Lakes Program, $6,000,000 total funding
• Great Plains Conservation, $1,469,000 total funding
• Greater Opportunities Research Program, $1,152,000 total funding
• Greater Research Opportunities Fellowship Program, $1,527,000 total funding
• Ground and Surface Water Conseration - Environmental Quality Incentives Program, $66,342,000 total funding
• Growth Management Planning Assistance
• Gulf of Mexico Program, $1,971,000 total funding
• Habitat Conservation, $36,000,000 total funding
• Hansen's Disease National Ambulatory Care Program
• Harry S Truman Scholarship Program, $2,000,000 total funding
• Hawaii Stock Management Program, $483,000 total funding
• Hazard Mitigation Grant, $266,868,000 total funding
• Hazardous Materials Assistance Program, $25,000 total funding
• Hazardous Materials Training Program, $180,000 total funding
• Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support, $106,598,000 total funding
• Head Start, $6,774,848,000 total funding
• Headquarter and Regional Underground Storage Tanks Program, $1,085,000 total funding
• Health Administration Traineeships and Special Projects Program, $1,045,000 total funding
• Health and Safety Programs for Construction Work, $5,000,000 total funding
• Health Care and Other Facilities, $308,972,000 total funding
• Health Careers Opportunity Program
• Health Center Grants for Homeless Populations
• Health Centers Grants for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers, $93,000,000 total funding
• Health Centers Grants for Residents of Public Housing
• Health Disparities in Minority Health, $1,000,000 total funding
• Health Education and Training Centers, $3,851,000 total funding
• Health Education Assistance Loans
• Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarship Program for Indians, $1,965,000 total funding
• Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship Program for Indians, $2,573,000 total funding
• Health Professions Recruitment Program for Indians, $3,520,000 total funding
• Health Professions Scholarship Program, $9,259,000 total funding
• Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans/Loans for Disadvantaged Students, $26,000,000 total funding
• Health Program for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, $5,602,000 total funding
• HEALTHY COMMUNITITES ACCESS PROGRAM (HCAP) DEMONSTRATION AUTHORITY
• Healthy Homes Demonstration Grants, $5,000,000 total funding
• Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grants, $2,000,000 total funding
• Healthy Schools, Healthy Communities

[Rinualdo]

Really??
I guess I was asking for specifics, but sure PB, I can do it your way.

Iraq: $3,000,000,000,000
Department of Defense: $685,000,000,000

[Parkbandit]

Ok, let's just say there are more than 1800 of these.. and I don't think people want to read 38 posts of them in a row.. so just get started and if you come up with 1800, I'll post the rest.

[Parkbandit]

Really??
I guess I was asking for specifics, but sure PB, I can do it your way.

Iraq: $3,000,000,000,000
Department of Defense: $685,000,000,000

You didn't say you would match dollar for dollar.. you said this:


I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class.

Now, I have in my possession 1880+ of these programs.. you simply need to come up with 1800 examples of equal business programs, tax loopholes, and other methods in which business exploits the working class.

Good luck.

[Hulkein]

We need to tax the rich to create jobs to strengthen America’s infrastructure. Giving them tax breaks sure as hell isn’t doing it.

WUT

[Hulkein]

The entire DoD budget "exploits the working class"???

[Rinualdo]

Ok, let's just say there are more than 1800 of these.. and I don't think people want to read 38 posts of them in a row.. so just get started and if you come up with 1800, I'll post the rest.

Well, a bunch that you listed aren't social programs and simply posting the expenditure doesn't equate the fraud, waste, and abuse associated. Unless you are attempting to make the point that virtually all government spending includes fraud, waste, and abuse. If that's the case, then I agree with you perfectly and, in fact, is the point I was trying to make to CRB.
Singling out waste or abuse in social programs in order to promote a pro-business agenda is disingenuous when you also fail to include the inherent fraud in pro-business policies, laws, and budgetary items.

[Rinualdo]

The entire DoD budget "exploits the working class"???

No more then the entire Abstinence Education budget is fraud, waste, and abuse.

[Rinualdo]

You didn't say you would match dollar for dollar.. you said this:



Now, I have in my possession 1880+ of these programs.. you simply need to come up with 1800 examples of equal business programs, tax loopholes, and other methods in which business exploits the working class.

Good luck.

I think I accidentally that post.

What I meant to say was "I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class or is equally rife with fraud, waste, or abuse"

[Tgo01]

No more then the entire Abstinence Education budget is fraud, waste, and abuse.

Going by the name alone it sounds like the whole program is waste.

[Rinualdo]

Going by the name alone it sounds like the whole program is waste.

It was and hugely ineffectual.

I like this example in what PB posted.
Civil Rights Prosecution, $13,151,000 total funding

Why are you so racist PB?

[Tgo01]

Alcohol Open Container Requirements, $112,000,000 total funding

What the fuck is that and why did it cost 112 million dollars?

[Parkbandit]

Well, a bunch that you listed aren't social programs and simply posting the expenditure doesn't equate the fraud, waste, and abuse associated. Unless you are attempting to make the point that virtually all government spending includes fraud, waste, and abuse. If that's the case, then I agree with you perfectly and, in fact, is the point I was trying to make to CRB.
Singling out waste or abuse in social programs in order to promote a pro-business agenda is disingenuous when you also fail to include the inherent fraud in pro-business policies, laws, and budgetary items.

Can you prove that there is no fraud in these programs? Good luck, given the amount of money many of them have associated with them.

I haven't seen a government program that doesn't have fraud in it.. but maybe you can enlighten us.

Now.. I can't give you the first (and only) 2 programs you mentioned.. given you have not illustrated how they exploit the working class.

[Parkbandit]

It was and hugely ineffectual.

I like this example in what PB posted.
Civil Rights Prosecution, $13,151,000 total funding

Why are you so racist PB?

If there is a lawyer in the mix, guaranteed there is fraud and most definitely there is waste associated with the program.

[Tsa`ah]

Can you prove that there is no fraud in these programs? Good luck, given the amount of money many of them have associated with them.

No more than you can prove that there is ... after all you just lifted a list of government assistance programs from another page and didn't exactly provide any examples of fraud or waste.

It is a given that any program is going to have both. You can't factor out human greed ... but suggesting that because there is fraud and or waste that the programs are corrupt or ineffective so we shouldn't have them is pretty asinine.


I haven't seen a government program that doesn't have fraud in it.. but maybe you can enlighten us.

