Increasing the tax on the top earners brings in 16 billion dollars. Throw that at a trillion dollar plus deficit and see what happens. That is enough to run the governement for a little more than a day.

J. Willard

That's $60 billion over 10 YEARS. It's your thinking that will keep us in debt. President Obama wasted more than that on his assinine stimulus. If we let ALL of the tax cuts expire it amounts to around $3 trillion in 10 years. Why don't we all share in the problem?

Willard,

It depends how you classify "top earners". Using Obama's definition (>$200k), then I think your number is correct. But, if you use Buffet's definition (>$1 million), Steve's number is correct.

I wish the news media would point out that Buffet and Obama have significantly different criteria for who they think should be taxed more.

I'm also curious about Buffet's take on deductions. Does he advocate taking away deductions such as loss carry-forwards and tax-free government bonds? Does he advocate any changes for those making less than $1 million/year?

He's smart enough to know that only increasing taxes on those making >$1 million/year brings in a relatively trivial amount of new revenue...so I assume he has ideas he's either not telling us, or that the news media is not reporting.

No, that is $60 billion PER YEAR.

Willard,

How are you classifying "top earners"?

Per my post in 1.4, this definition makes a huge difference in the numbers, and Obama and Buffet are using significantly different definitions.

Willard

You are right, I meant to say $600 billion over 10 YEARS. That is not much money when it comes to making this country work at the rate the liberals like to spend. This country needs to cut back on spending and we ALL need to start paying more taxes. I am in the top earner class, I wil glady pay more IF and only IF everyone has to step up. You can be sure my extra payment will be far higher than most. I will have no problem with that. Years down the road we can always drop taxes again when we get out of this mess. My kids and grandkids deserve better.

Willard

Claiming you want increased revenue without any thoughts on spending makes you look angry at people with more money so make them pay! Dems calls for arithmetic should know this. We all know its a revenue with more cost cutting measures combined. Anything else coming out of peoples mouths is nothing more than uncreditable diatribe

For a man who has perfected the art of not paying taxes on his earnings, perhaps Mr. Buffett should put his wallet where his mouth is. Most of what he has proposed will not impact him because he rarely sells his investments and dividends are reinvested, which means both types of income are "unrealized" and thus untaxable. He gives a great deal to charities – which is wonderful and I applaud him for his giving attitude – however, he gives stocks not cash most of the time. Since he was never taxed on the unrealized income, he gets to deduct what he never claimed as earned.

That doesn't mean that I agree with increased taxes - I don't. But I do think that those who are calling for them should at least have to pay them.

You've got to love the right wing mythology they sell with every breath. Any noise is fine if it obscures the truth. Taxing the rich is bad because . . . ? Lies flow to justify the continued transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. Lies.

Who are the job creators? YOU AND I and anyone else who makes and spends money. Simple reality is that the rich spend precious little of their income compared to the rest of us. So, we, regular folks create the incentive to hire more workers when WE regular people spend money. Our purchases on a daily basis or for special occasions is the engine of the economy. In other words, the BRILLIANT stimulus efforts of OBAMA were the source of the economic recovery because it puts money into the hands of everyone. Tax cuts for the wealthy have a minimal impact.

Republicans lie with every breath to protect their wealthy friends. Folks like Norquist are the cause of America's deficits when they invite GW Bush to pay for a war with tax cuts. You're a moron if you buy the bs he, Trump and the other professional liars push. The stimulus was a necessary cure for the republican insanity.

You hiring right now?

Jay is right in that it doesn't really matter what we do. The solution will have to be a tax increase with a spending cut. There are ways to do this that will make the most sense but it is just whether or not the talking heads in DC will actually do what is good for the whole country and not those that line their pockets for a change, and that is both sides of the isle.

I still think something like a fair tax with reduced spending is a good option. I think there would need to be some tweaks and secondary attachments if you will to a fair tax but better than what we have now.

Otherwise for what we have, yes those who can afford it, the rich, need to be taxed the same or a little more as the rest of us and for those at the bottom that would be where more restrictions and reforms come to play so that we can eliminate those the choose only to live off the mailbox money instead of actually trying to get a job.

And yes taxing the rich won't kill anything, it will make them want to invest because then they can deduct that which in turn, if more people or working then more money goes into the economy ect ect. You can make the cycle spin in a positive way where money is spent and invested and those doing so still make good returns, though maybe a little longer on the ROI, or you make it spin in a negative way where people look for short quick ROI, let greed drive the boat, and hoard money since there is little to no incentive to invest.

You have to break the cycle somewhere. But again we all will have to pay some more just need to ensure the middle class gets hit the least with the upper class taking the largest raise and the lower class having stricter rules for the handouts along with other spending reforms. And yes I think there needs to be better definition on the upper to middle range and where that stops. I think it should go up a little more than proposed but not to the million + range for the lower limit either like what Buffet is probably talking about.

It is time

Justice-- just because someone reinvests the dividends, doesn't mean the dividend isn't taxable.

"Raising taxes on rich won't chill economy"

And its not going to hurt either!

Check out these old numbers and let us know how taking everything the rich own would help in the long run.

Government's mountain of debt

(2011 numbers)

Medicare: $24.8 trillion - Obligation per household: $212,500

Social Security: $21.4 trillion - Obligation per household: $183,400

Federal debt: $9.4 trillion - Obligation per household: $79,900

Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion - Obligation per household: $31,200

Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion - Obligation per household: $17,000

State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion - Obligation per household: $44,800

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm

Spending must be cut significantly. Tax the rich and everyone else to oblivion and it won't solve the problem.

Hardtostarboard -

I believe 10 to 1 spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase would amount to serious spending cuts NOW!, but unfortunately Obama can't wear big boy pants to the playground where the GOP toddlers want to "negotiate." I'm impressed that after getting hosed in the election, losing seats in the house, the senate, and losing the presidential race, you still can't get your head around the fact that America thinks tax increases are a GOOD thing NOW and Republicans are wrong NOW!

Tax increases alone will not help this country claw out of the massive hole the GOP has helped dig us into, but its part of a solution. A solution that would have included serious spending cuts, but were it not for your GOP pledge to uphold the Constitution of Grover Norquist for the United States of Special Interests. Time to do exactly what you say. Put on your big boy pants, admit defeat, and help the adults clean up the mess the toddlers helped make. Thanks!

Bill- Austin

You left wing nuts just don't understand. Let me clue you in. After 26 years running my own manufacturing business with my own money:

gross - 1.3 million

vehicle expenses - 18,600.00 - money that goes to local mechanics & dealers, I call them fellow Americans.

freight charges - 15,000.00 - again fellow Americans making a living

computer, equipment rental, misc. - 3,100.00

insurance charges - 7,300.00 - a necessity because of liberal legal policies

cost of materials - 570,000.00 - all bought in the United States

employee wages - 396,000.00

employee pensions - 8,800.00

accountant fees - 3,700.00 - necessary because of our assinine tax codes

rent - 35,000.00 - thankfully paid to a rich man who owns the building

taxes - 65,000.00 - includes local, county, state, and federal - does not include the taxes my employees pay when they spend their wages, so there is more money that goes into the tax coffers.

telephone - 3,700.00

lots of other minor expenses

net income - 371,000.00 - I DO NOT take the net profits and put them in my pocket. I need that money to continue on next year.

After all that I paid an additional 90,000.00 in personnal income tax

Where am I not paying a fair share?????

It is time,

Great post!

JH-479998

Damn! Isn't a bitch to take home only 371k each year.

Sounds like you have a successful corporation and doing what every other CEO did in America, in the past, paying much more than you in taxes. If you could only take home 350K a year would you give it all up and live on the beach?

JH...

