Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends

Buffett: Tax Me and My Mega-Rich Friends


WASHINGTON -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to cut Washington's huge budget deficit, saying the move would not dampen investments or jobs.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/co...-buffett_0.jpg Billionaire investor Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to cut Washington's huge budget deficit, saying the move would not dampen investments or jobs. (Rick Wilking/Reuters)

In a New York Times opinion article, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway proposed a tax increase on Americans who make at least $1 million per year and an additional increase on those making $10 million or more.
"Our leaders have asked for 'shared sacrifice.' But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched," Buffett wrote.
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks."
The man known as the "Oracle of Omaha" said his federal tax rate was 17.4 percent last year, while some investment managers were taxed just 15 percent on income reaching into the billions. He then noted that the middle class is taxed up to 25 percent in its income bracket, along with "heavy" payroll taxes.
In contrast, Buffett recalled "far higher" taxes rates for the rich in the 1980s and 1990s, and yet nearly 40 million jobs were added from 1980 to 2000.
"You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation," he said.
"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
Americans are losing faith with Congress's ability to tackle the country's financial woes, Buffett warned, calling for "immediate, real and very substantial" action.
A protracted partisan battle between lawmakers culminated in a last-minute deal on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion US debt ceiling and narrowly avoid a US default.
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress," he added. "It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

No one is stopping him from paying extra taxes if he'd wish. His line is just a bunch of bullshit, wanna pay more taxes? Write the check douche-bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

No one is stopping him from paying extra taxes if he'd wish. His line is just a bunch of bullshit, wanna pay more taxes? Write the check douche-bag.

---

Y u mad for lol. I have always found it odd that Buffet donated only to the democrats and Bill Gates donated more money to the democrats. While every other rich person in Forbes Top 10 was a republican.

The point isn't that the hyperrich can pay more taxes if they want to; the point is that they should pay more taxes than law currently requires. To restore fiscal responsibility we need to finally end the Bush Give-Away and return to the level of taxation we had in the Reagan and Clinton years. Stop being pawns. Dump the tea already. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Even President Obama quoted Buffett's op-ed from The N.Y. Times:

Hartmann: Will America survive without Shared Sacrifice? - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

No one is stopping him from paying extra taxes if he'd wish. His line is just a bunch of bullshit, wanna pay more taxes? Write the check douche-bag.

---

Pat Buchanan agrees with you:

Warren Buffet: "Tax the rich" Pat Buchanan: "Put up or shut up" - YouTube

Warren Buffet Asks for Tax Hike - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

No one is stopping him from paying extra taxes if he'd wish. His line is just a bunch of bullshit, wanna pay more taxes? Write the check douche-bag.

---

Tell me: who has to say that the "Job Creators" should pay more taxes for the Right to listen? I mean, Buffetts' "only" the THIRD RICHEST man IN THE WORLD, so what would HE know about creating jobs...

LMFAO....Buffet uses the loop holes in the tax code then cries about it. Beat me more Mr. President...please! What a phoney!! His taxes are on capitol gains...not income like you and I make. That is taxed at a lower rate. He could very well choose as head of his company to take a salary, and then pay taxes on that which is a higher rate.....so his cries ring hollow for me. And didn't he just pledge his fortune to Bill Gate's Foundation....to avoid the death tax? Please...........That's Trish's favorite tax...The Death Tax.

How about some definitions here...That's precisely the problem with the tax the rich cries from Buffet and the left. In Obama's world he talks about "millionaires and billionaires" and "corporate jet owners" , but what he proposes is something far different than that. His threshold is 250K...that's not a millionaire by a long shot. Perhaps if his plan matched his rhetoric, he'd have a case. So just what is "rich" ? In the liberal view, a doctor and a school teacher filing as married would be considered "rich".
I'm not opposed to guys like Buffet paying more taxes, but as NJ found out by instituting it's "millionaires tax"...revenues actually decreased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

LMFAO....Buffet uses the loop holes in the tax code then cries about it. Beat me more Mr. President...please! What a phoney!! His taxes are on capitol gains...not income like you and I make. That is taxed at a lower rate. He could very well choose as head of his company to take a salary, and then pay taxes on that which is a higher rate.....so his cries ring hollow for me. And didn't he just pledge his fortune to Bill Gate's Foundation....to avoid the death tax? Please...........That's Trish's favorite tax...The Death Tax.

