Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Archives › Activism Archives › Two of America's Richest Assail Bush Tax Cut
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Two of America's Richest Assail Bush Tax Cut

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
When even rich people are criticizing tax cuts I think we should all be deeply concerned....

America's Richest Assail Tax Cut

Quote:
In an opinion article in the Washington Post, Buffett, the chairman of holding company Berkshire Hathaway, said he already pays about the same income tax rate as his receptionist -- about 30 percent.

But Buffett said with the planned dividend tax cut, he conceivably could pay a mere 3 percent in income taxes. Recalling President John F. Kennedy's declaration that Americans should "pay any price, bear any burden" for the country, Buffett said a 3 percent income tax rate "seems a bit light.
post #2 of 26
Well....................if nothing else I guess it is nice to know that "some" of the uber-wealthy feel they have enough money. Too bad not the ones running the country at present.


I have invested for 15 yrs or so. Mainly in dividend paying stocks.............and I was very much against the tax cut. I realize that I am priveleged to have any money at all to invest. Why not pay tax on it? It is income.



This all makes me sick.




El
post #3 of 26
For a rich guy, Warren Buffett is pretty cool.
post #4 of 26
I'm surprised the group headed by Bill Gates' dad (Responsible Weath?) hasn't made a statement. I really appreciate people like this saying, "Wow, enough is enough. Who cares if I have $36 or $35 billion!?!?!?"

Kay
post #5 of 26

Snipped from

another board:
"We've gone from Woodrow Wilson's Fair Deal and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to George W. Bush's Raw Deal."
post #6 of 26
I read Buffetts column this morning and suddenly found I had a little crush on him. The fact that he could buy up the entire state I live in is totally beside the point.
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
I read Buffetts column this morning and suddenly found I had a little crush on him. The fact that he could buy up the entire state I live in is totally beside the point.
Riiiiiiiight!

But this brings up to me apoint that has been in the back of my mind for a while - and it was peaked by a comment from that NBC interview with the President by Brokaw recently and this guy's comment
Quote:
Recalling President John F. Kennedy's declaration that Americans should "pay any price, bear any burden" for the country,
brought it back up. I get the impression that this administration will go out of the way NOT to get the country thinking about conserving or changing their consuming habits in any way, almost as if they want the US to keep eating up so much of the natural resources as possible - just keep the people greedy and ignorant - but don't request anything noble!: What sacrifices are they rallying the troups too? Other than their own Civil rights and peace of mind?
post #8 of 26
Ummmm. Hey Joyce in the mts.!!! Here is an example (Warren Buffet...no relation to Jimmy) of Noblesse Oblige!!



It's about time, eh?

post #9 of 26


Oops! Sorry for the double post, only just caught it!
post #10 of 26
Youta'kinboutme, Sohj? Whad da heck? Is dem fightin words? OK, I admit, I've heard of Noblesse Oblige, but I don't know what that means. I asked my DH:
Me: "Steve, I think someone just just called an idea of mine Noblesse Oblige."
DH: "Yes . . ."
Me: "What does that mean? Is that good?"
DH: ""
Me: "Well?"
DH: "I don't know either!"
Me: ""
post #11 of 26
I'm dying here folks!! HELP! :
post #12 of 26
Noblesse Oblige is a concept from the Middle Ages or thereabouts that those who are of the Noble class (in that time period this equated with rich as well) had an obligation to be generous to those who were less well off.

Or is my humor impairment showing and you didn't really need it defined?:
post #13 of 26
Well, this El needed it defined. Thank You.

I had a vague sense of what it was but you brought it into focus.

And I agree with sohj, this is an example. At least in todays' realm.



El
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by Meiri
Noblesse Oblige is a concept from the Middle Ages or thereabouts that those who are of the Noble class (in that time period this equated with rich as well) had an obligation to be generous to those who were less well off.

Or is my humor impairment showing and you didn't really need it defined?:
This El, too! It wasn't a joke - I kinda knew but at that point realized I really wasn't sure. Thank you!! And it wasn't refering to me but to those guys - can we say Narcisst?: Sorry!
post #15 of 26
well, i'm sure all of you against tax cuts, will elect to send your "refunded" money back in to the govt, right?
post #16 of 26
Actually, mine will go into public education. Prop tax went up $600 this year - $500 into the school district.


*Poof* now you see it - now you don't.


Better yet, what do you suppose Bush and Cheney are doing with theirs?


bwahahahahaha - yeah, I know. Creating jobs......................
post #17 of 26
my dad is a public school administrator and always b!tch!n% about tax cuts, yet he always b!tche$ about paying his taxes too.

okay dad, WHICH is it?!?!?!
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by TiredX2
I'm surprised the group headed by Bill Gates' dad (Responsible Weath?) hasn't made a statement.
Kay, I've heard Mr. Gates Sr. several times on KUOW (local NPR) speaking out on the issue, almost as soon as it was announced. I don't remember if he was doing it for himself or on behalf of the organization though. Mr. Buffet has just been more vocal recently, though I believe that he has a history, just like Gates Sr. about opposing things like this.
post #19 of 26
I think in this case, you have a very surprising amount of people up in arms about the cut because the administration is outright *lying* about the effect it will have on the economy.

Nothing that's come out of the white house has even made one whit of sense as far as how this will 'create jobs'. I mean, if they wanted to have a better chance of that, they'd be cutting the taxes on the corporate side of things, but even that wouldn't do anything, because it'd just automatically be reinvested in the company.

This is why Bush has lost his entire economic team. I doubt that they wanted people to think that they were telling him this was sound economic policy.

Not only that, but there are a LOT of companies that don't even pay dividends. Microsoft only started doing that this year, as an experiment. So even investors with a lot of $$ in the market may only see maybe about a 10K difference, which when you've got a lot of money anyway doesn't make that much of a difference, practically.

As someone who basically lives off of investment income, I sat down with my husband to see how much $$ we would 'save'. The answer, even though we're highly diversified, is a grand total of $5000. Which, if we kept better records, we could probably best if we did itemized deductions. And since any dividends *automatically roll over into further investment* via our setup (which is common to most people), we will notice absolutely no difference in our day to day life. I suspect it will be much the same for the billionaires out there too.

Driving our economy into the ground, and hiking up the deficit to uberobscene levels will technically 'hurt' rich people more than people who aren't invested and/or are living hand to mouth anyway. So it makes a lot of intuitive sense to me that the loudest people protesting this have a LOT of $$. I mean, even the Republicans who are lukewarmly supporting this don't look to happy about it. And most of the Democratic bigwigs aren't exactly impoverished either, KWIM? Add to that the fact that this doesn't create jobs, puts more pressure on the states, and support services and funding is being axed to fund the damn thing...it's just stupid to go along with.

Just because you're 'Rich' doesn't mean you're dumb. Or that you don't understand basic economics, or that you'd rather make a nickle today even if it costs you $100 next week. In fact, I would say that someone who's rich by their own making is probably MORE likely to understand why this is a *really* bad idea than the rich-wannabe folks that comprise the majority of support for the Republican party.
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by mcimom
well, i'm sure all of you against tax cuts, will elect to send your "refunded" money back in to the govt, right?
We donated the $600 from Bush's first big tax refund to charity.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Archives › Activism Archives › Two of America's Richest Assail Bush Tax Cut