How much do you take home in personal income each year? You were quick to list your income taxes and your company's net income, but not how much you claim in personal income each year. What about investments that you own? Stocks, equities, bonds, etc? Do you collect dividends on any other investments? There are many ways to increase and grow your wealth outside of your core earnings vehicle, and those things will usually increase your tax burden as well. My family earns almost $500,000 in net income each year, but we also manage personal investments of $3 million + each year (land, stocks, equities, bonds, etc.), so our tax burden usually increases as our wealth does. I would also suggest that you look into using a tax consulting firm that can help reduce your company's tax burden. It may cost you more than $3,700 for the year, but it may save you $50,000. Play the game like the big boys and use the burgeoning tax code to your advantage.

The wealthy won't be affected by a tax hike because most of them didn't even know there was a recession and weren't materially affected. Does anyone really think Buffett had to start shopping at the dollar mart?

@dick, you sound envious. Why not start your own company and provide jobs? Btw, he said his personal take was not $371k. Since some goes back into the business. And even if he did so what? Why has it become a bad thing to be successful?

I'm raising a family of 5 on under a 100k, you think me and the vast majority of the rest of us care about your 375k a year woes......

We don't

The greatest generation my arse..... I'm 32 & my future looks bleak because your generation thought the best way to play any game was to just outspend your opponent.

SSI... probably not, NJ State pension.....probably not, personal savings for retirement.... not in this economy

Trickle down...... the concept offends me

sleuth23

I have to claim and am taxed on the net income because I am a subchapter S corp. I take home whatever isn't neded to keep the company running another year. Maybe half the net. These figures are for last year and it was the first year that the company went over $1ml after 26 years. I have NO investment income. My company is my investment. I have been comfortable over the years but am getting increasingly uncomfortable with all the "fair share" Bs going on in this country right now. I may just start playing like the "big boys" if this crap continues. If I were in your shoes with $500K income I would most likely play the game very differently.

Dick - I am just about ready to give it all up and live on the beach. But what would my employees do?

I have probably contributed over $350 million to the tax coffers in this country and keep hearing that I am not paying my fair share. I certainly don't have near that amount to retire with yet. Not even a tenth of that amount.

JPhillips - You created your situation. I am working on mine. I hope your happy in your life and don't start feeling like you're owed something. We all have the same opportunities. This country is a country of equal opportunity and should not be a country of equal outcome.

Raising the taxes on the upper class will do little to solve our debt problems because the problem is not on how much they are taxed, rather the tax loop holes that they have.

We need to close the tax loop holes so they pay the amount of their wealth as they should. This will also make the lower classes feel better and help with our debt.

This is only part of what we need to do to resolve the debt problem. We as a nation need to ban together and have all our Law Maker's salaries and benefits frozen (or reduced) until our country has surplus monies annually and operating in the black without hurting those on Social Security, Medicare, or our Veterans. They should only be paid when their job is done - not being paid to accomplish nothing and I do not care what party they are from.

Nice scam JH Corporations pay nothing in taxes, it's passed on to the consumer. Your company paid ZERO! Furthermore what you pay to make money has nothing to do with tax you pay. If you can't realize a profit you shouldn't be in business at all.

SO with the facts correct anyone that earns over a million dollars is responsible for a fair amount of impact tax. That means NOT 14% like Rumney pays. Most people earning 75 thousand are paying 25% of higher. Seems the 14% is a whole 11% to low just to start with.

Nobody owes me anything, but the bigger issue is that Generation X, Y, ......

Have been born into a country riddled with debt, less opportunity then ever before, and less jobs then ever before.

Great job baby boomers, remember when you hug your kids next time that you put a lien on their future.

lulu....

I don't think this is a matter of vilifying success, but merely a conundrum we face at the moment. Here is an article about a man that made his living in the most capitalistic way possible, and he earned it honestly. He is telling Americans that is ok to increase the tax rates on the rich. He is called the "Oracle of Omaha" by the very same people that now want to disregard his advice as not necessary, or misguided. I think his record speaks for itself, but what I can't figure out is why no one on the right wants to follow his advice. Besides his surplus of honesty and integrity, he is the picture perfect GOP poster boy. Maybe you guys should listen to a guy that earned the right to be heard.

Squidword

You are wrong. Owners of subchapter S corps pay taxes on the total net income just as if it were money in their pocket. And any money that I pay to others so that I can make a profit in my company gets taxed when they claim it as income to their company. You just don't understand how things work in this country. You must be a progressive/liberal.

If you paid 90k in personnal income taxes, that means you must have earned somewhere around 360k. Why would you need 360k in wages there are so many deductions that you can take legally. I don't really think you know what you are talking about. Probably a conservative blogger.

Sounds good, Warren. Now how about we take 90% of your wealth and give it to the government. Whats that, Warren? Oh, you think it should be everyone else that pays taxes not a tax cheat such as yourself? Anyone else tired of guys like Warren and Michael Moore flapping their gums?

@ Steve Mosgo

Your logic is so niave, it is ammzing you can even type.

We need to collect every damn dime anyone can spare to get out of the mess we are in.

lulu98 @dick, you sound envious. Why not start your own company and provide jobs?

Been there done that, actually when taxes were higher than now and I enjoyed every day. Now I just spend the money that didn't go back into my business, and since I've already paid taxes on it I just have to worry about the income it generates. However thanks to the Bush II effort I have plenty of losses to balance things out.

There is nothing more fulfilling than running your own business, hiring and helping employees with their life and giving them skills and making money all at the same time. I would love to start not only that over again but many other things also, but life goes on and we all slow down - except Buffett.

According to the CBO it's $70 billion over ten years or $7 billion a year. No amount of liberal lies will change that. $7 billion out of a $1.1 trillion problem is 0.7%.

So until libs are willing to tell us where the other 99.3% will come from they can STFU.

A euro

Yes I paid $90K in income taxes on $371K net profit. That works out to be around 26 -27%. You're right that I am a conservative but I'm not blogging, I am stating facts. I have to pay taxes on money that I need to keep in the company to continue working and employing people. Now the progressive/liberals want me to pay even more taxes. I am not a millionaire or billionaire that those clowns started talking about. I am one of the Americans who will be hurt by higher taxes. If you don't think I am paying my fair share please tell me what that share should be.

The rich paying more the poor getting a hand up the middle class coming back is all smoke and mirrors. The only way America has a chance of coming back for the poor and middle class is if the deadbeats in Washington stop thinking about where their next campaign donation is coming from and what else they need to be doing for their next election and get to work to do the peoples business. Our beloved Congress only works about 130 days a year. Fridays and Mondays are travel days and Tuesdays are only for voting after 6:30pm. Lobbyists control most of their time in Washington and at "Home" spending billions each year to determine the course of our country. Sure we vote but are the folks in Washington listening? Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our cities are looking more like a scene from the Worlds of Warcraft video game more and more each year. Everything in Congress has to take months and months if not years to accomplish, Unless of course we go to war somewhere then we can mobilize at a moments notice. War seems to be the only thing we can ever seem to get the money for, Why is that? We will pay an actor to pretend to be someone else millions and millions of dollars for one movie but we can't seem to find money for the people who are responsible for our kids for most of the day, and who are responsible for their education TEACHERS. We spend billions around the world feeding the hungry but when it comes to right here at home the hungry ( mostly children ) are looked upon as freeloaders, taking from the system. The rich and powerful banks can defraud the American people, get huge bonuses and go about their business as if nothing happened, but if you are struggling and God forbid bounce a check trying to pay a bill or buy food you WILL BE PUNISHED. OK life is not fair, but here in America it is up to our elected officials to help make it fair, not line their pockets for their next election. It is up to our elected officials to govern responsibly for the people, not the highest bidder. It is up to our elected officials to ensure that our education system is the best in the world, our roads and bridges, factories, food and drugs are safe and on and on. To govern is a tough job no doubt, To govern well and responsibly is even harder. And the biggest responsibility lies with each and every American Citizen to step up and take responsibility for ones self and to hold accountable those in office to be responsible, speak out call your Representatives , hound them if you have to lobbyists do, and make sure they are working for America not some wealthy donor or large corporation. Washington is broken! It is Washington who is keeping America from reaching her full potential. Our Representatives and Senators are more worried about themselves than any of us! If they did an honest days work and really did put our nation first we would be humming along leading the world as we used to. But as Washington goes so goes the country, gridlock, stagnation but fear not another election is just over the horizon. All of our Representatives will again have a chance to tell you what you want to hear and go back kick back in their lush office in their big comfortable leather chairs and start thinking how can I keep this this wonderful job? Meanwhile another year where nothing gets done goes by, The rich get richer, our Veterans are still struggling to get the services they so deserve, the big banks continue to screw us all, our roads and bridges continue to deteriorate our students continue to fall behind, our population continues to get sicker, Health care continues to skyrocket, Homes continue to be foreclosed upon more and more people become reliant on charity and public assistance, major natural disasters continue to ravage our country and on and on we go. But fear not when all seems to be collapsing around us, when everything seems to be spinning out of control, just think of your Representatives in Washington kicked back in their big leather chairs and fear not for we are in good hands.

