The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share

I actually agree with him.  Especially the points he make about "percentages."  

Because of the way the income tax system works, fairness is out of the equation.  The system needs to be simplified and the burden shifted to the usage side rather than the income side of the calculation.

There are essentially three ways you can tax a person.  You can tax on income, on use, or on worth.  The United States does not tax on worth, because that represents taxation on money that has already been taxed.  We also don't want to penalize people for saving; however, income and worth can in many cases be blended and blurred.  With complex investment mechanisms and deductions, it is possible for people like Mr. Buffett to shelter income from taxation.  In fact, Birkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett's company, employs an entire team of accountants who's job is to do exactly that, shelter income from taxation.  

Even as his tax attorneys and accountants work diligently to make sure he always pays less than "his fair share," he complains that he is not being charged enough.  We know that Mr. Buffett likes to play political games, and this article, while well written, is nothing more than that.  I would rather see a press release announcing a gift of $7,000,000 to the federal government from Mr. Buffet.  This would make a far stronger political statement and perhaps encourage the "super-rich" to follow suit.  Of course we know this won't happen.  The sole purpose of this article is to fan the class warfare fires as President Obama sets out on his bus tour of the Midwest.

I applaud the campaign on this strategy, and Mr. Axelrod Buffett makes some excellent points that indeed need to be addressed, but not by adding additional layers of taxation or regulation to the 6,000 pages plus of federal income tax code.  As I think most of you, liberal and conservative alike, will agree, the current tax code no longer functions appropriately.  It is a leviathan that must be constantly fed with new regulations and bureaucracy yielding less and less equality.  Each new layer breeds a thousand new cockroaches to lay more eggs and make the code even more complex.

It has become so bad that a significant amount of the US economy exists solely to prepare, file, and defend taxation.  This is an entire economic segment designed to interpret and do battle with a branch of the US Government (IRS).  Even the most brilliant economic minds in the whole universe, like our treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, can't file a return without significant error.

We don't need to adjust the system again (for the 487th time).  We need to fundamentally rebuild it, and remove politics from the equation.

http://givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett

Noble but not the same as sending money to the government directly.

That's right.  He is asking that the government take more, therefore he needs to be the example or his words hollow. 

  I would want there to be a level playing field among my peers.  I enjoy the game of competition and money making, but that game is most fairly played when we are all toughing it out under the same conditions.  Plus, just me alone with a few others won't assure the amount of change that needs to happen NOW, and thats what we really need is a big level of assurance, not, Ok I will do it (with no guarantee for how long even with my best intentions you can't rely on me alone for who knows I may lose money but in the aggregate there is more assurance) anyone else with me, "game" going on.  The national government can't project future budgets, figure out future outlays and assure future payments on that. There needs to be a REAL, significant, aggregate number thats more predictable and measurable over the long term.

Here is why this is simply a campaign stunt.  Lets say that congress goes for it 100% and President Obama gets his tax increases on those makeing $250,000 or more. 

This would bring in merely $0.7 trillion over the next decade, or about 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product per year. As a comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit over the same period is going to grow more than 6 percent of GDP per year.

Lets say you add Buffett's recommendations on significant increases for the super-rich.  Well, that's only a tiny fraction of the population and a few extra billion in revenue.  Meanwhile while the administration plays the class warfare game, they still spend a hundred times more than that.

The administration has no intention of cutting spending as has been demonstrated by the debt debate. The idea now is to wave a red cape again so that the bull focuses on it rather than the matador. President Obama knows that congress will never allow a tax increase on anyone in a recession (that would be insane), but the battle is an easy one for President Obama to campaign on.  It is the same battle he has always waged, from his beginnings as a Community Organizer. 

Work inside the system. Mobilize the people against a cause (in this case the filthy rich).   Make the people feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.  Demonize your target through ridicule.  It's all standard Alinsky.

Unfortunately, it will do nothing to solve the problem, but it will motivate the liberal base.  We can only hope that they have learned from this experiment and become a bit more leery of this tactic.  It's not playing as well in the media as I think they had hoped.  Mr. Axelrod Buffett's article really didn't pack any punch without a true gesture by Buffett himself.

This whole "why don't you go ahead and pay more taxes yourself then, neener neener neener" childishness is just . . . childish.  Taxes work because a cohort not an individual pays them.  Even with the superrich (whom Buffet describes as making $1mil or more a year, not the $250k you claim), it's simply more efficient and fair if everyone gets assessed at once. "Going first" has no utility whatsoever in economic or policy terms.  It just makes you feel better so can say neener neener neener again.

