I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett

[TCO]

I think what he means is that OTHER people should be forced to pay more taxes. He can contribute on his own.

[Dinner]

No, he's been very loud and clear for several decades now. Buffet believes progressive taxation to subsidize the middle and lower classes is what is needed to create a healthy society.

[TCO]

so...why doesn't he contribute as such. he has the power to affect his own income. Also, I'd like to see his tax statement. If he is going to make arguments like that, back it up and show the statement.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO
so...why doesn't he contribute as such. he has the power to affect his own income.

This was already deal with in my previous post.

[TCO]

I'd like to see his return.

[Patroklos]

Taxation in modern liberal democracies has very little to do with redistribution of income for its own sake. Rather, it has to do with supplying goods that markets either won't supply at all or supply inefficiently (like health care).

Are you capable of replys that don't include personal attacks?

In any case, your answer betrays your radical politics, your viewport is marginal and always will be given your identification. People who live in glass houses shouldn
t through rocks.

Have a good day Aggie

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos




Are you capable of replys that don't include personal attacks?

Only when I reply to people who aren't obviously deluded.

In any case, your answer betrays your radical politics, your viewport is marginal and always will be given your identification. People who live in glass houses shouldnt through rocks.

That's pricelessly comical.

Actually it doesn't betray any radical politics at all, and certainly not Marxism (it's actually hilarious that you confused the two). You would know this, if you knew why we actually pay tax. But you don't, so you keep posting meaningless flim flam to these boards that just amuses people who actually know what is going on/

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are so far off it is unbelievable.

Check the facts, my man. Goverments own stuff if you go look for it.

[PLATO]

Oh and Aggie...why was it that when welfare was cut off for thousands of people that the majority of them had an increase in standard of living? It seems to me to indicate that eithier people were unfairly milking the system in huge numbers or that the very concept is flawed. I am interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

[Ramo]

Not things, rights. More to the point, which I already said once, that once the poor are made nonactors in the support of government, without even symbolic buy in, I see a likely future sentiment to remove them from governance completely down the road.

Five decades ago, the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%. As late as the early 70's, it was at about 70%. Neither Buffet nor anyone else who's taken seriously is suggesting tax rates at that kind of level. Where was this decline in American democracy that you assert would happen under such a tax regime (note that this was a period of increasing level of democratic engagement by the poor)?

You're making a completely absurd argument that doesn't stand up to the least bit of logical scrutiny.

[Ramo]

Oh and Aggie...why was it that when welfare was cut off for thousands of people that the majority of them had an increase in standard of living? It seems to me to indicate that eithier people were unfairly milking the system in huge numbers or that the very concept is flawed. I am interested to know your thoughts on the matter.

Aggie clearly meant the social welfare state in general, not the specific American program "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" which probably had some structural flaws prior to the '96 legislation.

[Impaler[WrG]]

In response to Blake's thoughts on the valuation of work.

Smart work always derives its value from the fact that it acts as a multiplier on the work of others. A manager who can incresse the productivity of a group of 100 people by 5% adds as much value to the system as 5 normal people, as the system grows large the multiplier gets huge and we can easily see why the CEO of a fortune 500 company is payed so much. Ofcorse if any of these CEO's was put on the factory floor he couldn't produce more then any other average person. The productivity of the individual is almost entirly the result of the environment their in. Maintaining the environment which has been built up is what thouse Taxes are all about. The system not only nurtured and educated us before we enter the work force but its smooth running is nessary to be productive at the level which makes western civilization possible. Our dept to the system is so much more profound then most of us realize, most just take it for granted like we take AIR for granted. Society is justified in taking ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING an individual can spare to maintain itself.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo


Aggie clearly meant the social welfare state in general, not the specific American program "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" which probably had some structural flaws prior to the '96 legislation.

Glad to know your mind reading skills are in good working order.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd like to add while I think Aggie is a nutter about economics most of the time (you can ask him... I really do think that about him! ), he's right that a lot of what taxation is supposed to address is perceived market failures. Not saying that some isn't a redistribution for its own sake, but a lot of it is because it is seen that the market cannot provide what is deemed to be necessary.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'd like to add while I think Aggie is a nutter about economics most of the time (you can ask him... I really do think that about him! ), he's right that a lot of what taxation is supposed to address is perceived market failures. Not saying that some isn't a redistribution for its own sake, but a lot of it is because it is seen that the market cannot provide what is deemed to be necessary.

Even a conservative should believe that. The purpose of the government is to address those issues that the market will not provide; things like education, law, and a military are not effectively provided by the market so they are provided by the government (and should be).

The difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be solely defined as "which elements are adequately provided by the market economy, and which are not". Everything else is either subsumed by this, or an issue being used to gather power for its own sake.