buffet would rather the wealthy pay more and not close the loop holes its cheaper. as far as jphillips is concerned no one told you to have kids you can't afford. its the attitude of the younger give me generation that all is supposed to be easy for me because my babyboomer parents gave me all i needed. but now i have to work and its just not fair waa waa

@okie58

I didn't have kids i couldn't afford. We get by, its close but we survive. I'm a teacher & my wife is a hair dresser we make just under a 100k together. That seems like a reasonable wage to have 3 kids on....

My parents had 3 kids and we lived comfortably my whole childhood. My mom never worked & my dad never made over a 100k in his life.....

It's hillarious that the older generation who used my generations future like a credit card calls us the "give me" generation.

Like the fact that you bought a house for next to nothing in the 80's that probably worth 5x that much now means you've been responsible.

When your old & sick and the "give me" generation is paying for all of your expenses & covering the trillion dollar defecit ran up under your generations watch we will see who is laughing.

Anybody over the age of 55 that thinks they have left the world a better place for their kids is sick & dellusional.

@okie58

its the attitude of the younger give me generation that all is supposed to be easy for me because my babyboomer parents gave me all i needed. but now i have to work and its just not fair waa waa

What did my parents generation give me?

A world where it cost 50-100k to go to college?

A world where the house my parents paid 85K for is now worth 475K & i have to move somewhere else to be able to afford a home?

A world where entire sections of the world wish us all dead?

A world where the same job my dad raised a family of 5 on either dosen't exsist or has been reduced to minimum wage?

A world where the country i live in has so much debt that the future looks almost destined for disaster?

Great job, thanks for nothing.

JPhillips

I am over 55 and have 3 kids, all over 30 now. They have been taught the right way. They have good jobs and are contributing members to society. I encourage them to strive for whatever they want in life. If they end up very successful and wealthy I will applaud them. I don't quite understand your attitude. MOST people over 55 are NOT sick and dellusional. The ones that I would casll sick and dellusional are the ones that feel that they are owed a retirement by our younger generation. If they are successful they will not be a burden on this country.

If you want to blame anyone for the current mess where you need two parents working just to make ends meet then you should take a hard look at taxes. Whether you want to believe it or not a vast majority of earned income has to go to our bloated government. If we had system where everyone recieved their total earnings on their paycheck and then had to write a check to the government for all the taxes we would see a revolution in this country.

squidword Nobody who makes $75,000 pays 25%!!! You confuse marginal tax rates with effective tax rates. You might want to edumacate yourself!!

JH – Thank you for employing fellow Americans. Someone's father, mother, sister, brother, husband, wife, etc. Thank you for no doubt working 24/7 to keep your company successful. Thank you for all your sacrificing both personally and financially to employ Americans and use fellow American companies. I'm sorry that there are people out there that don't realize your sacrifices. They don't understand that YOU are the one that gambles your life's savings. That YOU are the one that has the most risk if your business doesn't succeed. I'm baffled that anyone would think they have the right to ask for more. I don't own my own business. I never had that extra drive and comfort to risk it. And I certainly don't expect to ride on your back robbing your pockets while you work hard. I will never understand why people work so hard at finding ways to blame and take from others instead of just working hard themselves. I wish you and your company much success in the years to come.

jphillips sounds like you are doing ok with life so why so bitter against the babyboomers. if it wasn't for us you probably would not even have a shot at college like many boomers who had to work 2-3 jobs to keep their families off the streets. you complain yet you reap the rewards of our fights for all to have the same opportunities its our gov that got side tracked and is killing america

JH

"Yes I paid $90K in income taxes on $371K net profit. That works out to be around 26 -27%."

The Vegas Casinos bring in 100s of millions and they pay less taxes-and they are subchapter-S corps. A C-corp pays (in theory because the end user really pays it)15% to the first what is it... 5 million? So why would you pay those percentages?

Corporations don't pay the taxes anymore than Wal-Mart pays sales tax....the customers do and they only collect it. Furthermore, you need a new accountant. Fourth of all Rumney only paid 14%! Why is it that you think he should pay lower rates than everyone else?

Steve Mosgovia

Increasing the tax on the top earners brings in 16 billion dollars. Throw that at a trillion dollar plus deficit and see what happens. That is enough to run the governement for a little more than a day.

So what do you suggest? Cutting SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and salaries to union employees such as firefighters, police, teachers, workers who build high-rise office/condominium buildings for the rich? And what would you use those funds for?

Why not use the tax increase to do the same?

The "baby boomer" generation will be known for taking the baton from the rightfully declared "Greatest Generation" and handing it to "Generation X" in a complete mess, from top to bottom.

TES what are you talking about. You need to go back to school and learn how to add!

25%
$36,250 to $87,850

5% State Income tax

7.5% SS

1.5% UE

and we have medicare property tax sales tax excise tax fuel tax sin tax telecom tax

Just what planet have you been on?

You're right its way over 25%!

We are talkin federal income taxes. When you comapre yourself to Warren or Mitt, you use your total tax burden to their federal income taxes!! This is apples and oranges. I have almost 15 years of education and training beyond high school and have gione from nothing to the top 1% of earners. I will put my math skills and thinking ability up against you any time. I have lunch on the likes of you!!! You will always be a bottom feeder with wits like you have.

Squidword

Getting you to understand is a very difficutlt thing. Yes, subchapter S corps pay income tax. They pay a percentage based on the amount of net income. The person that owns the corp, in this case me, pays that tax. On 370K it was about 26-27%. I don't have a lot of deductions so I pay a slightly higher percentage that someone who can take deductions, like President Obama and his wife. They paid slightly over 20% on about 800K income. Obama even said that his secretary, Anita Decker, paid a higher percentage than he did on her income of 95K. We need reform not higher taxes.

Vegas corporations have more deductions than Carter has pills.

I do not need another accountant.

Romney paid 14% on dividends NOT INCOME. That is how our tax code is written. Does it need to be fixed? Yes, and the republicans are suggesting ways to make it better while the democrats are just calling for raising taxes. I say raise them on everyone or don't raise them at all.

Warren Buffett.....Net Worth.....$ 46,000,000,000 As of September 2012

Heya Mr. Buffett....how about writing a check to the Treasury of the United States of America for a total of $ 45,999,000,000 for paying down the National Debt. That will leave you $ 1,000,000 to live on (GASP).

Thank you for your ONE PERCENTER contribution.

ldo, why not get you and all your friends to donate a 1000 bucks to the national treasury.

I just called Mr. Buffett. I asked him to write a BIG CHECK to effectively raise his past tax rate and be Patriotic.

He said F*** NO!!

I JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT!!!! We were BOTH LAUGHING!!!!

