NYTIMES: Warren Buffett - 'Stop Coddling the Super-Rich'

[jpyaks3]

I do indeed disagree with Keynesian economics.

Of course, if this is "crisis management", when does it end? When has government spending EVER returned to so-called normal levels after a "crisis"? Spending always increases. Sure, it may drop back to $3 Trillion instead of $3.6 Trillion, but it will never go back down to $2 Trillion or $1.5 Trillion, because now programs have been established to combat the "crisis" and cannot be just shut down. This crisis level will turn into the new budget baseline, and people will complain about "cuts" to the budget when the cuts wouldn't even return the funding levels to previous pre-"crisis" levels.

Thats called inflation, its natural, just like population growth, pretty basic things here.

[The 12th Commandment]

I do indeed disagree with Keynesian economics.

Of course, if this is "crisis management", when does it end? When has government spending EVER returned to so-called normal levels after a "crisis"? Spending always increases. Sure, it may drop back to $3 Trillion instead of $3.6 Trillion, but it will never go back down to $2 Trillion or $1.5 Trillion, because now programs have been established to combat the "crisis" and cannot be just shut down. This crisis level will turn into the new budget baseline, and people will complain about "cuts" to the budget when the cuts wouldn't even return the funding levels to previous pre-"crisis" levels.

Just like Exxon is not going to lower gas back to $1.50/gallon despite reaping the largest corporate profits ever by anyone. There are a lot of reasons (specific ones that are relevant to the specific time tax policy was set) that they'll never go back as low they were. Just as there are a lot of reasons that Exxon can't lower the price of gas.

Who's going to complain about not funding the financial or corporate agriculture? Oh, that's right the lobbyists who speak for their corporate personas.

[bcl05]

Giving big international corporations a bunch of cash through investments does indeed create jobs. New factories are still going up in Guatemala, Bangladesh, China, etc.

[Heisenberg]

@ zoony.

I really hope that armstrong is playing dumb on purpose (a la twa - sometimes), otherwise . . . ugh.

[Henry]

I do indeed disagree with Keynesian economics.

Of course, if this is "crisis management", when does it end? When has government spending EVER returned to so-called normal levels after a "crisis"? Spending always increases. Sure, it may drop back to $3 Trillion instead of $3.6 Trillion, but it will never go back down to $2 Trillion or $1.5 Trillion, because now programs have been established to combat the "crisis" and cannot be just shut down. This crisis level will turn into the new budget baseline, and people will complain about "cuts" to the budget when the cuts wouldn't even return the funding levels to previous pre-"crisis" levels.

Spending dropped for three straight years after 1945.

And in terms of real dollars, the US didn't match 1945 spending again until 1974.

As a percentage of our GDP, we've never come close to matching our spending at WWII levels.

[armstrong001]

How come our largest corporations are sitting on huge piles of cash instead of playing the savior? I say it's because of the uncertainty (risk) involved with assuming that a congress that includes rash, non-compromising, head in the sand ideologues, will do what is best for the country, not what is most popular with their uninformed base.

The uninformed base that believes raising taxes to "get" those rich corporations, and wealthy individuals is the way to reduce the debt, even while demanding more and more spending? Yeah, I would agree that uncertainty exists.

[December90]

OK,

here is the compromise

Go ahead and tax the hell out of the Rich. take 90% again for the Liberal Wet Dream

Just stop lowering the classification of what it takes to be called "Rich"

Keep "Rich" at 7 figures annual earnings and we have a deal. The family of 4 that pulls in 150K may be better off than average but they are not "Rich" (Despite the ever lowering bar that Obama may set to capture more money.)

Now don't expect that it will solve the budget deficit (It won't even come close) but at least your liberal friends can enjoy punishing the successful.

[Henry]

The uninformed base that believes raising taxes to "get" those rich corporations, and wealthy individuals is the way to reduce the debt, even while demanding more and more spending? Yeah, I would agree that uncertainty exists.

First of all, is Warren Buffett uninformed?

And second of all, who is pushing more spending?

[Heisenberg]

Now don't expect that it will solve the budget deficit (It won't even come close) but at least your liberal friends can enjoy punishing the successful.

This is such a stupid argument.

I refuse to believe that you hardcore right wingers actually believe this nonsense you spew.

I ask you to name one person who has acted like simply increasing revenues would be a cure-all for the deficit . . .