I haven't seen a program, be it government, private, or corporate, that doesn't have fraud of some level in it. Again, that only speaks to human nature. To suggest that we shouldn't fund a program that will put thousands of people back to work and generate, over time, more tax revenue than the original cost ... well because a few people are going to defraud the program ... is, as I said, asinine.

[AnticorRifling]

No more than you can prove that there is....


Followed by I haven't seen a program that doesn't have fraud of some level in it....


You scare me.

[Delias]

Can you prove that there is no fraud in these programs?

Your argument is fallacious.

[Tsa`ah]

No more than you can prove that there is....


Followed by I haven't seen a program that doesn't have fraud of some level in it....


You scare me.

You should have probably kept reading. You're not squiggles or PB ... I know you can do it.

[Parkbandit]

Your argument is fallacious.

Show me a federal government program that doesn't have waste and fraud in it.

Just one.

[Tsa`ah]

Show me a federal government program that doesn't have waste and fraud in it.

Just one.

Show me any non-government program that doesn't.

Babies and bathwater you know.

[Parkbandit]

Show me any non-government program that doesn't.

Babies and bathwater you know.

How does this prove/disprove that government programs have fraud and waste in them... or are you agreeing with me that they do?

[Tsa`ah]

How does this prove/disprove that government programs have fraud and waste in them... or are you agreeing with me that they do?

I'm not making the distinction between any program based on private, public, or corporate.

Of course there is going to be fraud and waste ... it doesn't matter where the program originates from.

Again ... babies and bathwater. Deal with the waste and fraud, don't use either as the excuse to end the program.

[Delias]

Show me a federal government program that doesn't have waste and fraud in it.

Just one.

I don't have to prove that something doesn't exist... you are trying to prove that something does, so the burden of proof is on you, buddy. Prove they are all corrupt.

Edit: Technically, you can't prove that something doesn't exist, by the way.

[Latrinsorm]

Alcohol Open Container Requirements, $112,000,000 total funding

What the fuck is that and why did it cost 112 million dollars?You know how when you go to a ballpark you can only get alcohol in a cup, rather than in a bottle? That's my guess.

[Rinualdo]

Can you prove that there is no fraud in these programs? Good luck, given the amount of money many of them have associated with them.

I haven't seen a government program that doesn't have fraud in it.. but maybe you can enlighten us.

Now.. I can't give you the first (and only) 2 programs you mentioned.. given you have not illustrated how they exploit the working class.

Perhaps you missed this


Well, a bunch that you listed aren't social programs and simply posting the expenditure doesn't equate the fraud, waste, and abuse associated. Unless you are attempting to make the point that virtually all government spending includes fraud, waste, and abuse. If that's the case, then I agree with you perfectly and, in fact, is the point I was trying to make to CRB.
Singling out waste or abuse in social programs in order to promote a pro-business agenda is disingenuous when you also fail to include the inherent fraud in pro-business policies, laws, and budgetary items.

[Parkbandit]

Are you saying you are accepting defeat in your challenge?


For every single social program that has fraud, waste, and abuse associated with them- and there are a lot, I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class.

[Tgo01]

Warren Buffet is such a... 08-16-2011 06:34 PM you-r-retarded

A bit funnier but still lacking.

[Delias]

Warren Buffet is such a... 08-16-2011 06:34 PM you-r-retarded

A bit funnier but still lacking.

And somehow still true.

[Rinualdo]

Are you saying you are accepting defeat in your challenge?

You have Rocktar reading comprehension today


I think I accidentally that post.

What I meant to say was "I can find an equal business program, tax loophole, or other method in which business exploits the working class or is equally rife with fraud, waste, or abuse"


If you'd like to debate this point, I'd be very happy to.

[Tgo01]

And somehow still true.

Well you are an expert on the subject.

[Delias]

Well you are an expert on the subject.

Also true. I make the study of retards a priority, to try and predict their behavior.

[Parkbandit]

You have Rocktar reading comprehension today

Well, to be honest, I thought you would pussy out of your challenge when pressed.. glad I had you pegged.



If you'd like to debate this point, I'd be very happy to.

I've seen how you throw down challenges.. and then back away when you realize how utterly stupid you were to make such a challenge. I'll pass.

[Parkbandit]

Also true. I make the study of retards a priority, to try and predict their behavior.

one word: Golf.

[Delias]

one word: Golf.

You are correct sir. Not knowing about golf makes me retarded. I also don't know about soccer, cricket, or curling. That makes me 4 times as retarded.

[TheEschaton]

I've never watched a curling match in my life, but I can tell you the general premise of the game, which you couldn't do with golf, leading us to believe you're one of them ritards.

[Parkbandit]

You are correct sir. Not knowing about golf makes me retarded. I also don't know about soccer, cricket, or curling. That makes me 4 times as retarded.

Don't forget to add the part where you actually live next to a course... because that makes it up to 100 times.

[Tgo01]

Can someone link me to this golf thread? I feel left out :(

[Alfster]

What the fuck don't you know about golf?

[Delias]

I know that the little ball is hit with the club. Beyond that, not much.

Edit: The golf course you're referring to, the closest to me, is a mile and a half away. There are some nice car dealerships even closer, and I know almost nothing about cars. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of things within a mile of my house that I know nothing about.

[TheEschaton]

Basically, there was a picture of a guy with a club, the ball, and the hole. And Delias didn't know what the fuck the point of the game was.

I don't even know what the picture was posted in response to. I have a feeling it was Carl Spackler jawing about some golf vacation he went on in some picture thread.

[Kembal]

A. For the purposes of forum posting I did not want to look up the actual depreciation schedule for my mythological piece of equipment. So I didn't. It wouldn't have changed the point of the argument in the least, so... whats your problem?

MACRS accelerates the expensing of capital equipment in general. Generally, you depreciate much faster than straight-line depreciation, and it's front-loaded.


B. If you want to really be a nerd and say I didn't use the appropriate IRS depreciation schedule on my mythological piece of equipment. Fine, throw out that whole example, here is another one: How about the scenario of inventory being unable to be expensed until it is sold. A manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or retailer cannot expense inventory it has expensed capital to purchase until it is sold. So the IRS can levy a tax on profits that exist on paper, even if your bank account says $0. Which fucks you, you have to take out a loan to pay the taxes. The least you could do is have it not fuck you as hard by not taxing small businesses more than large businesses.

....at this point, I'm not sure you know the basics of accrual accounting. You can't recognize revenue until you sell the inventory to begin with. No revenue equals no profits.