And Confound you JH for being so Dang Logical. I won't be happy until I HAVE ALL YOUR MONEY AND THE POWER!!!

Buffett is such a hypocrite.

Not that it is a taxing problem when you spend that much per capita.

Steve MosgoVIA FACEBOOK

Increasing the tax on the top earners brings in 16 billion dollars. Throw that at a trillion dollar plus deficit and see what happens. That is enough to run the governement (sic) for a little more than a day.

That is like saying "putting a drop of ointment on a gunshot wound is not going to heal it". No, but it is a start and you have to continue to apply things that will assist in closing and healing the wound.

Trevor

Do you even understand the definition of "hypocrite"? Warren Buffet actually understands business and the economy (far better than the pandering Mitt Romney, for example) and he is willing to pay more taxes himself for the good of the country. What part of that makes him a hypocrite?

So if we raise taxes on the "wealthy" it slows down the economy and, at best, gets about $60 Billion. Our deficit is $1.2 Trillion. That is 5% of the deficit. That is like a family who is borrowing $50,000 a year telling the husband to take a part-time job making $2,500 a year. Every little bit helps - but basically doesn't make a difference. Same with taxing the "wealthy". Doesn't make a real difference AND hurts the economy.

Or option "B". Our GDP is about $15.5 Trillion. If we GREW the economy by just 2% more that would increase GDP by $310 Billion. Estimated taxes are currently about 15% of GDP which is $46.5 Billion.

So let me see if I get this straight: We can either tax the wealthy and take $50 Billion and damage the economy at the same time OR have economy growing policies and increase GDP by just 2% and get about $46.5 Billion (about the same amount) AND have a growing economy to where next year even MORE tax revenue?

Why do liberals not understand the EASIEST way to get more tax revenue is the actually GROW the economy rather than punishing success?

Yep! Taking it from the poor and giving it all to the rich--that's really going to help the debt, right?//sarcasm off.

If raising revenue won't make any difference--then, hell, let's just forget the debt, right?

What's wrong with raising revenue and cutting expenses as Obama advocates? It works for my personal debt--why not our national debt? Sheesh!

Cantankerous

Warren Buffet understands (apparently you don't) that every wealthy American paying more taxes has more benefit than just him writing a check. By the way, when it comes to writing checks, he is leaving almost all of his fortune to charity.

And, probiz, you need to have a strong middle class consumer to grow the economy. Trickle down economics has NOT worked for 30 years. It never will.

Listen to Hanhauer. You'll never have enough rich people to buy enough goods. You need more consumers. Grow the middle class (and don't worry about the billionaires--they'll be ok--really!)

ProBusiness

If ensuring the rich have even more money actually helped the economy we would be enjoying the greatest economic boom in history, because the wealthy individuals and the major corporations have more money on hand than at any time in the history of the world.

If unequal distribution of income were the key to prosperity we would have prosperity now. Isn't unequal distribution of income incompatible with prosperity?

If low tax rates are the key to economic success why did Reagan raise taxes?

Don't conservatives understand that we can grow the economy by investing the additional tax revenues in infrastructure projects, support of small business and education?

How about doing this: If Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes they need to match 10 to 1 reductions in spending to increases in taxes! The fact is that we are receiving record amounts of revenue to the government, but, this same government NEVER wants to sacrifice themselves! It is not well-known, but, Obama and his family has had over $1.4 BILLION spent on them for protection, entertainment and travel expenses! This is about 3 times more than the previous administration! Sounds like sacrifice might start at home! Maybe you don't need to spend a few hundred thousand dollars escorting the family to get a few ice cream cones! Maybe Michelle can go to the organic produce store a few less times per year (at about $100,000/ trip)! Maybe the White House can eliminate their full-time projectionists (saving well over $100,000/year) and teach the President to put his own DVD's in the player!

The waste goes on and on! How about Nancy Pelosi railing against corporations having their private jets and she made sure she had new jets just for her use! Yo, Nancy, have you ever heard of United?

We need to cut costs and raise revenue. The current game of blaming the people who have created so much for this country has to end before they all leave and take their well-earned money somewhere else!

Silver Hammer, why is it that libs always call people creating businesses and jobs "trickle down" economics, but, when the government says that they "create and save" jobs you slavishly bow to their wisdom! The government taking from one person and giving to another is purely "government trickle down"! Why is it that you cannot see that we need less government in our lives and more freedom to live our lives!

Tinkle upon economics has a 30 year history of failure. After tax income for the 1% is higher than ever before. In the meantime incomes for most Americans have gone down. Some have lost as much as 30% of their income.

That is the failure of tinkle upon economics and now that upside down pyramid is about to topple. We desperately need a strong middle class to balance the economy.

And government spending is "priming the pump". The New Deal delivered 9% economic growth year after year after year. Them's the facts.

inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png (PNG Image, 631x346 pixels)

David Sirota: FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really? - Truthdig

no more filbert....."ldo, why not get you and all your friends to donate a 1000 bucks to the national treasury."

I DONATE about $ 8,000 per year to the National Treasury.

Little good it does because the Internal Revenue Service (overseen by TurboTax Geithner) gives out about $ 4,600,000,000 each year (and it is growing) to ILLEGAL ALIENS (Immigrants) using their ITIN to submit Federal Tax returns and claiming the Child Tax Credit for children, NOT THEIRS, living in Mexico.

What my friends do is their business.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer...."What's wrong with raising revenue and cutting expenses as Obama advocates? It works for my personal debt--why not our national debt? Sheesh!"

The thing that is WRONG is Mr. Obama and his co-horts in crime have NOT PROVIDED any recommendations for CUTTING EXPENSES. All Mr. Obama wants to do is:

TAX + SPEND + REDISTRIBUTE and REGULATE.

Guess what is going to be INCLUDED in the "BUDGET DEAL" ? Yep, you guessed it.....another Progressive request for an increase in our National Debt LIMIT.

Those who voted for Mr. Obama again is getting what they voted for.....more ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.

Sheeeesh !!!!

In the meantime incomes for most Americans have gone down. Some have lost as much as 30% of their income.

If we tax them more their income will go up as it is most middle class family's hardly pay federal income tax. were in the upper 20%(91K) of America and were taxed at 6% when we made 70K we paid 4%.

Nowhere in Obama's position or Buffets for that matter do they suggest that they want to only raise taxes and not reduce spending as well. Obama knows it needs to be a mix of both. The republicans are suggesting one without the other and you can bet they won't agree to any cuts in their own states. We need to cut our pork spending for sure, reduce our military massively (seriously...11 aircraft carriers?!) and raise taxes on the upper class. I also can't understand people who seem to think that Healthcare should be cut but not the military. Aren't they both meant to protect our lives? The constitution is tasked to defend us militarily, but its also task with providing for our "general welfare". Sounds like healthcare falls under that.

I thinks that all know now what a load of BS the whole "don't tax the job creators" mantra is. Taxing equally is not a matter of taxing people at the same percentage...it's a matter of taxing them such they we all make equal sacrifices...be that 5% for the very poor or 50% for the very wealthy.

The whole problem for your class envy people is that Reid or Obama has not offered to CUT anything.

They just want to tax tax tax....This is your failure of a president.

Everyone says balanced approach, but the Dems are still refusing to CUT anything. Why would they be stalling the process....obstructionists to saving America.

Why are you liberals so bent on spending spending spending.?

BTW - Buffet's already sheltered his money. Tax rates going up won't touch his money....that phony figure you guys are spouting will never materialize.

J Willard - Even if you are right...$600 Bill over ten years. Well, current deficits are over $1 trillion per year.

So in ten years....$10 Trillion in debt - $600 Bill taxes = SPENDING PROBLEM.

It's simple math liberals.....You didn't even solve 1 years deficit with the tax increase.

don..."If low tax rates are the key to economic success why did Reagan raise taxes?"