[Madison Redskin]

The uninformed base that believes raising taxes to "get" those rich corporations, and wealthy individuals is the way to reduce the debt, even while demanding more and more spending?

Increasing tax revenues will reduce, as opposed to eliminate, the deficit and debt. Are you really claiming otherwise?

[Henry]

OK,

here is the compromise

Go ahead and tax the hell out of the Rich. take 90% again for the Liberal Wet Dream

Just stop lowering the classification of what it takes to be called "Rich"

Keep "Rich" at 7 figures annual earnings and we have a deal. The family of 4 that pulls in 150K may be better off than average but they are not "Rich" (Despite the ever lowering bar that Obama may set to capture more money.)

Now don't expect that it will solve the budget deficit (It won't even come close) but at least your liberal friends can enjoy punishing the successful.

Unless I'm mistaken, raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 only effects what they make over $250,000. So, for example, if someone made $250,010 and we raised the $250,000+ bracket by 3%, that person would have to pay an extra 30 cents.

[armstrong001]

Spending dropped for three straight years after 1945.

And in terms of real dollars, the US didn't match 1945 spending again until 1974.

As a percentage of our GDP, we've never come close to matching our spending at WWII levels.

And yet in never dropped to below pre-WWII spending levels. The new "normal" was of course lower than at the peak of WWII, but higher than pre-WWII spending. So, in 20 years, the government were spending each year as much as they were spending in WWII? That's not an argument that spending goes back to normal after a crisis.

[jpyaks3]

Unless I'm mistaken, raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 only effects what they make over $250,000. So, for example, if someone made $250,010 and we raised the $250,000+ bracket by 3%, that person would have to pay an extra 30 cents.

Absolutely correct but something a lot of people try to obscure and thats also not total wealth or even income because of capital gains tax differential.

[Henry]

I ask you to name one person who has acted like simply increasing revenues would be a cure-all for the deficit . . .

I've said it three times in this thread alone (now four). No one is denying spending is a problem.

[jpyaks3]

And yet in never dropped to below pre-WWII spending levels. The new "normal" was of course lower than at the peak of WWII, but higher than pre-WWII spending. So, in 20 years, the government were spending each year as much as they were spending in WWII? That's not an argument that spending goes back to normal after a crisis.

Do you not understand inflation or population growth? Increased spending is just a fact of life, no one is saying that spending isn't a problem the problem is the 1 % that controls 43 % of the wealth isn't being fairly taxed compared to the other 99 % of the population.

[armstrong001]

First of all, is Warren Buffett uninformed?

And second of all, who is pushing more spending?

I don't think Buffett is uninformed, but I believe he's going about getting out of this problem the wrong way. I only used the word "uninformed" because that's the word that was used previously.

Have you been awake for the last ten years? Every year we're looking at additional spending. Someone's base is clamoring for it.

[Henry]

And yet in never dropped to below pre-WWII spending levels. The new "normal" was of course lower than at the peak of WWII, but higher than pre-WWII spending. So, in 20 years, the government were spending each year as much as they were spending in WWII? That's not an argument that spending goes back to normal after a crisis.

Er. There was this little thing I like to refer to as the Cold War. Maybe you've heard of it.

Yes, after a full-scale global war our standing in the world changed and so our spending changed to reflect that. Unless you are suggesting that we should have returned to an isolationist nation after the war, defense spending and foreign aid were going to eat up a chunk of our budget. If you have a problem with that, that's a foreign policy issue, not an economic one.

And for the record, I am all for reducing defense spending at this point. Nothing should be off the table.

---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 02:03 PM ----------

Have you been awake for the last ten years? Every year we're looking at additional spending. Someone's base is clamoring for it.

I've been awake during the past year. It's becoming an issue now that no one can ignore.

However, if reducing the deficit is really that important, and I think it is, nothing should be off the table. And that includes setting some tax rates to previous levels.

[Madison Redskin]

I don't think Buffett is uninformed, but I believe he's going about getting out of this problem the wrong way. I only used the word "uninformed" because that's the word that was used previously.

Have you been awake for the last ten years? Every year we're looking at additional spending. Someone's base is clamoring for it.

Although the Dems certainly love government spending, so do the Repubs ...

Wanna guess how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the Bush tax cuts, put us in the hole?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Doesn't really matter if we increase taxation on the wealthy or not if we don't control our spending. If you can't cut spending, then you are never going to be successful raising taxes. It's not going to happen. You have to do one if you want the other and it has to be a real cut, not like something that took place this last go around. It has to be a real cut in entitlements. If you don't do that, then you can't get to where you want to be on taxation.

