In an interview with Lou Dobbs on CNN, Warren Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, claimed that we are indeed engaged in "class warfare" and that the rich are winning.

 

BUFFETT: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good.

DOBBS: What a radical idea.

 

BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

 

DOBBS: ...At the same week the House passed the estate tax, Congress passed the bankruptcy legislation, which they had the temerity to call bankruptcy reform, Democrats and Republicans passing this legislation, which is onerous to the middle class. Half of the bankruptcies in this country take place, because people fall ill, serious illnesses result in bankruptcy. Nearly half of the people involved. How do you -- you have watched a lot of politics. What is going on in this country?

 

BUFFETT: The rich are winning. Just take the estate tax, less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed.

 

Just want some people's opinions on this.

Buffett is a huge leftist Democrat...shocking he would say this....

Passion of the Gooch starts the discussion off nicely with a nothing comment. How could such a rich man support leftist economic agenda? More thoughtful comments wanted.

Passion of the Gooch starts the discussion off nicely with a nothing comment. How could such a rich man support leftist economic agenda? More thoughtful comments wanted.

803586[/snapback]

Isnt that the usual response? Rather than disussing why Buffet is wrong about the estate tax and the bankrupcy reform, just call him a bleeding heart unpatriotic liberal.

 

 

Buffet is right. Just look at what the big policy issues are in this country. We have a frikkin health care crisis in this country, oil prices are through the roof, the federal and trade deficits are ominous as most economists agree...yet somehow making sure credit card companies are fully protected is the most vital bill needed to be passed.

It is actually quite common for rich people to be leftist. The people who suffer most are people who are working hard to succeed. Once your loaded, it doesnt hurt to have the government steal some of your money, its whne your trying to get over that hump from lower to middle, or middle to upper that the govt can curtail your progress.

 

Anyway, there is no class struggle, that is idiocy at its best. Every individual wants to make life better for him/herself and their families. At an individual basis, if someone works hard and becomes rich, he wants his family and him to live a good life. That individual struggle is completely unrelated to anyone else's individual struggle. Now if by good grace I choose to help other people also succeed in this struggle thne thats great.

 

I fail to understand how 'the rich' are the ones hurting the poor people's individual struggle.

 

As for policy, if we analyze things like bankruptcy reform its easy to see that its not just the lenbders that benefit, but also the borrowers. Making it harder to create economic irresponsibility at an economic basis is good for all people, and for the economy.

Buffet is wrong. Another important thing is that when a rich man dies the money should go to his family, who he worked to improve their lives, not to a govt that is stepping on our freedoms

It is actually quite common for rich people to be leftist. The people who suffer most are people who are working hard to succeed. Once your loaded, it doesnt hurt to have the government steal some of your money, its whne your trying to get over that hump from lower to middle, or middle to upper that the govt can curtail your progress.

 

 

The middle class pays very little share of the nations taxes. They really arent burdened by government.

It is actually quite common for rich people to be leftist. The people who suffer most are people who are working hard to succeed. Once your loaded, it doesnt hurt to have the government steal some of your money, its whne your trying to get over that hump from lower to middle, or middle to upper that the govt can curtail your progress.

 

 

The middle class pays very little share of the nations taxes. They really arent burdened by government.

803622[/snapback]

 

Interesting you use this point, b/c its the same one i use when I argue for the same tax rate for all income levels. If the govt taxes me 10% it hurts me as much if not more than it hurts a person who makes 200000 to get taxed 25%. The middle class IS burdened by taxes. Of course the rich pays more but they have much more.

It is actually quite common for rich people to be leftist. The people who suffer most are people who are working hard to succeed. Once your loaded, it doesnt hurt to have the government steal some of your money, its whne your trying to get over that hump from lower to middle, or middle to upper that the govt can curtail your progress.

 

 

The middle class pays very little share of the nations taxes. They really arent burdened by government.

803622[/snapback]

 

Interesting you use this point, b/c its the same one i use when I argue for the same tax rate for all income levels. If the govt taxes me 10% it hurts me as much if not more than it hurts a person who makes 200000 to get taxed 25%. The middle class IS burdened by taxes. Of course the rich pays more but they have much more.

804020[/snapback]

Ding ding.

Well, what do you expect, when you have the most pro-business adminstration, possibly in history, passing legislation that supports big business?

 

There may not be a class struggle, but the very wealthy are already prepared to fight one.

Passion of the Gooch starts the discussion off nicely with a nothing comment. How could such a rich man support leftist economic agenda? More thoughtful comments wanted.

803586[/snapback]

No problem! :thumbup

 

He has called for unilateral nuclear disarmament and has donated heavily to this cause.

 

He actively backed Hillary Clinton's bid for the U.S. Senate and helped her raise money.