C. Stimulus? Really? The corporate jet tax break that Obama wants to repeal? That is what you're talking about? Its only 50%, and it has a bunch of restrictions on it, and it doesn't apply to everything. I had $50,000 capital purchase (oh no keller I mentioned it kinda!) disallowed for it.

Um, Section 168 accelerated bonus depreciation is currently 100% until Jan. 1, 2012. While there's no reason for corporate jets to be included, other equipment does make sense. For example, I have a $1 million capital purchase of forklifts that I'm going to do this year instead of next year because of the bonus depreciation rules. All of it will get written off for tax purposes.

I have no idea what you're doing with your 50k purchase, but the rules most certainly work for most normal equipment.

[AnticorRifling]

Can someone link me to this golf thread? I feel left out :(

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1293371&postcount=21449

[4a6c1]

I know that the little ball is hit with the club. Beyond that, not much.

Edit: The golf course you're referring to, the closest to me, is a mile and a half away. There are some nice car dealerships even closer, and I know almost nothing about cars. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of things within a mile of my house that I know nothing about.

This made me laugh. Poor Delias.

[Parkbandit]

I know that the little ball is hit with the club. Beyond that, not much.

Edit: The golf course you're referring to, the closest to me, is a mile and a half away. There are some nice car dealerships even closer, and I know almost nothing about cars. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of things within a mile of my house that I know nothing about.

The best part is when you try and justify it... that shit never gets old.

[AnticorRifling]

I'd like to go on record as saying my 5yr olds understand enough about golf to call that a nice shot. Wii golf all up in this bitch.

[Parkbandit]

I'd like to go on record as saying my 5yr olds understand enough about golf to call that a nice shot. Wii golf all up in this bitch.

But Delias never played Wii Golf!

[crb]

Well, a bunch that you listed aren't social programs and simply posting the expenditure doesn't equate the fraud, waste, and abuse associated. Unless you are attempting to make the point that virtually all government spending includes fraud, waste, and abuse. If that's the case, then I agree with you perfectly and, in fact, is the point I was trying to make to CRB.
Singling out waste or abuse in social programs in order to promote a pro-business agenda is disingenuous when you also fail to include the inherent fraud in pro-business policies, laws, and budgetary items.

I reject your assumptions. "Inherent fraud in pro-business policies"? What is inherently fraudulent about economic freedom?

Fuck liberals for your hatred of economic freedoms (and your shit don't stink attitude).

Fuck conservatives for your jesus saves bullshit.

If you're talking about bullshit crony capitalism, unnecessary regulations favoring one company, picking winners and losers, bailouts, kickbacks, those things are not elements of a free market.

This is what dipshit liberals ALWAYS do when arguing against free market solutions. They attack it as anarchist, statist, or corporatist.

It isn't any of those things.

Anarchy is no government.

Statist and corporatist are really the same thing, big government. Most corporations do not like free markets, because free markets beget competition. They like regulatory barriers of entry and high compliance costs. It keeps the little guy from catching up with them.

A free market isn't no government. It isn't big government. It isn't government in bed with big businesses. It is small, smart goverment.

[Rinualdo]

I reject your assumptions. "Inherent fraud in pro-business policies"? What is inherently fraudulent about economic freedom?

Fuck liberals for your hatred of economic freedoms (and your shit don't stink attitude).

Fuck conservatives for your jesus saves bullshit.

If you're talking about bullshit crony capitalism, unnecessary regulations favoring one company, picking winners and losers, bailouts, kickbacks, those things are not elements of a free market.

This is what dipshit liberals ALWAYS do when arguing against free market solutions. They attack it as anarchist, statist, or corporatist.

It isn't any of those things.

Anarchy is no government.

Statist and corporatist are really the same thing, big government. Most corporations do not like free markets, because free markets beget competition. They like regulatory barriers of entry and high compliance costs. It keeps the little guy from catching up with them.

A free market isn't no government. It isn't big government. It isn't government in bed with big businesses. It is small, smart goverment.

Since "economic freedom" is a theory and not a "pro-business policy, law, or budgetary item", it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Further, I reject your notion that I made any comment against economic freedom.

Where you and I disagree is that business isn't the end all and be all of a free and prosperous society. Business has inherently good qualities and inherently bad ones. That is where government comes in- to set the stage and rules to attempt to mitigate the negative qualities that come with business, specifically big business.

Government should provide the ethical and social checks that business will largely ignore.

[crb]

MACRS accelerates the expensing of capital equipment in general. Generally, you depreciate much faster than straight-line depreciation, and it's front-loaded.



....at this point, I'm not sure you know the basics of accrual accounting. You can't recognize revenue until you sell the inventory to begin with. No revenue equals no profits.



Dude, you're a dumbass. You can't even do basic math. Are you a burger flipper at McDonalds or something? I thought I explained this clearly, apparently not clear enough.

You make giant black dildos and when you're not shoving them up your ass is a masturbatory haze, you're selling them. You sell $100,000 in black dildos between January and November. Your profit on this lot of inventory is $80,000.

Your dildo business is doing so good that you order more dildos, so you take that $80,000 profit, your working capital, and buy another batch of dildos from the factory you use. You now have an additional $80,000 worth of dildos (at wholesale cost), but $0 working capital.

The year ends. On paper you show a $80,000 profit, in your bank account is $0. How you going to pay the tax bill? What if your inventory stops turning over as fast? What if, in general, you're in a business with low inventory turnover? What if to make economical cost on manufacturing you have to do larger production runs less often causing inventory build up that you cannot expense until it is sold, which might not be soon? You might end up having to take out a loan to cover the tax bill, or you might end up having to put off additional business investments to pay it off.

Accrual accounting can fuck small businesses that carry inventory, the least we can do is not tax small businesses as highly as big businesses.

Politically it is good too. No one likes giveaways to big corporations. And while people seem okay to give tax breaks to small business owners (it polls well) giving them to the "rich" does not poll well. So separate schedule C pass through income from regular income tax rates at the federal level and tax it at a lower rate, or at least the same low rate as the C-corp tax rate, assuming it is lowered as both sides of the aisle wish to do.


I have no idea what you're doing with your 50k purchase, but the rules most certainly work for most normal equipment.

Intangible intellectual property assets, good will, etc.

Can't you see how this retards small business growth? If you reinvest profits into the business but into assets that take, say, 10 years to depreciate (good will is 15 years I think), and again I'm doing this linearly to keep it simple. Only 1/10th of your expenditure can be expensed. So you'll still have to pay taxes on 90% of the profits you used to make the purchase (be it inventory, or certain other things). If your tax rate is 35%, then (.35*90) 31.5% of your profits must be held back from any further business investment for taxes. Meaning, the most you could reinvest into the business is 68.5%. This differs from 100% if you could use cash basis accounting (or had no tax bill, or could choose to defer taxes). a 46% increase in reinvestment activity. Compound an annual 46% increase in business reinvestment and you see a very rapid separation in the two numbers. In other words, you're growing a hell of a lot slower because of this.