Right now, Conservative members of the GOP could not make a bipartisan decision on tax increases if they wanted to. If you cut back on spending, then you put pressure on Conservatives to take measures to increase taxation. You can then allow them room to make a compromise like this. If you don't do that, the GOP keeps the House, wins the Senate and takes the Presidency IMO. At that point, the Left is forced to accept whatever the Conservative side wants to implement and I can almost guarantee that it will be less attractive then a solution that cuts entitlements and taxes.

[armstrong001]

Er. There was this little thing I like to refer to as the Cold War. Maybe you've heard of it.

Yes, after a full-scale global war our standing in the world changed and so our spending changed to reflect that. Unless you are suggesting that we should have returned to an isolationist nation after the war, defense spending and foreign aid were going to eat up a chunk of our budget. If you have a problem with that, that's a foreign policy issue, not an economic one.

And for the record, I am all for reducing defense spending at this point. Nothing should be off the table.

So, the "crisis" never goes away, it just changes names. WWI, depression, WWII, cold war, recession, WoT, recession/depression. There's always an excuse to increase spending because there's always a new "crisis" to spend the money on. Thanks for clearing that up.

---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 12:10 PM ----------

Although the Dems certainly love government spending, so do the Repubs ...

Wanna guess how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the Bush tax cuts, put us in the hole?

Arguing that it's ok to increase spending because the Republicans did it is ridiculous, especially since I'm not happy with the Republicans either.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Unless I'm mistaken, raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 only effects what they make over $250,000. So, for example, if someone made $250,010 and we raised the $250,000+ bracket by 3%, that person would have to pay an extra 30 cents.

That's right. Only the earnings over 250K get taxed at the higher rate. A guy making 249,999.99 doesn't get taxed at 30 percent of all income, and the guy at 250K gets taxed at 35%, for example. That would be wrong and stupid. And its not what a progrsesive marginal tax rate is.

---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 02:11 PM ----------

Absolutely correct but something a lot of people try to obscure and thats also not total wealth or even income because of capital gains tax differential.

Right. That also doesn't include deductions and credits, which people with more money tend to be able to take more advantage of. For example, the homeowners tax deduction.

Bottom line: the rich are not victims of our tax code. Let's stop pretending.

[jpyaks3]

Doesn't really matter if we increase taxation on the wealthy or not if we don't control our spending. If you can't cut spending, then you are never going to be successful raising taxes. It's not going to happen. You have to do one if you want the other and it has to be a real cut, not like something that took place this last go around. It has to be a real cut in entitlements. If you don't do that, then you can't get to where you want to be on taxation.

Right now, Conservative members of the GOP could not make a bipartisan decision on tax increases if they wanted to. If you cut back on spending, then you put pressure on Conservatives to take measures to increase taxation. You can then allow them room to make a compromise like this. If you don't do that, the GOP keeps the House, wins the Senate and takes the Presidency IMO. At that point, the Left is forced to accept whatever the Conservative side wants to implement and I can almost guarantee that it will be less attractive then a solution that cuts entitlements and taxes.

So we have to make massive cuts to the social safety net and hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party will agree to taxes? Sorry but thats ridiculous the GOP has not compromised on anything.

Real cuts need to be made but a lot of those cuts need to come from our bloated defense spending, something you have neglected to mention.

[Destino]

Now don't expect that it will solve the budget deficit (It won't even come close) but at least your liberal friends can enjoy punishing the successful.

"punishing the successful"

From the article

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.

Equal tax burdens to those of the middle class is a punishment in your eyes?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If Warren Buffet (one of the richest people on the planet) says that the gov needs to stop coddling the rich, you know there's a problem with the current system.

Amen to that!!!! How any one can defend this current system is beyond me. The middle class pay twice as much in taxes as the rich and they are the one's who cannot afford it.

[armstrong001]

Do you not understand inflation or population growth? Increased spending is just a fact of life, no one is saying that spending isn't a problem the problem is the 1 % that controls 43 % of the wealth isn't being fairly taxed compared to the other 99 % of the population.

Even adjusting for inflation, spending per capita has continued to rise. That takes out both inflation and populaiton growth. Increased spending is NOT a "fact of life". Just because you want to spend more than you did last year doesn't mean you can afford to do it.