Tit for tat?

@Dr Herbie:

Sorry that I cannot go into every detail, there are a lot of people debating me, so I'm sorry that I cannot give the attention you deserve.

Buffet is a tool, what gives him the right to choose for others how they should make their money? It's their decision not his If people want to make money using the stock market, so be it. If others, the lionshare, are willing to do it via hard work, then that's ok too. But there always a risk vs reward. Stock markets are high risk, high reward. Labor is low risk, so low rewards.

If you consider a hedge funds, you have a valid point. They manipulate the system, so it effects a third party that does not have a say in the matter. Then it's time for the government to step in. Have they?

Back to Buffet. Why doesnt he lead the millionaire lifestyle? Why doesnt he spend those hard earned dollars? Then he is nothing more then a monetairy sinkhole cbea described!

Why does he give it away for free? Why not buy a boat? Employing dock workers, project managers, designers, carpenters, etc. etc.

If you give something away for nothing, people will value what you gave away at nothing. If you make people earn it, then it has value.

In the feudal system, the peasants were powerless and there was no 'business' done.  The lords owned all the land and if the peasants didn't do what they were ordered to do, they would be thrown off the land or just killed.

That's not a free market. That is total anarchy.

Taxing the rich helps prevent one extreme, limiting (but not eliminating) social benefits prevents the other extreme. What has happened is that the reduced taxing of the rich since the 1970s (through reduced taxes and through the refusal to close tax avoidance loopholes) has pushed the system too far towards one extreme and so it needs to be nudged back towards the middle.

No, taxing only the rich, helps to create a system of inequality. You are discriminated against based upon your income. The same income tax rate across the board for investments and wage is the most equal.

Or do you think pretty bums like Beyonce's should be equalled out aswell?

First increasing tax on the rich and then relieving them in the 1970's, is not lowering the taxes on the rich. You are cherry picking.

Let me ask you this then;

Since the efforts of taxing the rich have increased, have the poorer not become poorer and the richer not richer?

Can't you see the solution you are proposing is what is creating the problem in the first place?

@Maddus Mattus: Go back and watch that first video I posted again -- tax paid by the rich has fallen, while employment has also fallen.

Herbie

@Dr Herbie: The guy is comparing apples and oranges!

You cant compare tax over wage to tax over investments, they are two completely seperate things!

One is money in the bank wich I can buy a loaf of bread with (low risk, low reward). The other is a deed of ownership of a piece of some company (high risk, high reward), you can't buy anything with that.

Therefore it's taxed less, if it were taxed the same no one would invest. They would all have money in the bank or stuck under a matress. So calling for an increase in tax there, because the rich do not contribute their fair share, is total nonsense. They use that money enable other companies to expand (employ people) and make more profit, wich in turn leads to investments in companies to expand (employ people) etc. etc. And if this cycle does not continue, there's a better product or economy is collapsing, it's their risk. No bailouts needed, they took the risk, they benefit from the rewards, they should also reap the fall.

To put more of a burden on investments, is to deny people jobs.

That's what has been going on in the EU. Tax is trough the roof, jobs are at an all time low. In Spain 50% of the youth is unemployed!

And government spendign is not going to solve anything. Building roads that no one wants to drive on, does not add value. Burocrats do not add value, they destroy it.

The solution is less tax, less regulation, not more tax and more regulation. That's what got us into trouble in the first place.

@Maddus Mattus: You are talking about tax on stocks and shares, I'm talking about tax generally (you're obviously personally pissed that you had to pay tax on shares that you have bought).

It's not the tax rate that's the real problem, its the loopholes and exemptions. This allows the politicians to score points by saying that they're taxing the rich, while allowing the rich to not pay as much tax.

Herbie

@Dr Herbie:

I don't own any stock or shares (other then my mortgage and pension and they are 100% tax exempt), so I don't have any bias towards income generated with stock or shares.

You are talking about tax on stocks and shares, I'm talking about tax generally.