During the Reagan presidency, the top marginal rate of tax in the United States fell from 70% to 31%, while revenue continued to increase every year from 1980 ($885B) to 1990 ($1.93T). (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_1990USbn)

According to the CBO historical tables, government revenue as a percentage of GDP increased from 31.8% in 1980 to 33.2% in 1989. ( http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1980_1990USp_13s1li011mcn_F0t)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

It seems this Democrats economic concepts are lost on too many:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

So you agree, apart from making people who campaigned and voted on the "rich pay their fair share" mantra from feeling better about themselves, it will do almost nothing to reduce the defecit (although considering how much attention the democrats have given to the issue over the past two years, you would think it was going to pay off the whole national debt overnight and buy everyone a puppy). However it may very well have bad consequences for investment, which would not bode well for not just wall street, but small businesses looking for private capital as well.

Unless something is done about the spending habits in DC, no amount of revenue is going to really matter. In fact, adding revenue will likely make the situation worse because over the last few decades, when revenue has gone up, government spending has increased more than whatever the revenue increase was.

Ron is right. We have to address spending as well as increase in revenue. That is one thing that just baffles me and both sides do this, oh look more money lets spend it! Not hey lets use this to reduce the deficit/country's debt. Perhaps I'm looking at it to simplistically but seems to make sense. Again though need spending reductions (including the military) and revenue increases with most likely a complete tax code overhaul.

Wow - make the middle class feel better. What a load of _____ing bull__it. I'm middle class - would like to someday be upper class. I am not so petty as to feel better about ANYONE having to waste their money.

And yes - reinvested dividends are fully taxable.

And to the A__clown who feels he is a job creator - are you currently hiring? Until you have run a business, paid employees, dealt with the unbelievably large governmental bureacracy at the city, county, state and federal level, (and yes I have) - you have NOT A CLUE as to the stress that this causes.

if all you people are smart come up with answers then....oh and by the way the its the war machine which was and always be the reason for this debt....but hey thats the price you pay to be the global policeman

Bluegrass, hiap, Ron, Time, Charles -

I think all of you guys have made great points up here that are logical as well. I'm curious if all of you felt the same way during GW's administration? Government has always had a spending problem, that's a fact. It is also a fact that demand for products and services creates jobs, and that the people most likely to spend their money in the short term are in middle to lower income brackets. We need jobs, we need tax revenue created by those jobs, and we need a country wide moral boost. We need the government of this country to invest in THIS country, not on fighting wars in other countries. We also need the 2003 tax cuts that helped carve out this nice deficit to be reversed. We also need to remember that the last time this country prospered in a major way, the last time the wealth gap was the smallest, and the last time we had a budget surplus was under a Democrat. Maybe we should try some of their solutions before we're so quick to back the people that watched the opposite happen on their watch.

sleuth23,

Thanks for the compliment, and here are some comments related to your post:

I think GWB was an awful president from an economics perspective (and pretty much everything else I cared about). Unfortunately, I think Obama is just as bad on economics (although I agree with him on many social issues).

Government has always had a spending problem, but starting with GWB and continuing with Obama, we've overspent to levels I never imagined we would do. Running a deficit to GDP ratio of about 40% is acceptable...pushing that to nearly 100% is a significant drag on the economy, and hurts all of us.

I was against the Bush tax cuts from the start, and I'm still against them now. Assuming we had accompanying spending cuts, I would revert to the Clinton rates for the top 10% now, and increase it on everyone else based on economic benchmarks such as 3% GDP growth for a year.

As to the budget surplus in the 90's...we had a Democrat as president, and a Republican congress. I give Clinton a lot of credit, but I think the Gingrich lead congress also deserves credit.

I'm all for investing in this country, but I have 2 concerns. First, when we try big spending projects (ex: the 2009 stimulus), we tend to spend a large % of the money on things that do not promote future economic growth (ex: the $3.5 million turtle crossing in my home town).

Second, we already outspend the rest of the world in a number of key areas, but we seem to get very little bang for the buck. As an example, we spend far more per student than any country in the world and we have the lowest student to teacher ratio...but we continue to be poorly ranked versus other industrialized nations. I don't think a lack of money is the issue...in some ways I think it's part of the problem because we spend so much we wind up creating buracracies that inhibit growth (ex: I hear over and over again that a major problem for teachers today is the amount of time they have to spend on paperwork instead of teaching).

"oh and by the way the its the war machine which was and always be the reason for this debt"

Well that's a complete lie. It's entitlements that will kill us. Obama and democrats have promised something for nothing and are borrowing to make you think it's actually possible. There can be cuts in the military but it is Medicare/Medicaid that is growing exponentially while everything else is growing linearly. Obamacare only makes it worse.

Liberals have mortgaged gen x/y/z, etc. futures to buy votes now, and too many suckers fell for it. I'm a boomer who has no taxable income as it is with most boomers. We won't pay for the idiocy you just voted in, you will.

Again there is no such thing as something for nothing. Obama is borrowing 40% of what he spends, that means 40% of his "prosperity" is a complete lie. You want a dose of reality? Figure out what it would do to your finances if you had to pay 80% more in taxes, that is reality.

Ron - first off thanks for the support on the post 1.12.

Sleuth - thanks to for the support and you make great points that I agree with too. Spend here not elsewhere. I agree with Ron too in that I have always thought the government had a spending problem, regardless of who was in office, just seemed to spend on different things is all. Ron is right too that it has really been the last two presidencies that have really gotten us into these problems more than we already were; when I say that I also include congress and senate in this since the president can only do so much, in general all of DC has blame in this somewhere.

But like I've said for a long time now our problem is two much divide and not enough coorperation. These guys in DC are always worried about the next election rather than addressing the big problems now. Of which many will have unpopular solutions since they have festered so long and have had bandaid fix after bandaid fix applied.

Until we find a balanced middle road we won't solve anything but it would appear that maybe some cracks in the wall are forming and that maybe finally DC is getting the message but we will see, I'm not holding my breath.

Like I said above in post 1.12 maybe we need a totally new system like the fair tax but with some tweaks or like in both my posts regardless of what we do and how we do it we need more revenue but also have to cut spending. We have to do both, end of story. We also have to be smart about it and will need to stage certain aspects of the cuts. Biggest thing is when we do it we have to protect the middle class area at all costs, the other ends will need to bare the brunt of the focus.

But again its clear status quo isn't working and unless we start to work together nothing will change. IMO if we could get rid of some of these wing nut on either side along with some other fundamental reforms like term limits, reigning in lobbyists, ect. (which should eliminate the wingnuts) we could get something done. We just have to stop thinking short term me me me and think long term good for country.

It will be a tough road but we can do it and come out better on the other end.

Remove illegal immigrants from receiving "entitlements"

Remove lobbyists from influencing our "public servants"

Remove the tax cuts for the wealthy

Remove the tax breaks for businesses earning over 1 billion per year

Remove the limits on U.S. energy exploration

Remove the trade deficiets by imposing more tariffs on China

Remove our govt from giving OUR tax money to private businesses

It has never been the American philosophy to punish people for being successful. Much less so to take theirs away and give it to those who never earned it.

That deficit everyone is freaking out about is indeed a military deficit. That and the tax cuts, and it is bush/cheney you can thank for it. This chart has been vetted. It is real.

The military/Industrial Complex and the tax cuts are the largest reasons for this deficit.

CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault

miklkit,

OK, so when Bush (the RINO that spent like a Democrat) was President, everything negative is totally his fault, no matter how many Democrats voted for Bush's economic policies. I mean, not one Democrat ever voted to increase military spending.

But when Obama is President, everything deemed negative is the Republicans fault, no matter what it is, and Obama, who voted with Republicans and against Democrats on the Free Trade act, never takes any responsibility for anything.

(Double standards are necessarily illogical.)