 

In May, Buffett wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post criticizing President Bush?s proposed cut in the dividend tax as a change that would benefit the rich.

 

I can type up many more, but yes, Buffett is a leftist democrat who is anti-bush...so his comments are not suprising.

It is actually quite common for rich people to be leftist. The people who suffer most are people who are working hard to succeed. Once your loaded, it doesnt hurt to have the government steal some of your money, its whne your trying to get over that hump from lower to middle, or middle to upper that the govt can curtail your progress.

 

 

The middle class pays very little share of the nations taxes. They really arent burdened by government.

803622[/snapback]

 

Interesting you use this point, b/c its the same one i use when I argue for the same tax rate for all income levels. If the govt taxes me 10% it hurts me as much if not more than it hurts a person who makes 200000 to get taxed 25%. The middle class IS burdened by taxes. Of course the rich pays more but they have much more.

804020[/snapback]

Ding ding.

805148[/snapback]

 

My short response wasnt clear.

 

Tax policy in this country has almost everything to do with the tax rate for the wealthy. You yourself admit the rich pay more and they have more. With that in mind, they clearly are the one's MOST affected by tax changes and hence would not really want to take a leftist or democratic, or liberal viewpoint on taxes as you state. The middle class may hate taxes, but the fact of the matter is our current tax scheme allows the middle and lower class to take the mass amount of benefit with the least amount contributed(lower class getting more than middle class). So they should absolutely love the status quo and they should clearly want an even MORE progressive tax scheme(democrat/liberal/leftist originated). By more progressive, I mean one that increase the tax burden on the wealthy and decreasing it on the middle class (lower class already paying little).

 

Yes they may hate what they are taxed because it costs them money every paycheck and it may in fact suck for them, but if one truly quantified services received and compared that with amount contributed, any middle class person that complains about the federal tax system is way too narrow minded.

 

This is absolutely proven in two ways:

 

Look at the last election. John Kerry, the "leftist" candidate, as one might call him, outwardly advocated for increased taxes for the wealthy with DECREASED taxes for the middle class. Bush, the rightist candidate, on the other hand opposed such a scheme. Why would Bush oppose a clearly pro middle class policy if the middle class the most burdened by the tax scheme and hence the most likely to be rightist? Because as stated earlier, his priorities are with the upper class and not the middle class...which is why the wealthy vote for him and rightist candidates in such droves.

 

Secondly, let?s look at the actual numbers. The top 10% of individual income tax earners pays about 65% of the nation?s income taxes. The top 10% are those individuals with an after tax income of about 92k or higher. The top 25% pays 83% and those are individuals that pay around 56k or higher. That means those individuals who earn between 56k and 92k still only pay about 18% of the entire burden. The top 50% pays 96% and they make only above 29k. In my mind, middle class is between 29k and 56k. That specific tax bracket pays about 13% of the nations federal income taxes.

 

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

 

 

So the middle class contributes 13% of revenue but gets a mass amount of the benefits.

 

Lets take an even more leftist approach. Get rid of income taxes for those paying 56k or lower and shift the 13% revenue decrease on the wealthy, making it even more progressive, leftist, or whatever.(this has actually been proposed btw). Now who would vote yes for such a policy and who would vote no. You cant seriously tell me wealthy people would ?quite common leftist" with this one.

 

The fact is, progressive(leftist/democratic) tax schemes being bad for the middle class is a total myth created by wealthy people who hate paying taxes but know they are a vast voting minority. The whole trickle down scheme was developed as a method of convincing the middle class to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy.

 

So again, a middle class person that complains about paying 13% of the nations federal income taxes and getting much more than 13% of federal outlay(military protection, social security etc) is someone that should not be complaining.

 

 

Listen, if you think the middle class is suffering the most, are you willing to accept the above policy option proposed by people on the left? Would you be ok if we got rid of federal income taxes for those who make below 56k and shifted it to the wealthy?Heck even those below 90k and shift that 30% to the wealthy? That would get rid of their burden right? Cmon legacy, I know you wouldnt.

You fail to realize a major point about capitalism. Many people, I can even say most people are not content with what they earn. The reason middle class people complain about tax polciies is b/c they dotn want to stay middle class forever. And as they become more successful the govt increases its stranglehold on the people. For what your syaing to be valid we would have to assume that the majority of people plan on staying in the same wage class for the rest of their lives, and that is often not the case. So I stand firm by my evaluation that the middle class are burdened heavily by taxes.

 

Going further, the huge problem with all of those 'progressive' ideas you stated, is the labels of wealthy, middle, and lower classes. If we were to eliminate or reduce income taxes for people making 56K or less, who is going to burden the extra 13%? The people who already pay 85% of the taxes, who as is are being penalized for working hard and being successful, or do we penalize the people who make 65K, who are just getting over the hump?