You brought up the video wich compares income through wage and stock, not me. It seems you want one set of rules for the poor and another for the rich, how is that more equal? And think about it, how do you define rich? A set number? If government has control of that number, then we are all rich!

It's not the tax rate that's the real problem

Yes it is the hart of the problem. If you tax unfairly, higher rates for higher income, you create an inequality that will only lead to more inequality. The rich end up costing more per hour and receiving the same and the expenditure is cut with the middle and lower segment. This has always been the way it works. Money get's released at the top and drills down to the bottom. If you take a larger amount at the top, less reaches the bottom. And don't think government is going to solve that, they will only create more crap.

If there are any unfair loopholes and exemptions only the rich supposedly can take advantage of (I've never come across a law wich statess; you can only apply for this if your income is above $120.000,- maybe you can point one out) then I agree, we need to take them out. But I think they are a myth. 

Still waiting on a solution on the issue regarding Beyonce's bum,..

Research that shows why lower taxes are good for growth:

http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/allister-heath/research-shows-why-lower-taxes-are-good-growth

Bonus article: Why tax when you can just steal:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/george-f-will-a-government-enrichment-policy-that-borders-on-theft/

Sorry for my brevity, but its long past my bed time.

Update: I forgot I was going to say: "I'm glad I live in Canada".

@Proton2: first one is interesting, I have allready come across the second article from a different source, while appoling it's not a constructive article to this thread.

edit;

and that for every dollar the government spends, it needs to collect two has a scientific basis! Who knew,..!

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

That's not a free market. That is total anarchy.

There was still a free market for the rich and effectively slavery for the masses. Goods were still sold and traded, money was made. It's just that all the money circulates around the top tiers of society and those at the bottom just suffer.

It's the same with your flawed argument that reducing taxes automatically increases the amount of consumer spending and is thus good, because there is nothing inherent in reducing taxes that suggests that wealth will be redistributed equally or that any increase in consumer spending power won't exist soley in the top tiers of society.

@AndyC: Where did I say I don't want ANY government?

The government should protect it's citizens from domestic and abroad forms of abuse. That's why we have law enforcement and an army. Nowhere did I state I don't want any of that. I politely ask you to stop putting those words in my mouth.

The free market has a government protecting it. Like I've stated over and over again in this thread. There is a place for government in the free market. When dealings between two entities affects a third wich has no choice in the matter, then there is a case for government to intervine.

It's the same with your flawed argument that reducing taxes automatically increases the amount of consumer spending and is thus good

That's guilt by association and a strawman.

There is ample evidence that if government is in charge of redistributing wealth, the poorer actually get richer? Have you been under a rock for the last decade? Government spending in the name of equality is through the roof and income inequality has never ever been this big!

Why on earth would you hand over your right or other peoples right to choose to an entity that has a track record for making the WORST decisions? Isn't it much more sensible to let people choose for themselves? Like the professor stated in the youtube video, 350.000.000 consumers instead of one?

23 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@AndyC: Where did I say I don't want ANY government?

The government should protect it's citizens from domestic and abroad forms of abuse. That's why we have law enforcement and an army. Nowhere did I state I don't want any of that. I politely ask you to stop putting those words in my mouth.

I politely ask you to recognize abuse when you see it.  There are ample resources and services to cover all members of society, but those resources and services go mainly to a select group while the vast majority of the rest of the society does without.  The fact that you have a house and pension implies that you are completely ignorant of what it is like to 'do without'.

The free market has a government protecting it.

And why, again, should a government protect a free market so that some can profit while NOT protecting the citizens that make that government run well enough to do that protection?

Like I've stated over and over again in this thread.

What you've stated over and over in this thread is nonsense that comes from either ignorance or selfishness. 

I'll let you decide which it is.

6 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

I politely ask you to recognize abuse when you see it.  There are ample resources and services to cover all members of society, but those resources and services go mainly to a select group while the vast majority of the rest of the society does without.  The fact that you have a house and pension implies that you are completely ignorant of what it is like to 'do without'.