Lisa not only are you a fake and an id10t and totally illogical on top of it. Buffet has given more of his money to the poor than Rumney even earned. You can add your income, Bush's income, and whole lot more incomes to that. For you to state Buffet has no concern about the poor is a laugh. Since when do you know so much more about business than Buffet? I'd like to hear that!

Buffet just buys companies that are undervalued and holds them until they appreciate. You don't have to be smart, just consistent. He claims to want to pay more taxes but has over a dozen lawsuits against his companies for, you guessed it, not paying their taxes.

Buffets definition of rich is NOT Obama's. Buffets taxable income is mostly investment returns, he is NOT in favor of doing much there, just on earned income of which he has very little. All his comments are self serving, period.

Buffett is certainly welcome to contribute more tax to the government anytime he wants.

Rather than give to the government, he set up a charitable foundation so that he can control where his money goes. The conclusion I reach is that he would like little people to contribute to the government so that your money can be spent as the government sees fit, but his wealth should be treated differently.

yeah buffet is a joke if he's for the tax increase why doesn't he pay more volantarily? just how much do the dems in office really pay and is the 250,000 just a little more than they make? sorry I say the dems but it's really both the repubs are just as bad. I have lost faith in our gov. to do whats right for the people its all about them and whats in it for me and let the people eat cake

Valhalla It is my understanding that Buffett is contesting federal taxes on some of his companies. He has a right, no an obligation to his shareholders to contest any tax he thinks is not correct. If he had no case, these issues would already be resolved. He probably would owe interest and penalties if he is wrong! He did not get where he is by making bad bets!!! These issues are complex and the courts have ruled against the IRS in some cases. You oversimplify the whole issue.

VAL "You don't have to be smart, just consistent."

So you have the same income as Buffet? Because you know you only need be consistent, right?

DO you have the filing numbers of these alleged law suits?

Buffet is just playing the "Rich, liberal man's" game! He is saying that it is fine to tax the wealthy so that his money is now considered "good" and will not be taken! The same thing happens with Hollywood stars who also say that the rich should be taxed more, but, they have their salaries funneled through production companies who pay their housing and expenses and they have very little of their money subject to taxation!

Who is on record as wanting their taxes raised?

Bill Gates

Warren Buffet

Stephen King (the horror writer)

Bill Maher

Barack Obama

They understand who are the real job creators. The middle class.

All that the low tax rates have done is send the money to the Cayman Islands and Swiss banks instead of getting reinvested in business. Raising taxes makes reinvesting your money more attractive.

How many of them have voluntarily sent a check to the Dept of the Treasury towards paying down the $16 Trillion debt to demonstration their conviction that they want to pay more?

NH...the answer is not one of them. They are all talk. And that includes this bunch:

Rich Democrats:

John Kerry (D): Net worth $193 million.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.: Net worth $82 million

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.: Net worth $76 million

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo.: Net worth $66 million

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.: Net worth $55 million

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.: Net worth $55 million

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: Net worth $45 million

(http://www.newsmax.com/US/Democrats-Republicans-wealth-congress/2011/09/06/id/409898#ixzz1aTchKlVw)

Typically I just ignore trolls like you, and move on with life, but I am going to give you a chance to see if you actually would like to actually present an opinion, and engage in discourse.

What is your argument here, because Mr. Buffett could volunteer to pay more in taxes if he feels it is neccesary and fair. But he hasn't. He didn't last year, and he hasn't said he will this year. Actions speak louder than words last I checked.

No answer from the troll?

hiap you are correct.

If Mr Buffett is so worried about paying his fair share he should not have his payments from Berkshire Hattaway structured in the most tax advantageous way that they can be. He takes money out of Berkshire as dividends which under the Bush tax cuts are taxed under the lowest tax rate possible. He does this while in the next breath he condemns the Bush tax cuts. If he paid himself as an employee as oppossed to an investor, his tax rate would be at the highest rate possible for earned income and would also be paying social security and medicare taxes as well. Also, that would have Berkshire paying payroll taxes on his income as well.

To say it is hypocritical to criticize the tax structure while taking full advantage of it to pay the lowest taxes is a mild description of what he is doing to say the least.

I agree he just wants to be on TV alot and does not do what he is preaching. He may be an excellent stock picker and investor but he has no idea what drives the economy. He is NOT an economist.

While Berkshire Hathaway is in a Billion dollar IRS appeal as we speak. Mr. Buffet - pay your (corporate) taxes please you loud-mouthed blowhard. Even the New York Post hammered Buffet as recently as Sep of 2011.

And prior to that back in 2005 Berkshire was successful in a dispute with the IRS. WTF Warren? Ok for everyone else to pay their fair share - just not you and not your company??? Oh yeah - do as I say - not as I do - the Liberal Mantra!!!

Charles, how do you know that Buffett did anything other than pay what was due? And his personal finances are separate from Hathaway which has many investors.

hiap -

That's kind of the point of the whole conversation. If people did it voluntarily, we wouldn't need a tax code or laws in the first place. People, no matter how rich or poor, do not pay taxes willingly. It's a sacrifice we pay to live in a civilized society, but it's become an easy target for the more blameworthy foe, and that is government's lack of flexibility, inefficient regulatory capacity, and its inability to improve itself in spite of it's need to do so. The way we govern ourselves just hasn't kept pace with the times, but we only debate about the subjects that a majority of Americans hate the most.... aka politicians and taxes.

Last I checked, there's a whole list of rich people in america who didn't volunteer more, and when one did (the elderly man who left his estate to the government) he was reviled.

Buffet has said "Tax me more." That is volunteering to pay more. So I'm not sure why YOU'RE trolling when the definition of volunteer is offer, and he has offered, and you claim he could still offer. It even reads inane.

Don't be dense, you know full well I mean he can give the government more taxes than what is due when he fills out his return. He has not done that. When someone comes up to you and said "I volunteered at the local soup kitchen last night," do you take that to mean they called up the soup kitchen to ask what their hours were to help and then just stayed home? No, you take it to mean they actually went to the soup kitchen to help.

And I also said independantly, as in, doing it without requiring it to first be national policy for everyone else. If Warren Buffett feels it is unfair that Warren Buffett is paying a lower rate in taxes than Warren Buffett's employees, than Warren Buffett can mail an extra check to the IRS to ofset that difference. So no, the man has not "volunteered" or "offered" to make sure that the supposed injustice he claims to be causing is corrected, unless the government forces the decision on everyone else as well.

Just a history lesson to all you libs: When the individual, federal taxes were first started they were only coming from the top 3% of the population and at single digit rates. There were promises that the tax system would only be used on the very rich and the rest of the population had nothing to worry about when it came to paying taxes. 100 years later and one of the biggest financial industries is income tax preparation! The people who have to pay taxes use professional help to reduce their tax liability and the people who receive, consistently, large refunds (well over their taxes paid) are too ignorant to do the 1040 themselves and have to go to HR Block! I guess more than 3% of our current population is being effected by federal taxation now, huh!

Fact; 60% of federal spending is on defense, Social Security and Medicare.

Fact; Social Security and Medicare are fully funded by the payroll tax.

Marriott:

B.S. on "fully funded"

Both programs (SS and Medicare) will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP...

...Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Willard,

I've never seen a single report that said SS and Medicare will be able to cover their costs over the next few decades (and I've read a lot of reports over the years). If you have some information to the contrary, I'd love to read it.

Just saying "the money will be there" is not a valid plan...

I wouldn't say SS is fully funded by payroll taxes. The contribution rates were set at a time when people didn't live as long as they do now.

I don't know for sure but I suspect more is distributed per person than was collected.

I am talking about from the beginning of those programs to now. Social Security and Medicare are not contributing factors to the debt, as up until this point, they have been fully funded by the payroll tax and are projected to remain so for at least 15 more years.

Fact: the constitution only specifies that the government fund the defense of this country(military) and not peoples health insurance and retirement.