How about some definitions here...That's precisely the problem with the tax the rich cries from Buffet and the left. In Obama's world he talks about "millionaires and billionaires" and "corporate jet owners" , but what he proposes is something far different than that. His threshold is 250K...that's not a millionaire by a long shot. Perhaps if his plan matched his rhetoric, he'd have a case. So just what is "rich" ? In the liberal view, a doctor and a school teacher filing as married would be considered "rich".
I'm not opposed to guys like Buffet paying more taxes, but as NJ found out by instituting it's "millionaires tax"...revenues actually decreased.

---

Obama's call to tax the weathy, is defined by the current tax codes, which puts all individuals making over $200,000, and families making over $250,000 into the same bracket. I doubt that Obama would be against making a separate bracket for incomes above 1 million. And that 'liberals' have a common view of what defines 'rich' is distorted thinking. But there are ways to make definitions of 'rich' from a broad concensus. One example would be to set a higher rate, based on the lowest income, for the top 2% of all tax payers.

What is your source for saying that the "millionaires tax" in New Jersey , caused revenues to decreased?

Meanwhile, a study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that millionaire taxes had positive impacts on several states. In the first quarter of 2010, California, New York, Hawaii and New Jersey all saw increases in tax revenue over the same period in 2009 after they instituted the tax, again suggesting that the tax’s effect on out-migration was negligible.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...llionaire-tax/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

No one is stopping him from paying extra taxes if he'd wish. His line is just a bunch of bullshit, wanna pay more taxes? Write the check douche-bag.

---

The issue with your post is that the article attributes many factual quotes from Buffet. You do not dispute any specific facts, however calling his statement "bullshit" implies that his facts are wrong. Tell me which of his facts are wrong.

Noble attempt, Yoda, to engage in a fact-based convo with these two, but they don't deal in facts. They deal in half-remembered GOP talking points, dishonest obfuscation and character assassination.

the rich should always pass the benefits down to the middle class and the middle class should pass the profits on down to the poor and that's how the system go's

if the system fails that's when the killing starts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

Noble attempt, Yoda, to engage in a fact-based convo with these two, but they don't deal in facts. They deal in half-remembered GOP talking points, dishonest obfuscation and character assassination.

---

Immelt, (CEO of GE and FOO), also scolded small business to get out and hire, "and get some action under way". All the while GE earned $14.2 billion dollars in profits in 2010, (of which they paid $0 in federal income taxes, sure helps being on Obama's Council on Jobs). Under Immelts stewardship GE has cut 21,000 american jobs and closed 20 factories.

Bluegrass should we also hold this mans opinion in high regard and follow his urgings to others? Sorry but I learned long ago to follow leaders that proclaim "do as I do", not "do as I say". Grats to Mr. Buffett for his financial success, but please excuse me if I do not take his statement as anything more than the political folly it was obviously was meant to be.

You want me to heed your advice Mr. Buffett, send the treasury a check for $1 billion. And maybe I will stop singing Margaritaville and pay attention.

Quote:

---

That's Trish's favorite...

---

There you go again OMK, proving yourself to be a piece of shit troll with snot for brains. You don't know me and you're in no position to know what my favorite anything is. I'll thank you to limit your comments to politics and religion and leave me out of it.

It might have been nice if Bush instituted a War Tax to pay for his Middle Eastern incursions, instead of putting two fucking wars on the credit card (a banker being China) and nearly bankrupting the country. That might not have been a favorite tax but it would have been much appreciated given the present shoguns he dug us into. Fucking republicans think they're brilliant when they the dumbest fucking idiots in the planet.