 

Heres 2 proposals. One we keep the status quo, but allow all taxpayers to pay a percentage of their taxes directly to charities. Meaning for every dollar paid to charity, they will be forgiven of that dollar that they 'owe' the govt.

 

Anothe rproposal is the Greenspan proposal. Eliminate income tax altogether, and isntea dof penalziing people for working harder or succedding, we make a national sales tax, and penalize people for irresponsibility. Those who live within their means will still contribute to govt in ample amounts, the rich who spend lavishly will still carry the hevaiest burden, but those who choose to save money will be rewarding by getting to keep more of what they earn.

The question here is what will the national tax be? It can't be too high b/c then the lower classes will be hurt when paying groceries. So here we have several options, some of which could be to make lower tax brackets (under 15K) be exempt from this tax altogether, or to tax some products more than others. Perhaps a lower rate for necessary food items and higher for luxury.

 

Regardless compromise is necessary, but the current system or a more radicalized one hurts everyone, even the middle class. Trickle-down is obvious logic, the more money in the eocnomy the more money to create jobs and benefit the masses (oversimplified, but calling it a myth is simply untrue and wearing of a liberal blindfold) And of course, cut all spending, and then the govt wont need to collect as much in taxes

Of course most people want to be rich but few people kid themselves into thinking they can actually reach that level. Ive never met a middle class worker who says "man I wish that government wouldnt tax me so I could take than money and become wealthy." I dont know where you come from legacy but most middle class people actually dont hate their middle class lives. Of course they would like more money for the little things..everyone does...but they dont hate life because they are being held back from being wealthy by the evil government. Im sorry but for all your dislike of liberals attacking the rich, clearly your view of the middle class is a bit snobby to say they dont want to stay in the middle class. The middle class is America. The middle class is baseball and apple pie.

 

The other problem with your viewpoint is that it assumes the majority of people can reach the level they may strive for. Any economist will tell you that you simply cannot have everyone becoming upper to upper middle class. What you fail to realize is that people dont live according to their real salary but rather according to their relative salary. Even if the middle class strives forward, their reinvestment will not distribute itself throughout only the middle class and will not lead to a flatening of the ship. It will concentrate in the upper class and hence the upper class will always be higher than the middle class-rising of the ship. At which point the middle class will still complain that they are being held back. So no, even if we got rid of middle class taxes, people would still be middle class.

 

And trickle down as a myth is that its a theory more than a proof. Of course it works logically but that doesnt mean it works in real life. Keynsian economics works logically too does it not? But you would never let logic be the sole arbiter on that one. Im still baffled that we can have such great growth rates in times when taxes have been so high and such low growth rates when taxes have been low.

I come from the upper lower class or lower middle, w/e is preferred. I agree that america is the middle class. But that does not answer my labeling question, which is at the heart of the issue. Where do we define the classes, where is the class break? If you tell me that the wealthy that we shopuld tax heavily are those that make more than 5 million a year, then it would be hard for me to disagree. Now if you tell me that 'wealthy' is someone who makes 150,000 a year then thats the problem. B/c many in the middle class can and do achieve the goal of making a six digit salary. Is 200,000 wealthy? I mean i'd be happy making that money, but to make that much a year requires hard work, so why work so hard to pay so much more taxes? My problem is where the labels are placed, and what we define as middle class, lower class etc.

Sorry for the late reply. Shouldnt let this topic die since its a good discussion.

 

My response would be most people in the middle class dont expect to reach those levels of income, even the 6 figure ones. Why? Not because its impossible but because the average person who makes such an income does it through the attainment of a higher degree..many times a professional degree. Your average middle class person doesnt get there not because they choose not to (from the presence of taxes) but because they really dont have the means. I dont buy into the taxes as the major hurdle reasoning. If you go up to the average middle class person and say "Hey, right now you make 40k and lose 6k of it to taxes, but we can let you make 150k and lose 30k of it to taxes" Im pretty sure they would do it. Because in the end, there net is still higher is it not? Yeah it sucks losing 30k rather than 4k, but its still better to make 120k than it is 34k. (The numbers are raw but the point of "net income" is still evident."

 

And labels are placed by the tax code. Maybe people on the fringe wont make the extra effort, but on the whole, thats no attack on the system as a whole. We do such judgements all the time.

The discussion has pretty much ended b/c we disagree on the ability of the the majority of middle class americans to become members of a higher 'social' class. I dont want to sidetrack too much, since we are discussing income taxes, but also remmeber that property taxes also are burdensome to middle class americans. It isnt uncommon for someone to not move to a particular area b/c of high property taxes, even thought they can otherwise afford the property.