Willard,

SS and Medicare are significant contributors to the deficits in the coming years (especially Medicare). So, we need to deal with the cost of those programs - what has happened in the past doesn't matter.

As to defense, I also want to see that budget cut significantly (at least 30% over the next 10 years).

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

And yes they spelled defense 'Defence' back then.

@gday67 FACT: The constitution was set up so that our government evolved with the times, and at a time when healthcare was non-existent.

SS used to be pay as you go but with fewer workers, it is no longer true. It is not as much of a problem as Medicare which is grossly underfunded for the way we get medical care. I am not sure more money is the real solution. There is an article in the Health section of WaPo which should make everyone's hair stand on edge. The wife of the patient is a nursing school dean and yet she talks about how hard it was to transition her husband's care thru the various providers of his healthcare. Lost records, billing coding errors, just arranging to see specialist when he needed them within weeks but availability was in months. It also talked about how some providers are overcoming these transitions indicating it is known how to do it. Unless we fix these problems, money will not be well spent.

Seems to me Clinton had a surplus and a roaring economy. The taxes were slightly higher than before Reagan raised them at the end of his second term. Then Bush comes around and gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy, starts two wars and there are problems. I thinks you needs to redo yo math!

I really do not think that the founding fathers believed that the government would, or should, be the "sugar daddy" to millions of Americans! The government is a stabilizing force for the population, not THE only force!

Also, Clinton had a surplus and decent economy IN SPITE of what he believed! Gingrich and the Republicans in the House and Senate controlled what laws and governmental actions were allowed. I will give Mr. Clinton some credit, he did what was best for this country and did not allow dogmatic beliefs to totally rule his actions (unlike our current president) and he actually governed this country! Obama wants to rule this country. There is a huge difference!

As of right now today, if nothing is done at all, Social Security is solvent until the year 2030.

And only the rich are living longer than before. Most Americans are living just slightly longer than before. That is why most Americans start taking SS as soon as they can, at age 62. I for one am predicted to live to 71 + or -. That means I have about 8-9 years left.

The real problem with Buffet is that he's a hypocrite for talking about who should be taxed what, when his company's been fighting the IRS to $1 billion in back-taxes over the last decade.

http://netrightdaily.com/2012/04/buffett-still-owes-almost-1-billion-in-taxes/

Thank You Jax A, Warren "Sell Out" Buffet is just covering his ass by agreeing with Comrade Obama. The people that voted for Obama are in for a rude awakening over the next 4 years. Oh and what happens to the millions of retired Americans making less than 200k or 250k combined when their beloved dividends are double or triple taxed?

Does that have anything to do with personal income tax? Is there something missing?

Jax A He has an obligation to his shareholders to contest any tax he believes is not correct. Otherwise the big law firms will come after him with class action shareholder lawsuits!!

I think Buffet has a brilliant financial mind, and I also think he is very generous with his own money. However, as I've said in other posts here, he and Obama are not on the same page. Buffet has publicly said he does not fully support Obama's "Buffet rule". Buffet defines top earners as those making >$1 million/year. Obama's definition includes those making >$200k/year...that is a very significant difference, and results in vastly different revenue generation.

Also, just because someone is brilliant, doesn't mean they are always right. There are plenty of financially smart people that disagree with Buffet and Obama (and plenty that agree with them). I don't think anyone should ever blindly follow someone else - I think everyone should critically evaluate everything they hear.

According to his NYT Op Ed, Buffet defines the wealthy as those with incomes over $500K/yr., instead of Obama's $250K/yr.

Actually, Buffet's proposal may be to the left of Republicans in Congress, but offers a reasonable compromise, probably sufficient to head-off more severe attacks on the rich - i.e. treating all capital gains as earned income, adding higher brackets above the current top bracket, etc.

mike, all that tells you is how ill-informed Lisa actually is. People like her like to think they're engaged and understand their government and it processes, but are woefully out of touch and are often operating off of some misguided temperment.

According to the rules that Democrats have laid out, Buffett is an extremely selfish man! He has set up charitable trusts with much of his fortune so that this money can be directed "outside" of governmental influence! He has, in so many words, said that the government is a bad place for his fortune to go! Now I actually have to agree with him on this situation!

It's not only Obama. Roughly 2/3 of Americans agree with him.

Funny how re-instating taxes on the rich to where they were before the temporary reduction is now call "raising" taxes.

Mark,

Just curious, do you also support "reinstating" the Clinton era tax rates on everyone? (I do, but I'd like to know if you also support it)

Ron, I would also raise taxes on every one when the economy recovers sufficiently.

I think I really do. The tax cut for most people amounted to $600 dollars. People buying another TV they don't need so the Waltons get another couple billion dollars richer is not going to fix our economy.

Mark,

And letting those same tax cuts expire for the middle class is also called "raising" taxes by the left. So what is your point?

My point hiap is that the GOP continues to describe a reinstatement of taxes to where they were before the temporary tax cut as an increase in taxes when they are not.

Democrats and GOP say the same about middle class taxes but in that area they are in agreement so its a moot point what they call it.

How about this proposal? Increase the tax rates on the rich, but, also make it impossible for any individual taxpayer to receive more in a refund than they have paid in FEDERAL taxes! No more $10000 + tax refunds to people who have paid nothing in federal taxes! If you pay $500 in federal taxes that is the max you can receive in a refund, period! Sounds like we need to "spread the pain" across everyone!

You know, I have always heard the government spewing out the "fact" that they need more revenue and never talk about spending less! For example, Nicholas Cage, a great actor and performer, has made many millions of dollars during his long career. He, at one time, owned several castles (not your average brownstone), dozens of high-end autos, and lived the life of the ultra-rich! He recently was forced to file for bankruptcy because he was spending much more than his income! Tell me this: Does Mr. Cage have a revenue problem or a spending problem? I believe the answer is obvious and pertains to our current budget deficit, too!

Over the cliff with the GOP! Send them off their cliff and put all our taxes where they were. The GOP is only concerned for their billionaire sponsors.

Buffoon? Really? And I suspect that he is not donating any vast wealth to the Feds because he is very aware that it will be wasted. He is willing to pay more as he has stated. His donations to charity have made an impact.

lulu - Donations to the Treasury Dept go directly toward paying down the National Debt. That's nice - those charitable donations made an impact on lowering his taxes.

If he were willing to pay more and wasn't such a big blow hard, he would put his money where his mouth was.

You have missed the point. So he gives a pile of money to pay down some of the debts. The spenders in Washington will just run it up again which means Buffett's money accomplished NOTHING. At least when he gives money to, for example, the Gates Foundation, kids get malaria shots or similar.

I haven't missed the point  the president and congress has.

I believe we need to increase taxes and cut spending.  Unfortunately the left wants to raise taxes on one class of taxpayers and make no cuts  and the right wants some cuts and not to raise taxes. 

The Bush Obama Tax Cuts should be allowed to expire on everyone. Then tax law should be reformed to eliminate unnecessary personal and corporate deductions and exemptions. Cust need to be made to eliminate govenment waste, eliminate fraud, eliminate duplicate programs and cut non-essential services and "nice to haves".

I do agree with most of what you just said except the expiration of the tax cuts. My concern is that they will hem and haw about simplifying the code while we fall back into a severe recession or worse.

The problem with "making" the rich pay more is that it usually results in the rich off-shoring their money and the jobs their money creates.

The government's job isn't to provide for the people, it's to provide opportunity for the people. We need to break the "entitlement" aka hand-out mentality that is so prevalent today.

Hmmm..."compromise" is not a word easily understood or spoken by Masters of the Universe. They will probably wait until the gates have been torn down, in the form of a genuinely "populist" Congress, who will take far, far more of their money than anyone is currently proposing, as in additional brackets, no capital gains, etc.

The Romney's are already offshoring their tax cuts. Tax increases actuall make investing in business a lot more attractive than offshoring the money.