250K is a quarter of a million dollars. If you make that you're not uber-rich, but 250K is more than 3 times the real median income of the typical working American who labors 8 hours a day 5 days a week. The top 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans increased their income 10-fold. We can call these guys the uber-rich if you want. The point is: we can reduce the deficit from both ends, the spending end and the revenue end. On the tax end, collect more revenue (graduated) from those making upwards of a quarter of a million dollars a year. Because of the job shortage labor will never be cheaper than it is today. The school district next to mine just put in geothermal to lessen their energy costs. Companies were fighting for this contract. The school got a bargain it couldn't possibly have gotten in better times and the work was done twice as fast. So on the spending end: This is the time to put people to work by spending on infrastructure maintenance. Once people are back to work, demand for products will increase, the economy will return and we can start trimming the deficit. The wrong time to cut programs and lay off workers is when people most need those programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Immelt, (CEO of GE and FOO), also scolded small business to get out and hire, "and get some action under way". All the while GE earned $14.2 billion dollars in profits in 2010, (of which they paid $0 in federal income taxes, sure helps being on Obama's Council on Jobs). Under Immelts stewardship GE has cut 21,000 american jobs and closed 20 factories.

Bluegrass should we also hold this mans opinion in high regard and follow his urgings to others? Sorry but I learned long ago to follow leaders that proclaim "do as I do", not "do as I say". Grats to Mr. Buffett for his financial success, but please excuse me if I do not take his statement as anything more than the political folly it was obviously was meant to be.

You want me to heed your advice Mr. Buffett, send the treasury a check for $1 billion. And maybe I will stop singing Margaritaville and pay attention.

---

The fact that private companies are not doing this voluntarily is exactly Mr. Buffet's point. You can't fault corporations for following their mandate of profit maximization and you can't expect them to deviate from that narrow goal even when it hurts the country at large, that's where government comes in. It requires a leviathan to produce collective goods, something we've known for more than 3 centuries. But something the GOP has conveniently forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Obama's call to tax the weathy, is defined by the current tax codes, which puts all individuals making over $200,000, and families making over $250,000 into the same bracket. I doubt that Obama would be against making a separate bracket for incomes above 1 million. And that 'liberals' have a common view of what defines 'rich' is distorted thinking. But there are ways to make definitions of 'rich' from a broad concensus. One example would be to set a higher rate, based on the lowest income, for the top 2% of all tax payers.

What is your source for saying that the "millionaires tax" in New Jersey , caused revenues to decreased?

Meanwhile, a study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that millionaire taxes had positive impacts on several states. In the first quarter of 2010, California, New York, Hawaii and New Jersey all saw increases in tax revenue over the same period in 2009 after they instituted the tax, again suggesting that the tax’s effect on out-migration was negligible.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...llionaire-tax/


The issue with your post is that the article attributes many factual quotes from Buffet. You do not dispute any specific facts, however calling his statement "bullshit" implies that his facts are wrong. Tell me which of his facts are wrong.

---

My source?? The Governor, of course.

A faint voice can be heard from the left side of statehouses across the land.
"Tax the rich," it cries.
New Jersey Republican Gov. Christie recoils at those words. More taxes in a state that has the highest local tax burden in the United States - 12.2 percent of income, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation?
Never, Christie has vowed.
Try to increase the so-called millionaire's tax, he warned, and all those business owners who hire people will flee to more tax-friendly environs. "This is a tax which has proven to be destructive to job creation in states, and that's why states all over the country are rejecting it," Christie said.

Argue with him .

Point 2...you state... "I doubt that Obama would be against making a separate bracket for incomes above 1 million."

You don't say? Well then why the hell hasn't he proposed it? Please answer me that...I'll hold my breath. Because his threshold is 250K...that's why. That's what he thinks rich is...Please stop putting words in his mouth in an attempt to make him sound reasonable......it's embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

The fact that private companies are not doing this voluntarily is exactly Mr. Buffet's point. You can't fault corporations for following their mandate of profit maximization and you can't expect them to deviate from that narrow goal even when it hurts the country at large, that's where government comes in. It requires a leviathan to produce collective goods, something we've known for more than 3 centuries. But something the GOP has conveniently forgotten.