[Bobmuhthol]

Kembal might be a burger flipper but I bet he isn't retarded enough to argue that businesses should spend 100% of their gross profit on inventory and ignore all tax liability.

I just read your last paragraph, and instead of pointing out why it's stupid, I'm just going to say this: you're the same person who tried to counter my statement with "static accounting fail?"

[Rinualdo]

Kembal might be a burger flipper but I bet he isn't retarded enough to argue that businesses should spend 100% of their gross profit on inventory and ignore all tax liability.

Pretty much this.

[Delias]

MOTHERFUCKING BATTLETOADS.

[crb]

Kembal might be a burger flipper but I bet he isn't retarded enough to argue that businesses should spend 100% of their gross profit on inventory and ignore all tax liability.

I just read your last paragraph, and instead of pointing out why it's stupid, I'm just going to say this: you're the same person who tried to counter my statement with "static accounting fail?"


You're just apparently too far removed from the business world. Companies spend all of their profit (revenue really) in a fiscal year all the time. They take a loss. Surely you've heard of a business having a quarterly or yearly loss before haven't you?

And while a big corporation can usually work it out so they don't pay taxes. Your small business, not so much.

Also, what you fail to get, is that the issue is not that you should ignore your taxes, but that taxes really hurt small business growth because you can't ignore them. You're spending money on things you can't expense right away which puts significant strain on your cash flow because the government doesn't give you any sort of credit for those expenditures come tax time. The solution is to invest less into business expansion (as you say, "don't be stupid")...which is good for the overall economy how? That is what this thread is still about right? What tax policy is good for the economy? How is discouraging small business investment good for the economy?

Also, what you fail to get is that is doesn't really matter what you spend, it matters when you spend it. Buying inventory in December fucks you, because you probably won't sell it until year end. Maybe you did not mean to buy it in December, maybe it was supposed to be there in June but production was delayed. Shit happens in the real world. Or maybe to get inventory you need for the whole year you have to place your purchase in March, only the only capital you have available is what was set aside to pay taxes in April, assuming your quarterly estimates from the previous year weren't high enough, even though you went 10%+ for the safe harbor provision, you just had more than 10% YoY growth.

The point is, there are numerous ways a small business can have $0 in the bank (or not enough anyways) because of legitimate business expenses, while at the same time be showing a profit on paper that results in a tax liability.

[Keller]

The gems so far from today are that people who keep $80k inventory of black dildos wouldn't be on the LIFO method and that if you exceed YoY growth estimates, that is a bad thing because now you have to pay a portion of that extra money in taxes.

[AnticorRifling]

G/L how does it work?!

[Bobmuhthol]

For what it's worth, I don't "fail to get" any of your shitty points, crb.

Fuck it, this is an easy one to tackle:


Companies spend all of their profit (revenue really) in a fiscal year all the time. They take a loss. Surely you've heard of a business having a quarterly or yearly loss before haven't you?

What you fail to get is that money spent by a company doesn't have to be funded by the same fiscal year's revenue. You would have to be absolutely fucking retarded to start with $0 in cash/equivalents, $x in inventory, sell for $y revenue, and then spend $(y-x) buying new inventory. It's a business plan that, like you seem to have a problem with, ends in you not having the money to pay off everyone that isn't your supplier. Come up with better examples about our "flawed" accounting system next time.

[Keller]

For what it's worth, I don't "fail to get" any of your shitty points, crb.

I can't believe he said that you fail to get that having less money hurts business development.

I also can't believe that he thinks buying inventory in December is a bad thing.

[Parkbandit]

Is the profit on black dildos really 80%?

Good to know...

[Alfster]

I'd think the profit margin would be a bit higher on white ones...

[Rinualdo]

I'd think the profit margin would be a bit higher on white ones...

http://server.myspace-shack.com/d19/whatyoudidthereiseeit.jpg

[crb]

I love all the people who don't have businesses like to pretend they know what is good or bad for a business. How many of you have owned a retail, distribution, or manufacturing business?

Crickets?

Why do you think retailers put stuff on heavy sale the week after Christmas? Any inventory they carry through the new year, assuming they take a normal fiscal year, they cannot expense on their taxes.

In fact, you have to do a practice what is normally called "inventory" usually in early January to count what you have. At least some of you should be familiar with that practice thanks to the time you spent folding T-shirts for a living at the mall.

So yes, buying too much inventory in December is a bad thing. Do you think that a business shops like a consumer and goes to a store and gets one of this, and one of that? Mass produced products are sold in bulk, you buy in bulk. Sometimes just once or twice a year. I know companies that do buying just once a year even.

So if you do a production run once or twice a year, and one of those times falls on December 15th, you've got a problem.

This is all tangential though. This little discussion spawned when I said we should cut the schedule C pass through taxation rate, and Keller said no.

Obviously, taxing small businesses less is politically popular, and would be economically stimulative.

So even if you don't like my justifications for it, even if you don't believe the scenarios I've presented are possible (or matter), the fact remains, it'd be a good thing to do.

[Keller]

I love all the people who don't have businesses like to pretend they know what is good or bad for a business. How many of you have owned a retail, distribution, or manufacturing business?

Crickets?

http://insurance-boss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scrooge-mcduck.jpg


Why do you think retailers put stuff on heavy sale the week after Christmas? Any inventory they carry through the new year, assuming they take a normal fiscal year, they cannot expense on their taxes.

If that's the reason they try to dispose of their inventory, why don't they just abandon the inventory and take a full deduction?


In fact, you have to do a practice what is normally called "inventory" usually in early January to count what you have. At least some of you should be familiar with that practice thanks to the time you spent folding T-shirts for a living at the mall.

ICE BURN


So yes, buying too much inventory in December is a bad thing. Do you think that a business shops like a consumer and goes to a store and gets one of this, and one of that? Mass produced products are sold in bulk, you buy in bulk. Sometimes just once or twice a year. I know companies that do buying just once a year even.

Assuming a static real cost and inflation, buying your inventory on December 31st would be your best decision from a tax perspective because you'd have the highest LIFO layer when you compute your costs of goods sold in determining your taxable income from the sale of inventory for the fiscal year.