Likewise, I posted the giving pledge link simply to prove that Buffet's money is where his mouth is. His money is going away one way or the other as are the fortunes of the 75-odd other families who signed the pledge. In other words, the op-ed isn't some sort of bizarre gambit to do a reverse-double-lutz jujitsu move to somehow further protect his fortune.  He's making an argument from a policy standpoint.  I'd sure love it if you could refute it from a policy standpoint as well, rather than spending this entire thread trying to prove that he's a moron.

Good Lord!  I don't think he's a moron.  I admire him on many levels, but becoming a tool for class warfare is not one of them.  The tone of the article as well as the tone of the current administration is that if we tax the rich more, everything will be ok.  Well, that is simply not true.  If it was sustainable to tax the rich at 100% it would not be enough revenue to make a difference.  Even if you go beyond that and take 100% of the taxable income of those who make more than $100k, you only come up with $3.4 trillion. Not enough to pay for the President's planned spending of $3.6 trillion this year.

We need to focus on the problem, and the problem is that we are spending too much.  We don't need to focus on how we can get a bigger credit card or who we can fleece, because if we do, the problem will simply grow.

We are in a spending driven crisis, and more warfare against businesses, the rich, and other groups simply adds to the level of economic uncertainty and market chaos that keeps companies from hiring.

In actuality, the problem is that tax receipts are down, and 10% of the working population is unemployed.  Also, the rich are being taxed at historic lows, even in comparison with the historic lows of other income brackets.

Spending, all told, isn't up by much, and what increases there are are entirely related to income security programs (food stamps, UI, etc) The debt is up because we're taking in less to cover it.

Spending as a % of GDP is what needs to be focused on.  Spending alone is a useless indicator.  I agree that revenue is a problem, but hanging a yolk on the rich is not enough to cover the nut.  They represent a very small portion of taxable income.  They do however make a nice target and distraction.

 You can holler class warfare if you want and none of us can stop some politician or other public figure from taking advantage of any chance to push their agenda. But regardless of all the posturing, we do imo, still need to both cut spending and raise some taxes.  Last week there was an article about an Oklahoma Republican throwing a fit about finding out that the federal government spent 5mill a year helping other countries preserve historic buildings. Small as that may be in the big picture, I thought it sounded stupid too and needed to be cut.  Million here a billion there and soon your talking real money lol. 

Does that graph mean that households making $100-200k are the new middle class?

First, I fixed a little of what you stated.  Second, the graph you posted is a little misleading.  I believe it says the total taxable income based upon the Adjusted Gross Income, something about that doesn't sit quite right. 

Buffett has pretty much always stated that he does not get taxed enough.  And he employs a team of accountants to make sure he is not paying more than he is required to pay.  Buffett is a cheap bastage, he is only going to pay what he is required to pay.  He is going to take full advantage of what is available to him, this is why he is one of the wealthiest people in the world.  If he is required to pay more tax, he will pay more tax.  He is not going to simply decide to not take a deduction because he doesn't think he is taxed enough.  It would be like any of us deciding we are not going to take the child deduction because we are getting a big refund. 

One has to believe that Buffet has been conspiring with Obama and the dems for a long time to buy into what Gas is alleging. And then swallow that the other super rich are also in on the deal since Buffet is not the only one making these remarks.

It is a single minded, uwavering tenet of the new right that every change in the tax code that results in increased revenues, must by default, be a tax increase. This blindered approach makes them look silly to others but fits right in with a faith based personality.

An example of this mentality was an interview with a stock analyst on Fox last Sunday where the analyst noted that European stocks were a good buy right now because they are already facing problems that our Congress refuses to. They acknowledge what WevsUs pointed out the root causes of the crisis are and the market sees movement to meet those challenges (his opinion, not mine) which make there stocks a good buy.  Demand exists and the future is bright. So he noted that he bought when the market in America fell last week and he is buying now in Europe.

All the host could say was, "But the population over there doesn't get it yet do they? Until they understand (like the right here does) that this crisis comes from high taxes and social spending how are there stocks a good buy?" The guy just smiled.

Buffet has been saying this for years.  (I have been harping on it here for what - almost 2 years?)

There is no such thing as a "tax increase" in letting the Bush cuts expire - it is simply going back to the status quo before the richest got their paid representatives to cut them some slack.

Class Warfare.  Right.  Like the poor ever did any of that.  Maybe Buffet is just the first to become so embarrassed by the class warfare the richest have waged on America for 30 years, he feels it's time to slow it down.  Remember how Newt and the boys made their "Contract On America"?

Also, there is no such thing as a "Social Security entitlement".    An entitlement would imply something that you expect to get for free.  That AIN"T Social Security, no matter what the Murdochian/Cheney/Rove cabal would have you believe.  It is a retirement plan that the majority pay into over their career.  No one considers themselves "entitled" - except for the richest rich - they have PAID for it!!