---

Exactly. Most everyone, rich or poor, will take the maximum benefits the law entitles them to have. Some talking heads will say the poor are lazy, for accepting benefits from government, but most everyone will use the system to their best advantage, such as taking the maximum deductions when filing their taxes. Lots of poorer people receiving food stamps in the US, will then have money to get a cell phone. Cell phones today, are not just a luxury, they are often a nescessity for someone seeking decent employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

the rich should always pass the benefits down to the middle class and the middle class should pass the profits on down to the poor and that's how the system go's

---

I think this is where conservative ideas, have distorted collective thinking. It has been noted here before, most notably by Trish, but in reality money circulates in a complete circle. Money from the poor circulates to the rich, as well as vice versa, particular in US. So government monies which go to the poor circulates to the rich. For example, as I noted in my previous post, people who recieve food assistance, of purchase items like cell phones. The wealthy often have stock in cell phone companies in their portfolios. Here in the US the government has a program that gives cell phones to poor people who qualify. So while that person gets use of the phone, the money for it goes directly from the government to the phone service provider. Payment for Medicaid goes directly to the medical system. I bet there are doctors, who may make over $200,000 a year, (currently the US highest tax bracket), whose hospital systems recieve substantial sums from Medicaid payments. So my point is, that the idea, as expressed by Rustaffa, of money only passing down, gives rise to the idea that the poor, are a drain on societies resources. I have heard this expressed on this very forum, though not nescessarily by Rustaffa. This idea is not true. However, belief in the idea, is part of the foundation of the belief that it is good for the wealthiest to have a greater share, of the flow of money/wealth. I question whether this idea is really related to true conservative philosophy or not? However, I see it as the core belief of many on the right today. I say their essence, has been hijacked.

You can't have a robust economy without a full flow of money going up, down, & spewing from the middle. If you concentrate government policy on one aspect of the equasion (like supply side theory), it can't maintain equalibrium & you have one panic after another. Trickles don't work at all. You have to have a freeflow in all directions. Right now, the "money" is all being hoarded at the top. That's the perception anyway, as told by the accountants. It's like you put a dam across a creek, then walk downstream & wonder where all the water went. It's all just numbers in a ledger. There's no limit to the "money supply". All the economic theories are loaded with tons of bogus assumptions, & none of them take dishonesty into account. We need a complete rethink.

On Buffet:
As usual, the spin misses the point entirely. He merely said that taxing the mega-rich (over $1 million annually) at the same rate everybody else is taxed, you lose the annual shortfall. Unlike all the roundabout theories that require more & more sophisticated math to justify continuing policies that don't work, this is just simple arithmetic, & what everybody except the rabid Reagan worshipers has been saying all along.. Him writing a check won't do anything. This isn't about charity. It's about taxes. Y'all know about them, right? The source of all government revenue, & therefore every bit of common infrastructure? Just another lame attempt to obfuscate the real issue. The charity angle is irrelevant.

Let's look at a theorectical model, for the economy. What's better for the economy, one person making 1 million a year, or 25 people making 40 thousand a year? Both total the same amount of money. One millionaire, may have 5 cars, but 25 people making 40 grand purchase have 20 plus cars. The twenty plus cars create the opportunity for greater product demand, meaning the car maker, will have to hire more people to produce the product. You can name any item, such as cell phones, food, housing, gas, clothing, etc.

Before, someone says it. I am not talking about taking all the money million a year person. I am questioning what policy the goverment should support for the best growth? In the greatest growth, the millionaire, has more investment opportunities to make money, within the same economy.

Well a person making a million $ a year would pay approx. $220,000 in federal taxes. 25 people making $40k per year would pay approx. $0 in federal taxes. You tell me, which helps the treasury more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Let's look at a theorectical model, for the economy. What's better for the economy, one person making 1 million a year, or 25 people making 40 thousand a year? Both total the same amount of money. One millionaire, may have 5 cars, but 25 people making 40 grand purchase have 20 plus cars. The twenty plus cars create the opportunity for greater product demand, meaning the car maker, will have to hire more people to produce the product. You can name any item, such as cell phones, food, housing, gas, clothing, etc.

Before, someone says it. I am not talking about taking all the money million a year person. I am questioning what policy the goverment should support for the best growth? In the greatest growth, the millionaire, has more investment opportunities to make money, within the same economy.

