[CA renter]

Warren Buffett also thinks the rich need to pay higher taxes:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for
Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[CA renter]

Looks like deflation to me.

Thanks for the link!

[CA renter]

Looks like deflation to me.

Thanks for the link!

[CA renter]

Looks like deflation to me.

Thanks for the link!

[CA renter]

Looks like deflation to me.

Thanks for the link!

[CA renter]

Looks like deflation to me.

Thanks for the link!

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[CA renter]

Personally, I would rather they have no income tax at all and just increase sales tax, property tax, etc. to compensate for the lost tax revenue. Lets tax the spender instead of the savers.
——————–
AN,

That would be a regressive tax, causing the rich to get richer (they spend far less of their income on necessities) and the poor to become poorer (most of their income goes to consumption). Since the majority of workers are not “rich,” work would be punished while gambling would be rewarded (trading/investing for a profit — taking money OUT of the economy and into the wealthy person’s account).

Exactly how does that make for a better society where the greatest number of people can live in a healthy, safe, productive environment?

“Taxing the rich” is not class warfare. It is trying to maintain a balance of power between capital and labor.

The “rich” control money flow, and always direct the flow back to themselves, leaving less for the productive workers.

By taxing the workers and not taxing the rich, you concentrate money/power into fewer and fewer hands — those with money will accumulate at staggering rates without cap gains and higher rates for higher incomes, while the workers will have nothing.

Sounds like a third-world country to me.

[CA renter]

I’ve also seen a number of flips, and have run into plenty of “investors” at open houses.

The bubble mentality is alive and well in San Diego. It is not over yet.

[CA renter]

I’ve also seen a number of flips, and have run into plenty of “investors” at open houses.

The bubble mentality is alive and well in San Diego. It is not over yet.

[CA renter]

I’ve also seen a number of flips, and have run into plenty of “investors” at open houses.

The bubble mentality is alive and well in San Diego. It is not over yet.

[CA renter]

I’ve also seen a number of flips, and have run into plenty of “investors” at open houses.

The bubble mentality is alive and well in San Diego. It is not over yet.

[Author]

Posts