So if you do a production run once or twice a year, and one of those times falls on December 15th, you've got a problem.

[Insert youtube video of Biggie's Dead Wrong]


This is all tangential though. This little discussion spawned when I said we should cut the schedule C pass through taxation rate, and Keller said no.

That's revisionist history if I've ever seen it. You said (I'm going to rephrase what you said to make it more precise) if the top marginal rate for corporations is reduced to 25%, and the top marginal rate for individual's income from schedule C is NOT reduced to 25%, small business owners would pay a higher tax rate that shareholders of C corporations.

Did you smoke too much pot when you were a kid?


Obviously, taxing small businesses less is politically popular, and would be economically stimulative.


So even if you don't like my justifications for it, even if you don't believe the scenarios I've presented are possible (or matter), the fact remains, it'd be a good thing to do.

Removing all taxes would be politically popular and would be economically stimulative.

Removing all government programs and failing to pay for current obligations would not be politically popular and would be economically depressive.

[Latrinsorm]

I love all the people who don't have businesses like to pretend they know what is good or bad for a business. How many of you have owned a retail, distribution, or manufacturing business?

Crickets?Oh, I've got one. How many of you have made billions of dollars off of investing? From now on they're the only people allowed to comment on investing. Warren Buffet wins by default!

[Bobmuhthol]

Can we please have a public rep system or a facebook like button or something so I can point out how much I like Latrinsorm's post?

[crb]

If that's the reason they try to dispose of their inventory, why don't they just abandon the inventory and take a full deduction?



Gee I don't know, why don't you donate all your worldly possessions to the church and take a big ass tax deduction?



That's revisionist history if I've ever seen it. You said (I'm going to rephrase what you said to make it more precise) if the top marginal rate for corporations is reduced to 25%, and the top marginal rate for individual's income from schedule C is NOT reduced to 25%, small business owners would pay a higher tax rate that shareholders of C corporations.

Did you smoke too much pot when you were a kid?



The exact same amount as Warren Buffett apparently. Since he also did not count both halves of the double tax.

I at least have a valid point in that only corporations that issue dividends really have their earnings double taxed. So it is possible that a corporation that wishes to keep all profits in the business is taxed just once, until they choose to make a distribution (an option not available to the small business owner, which is what got us here).

Buffett on the other hand was talking about himself, specifically, and Berkshire does issue dividends.

So his use was wrong, mine just not universally inclusive.

Would it really be the end of the world to cap the tax on pass through at 25%?

Though, I suppose if they really do fundamental tax reform, removing deductions and lowering rates, the highest marginal tax rate may end up below that, negating all of this.

[Archigeek]

I love all the people who don't have businesses like to pretend they know what is good or bad for a business. How many of you have owned a retail, distribution, or manufacturing business?

Crickets?

Most of my clients for the last 2+ decades have been retail, (including retail stores and distribution centers). I've designed billions of dollars worth of buildings on their behalf and you can bet your ass I have a good understanding of how retail works, and in a retailer of any size, it doesn't work how you describe:


Why do you think retailers put stuff on heavy sale the week after Christmas? Any inventory they carry through the new year, assuming they take a normal fiscal year, they cannot expense on their taxes.

If you think retailers put stuff on sale after Christmas for tax purposes, you are incorrect. First of all, most retailers of any size do not have a fiscal year that follows the calendar year, but that's really immaterial to the discussion. They put stuff onsale to get it the f out of the store, because in the US, no one buys much at all from January through say middle March. Success or failure of retailers is most often gauged on year over year same store sales numbers, even more so than proffit/loss, so they want to make as many sales as they can so they look good to their shareholders, and the last ditch effort at sales before the winter doldrums kick in, is the post-Christmas clearance.


In fact, you have to do a practice what is normally called "inventory" usually in early January to count what you have.

Correct, everyone does inventory. Shocking.


So yes, buying too much inventory in December is a bad thing. Do you think that a business shops like a consumer and goes to a store and gets one of this, and one of that? Mass produced products are sold in bulk, you buy in bulk. Sometimes just once or twice a year. I know companies that do buying just once a year even.

Large retailers don't buy this way, at least not successful ones. Their buyers make their buying decisions all year long, because the buyer's job is to go out and find the best shit out there and get it for the best price. While they do make most of their arrangements way in advance and may only close a deal with a particular vendor once a year, the actual buying is a lot closer to the "just in time" model. Why? For a couple of reasons. One, if you're really good at turning over goods in your store, you can actually make your purchases while still on the float (haven't yet paid for the previous round because it's not yet due). The retailers who can do that are rock stars, but it's besides the point really. The point is that they don't buy their goods once a year, and they don't organize their buying based on their fiscal year, but rather it's a lot closer to the other way around.

The bottom line is that retailers put on the shelf what they think will sell at a given time of the year. When it doesn't, they get rid of it and don't look back, no matter what time of year it is. Those who fail to do this usually fail as a business. If your inventory isn't moving, you're dead.

[Kembal]

Dude, you're a dumbass. You can't even do basic math. Are you a burger flipper at McDonalds or something? I thought I explained this clearly, apparently not clear enough.

You make giant black dildos and when you're not shoving them up your ass is a masturbatory haze, you're selling them. You sell $100,000 in black dildos between January and November. Your profit on this lot of inventory is $80,000.

Your dildo business is doing so good that you order more dildos, so you take that $80,000 profit, your working capital, and buy another batch of dildos from the factory you use. You now have an additional $80,000 worth of dildos (at wholesale cost), but $0 working capital.

The year ends. On paper you show a $80,000 profit, in your bank account is $0. How you going to pay the tax bill? What if your inventory stops turning over as fast? What if, in general, you're in a business with low inventory turnover? What if to make economical cost on manufacturing you have to do larger production runs less often causing inventory build up that you cannot expense until it is sold, which might not be soon? You might end up having to take out a loan to cover the tax bill, or you might end up having to put off additional business investments to pay it off.

Accrual accounting can fuck small businesses that carry inventory, the least we can do is not tax small businesses as highly as big businesses.

Politically it is good too. No one likes giveaways to big corporations. And while people seem okay to give tax breaks to small business owners (it polls well) giving them to the "rich" does not poll well. So separate schedule C pass through income from regular income tax rates at the federal level and tax it at a lower rate, or at least the same low rate as the C-corp tax rate, assuming it is lowered as both sides of the aisle wish to do.

No one starts from $0 cash. Also, no one would buy all their inventory at once. Presuming a 30 day lead time on the item, you'd be buying approximately $10k worth at a time.