---

Well there in is the rub...isn't it? Let me tell you about wealthy people and their affect on growth...I understand it's a progressive talking point to tax the rich, but you can't get there from here if you're talking about a fairer, flatter tax system. The only way you can get to a flatter tax system is to eliminate all the loopholes and deductions, and have EVERYONE with some skin in the game no matter how much, or how little they make. Certainly those that make more pay more...but should the top 5% pay 40-50% of all the revenues, and the bottom 40% pay almost nothing? That puts the middle earners right in the squeeze.
And that one guy you were talking about that makes a million...let me tell you about him. He's the only person that as it stands now is keeping this economy from 20-30% unemployment. I don't know where you're from, but here in the east in affluent towns like Greenwich, Darien, South Hampton, Great Neck, Scarsdale, etc drive around and look for new homes being built, in fact drive around all the surrounding areas including the middle class suburbs. You won't find any.....except for those 10,000 square foot mansions. And they're being built by carpenters, plumbers, electricians, masons, landscapers, etc who are those 40K a year people you reference in your post. Ask them how they feel about rich folks.....The wealthy who spend money on new homes and cars are the only thing keeping millions of Americans from an unemployment check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Well a person making a million $ a year would pay approx. $220,000 in federal taxes. 25 people making $40k per year would pay approx. $0 in federal taxes. You tell me, which helps the treasury more?

---

What I am talking about is economic growth, not taxes. However, individuals making $40k, are taxed at a rate of 15%, not 0%. Where do you get such ideas from, Faldur? I think someone is lying to you.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

The idea I had is to look at the model if the people came with nothing, but then had a $40k a year job, vs 1 millionaire, (who also makes that amount every year). They all would likely desire or need productsI say the 25 people, would create a greater product demand, thus a healthier economy, where even the millionaire could reap greater profits. Each would want a home. Each one of those homes would contain a toilet, maybe two in some cases. But the millionaire's home is not going to have 35 toilets. It's about consumer demand. If people want something, someone will make and sell it to them. Taxes are only part of the cost of the product. Let say, for the sake of argument, the corporate tax rate is raised to 40%. Hollywood is not going to stop making movies. They might raise ticket prices, but movies will be made as long as people want to see them.

Anyone care to comment on this?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...axes/index.htm

And while you are at it....those saying Buffet should just send the check......lead the way, cut your own social security and medicare and raise your FICA and voluntarily wait till you are 73 to start drawing it. Then I will be impressed.

Exactly. Reagan was in fact able to do the experiment. He cut taxes and cut them again. What happened? Employment fell and the deficit grew. It grew so threatening, Reagan raised taxes and reduced federal financial and environmental regulations. What happened? Deficit growth was controlled. This was significant experimental evidence that "trickle down" theory simply doesn't work. Did the evidence dissuade the true-believers? No. Bush II did the experiment again. One tax break after another was awarded to the wealthy. What happened? No job growth is what happened. We even had two wars (which usually can be counted on to stimulate an economy and create jobs) and still there no job growth and no trickle down from those high income folks. The deficit grew as he borrowed money for his wars, the housing market ballooned because the Bush appointed regulators didn't believe in regulation. The bubble burst, the wars caught up with us and before he left office Bush was forced to bail out the commercial banking system with something like 700 billion dollars of Tarp. Once again a conservative president inadvertently proved was most economists will tell you, that "trickle down" theory is bullshit.

There is less of a tax burden on those making a quarter of a million dollars and above then there has ever been over the last 70 years. And we are in deep shit because of it. Now is the time to increase revenues on those who can afford it. Now is the time to spend money on infrastructure repairs and start new infrastructure projects. Labor will never be cheaper than it is now. Right now we can repair roads, bridges, airports, power grids, communications lines etc. with inexpensive labor and at the same time create jobs. It would be stupid to wait until all cost of such projects rises. We need to collect the revenues now and implement infrastructure projects now. This will create jobs and replenish the demand for the products. Corporations have been making money hand over fist for the last two years. Record profits. If trickle down works why are they hiring? Because they restructured. They learned to get by pushing their valiant labor force to record production rates. You can give corporations as many tax breaks as you want and it won't create a single new job, except perhaps in the luxury goods market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ed_jaxon

And while you are at it....those saying Buffet should just send the check......lead the way, cut your own social security and medicare and raise your FICA and voluntarily wait till you are 73 to start drawing it. Then I will be impressed.