Wouldn't it be nice (and a refreshing change) if Fox would just tell the truth for once??

I believe they think they are evangelists for political truth and fairness. So did Pravda. But I enjoy watching them as a political arm and laughing at the constraints that make them say silly things. Like any cult, they don't care about what the rest of us think of them, they have each other. Ahh...if only the mainstream liberals and their imaginary msm had such cohesiveness.

Its fun to watch normal guests, who don't understand what it is all about or feel they have to utilize them for pr, wriggle around and hold their tongues lest they be targetted and skewered. I saw a conservative pollster just get hammered by some blond winger "journalist" who yelled at him for disagreeing with her. Truth was she misunderstood his remarks. He was astounded at her behavior but the others hardly noted it.

My record level of attentiveness on Fox News so far is about 10 minutes before I audibly shriek.

What is a "blond winger?"  I don't think I am familiar with that term.

I think I just generated a new term! Blond Winger.

You could have deduced that it was a woman by my use of the pronoun "her". More accurately she was a young, twenty something, woman with short blond hair and an argumentative attitude. The panelist I think was Dick Morris who was pretty irritated with her.

Oh, so it was a young argumentative woman.  Got it!

There is a different word used for such female "journalists" on other networks who respond inappropriately when they misunderstand those around them. They are called talk show hosts or ex-journalists.

Why do they have to be female.  I've seen many male journalists act the same way.

True enough. This one was a female.

 FWIW I have no patience with the three major network news shows either. This morning GMA shaped up to be "news of the weird" from Urban Tulsa. Hated Couric. All of them seem to think we really have an unquenchable interest in their lives, their relationships with each other and their humor. When it comes to political news you can tell they are scared.

I think MSNBC has lowered their standards lately as well. Anyone notice that even though Ron Paul came in a close second in the Iowa straw poll that he was totally ignored? MSNBC as well as all the nets were reporting that its now a three person race.....and Paul is not one of the three! They made that decision for us.

I do like the female on MSNBC that has her own 30minutes after Hardball. Not because of her politics per se, but because she has insights and can express herself.

That's Rachel Maddow.  Despite all the "Rachel Madcow" bullhonky, she's a smart, reality-based opinion reporter. 

"opinion reporter" 

Does that mean she reports her opinion or the opinion of others?

Much like the entire cast of Faux News, whether or not they call themselves reporters.

Faux News, we distort, you decipher.

The economic growth inherent in your estimate of the 10 year value of such a tax increase will itself significantly reduce expenditures on Medicaid, UI, and SNAP. The problem will be solved by focusing on jobs rather than repeated attempts to transform the social order.

Oh, and class warfare? That ain't class warfare. This is class warfare:

(http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/uploadedimages/2/8/4/6/0/272011.thumb?d=1305308742)

(http://angelanilsson.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/haymarketscene2.jpg)

The difference between AGI and taxable income is old age or blind condition, standard or itemized deductions and exemptions.  Seems pretty simple.


He should given his statements about not paying enough.  Giving money to philanthropic organizations he wants to support is not the same as paying taxes to go for programs he may disagree with.


Getting a big withholding refund is not the same as a tax refund. 

How far down in income level would it be required to take, in taxes, everything above that level to pay for $3.6 Trillion?  Don't take everything the rich make, only what they make above the magic level that would pay for $3.6 T.

I'm sure that her opinions are based on her reality.

Edit:
Your statement leads me to state that Bill O, Hannity, and Greta are smart, reality-based, news commentators.  The fact that you vehemently disagree with everything they stand for is, in my mind, irrelevant.

There's hope for you yet.
 ;D

Maddow may be dogmatic, but she applies reason to arrive at her opinion. There are prevalent memes built around O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck's steadfast refusal to do so. All are dogmatic, but only some have an intellectual foundation for their allegiance to their team.

There are, to be sure, some conservatives who do let reality intrude, but they are mostly shouted down by the usual suspects. Given the constant redefinition of the term conservative, I don't know how long the old guard will be allowed to continue using the term.

Please explain this.  Why must he voluntarily pay the taxes he believes his income group should pay in order to be taken seriously?

The difference between she and the Hannity/O'Reilly crowd is that she's pretty much fact based.  Of course I agree with her politics, but I'm also capable of seeing that she makes an effort to source her opinions.  The guys on Fox News could really care less -- as far as I can tell -- about fact-based anything.  They want to shore up an ideology first and foremost and everything else is fungible. 

I was going to spin this back at you and ask why not.  I believe our differences will prevent either of us from convincing the other.

We disagree.

The RWRE will always hate Maddow and try to downplay what she says, because she shows their lies for what they are.  Her politics are a little much for me sometimes, but she is intelligent, as contrasted to the Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Drudge, Savage group.  And she tells the truth, also as contrasted to same.