If any company bought 80% of their annual inventory in one shot and wasn't selling a seasonal item, they deserve to fail.



Intangible intellectual property assets, good will, etc.

Can't you see how this retards small business growth? If you reinvest profits into the business but into assets that take, say, 10 years to depreciate (good will is 15 years I think), and again I'm doing this linearly to keep it simple. Only 1/10th of your expenditure can be expensed. So you'll still have to pay taxes on 90% of the profits you used to make the purchase (be it inventory, or certain other things). If your tax rate is 35%, then (.35*90) 31.5% of your profits must be held back from any further business investment for taxes. Meaning, the most you could reinvest into the business is 68.5%. This differs from 100% if you could use cash basis accounting (or had no tax bill, or could choose to defer taxes). a 46% increase in reinvestment activity. Compound an annual 46% increase in business reinvestment and you see a very rapid separation in the two numbers. In other words, you're growing a hell of a lot slower because of this.

Presumably, you're capitalizing the item because you can generate future revenues from it or you can use it to help generate future revenues. Those should help pay for the tax burden. If you can't generate revenues from the purchase, you might want to just expense it.

And again, no one starts from $0 cash.

[Parkbandit]

If any company bought 80% of their annual inventory in one shot and wasn't selling a seasonal item, they deserve to fail.


I don't believe crb was making a case for seasonal inventory.. as I don't consider black dildos to be a seasonal expense.. unless you believe they were gearing up for Kwanza.. or maybe Black History Month.

Also, because they are black dildos, do you believe they would be too big to fail?

[Bobmuhthol]

I understand your post is a joke but that was Kembal's point: crb's ridiculous scenario is for a "typical" company, which isn't selling seasonal products, and yet they decide to purchase most of their annual inventory in one day.

[Stanley Burrell]

So what's a Mulatto dildo's profit margin supposed to be.

Yeah I didn't quote the quote. Suck my Mulatto dildo. Bitch, I love you.

[Keller]

I at least have a valid point in that only corporations that issue dividends really have their earnings double taxed. So it is possible that a corporation that wishes to keep all profits in the business is taxed just once, until they choose to make a distribution (an option not available to the small business owner, which is what got us here).

Buffett on the other hand was talking about himself, specifically, and Berkshire does issue dividends.

So his use was wrong, mine just not universally inclusive.

Would it really be the end of the world to cap the tax on pass through at 25%?

Though, I suppose if they really do fundamental tax reform, removing deductions and lowering rates, the highest marginal tax rate may end up below that, negating all of this.

What is the point of owning stock that does not distribute dividends? You've created a fictional world where people invest in corporations and those corporations never distribute their earnings. I understand you want to be right, but it's a really dumb assumption. No one invests in a company that has no income stream.

As someone who speeds 50+ hours a week consulting companies on their use of joint ventures and other passthrough entities, I'd be thrilled to have the the rate reduced. I've never said it shouldn't be. (To be clear, I'm not saying it should be, either. I am a tax lawyer, not an economist.)

The point that I was making, am making now, and will continue to make, is that even in a scenario where the top marginal rate on C corps is 25% and the top marginal rates on individuals (including individuals earning income on a flowthrough basis) is 35%, the owners of the flowthrough will have more after-tax income than the owners of the C corp.

[Parkbandit]

What is the point of owning stock that does not distribute dividends? You've created a fictional world where people invest in corporations and those corporations never distribute their earnings. I understand you want to be right, but it's a really dumb assumption. No one invests in a company that has no income stream.


You've never heard of a stock that doesn't distribute dividends?

I've invested in plenty of companies that use profits to buy back stocks... driving up the price and increasing my price per share.

[Keller]

You've never heard of a stock that doesn't distribute dividends?

I've invested in plenty of companies that use profits to buy back stocks... driving up the price and increasing my price per share.

It's weird how that works.

Let's say you, me, and crb all form a corporation and contribute $100 each. We each get 100 Class A shares.

The corporation invests that $300 in a widget selling business.

We're humming along and, after a few years, our balance sheet shows that we have a widget business worth $500 and $400 of cash on hand. Assuming there have been no dividends (and therefore no past, and no expected future, income stream), the company is worth $900 and each share of stock is worth $3.

You and I decide that crb already has enough money, so we're going to buy back his stock for its FMV. Our corporation transfers $300 of its cash to crb in exchange for his 100 share of stock, each worth $3. The stock we purchased is then retired.

So now, our corporation owns a widget business worth $500 and $100 of cash. Assuming there have still been no dividends, the company is worth $600 and each share of stock is worth $3.

Before we redeemed crb, our stock was worth $300. After we redeemed crb, our stock was worth $300.

Maybe it's the fact that we were entitled to 33.3% of future appreciation and now we're entitled to 50%?

In any case, congratulations on owning a piece of paper that is worth more but has no income stream.

[Tsa`ah]

You make giant black dildos and when you're not shoving them up your ass is a masturbatory haze, you're selling them.

What is it with straight (supposed) neo-conservative supply side douche bags and pent up homosexual aggression?

[Parkbandit]

What is it with straight (supposed) neo-conservative supply side douche bags and pent up homosexual aggression?

No idea.. why don't you tell us?



It's like you spew this crap in hopes that someone is going to stick a dick in your mouth.

Oh wait.. you aren't conservative. I guess in your mind, your man on man desires are normal.

And no, I'm not humping your leg... so keep that fantasy to yourself as well.

[Tsa`ah]

No idea.. why don't you tell us?




Oh wait.. you aren't conservative. I guess in your mind, your man on man desires are normal.

And no, I'm not humping your leg... so keep that fantasy to yourself as well.

It's either you fixating on gays, squiggles looking for someone to give him a blow job for a five spot ... or crb, black dildos, and ass.

You guys should probably stop projecting and just get your lemon party over with. The rest of us are tired of the propositioning and passive aggressive petitions for sex.

[Parkbandit]

It's either you fixating on gays, squiggles looking for someone to give him a blow job for a five spot ... or crb, black dildos, and ass.

You guys should probably stop projecting and just get your lemon party over with. The rest of us are tired of the propositioning and passive aggressive petitions for sex.

Are you really going to force me to use google to link up your numerous posts about your homosexual fantasies of guys sucking you off or humping your leg?

Stop being retarded. You haven't been funny since your posts trying to convince us about your time at Ft. Camp Lejeune... so stop trying.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you really going to force me to use google to link up your numerous posts about your homosexual fantasies of guys sucking you off or humping your leg?

