Musings of a GVChamp

social justice

Stopped reading here, because this is a dumb, weighted, socialist term. Socialism is stupid, maybe not for little European countries that don't have any real power, but for America with our corrupt government and eight bazillion nuclear warheads, giving them more power is the last thing we need to do.

Don't worry about Warren Buffet, he is poor compared to the cash our government burns on a daily basis. If you actually cared about uplifting the poor, that is the money you would be looking to redirect into positive projects (And by that I mean things other than free handouts, this country is lazy enough as it stands).

We need to stop taking loans from China to fund everything under the sun, and we need to cut as much government spending as possible, including social programs, until we are out of this hole. I don't care about making Warren Buffet so poor that he can no longer afford a cherry goddamn coke.

Edit: I went back and re-read, and I might have missed the mark here. But my point still stands on it's own.

Holy !@#$, a HoT post I can mostly agree with.

I know, it's shocking, isn't it.

You should join GOONS.

Yep, HOT, kinda took that one in a different direction. My point is more that taxing people doesn't mean you are actually hurting THOSE people.

You should join GOONS.

Hahaha, I'm not exactly certain I'd be welcome there. We were considering offering it up in the terms though, as payback

This may come as a shock to you, but plane rides and cherry coke cost money. Taxing people's money indirectly taxes their material goods.

What is this suggesting, rationing?

This may come as a shock to you, but plane rides and cherry coke cost money. Taxing people's money indirectly taxes their material goods.

If I consume 10% of my income in any given year and have so much cash built up I could literally buy the entire NBA, tax increases are not going to reduce my consumption by much. I lose money from your taxes. Whatever. I have plenty of that. Someone else is going to lose out.

I believe the contention is that it digs into his contributions to charity, which are considerable.

Yep, HOT, kinda took that one in a different direction. My point is more that taxing people doesn't mean you are actually hurting THOSE people.

I don't think anyone actually wants to hurt those people or otherwise diminish their lifestyles. As you said, taking more money from them won't stop them from living as they do. What getting more money from them will allow, however, is for the country to pay for some of its social programs and to also pay off some measly part of the debt.

social justice

Stopped reading here, because this is a dumb, weighted, socialist term. Socialism is stupid, maybe not for little European countries that don't have any real power, but for America with our corrupt government and eight bazillion nuclear warheads, giving them more power is the last thing we need to do.Don't worry about Warren Buffet, he is poor compared to the cash our government burns on a daily basis. If you actually cared about uplifting the poor, that is the money you would be looking to redirect into positive projects (And by that I mean things other than free handouts, this country is lazy enough as it stands).We need to stop taking loans from China to fund everything under the sun, and we need to cut as much government spending as possible, including social programs, until we are out of this hole. I don't care about making Warren Buffet so poor that he can no longer afford a cherry goddamn coke.Edit: I went back and re-read, and I might have missed the mark here. But my point still stands on it's own.

A lot more government money goes into "positive projects" than "handouts". And the difference between the two is often vague and ill-defined.

The OP does make a good point about the super-rich. But it really only applies to the super-rich who don't spend money exceedingly wastefully just because they have it (Donald Trump for example).

You need a certain amount of tax to pay for basic services that a government should provide. (Including some that the US doesn't currently do, but that's for another thread.) It's better that that money should come from people swimming in it, rather than people who notice its absence. Obviously, all money raised in taxes is being taken away from something else, and that's unavoidable.

At least in an ideal world, the government of a country will be able to deploy that money in a fairer and more effective manner, because it knows where it's actually needed, and doesn't just give it to 'aww, fluffy' causes like almost all private charities. (Though, to be fair, the Gates Foundation is pretty good in that department. And some governments are not good at effective spending of money.)

This article also skips over the logical follow-up question which is 'where did Warren Buffet take that money from in the first place'.

Also, the actual technical point of the article seems to be false as the donations to the foundation are in Berkshire Hathaway shares which have very little to do with Buffet's cash income and therefore prospective tax. I don't think that increasing the tax demand would do much to alter that donation.

The OP does make a good point about the super-rich. But it really only applies to the super-rich who don't spend money exceedingly wastefully just because they have it (Donald Trump for example).

Yeah, I was thinking of adding something about that in, but I don't want to make it TL;DR. You can certainly tax Calvin Klein and the various super-spending rich, and you can definitely tax the people who aren't actually rich but everyone thinks are rich (the people making $200,000).

I'm not even arguing against the taxes, but I don't honestly know who is going to get hurt by them.

Also, the actual technical point of the article seems to be false as the donations to the foundation are in Berkshire Hathaway shares which have very little to do with Buffet's cash income and therefore prospective tax. I don't think that increasing the tax demand would do much to alter that donation.

Doesn't have to do with his cash income, has to do with his stockpile of wealth and cash, which he can draw down or not add as much to.

I generally prefer consumption taxes over income taxes. For those who say this places an undue burden on those with low incomes, there are several ways of ensuring this is not the case -- GAI, raising the level at which one pays any income tax at all, tax credits (of the sort used in Canada, which are paid out quarterly to those who qualify) and so on.

Oddly enough, the biggest supporters of a Guaranteed Annual Income tend to be on the so-called 'right' of the political spectrum. Milton Friedman, for example, was a fan of them.

Anyway, to take this one step further, I prefer income taxes over taxes on assets such as property taxes on one's home. Again, there are ways of countering their pernicious effects.

To sum up: Taxing people for what they 'have' is bad. Taxing people for what they spend is good. Taxing people for what they earn is an evil that can be mitigated.

There are actually quite a few supporters of GAI on the left of the political spectrum. I actually first encountered the idea (when a mere teenager) in the works of SF writer Mack Reynolds, who can best be described as just to the right of Karl Marx.

It's the middle that hates GAI, and I have no idea why.

I don't really know where I fit on the whole left-right dichotomy. On the one hand, the best-organized country I've ever lived in was Iceland, which is clearly a socialist country. On the other hand, the main reason I think it works as well as it does (and it doesn't always work, if you remember the recent financial crisis there) is because Icelanders loathe the kind of bureaucracy that both left and right take for granted here in Canada.

Anyway to get back to the point of the OP, which is talking about income taxes. Income taxes only work in a money-based system. Remove money and they fail entirely.

Since Warren Buffett does not engage in conspicuous consumption (as the OP correctly asserts), when you tax him, you are taking money away from the people who make money off of storing his money, i.e. investment folks. Some of them do engage in such consumption of course.