Buffett tells Dems rich need to pay more

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

Warren Buffett, the renowned investor and the world’s second richest man, told Senate Democrats that wealthy Americans need to pay higher taxes, giving Democrats something to mull as they address healthcare reform and soaring federal deficits.

Senate Democrats met with Buffett for more than an hour over lunch Thursday, peppering him with questions about the economy, said lawmakers in attendance.

“He said rich people are not paying enough taxes,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “It was interesting to see someone who is such an aggressive capitalist, who believes so much in our capitalist system, saying we’ve got the scales way too heavily toward people who are very, very wealthy.”

Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems

[DesertFlower]

1. why is it rich dems have

no problem paying higher taxes?

[polichick]

3. Conscience, intelligence, empathy, vision. nt

[DesertFlower]

4. exactly. nt

[ejpoeta]

5. well, wealthy folks who support paying higher taxes probably feel that their comfortable life

is made possible by the hard work of the people in this country... and that they have gotten a lot out of the system. therefore they feel they should bear more of the burden, not only because they have benefited, but because they can afford to part with more money.

these greedy assholes who don't want to have to pay any taxes aren't seeing the larger picture. when the middle class get squeezed like they have been, they do not have money to buy the goods these greedy folks want to sell them.... so they are stagnating their own longterm wealth. and when the regular folks in the country can't even survive, then those greedy idiots who don't want to pay the taxes will be shaking in their boots. because as long as regular folks are happy and feel like they are doing ok, then they will put up with the crap they are dealt... but once they can't even get by and can't feed their kids or take care of their families.... that's when they revolt. they become very angry and they will take it out on the rich people. Think about the anger towards the banking CEOs and execs.... now multiply that exponentially.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. There can be a sense of noblesse oblige. And it used to be quite common.

It wasn't even limited to liberals. Many of the WASPy, Rockefeller Republicans of the '50s and '60s were wealthy but backed social programs and progressive taxation to provide a robust safety net. The Tories in England long had a strain of "Red Toryism" which got killed by Thatcher, in which the wealthy felt it was their responsibility to look out for the interests of the poor to protect them from rapacious middle-class businessmen.

[Selatius]

22. Personally, I think the reason, as far as the US goes, is a bit more crude than that.

Back in the days of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller and the robber barons, there were no social programs of any significance. The biggest legislative change back then was the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. The wealth gap in the US was such that a lot of resentment was growing among the working class and what could be called a small middle class. The Populist Movement of the time was born, and the anti-trust acts represented the opening salvo in an attempt to correct the imbalance, from the ground-up. The trust-busting of Teddy Roosevelt represented the crescendo of such a movement.

By the 1920s going into the 1930s, it became a necessity for publicity purposes that they should set up foundations and trusts to look after those in need to help defend against constant attacks by activists that they were simply bloodsuckers who overcharged customers and under-valued the labor of their employees. It was becoming far too easy to stoke the anger of workers by simply getting richer and then not giving back to the community, especially after the stock market crashed in 1929.

Of course, not all wealthy individuals were slow to help people. The Roosevelts were an amazing exception in that era, but still, there was resistance against the idea that the rich should do anything for the poor, who were painted as undeserving of it. Franklin Roosevelt was routinely called a "traitor to his class" for advocating progressive taxation to pay for social programs and public works programs to help alleviate suffering among the poorest.

The rich would do well to tolerate the presence of liberals among their ranks like Warren Buffett. Otherwise, the rage could easily reach boiling point, and then the rich will become targets like France 1789.

[DebbieCDC]

24. You took the phrase right out of my mouth.

That was the first thing I thought of.

Replying to post #6

[aquart]

12. Because they actually understand how a government functions.

As opposed to those who believe God will provide.

[Salviati]

13. Because they realize that it is a progressive tax system along with a strong social safety net

as well as social programs that a) provide them a fertile ground for running profitable corporations, and b) keep the massess from picking up torches and pichforks and marching to their (or their grandkids) front doors.

It's a conciance along with enlightened self interest, as opposed to the i-got-mine-jackism coupled with penny-smart-pound-foolishism of the republicans.

[polichick]

2. Buffett is a good man. nt

[maxsolomon]

7. when do the Bush tax cuts expire?

he put them through in 2001, 10 year sunset, so 2011, right?

what does that do to the deficit the rubes are suddenly worried about?

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. 2 Trillion over 10 years. Heard last night they expire in 2010.

End of the calendar year? Not sure on that.

[vinylsolution]

8. Return the top tax rate....

.... to what it was under Reagan.

How could the GOP possibly argue with that?

After all, Reagan was a great President....

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. He has been talking about this for years. Why is McCaskill so surprised?

He talks about how his admin assistant pays a higher income tax rate than he does (Capital gains).

Edit: Many links out there, this is just one: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_Warren_Buffett_wants_more_taxes_1030.html

[WriteDown]

11. Buffett has the option....

I like Warren, but he has the option to pay as much taxes as he wants each and every year. I would like to see more than lip service especially after the way he made out in trading this year.

[Doremus]

18. So taxes should be voluntary?

If they were voluntary, how many wealthy pukes do you think would pay ANY, let alone their fair share?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

We already know where you stand, in a manner of speaking.

[WriteDown]

23. No....

but nothing stops you from paying more if you think that is your responsibility.

[4lbs]

14. Since Repukes love the Reagan era so much, let's roll taxes back to the 1980s rates.

As was stated above.

That means a marginal tax rate of 50% on amounts over $200,000 instead of the 35% (or 39% proposed that Obama wants) on amounts over $250,000.

We'll get about a hundred billion a year more in income taxes from the wealthy. Use that to pay for healthcare for everyone.

[Joanne98]

15. YAY

[MrsBrady]

16. I have some friends who live in the upper east side in Manhattan

and used to live in a...well, large home in Stamford, CT.
They sold their home for close to 4 million and then bought an apartment in town.
They never had kids, and decided they didn't need all that house for just the two of them.

They are Democrats, and I'm quoting her:
"These tax cuts have been very good for us, but I don't think they are good for the country."

But they both grew up middle class.
They haven't forgotten what it's like.

[xchrom]

17. kick

[LiberalFighter]

19. The reason the rich need to pay more taxes is because it is mostly unearned income.

[OhioChick]

20. K&R n/t

[Crowman1979]

21. Increasing the Social Security tax cap from $100k to $500k would help as well.

[mzmolly]

25. It would be nice to see him testify before the senate

to this effect. ;)

[Vidar]

26. Good for Buffet.

[Tippy]

27. I wish we had more like Warren.......n/t