What about her politics do you dislike?

Jon Stewart and Politico picked up on what I posted yesterday as well, "Anyone notice that even though Ron Paul came in a close second in the Iowa straw poll that he was totally ignored? MSNBC as well as all the nets were reporting that its now a three person race.....and Paul is not one of the three! They made that decision for us."

I'm surprised that more has not been posted about this around here. Whether or not Paul is electable seems irrelevant to whether or not his election, and his views, are newsworthy. I totally understand why crowds applaud his remarks, though I believe many of his proposals are simply not workable. They are however, insightful and a starting point for change. That he isn't being covered is ludicrous. A real indictment of current journalism.

Keep hearing all the crap about the bad things Obama has done to the economy, and yet, when looking at the increases in debt over the last 30 years, the 8 just preceding his were ALL on an upward slope, while each of the deficits since his first budget have been decreasing.  Reality is a grumble for the RWRE Murdochians.

And jobs - well anyone who doesn't know where the jobs went has either been asleep for the last 30 years.  Is too young to understand.  Or is a congenital idiot...i.e. RWRE.  (Can you spell NAFTA??)

And sadly, cutting taxes for the richest again also won't bring them back.

So, with all the lies, distortions, misinformation and all the other debris being slung by the RWRE, where is the proposed solution??  Never has there been a plan advanced to help solve the problems that seem to plague us.  Only noise, mental clutter and the ubiquitous neener nonsense.  Perhaps we could get a grass roots statement here from the resident Obama bashers??  What is the plan??

Now, as with every situation there are conditions - no previously proven failed plan can be advanced.  Tax cuts for the rich for example.  Obliteration of the basic retirement program (Social Security) since the previous system of pensions and defined retirements was obliterated by Reagan.  No trillion dollar bailouts for big banks and insurance companies and big oil.

Wow!  Doesn't leave them much to talk to, but hey, reality is a grumble.

Bet they don't have one.

She is pro-gun control.  And not meaning to be able to hit what you aim at.

Man....we are all over the place with this thread.

My major problem with MSNBC is that when I hear a story that raises my eyebrows because no one else is reporting it, I have to go to other news outlets or do the legwork myself only to find out it's massively bogus, and usually targeted at inflaming racial, sexual, or "group dynamic" rage.

For instance, Rick Perry speaking in Iowa made this comment when talking about the national debt. "That big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous.”

Immediately Ed Shultz saw this opportunity and edited out the first part of the speech, then edited the last part of this sentence and played it, inferring that Rick Perry was making a racial slur against President Obama. "That big black cloud that hangs over America."

So immediately the race fueled media goes nuts!  Hip Hop Wired Magazine runs an article titled: “Governor Rick Perry Calls President Obama A ‘Big Black Cloud.’”  In that article they take it uppon themselves to "paraphrase" the quote as “a big black guy running around the country that I’m not to happy about.”

MSNBC plants these seeds all the time, relying on an under-media willing to reiterate anything they report on the basis of their establishment as a reputable news source.

It would be different if they just spun stories like Faux and other outlets, but they prey on the standard liberal passions related to inflaming groups.

How exactly is that different than Fox or other media outlets? The lead in on the headline story this morning on Fox was something like this, "Two of those politicians that exited the state and refused to do the jobs they were elected for....were re-elected in Wisconsin" said with dripping, vengeful, anger in his voice. That isn't journalism, thats trench politics.  Remember, MSNBC was a reaction to Fox's unabashed politically slanted "news" reporting. Its not a spin outlet, its a political outlet. Any Democratic guest who doesn't understand that and doesn't prepare for their interview as though it is a Tea Party town hall meeting is devoured.

They plant their seeds, they prey on their standard conservative passions, and they inflame their groups. And, they use code words. Don't play Perry off for stupid. He didn't use the words "black cloud" over America cavalierly no matter in what context.

So you are saying that MSNBC did the same thing that Faux did during the Jon Stewart/Herman Cain issue?  

Your example is precisely the sort of misinformation I've seen from O'Reilly, just from a different angle.

Do you have an example of something that Bill O'Reilly has edited in such a way?

I'm not a big fan of O'Riley.  He's a Republican that hates the idea of Libertarianism.  He can't stand the idea of individual freedom, but he typically does not engage in mis-information.

Wow.

Wow, indeed. I'm not quite sure how to respond.

Was that an attempt to get me to waste time going back through years of bookmarks to find a bunch of references to common knowledge, or is it a serious question that will benefit from a serious answer?

Sorry, I just figured if it was common knowledge, something would certainly come to mind.  You don't have to do any work.  O'Riley is not worth enough for me to defend.

On that we agree...