Stop being retarded. You haven't been funny since your posts trying to convince us about your time at Ft. Camp Lejeune... so stop trying.

You should probably spend less time protesting and deflecting and just walk away.

[Parkbandit]

You should probably spend less time protesting and deflecting and just walk away.

What am I protesting and what am I deflecting from?

Perhaps you should spend less time illustrating what a hypocritical dipshit you are, Shit4Brains.

[Tsa`ah]

Now you're boring me again.

[Delias]

Why don't you two just fuck and get it over with?

[Parkbandit]

Why don't you two just fuck and get it over with?

Why don't you just fuck off?

http://www.golfersavenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/golf-club-ratings1.jpg

[Delias]

Why don't you just fuck off?

http://www.golfersavenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/golf-club-ratings1.jpg

So... is that the one thing you've got? Because I assure you, I've said and done things far, far stupider than that. You really are boring.

[Parkbandit]

So... is that the one thing you've got? Because I assure you, I've said and done things far, far stupider than that. You really are boring.

Holy shit, I found a cup made just for you:

http://rlv.zcache.com/tee_tard_golf_mug-p1684341492505799682otmb_400.jpg

[Buckwheet]

Warren Buffett bets $5 billion on Bank of America...

I am now fully on board with him being a joke.

[Warriorbird]

Warren Buffett bets $5 billion on Bank of America...

I am now fully on board with him being a joke.

Don't necessarily think obvious moves are obvious moves.

[Parkbandit]

Warren Buffett bets $5 billion on Bank of America...

I am now fully on board with him being a joke.

I don't know... it might actually be a great buy from him. It was well under valued when he did it.

[Archigeek]

Warren Buffett bets $5 billion on Bank of America...

I am now fully on board with him being a joke.

Warren is a classic value investor, with balls of steel when it comes to running in when everyone else is running for the exit. I'd say it's worked well for him so far.

[Buckwheet]

Making money from one of the banks that was the biggest rubber stamper of the housing crisis?

Joke.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm still not sold on the housing crisis being the banks' fault, at least not the majority of it.

[Buckwheet]

It's cute how little you know about economics.

Red rep yay. My statement has nothing to do with economics. I never claim to be an expert at it at all. Honestly, I pay someone else to do that for me.

It doesn't interest me. It never has, and never will.

My statement was to the effect that he talks a big game about the big guys getting in there and paying more money to help out the little guys blah blah blah.

Then he goes and invests money in a bank that was happy to stomp all over the little guys during the housing debacle to make some green.

Makes him a joke in my book.

[Buckwheet]

I'm still not sold on the housing crisis being the banks' fault, at least not the majority of it.

I am referring to them foreclosing on people...who paid 100% of their home from BoA in cash. And they filed paperwork to foreclose on them.

They sent my parents foreclosure notices..and uh they have owned their home outright for years. We have owned our lakeshore property outright for..hmm 6 or 7 years now? Got forecolsure paperwork on that one too.

That is the rubber stamping I am talking about.

To top it off a friend of ours wanted to buy a 400k home in Florida. He brought 200k cash as the downpayment, and they have like a 1.5m condo mostly paid for in New York. BoA told them everything was good to go, so they buy the property, and a month later they sent him foreclosure paperwork. I mean, what the fuck.

[AnticorRifling]

Ahh gotcha, yeah that practice was indeed, some bullshit.

[Archigeek]

Making money from one of the banks that was the biggest rubber stamper of the housing crisis?

Joke.

Think of it this way: if he doesn't bail them out, you probably get to with your tax dollars. Thanks Warren!

As for rubber-stamping home loans, I would imagine BOA did it's share, but if you want to see the real bullet that had policy makers really scared, it's credit default swaps. In my opinion they should outlawed, as they truely have the potential to bankrupt the nation. Because of the amount of leverage that is possible, the quantity of them is astounding:


Credit default swaps have existed since the early 1990s, and increased in use after 2003. By the end of 2007, the outstanding CDS amount was $62.2 trillion, falling to $38.6 trillion by the end of 2008 -Wikipedia

Yes, that's right, 62.2 trillion US dollars. The problem in a nut shell is that they allow anyone to insure any companies dept, with little regulation, and due to the perceived small amount of risk, you can apply leverage in the realm of 50:1... multiply that times the large volume of people doing it and you can see how you could have more people betting on bond failure than there were bonds that existed, many times over. The potential disaster was huge, even if the perceived risk of that disaster was small. CDS's are really the main reason we had the bailouts we did. And in spite of that, lawmakers have pussied around for how long now and CDS's are still legal.

Insuring bonds is fine if you own the bond. Not fine if you don't.

Edit: I didn't understand what you meant when you said rubber stamping Buckwheat. Sorry about your PITA.

[waywardgs]

He's going to make out like a bandit on the deal.

[Kembal]

Actually, getting angry at Buffet over the investment doesn't make sense to me. If he had been a major stockholder while B of A was foreclosing on random people they didn't have mortgages with in the first place, then yes, shame on him.

Going in now, at such a low price? B of A management ought to be worried about getting their asses kicked out if they don't perform properly now.

[DoctorUnne]

You can get foreclosed on a home that you paid 100% for in cash? How the fuck does that work? That makes no sense. You have no debt to the bank. What am I missing?

[BriarFox]

The thing about Buffet is that he's regarded with so much confidence, and investment is such a confidence game, that the mere fact of his investing in a business is, I would think, often enough to shore it up.

[DoctorUnne]

Insuring bonds is fine if you own the bond. Not fine if you don't.

There are plenty of financial products that allow you to bet on movements in an asset that don't require ownership of the underlying asset, like total return swaps. They, including CDS, require posting collateral in an amount commensurate with your total notional exposure. The problem with CDS wasn't the product itself (it's actually a great product that makes taking short positions in bonds much cheaper), or even the total amount of CDS outstanding per se, but rather the lack of collateral required against that exposure. Banks' risk models underestimated the systematic correlation of subprime loans and therefore the required collateral was way too low given the total amount of CDS outstanding.

I do agree that the opacity of CDS was a big problem and what was a main culprit for the credit crisis. People couldn't assess counterparty risk because they didn't know what their counterparty exposure was and so didn't lend to anyone as a result. That needs to be fixed.

[Buckwheet]

You can get foreclosed on a home that you paid 100% for in cash? How the fuck does that work? That makes no sense. You have no debt to the bank. What am I missing?

Previous owner's mortgage was through BOA.

When you go to closing you hand a check over to BOA.

Paperwork..goes...uh..who knows?