---

Ed, unlike Jimmy Buffet I am not parading around the country telling people that rich aren't paying enough taxes. I personally believe that having the top 5% of tax payers paying over 50% of the total US tax bill is unfair and excessive. You won't see me cut a check, in fact you will see me vote repeatedly for "shared sacrifice", IE flat tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

There is less of a tax burden on those making a quarter of a million dollars and above then there has ever been over the last 70 years. And we are in deep shit because of it.

---

It's just laughable to listen to those who pay nothing to contribute to our country spout worldly opinion of how much others should pay to cover their portion of the bill. "It's time the people riding in the wagon get out and help the rest of us push."

It's laughable to listen to the speculations of conservatives who assume they know my tax bracket and what I personally pay in taxes. If you can't attack the message attack the messenger. That the whole pathetic strategy behind your attack on Buffet...all bluster and no substance.

There are over 36000 people in the U.S. worth more than $30 000 000.00. If we taxed each 3.33% we'd get a million dollars from each for a total of 36 trillion dollars; i.e. $36 000 000 000.00. That would make a dent in the deficit. Plus those guys will still be millionaires worth more than 29 million dollars each. They won't fucking notice it. Taxing the lower earners for 50% of their worth over ten years would make you 700 million dollars.

Now is the time to repair and maintain infrastructure. The interest rates for such projects will never be lower. It would be stupid to wait for the rates to rise. Now is when we need the jobs. Now is when it's cheap to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Well a person making a million $ a year would pay approx. $220,000 in federal taxes. 25 people making $40k per year would pay approx. $0 in federal taxes. You tell me, which helps the treasury more?

---

Huh? Well, I guess if all 25 combined were making $40k... But of course that would put them all in abject poverty. So what are you trying to say here? That the poor aren't paying their fair share? The whole idea is to tax disposible income.

"There are over 36000 people in the U.S. worth more than $30 000 000.00. If we taxed each 3.33% we'd get a million dollars from each for a total of 36 trillion dollars; i.e. $36 000 000 000.00. That would make a dent in the deficit."

The math doesn't work. It looks like 36 billion not trillion. Its a shame because that would have seemed rather easy ( of course it wasn't my 1 million being taken away either) to reduce the deficit. Now based on the math, if you took 30 million from the 36 thousand people you get a little more than 1 trillion dollars which now makes me rather sick that reducing the deficit will truly take a massive effort by all Americans.

Yes, your right. If 36000 multimillionaires worth more than 30 million each contributed 1 million it would total 36000 million, which is 36 billion. But the tax rate is a paltry 3.3%. If the tax rate were 33.3% the revenue on on that tax bracket alone would be 360 billion, which is well over 1/3 of a trillion dollars. That already is a considerable dent in the deficit. And again they wouldn't miss it. Each would still be left with 29 million dollars and trying to figure out what luxuries to spend it on, or just how many hummers do they want in their fleet. This computation completely ignore the brackets between a quarter of a million and 30 million which are much larger brackets. What for example if we tax those worth 15 million or more 33.3%; how much more than 360 billion would that revenue be?

The first thing we need to do is get the economy back on track. Then we can worry about cutting programs to reduce the deficit. You don't cut programs when people need them the most. You don't lay people (which is exactly what cutting government programs means) off when the economy is floundering for lack of demand. We need to do the opposite. The private sector has restructured. It's not creating jobs and it's not about to create jobs regardless of how many tax breaks you give to corporations. They like making do with a highly productive minimal work force. It's up to the government to make jobs. No one else will do it. Labor is cheap. Interest rates are low. This is the time to create jobs through government projects and programs. Once we have a healthy demand the economy will come roaring back. When people are back to work, then we talk about cutting holes in their safety nets.