Abuse is for the government to combat, not create, like they are doing now.

The examples are numerous where government is protecting markets for the benefits of the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower class (software patents, music patents, trade unions, etc. etc. etc.).

Ad hominems are not going to convince me that someone should get something for free, while I have to work for it.

And why, again, should a government protect a free market so that some can profit while NOT protecting the citizens that make that government run well enough to do that protection?

Everybody benefits in a free market. From low income to high income. I think the present situation of the economy in over regulated and over taxed countries is proof that redistribution of wealth via government means, is not solving the problem, but the source of the problem.

What you've stated over and over in this thread is nonsense that comes from either ignorance or selfishness. 

I'll let you decide which it is.

Nothing wrong with greed or being selfish, it's my nature to look out for myself first others later. If I can't take care of myself, I am not capable of taking care of others.

The totally wrong thing to do, is to destroy oneself in order to save another, that doesnt need saving at all. He needs the oppertunity to save himself. And people like you, who want to throw free money at them and plead for more government regulation, are keeping them deprived of oppertunity.

9 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: I'm not against regulation, I'm against limiting the freedom of choice.

if it's taxed at the same rate, no one will go for stock options. I don't think that's a desirable situation.

That's the line of BS that the wealthy want you to believe. A paycheck provides you a return on time with zero chance of a higher return than your stated salary. Being paid in stock offers a chance at a higher return. Tax or no tax you can make more money by investing in stock than sticking your money in a matress.

Maddus you seem like a bright guy. I just don't understand your views on stuff like this. They make no sense whatsoever.

@DeathByVisualStudio: trust me, I am from teh internets.

Current system is not working, we are drowning in debt and losing our rights to choose rapidly.

It's time for people to stop handing over liberties and responsibilities to government and start taking care of themselves.

More debt and less liberty is not the way out of this crisis, the reverse is.

All we need to do is to get rid of the tax code and just tax everyone's income (no deductions) at a flat rate of 5-10%. I'm in the 15% tax bracket, but have never paid 15% of my income. After deductions, tax credits, and other "loopholes", I usually pay about 5% of my income.

This whole "the rich are evil and keeping the poor down" mentality doesn't help anyone.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Everybody benefits in a free market. From low income to high income. I think the present situation of the economy in over regulated and over taxed countries is proof that redistribution of wealth via government means, is not solving the problem, but the source of the problem.

Except they don't. Reducing taxation doesn't necessarily make the poor any richer, but it does a lot to help the rich stay richer (and get wealthier too).

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: trust me, I am from teh internets.

Current system is not working, we are drowning in debt and losing our rights to choose rapidly.

I'm not sure what "current system" you're talking about, but in the US, the highest marginal tax rate has gone down considerably over the past 30 years, and we're now looking at trillion dollar deficits every year and the worst wealth imbalance since the beginning of the Great Depression.

If your only solution is "lower the rate even more" and actually think it's going to work, then you're living in Fantasy Land.

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: trust me, I am from teh internets.

Current system is not working, we are drowning in debt and losing our rights to choose rapidly.

It's time for people to stop handing over liberties and responsibilities to government and start taking care of themselves.

More debt and less liberty is not the way out of this crisis, the reverse is.

Spoken like a true Republican. Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

Here in the US at least the "job creators" have been provided tax cut after tax cut, loophole after loophole, incentive after incentive yet they don't produce jobs. The notion that business needs more breaks is ridiculous. It's a lie the Republican party has been handing out wrapped so nicely in the American flag for the past 30 years.

So many of the "hand outs" are to prevent people from falling out of the economic engine entirely. You can't produce if you're homeless. They're also an attempt to cut costs (i.e. prevent emergency room visits for trivial things that a primary care physician could handle if the person had health insurance).

"Start taking care of themselves" -- and if they don't what do we do? Shoot them? You live in a very over-simplified world...

@DeathByVisualStudio: i would like to think i am a libertarian.