Mortgage ends up in their foreclosure office and the sheriff shows up at your door. So then you need lawyers and spending more money and other bullshit.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/bank-of-america-forecloses-on-house-that-couple-had-paid-cash-for/1072632

That is not me or my family, and we chose not to make a huge deal out of it, but this is happening to more than just one or two people.

They seriously fucked up, and we spent a lot of time and money trying to prove that we paid cash for the property years ago. Like even YEARS before the financial collapse. They said we never made a payment on the property.

My other beef with BoA:

I opened my business and through wonders of people selling my information get an offer letter from BOA for a business Visa and checking account information. There was a BoA branch in the same little strip mall as my office, so I decided why not.

I signup and a month later they "re-model" the BoA office into a mortgage office. They remove the ATM even. So now, there is no BoA branch or ATM within 50 miles of my office. So I call in to close out the account, get told you can't do this over the phone. You have to send in a letter in writing. I do that, and hear nothing. Get a statement in the mail that says you haven't deposited or maintained the min balance so here is a $30 fee on your account. So I call back, they refund the fee and tell me your account is now closed. YOu will be getting a check in the mail for the remainder of the balance.

Repeat last piece every month for the past five months.

They still have a couple hundred bucks of my money because of all the fees, and they still send me collection letters every month, AND they continue to threaten to destroy my personal and business credit if I don't pay them the negative balance on the account. I have sent them a registered letter every month which confirms my written letter. So I finally hired an attorney and he is working with them.

All in all just to get about 200 dollars back from them along with closing out the account, its going to cost me $1500.

Needless to say I have moved as much as I can from the big banks into a local credit union and the one thing I couldn't move is with Wells Fargo, and they are somewhat better, but still annoying.

So in the end fuck BoA.

[Archigeek]

Previous owner's mortgage was through BOA.

When you go to closing you hand a check over to BOA.

Paperwork..goes...uh..who knows?

Mortgage ends up in their foreclosure office and the sheriff shows up at your door. So then you need lawyers and spending more money and other bullshit.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/bank-of-america-forecloses-on-house-that-couple-had-paid-cash-for/1072632

That is not me or my family, and we chose not to make a huge deal out of it, but this is happening to more than just one or two people.

They seriously fucked up, and we spent a lot of time and money trying to prove that we paid cash for the property years ago. Like even YEARS before the financial collapse. They said we never made a payment on the property.

My other beef with BoA:

I opened my business and through wonders of people selling my information get an offer letter from BOA for a business Visa and checking account information. There was a BoA branch in the same little strip mall as my office, so I decided why not.

I signup and a month later they "re-model" the BoA office into a mortgage office. They remove the ATM even. So now, there is no BoA branch or ATM within 50 miles of my office. So I call in to close out the account, get told you can't do this over the phone. You have to send in a letter in writing. I do that, and hear nothing. Get a statement in the mail that says you haven't deposited or maintained the min balance so here is a $30 fee on your account. So I call back, they refund the fee and tell me your account is now closed. YOu will be getting a check in the mail for the remainder of the balance.

Repeat last piece every month for the past five months.

They still have a couple hundred bucks of my money because of all the fees, and they still send me collection letters every month, AND they continue to threaten to destroy my personal and business credit if I don't pay them the negative balance on the account. I have sent them a registered letter every month which confirms my written letter. So I finally hired an attorney and he is working with them.

All in all just to get about 200 dollars back from them along with closing out the account, its going to cost me $1500.

Needless to say I have moved as much as I can from the big banks into a local credit union and the one thing I couldn't move is with Wells Fargo, and they are somewhat better, but still annoying.

So in the end fuck BoA.

That kind of crap is why I stick with credit unions whenever possible, and small local banks when it's not. Credit unions try to make things work smoothly, instead of trying to make money off of your frustration. When one of your major sources of income is your customer's mistakes, there's a problem.

[Warriorbird]

Warren Buffet is such a... 08-26-2011 10:47 AM Your crb impression needs some work. No one cares what you are doing with your imaginary share or shares.

Not mine. Whether you hate me or you hate BAC, it's a stock to watch.

[DoctorUnne]

What Buckwheet wrote

Yeah that is definitely fucked up, but I bet you in the end they're going to make a lot of money suing BofA, at the very least covering whatever they lost as a result of the foreclosure and legal fees.

[Buckwheet]

Yeah that is definitely fucked up, but I bet you in the end they're going to make a lot of money suing BofA, at the very least covering whatever they lost as a result of the foreclosure and legal fees.

Try again.

[Archigeek]

There are plenty of financial products that allow you to bet on movements in an asset that don't require ownership of the underlying asset, like total return swaps. They, including CDS, require posting collateral in an amount commensurate with your total notional exposure. The problem with CDS wasn't the product itself (it's actually a great product that makes taking short positions in bonds much cheaper), or even the total amount of CDS outstanding per se, but rather the lack of collateral required against that exposure. Banks' risk models underestimated the systematic correlation of subprime loans and therefore the required collateral was way too low given the total amount of CDS outstanding.

I do agree that the opacity of CDS was a big problem and what was a main culprit for the credit crisis. People couldn't assess counterparty risk because they didn't know what their counterparty exposure was and so didn't lend to anyone as a result. That needs to be fixed.

Perhaps my last sentence was a little too simplified, but really the big problem was the leveraging, which is basically the same thing you're saying about exposure, no collateral required, and the lack of opacity. When your skin in the game is only 1/50th of the potential return should the bond fail, you can leverage to an insane degree, and with no opacity, no one really knew how much was out there. I still don't see them as a legitimate vehicle for investment. As you said, you're betting on movement. If we want to bring some confidence back to investments, we need to toss out some of these vehicles that are basically gambling. They should be limited to the casino where the house will know its exposure and will price accordingly.

Conversely, a traditional short investment is really a hedge for those who are long, and should at heart be there to provide some stability in the market. Instead, we've allowed things to get way out of whack.

The same is true for near-instantanious micro-trading. What purpose does it serve other than to shave off someone else's profit? We would do well to institute minimum hold time frames, even if they were say as low as half an hour. We've got to get back to measurable real assets instead of investment "vehicles" that are built on smoke and mirrors.

[Bobmuhthol]

Conversely, a traditional short investment is really a hedge for those who are long

This is extremely vague given the variety of investments to be long or short in.

In the case of stocks, and keeping in mind that we're talking about a secondary market, shorting stocks uncovered is not (to me anyway, maybe people disagree with me) any different from buying. Being long is not really a hedge for being short, so why should the converse be true?