Todd, there is no correlation between tax rates and job creation. It's a myth being perpetrated by the Republican leadership in order to protect their campaign financing. They will never admit that not ony does it have nothing to do with job creation, but that the vast majority of the wealthy are willing to pay more.

Again, what defines "wealthy"? I'm not wealthy even though my wife and I make just under Obama's proposed cut off. We maintain two homes since I am stationed in D.C. and her job couldn't transfer from GA.

There are a lot of people like me who make a decent living but live in high cost areas due to their jobs who could be hit smack in the nuts by a tax increase. Better for the middle class to cap deductions to between 25-50k.

And yes, raising the individual income tax on people will raise the income tax on small business, who employ a vast majority of people. More money paid to taxes equals less money available to pay employees. It's a pretty simple concept if you equate it to a person. If I have to pay $100 more a month in taxes, that equates to having $100 less a month to spend on beer unless I can reduce my other costs by an equal amount.

The only way to address the financial mess in this country is to raise taxes and cut govenment waste, eliminate duplicate programs and cut non-essential services.

incorrect

The President is going to cut spending.

Get a clue

Au contraire, I advocate a 30% reduction in defense spending over the next decade.

I hate to say it, but probably our only hope is to actually fall off the fiscal cliff and do the unthinkable; actually cut spending and increase revenues by letting all the tax breaks stop. It's going to suck for everyone, but we will adjust to it.

Most of the "spending" lies in long range forecasts of social security and Medicare. Those two categories, plus defense and interest on existing debt comprise roughly 80% of the entire federal budget.

If you are in the $40K to $80K range, you cannot be saving a great deal for retirement and must be counting on social security and Medicare.

So, the question is where would YOU cut spending?

Also, I think most commenting herein are referring to the article and the Buffet proposal and not necessarily "rejecting" appropriate spending cuts.

Dave;

I think there are a couple of things that you may or may not be aware of, at any rate they are worth pointing out.

The annual spending to run the government is slightly less than during the Bush years, though it is still to high it has not increased with the Democrat administration.

With your financial situation you and your wife are deeply within the 47% of the population the Republican party has labeled as "those who think they are entitled". They are talking about the deductions that you take at tax time NOT WELFARE.

Just wanted to make those two things clear to you from your post I was not sure if you were or not.

We only qualify for the standard deduction. Regardless of what you might think, most of the folks our age do NOT think we are entitled to anything. We both work for our meager pittance. We also do that thing that the government is incapable of doing, controlling spending.

It's not me that thinks anything about you it's the Republican party. By the way the "standard" deductions are exactly the target.

Why do we have any deductions? Just just go with a flat tax or a consumption tax and do away with all other federal taxes. No deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays the same percentage. Won't need tax lawyers, accountants, IRS agents. Less bean counters equal more beans!

Johnny

Your people have NOT spoken a single word about reducing spending. All they ever talk about is raising taxes.

Johnny - taxing the wealthy will do nothing to cutting the deficit. It won't even put a dent in what Obama added during his administration. Maybe all American's should be willing to do their part rather then most of them having one hand ready to get a hand out while at the same time expecting someone else to pick up the tab for them.

Ofcourse there will be cuts. And ofcourse the tax cuts will help the deficit that G Bushes cuts and unpaid for wars created. Simple math dingbats

Johnny, the fact that Obama added more to our debt in three years than Bush did in eight seems to elude you.

The left loves to scream about "unpaid wars" but for some strange reason forgets about all the democrats (like Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Reid) who VOTED for those wars and their costs.

Johnny- Define "wealthy". Is that anyone making more than you?

But we are talking about spending cuts to the Military/Industrial Complex. After factoring in all of the hidden costs, that is over 50% of the budget.

There is no need to cut Medicare, which is over 90% efficient, and SS is solvent until 2030.

The Federal Pie Chart

Why not cut unneccessary programs along with Military cuts? "Common defence" is afterall one of the primary taxing powers granted to congress by the constitution. With the national debt growing at a historic rate, wouldn't the financial stability and future of our country benefit from concentrating on required spending and limit or eliminate unnecessary spending?

Get off the Mitt Romney inherited his wealth. It is not true. He gave his entire inheritance to charity. Do you say nasty things about the Kennedys?

Ed

The people you mention as being willing to pay more are free to send all of their extra money to the IRS anytime they want to. I suspect that their willingness is just a straw dog. We make about $40000 a year and because it's just me and my wife and no others, we do pay tax every year.

lulu in a way he did "inherit" his wealth. He had every opportunity that the average person could only dream of... He was born into wealth and had the best education money could buy (read no student loans).

His "rough spot" at the beginning of his career caused hime to have to sell off some of his stock portfolio. Poor baby...

Regardless of what he did with his inheritance, he was a priviledge individual from birth.

The only difference between the Kennedys and the Romneys is the Kennedys were way more successful politically.

A straw dog Dave? Do you mean a straw man?

I just call it the way I see it, Lulu. I find it interesting that the billionnaires who are against paying their fair share have had every benefit this society has to offer, but are unwilling to help others realize their dreams by paying a little more in taxes.

" To those who much has been given, much is expected"

Ed.....I prefer dogs to all liberal/progressive/socialist people.

Dave, you show your level of education. A "straw man" is a term used in the philosophy of logic, not a cut down of what you posted. Get an education and maybe, just maybe, you may not be led by the nose so easily.

It's been shown that people with a higher level of education are more progressive and forward-looking.

Although Romney had the benefit of growing up in a reasonably affluent family, most of the money he made was on his own. He gave his inheirtance to charity. I was not a Romney supporter; just noting that I think it depends more on individual attitudes than whether the money was "earned" or inheirted.

One of the big, wealthy early supporters of Obama was one of the Pitzker family, who inheirted most of their wealth.

Chip, So he took advantage of what his background provided. We all do one way or another. As to student loans, really tired of that one. I worked my way thru undergrad and grad as did my husband. What I inherited from my family was the will to succeed. I came from a modest background but my father encouraged me to be more. I went to school with people who worked full time and went to school full time. I am tired of hearing that you have to borrow tons or someone has to give you a free education otherwise you cannot go. We need more parents encouraging their kids to be better.

What this article doesn't tell you is the difference in where Mr. Buffet and the President are drawing the lines on where the tax increases should start. The President wants it to start at $250k, whereas Mr. Buffet thinks it should start at $500k.

Warren Buffett says he supports President Barack Obama's efforts to eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans, but he disagrees on where to draw the line.

In an op-ed piece in The New York Times on Monday, Buffett writes that the cutoff should be "maybe $500,000 or so."

Obama has insisted that the cuts be extended only for families with less than $250,000 in annual income.

Excellent advice. We have always been savers. Now as we get close to retirement, we will be ok as long as the various gobs do not try to suck it all away.

The deficit has come down significantly during Obama's term...

Then how did we blow past $16T?

MJ, he's referrin the the budget deficit, which has been reduced since Obama came into office, not the debt, which would only be reduced if the deficit is turned into a surplus.

In other words, the rate of debt increase has declined since Bush's last budget.

Deficits have been over a trillion a year and they have come down significantly? Apparently, democrat math makes more sense after a few tokes of the good stuff.

Dream on fools, dream on. 16 Trillion is 16 trillion. congress is to blame mostly. Replace congress. Taxes on the rich is a drop in the bucket. Taxing the rich Looks good and sounds good but no one reads the fine print. Tax should be the same. !0% if you make 10 dollars and still 10% if you make 10 trillion. No deductions for anything. OH YES! hordes of worthless tax lawyers may have flip hamburgers at McDoanld's instead of bulking the public out of their hard earned money.

That deficit you are complaining about is all the fault of you republicons. 94% of the deficit belongs to just three people.

Reagan

Bush

bush/cheney

ReaganBushDebt.org

> 33% of the $16 Trillion National Debt was incurred while Mr Obama was President.