Hartmann: Koch vs Buffet - Who's right and why? - YouTube

Linda McQuaig. She's a very good writer. And, well, she's 60 years of age. She looks absolutely stunning. I'm in awe at how good she looks for 60. Is 60 the new 40 -- ha ha ha!

Linda McQuaig, co-author of 'The Trouble with Billionaires' - YouTube

Linda McQuaig THE TROUBLE WITH BILLIONAIRES.avi - YouTube

How Billionaires Ruin Democracy - YouTube

Oh nice I see Jimmy Buffett is hosting a fundraiser for Obuma. Glad to see he is an independent source.

Buffett on Tax Policy

Do French billionaires love their country more than US Billionaires? - YouTube

Where is Britain's Warren Buffett or Liliane Bettencourt?

Instead of calls to pay more tax, Britain's tycoons are looking for ways the rich can make money out of the poor

• http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...ee_140x140.jpg
• 
  
  • Polly Toynbee
  • guardian.co.uk, Friday 26 August 2011 21.00 BST
  
  http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...-Polly-007.jpg Billionaire Warren Buffett has called on the rich to pay their share of tax and rejoin society. Photograph: Seth Wenig/AP
  
  Let us now praise (some) rich men and women, the rare few who understand that philanthropy is no substitute for tax. First honours go to Warren Buffett calling on the rich to pay their fair share of tax and rejoin society. "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," he wrote in the New York Times, indignant at being taxed half what his office employees pay.
  Let's praise those 16 French billionaires who asked to be taxed more. "At a time when the government is asking everyone to show solidarity, we feel we must contribute," said L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, along with a list of others. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, hardly a man of the left, this week did raise an emergency 3% levy on the rich.
  How different things are here, where the chancellor hints at cutting top tax and has just struck a tax-dodgers' deal with Swiss banks. The cock-a-hoop press release from the Swiss Bankers Association tells how little has changed: Brits who have hidden away ill-gotten or untaxed funds will stay anonymous, hidden from UK tax authorities. Most will pay a paltry 20-25% for what the bankers call "regularising the past". For "regularising" read escaping punishment for previous theft from the Treasury. Christian Aid calls it a disgrace and Richard Murphy, tax campaigner, warns that Britain's top-rate tax payers can now quite legally bank in Zurich to pay less tax. The Treasury will recoup £5bn but Murphy says that should have been £25bn.
  In Britain this week, instead of calls to pay more tax, Sir Ronald Cohen, private equity tycoon, helped launch a plan for the wealthy to invest in projects to improve the poor – not as philanthropy but for a return of between 2.5% and 13%: the government will pay out rewards for future costs saved by social interventions. (Sir Ronald is the man credited with persuading Gordon Brown to cut capital gains tax from 40%, to a disastrous 10%, setting off a private equity and property boom, as the rich rebranded their income as capital gains.) For years Cohen, with charitable intent, has developed Social impact bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Social_Impact_Bond_diagram.JPG" class="image"><img alt="Social Impact Bond diagram.JPG" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Social_Impact_Bond_diagram.JPG/220px-Social_Impact_Bond_diagram.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/a/ae/Social_Impact_Bond_diagram.JPG/220px-Social_Impact_Bond_diagram.JPG, launched , as a way to monetise social problems and raise private revenue to solve them. Four Tory councils will start offering bonds – but so far all crucial details are missing. It's a novel solution to extreme inequality, inviting the rich to make money out of the poor.
  The first pilot began a year ago: bonds were sold to cover a charity's promise to reduce reoffending by 3,000 prisoners released from Peterborough prison. A Ministry of Justice independent evaluation notes the problems. First and worst, the contractual relationships are highly complicated. Second, funding so far is mostly not private investment but from charitable foundations – money anyway destined for good works. Gaining the confidence of all participants – state, investor and the charity providing the programme – was "time-consuming" and "raises questions about the role and quality of evidence demanded by intermediaries and investors". Future schemes should "take account of the time and skills needed to develop outcome measures".
  Assessing statistical significance of results was crucial and yet the right data was difficult to get – even on reoffending. A future risk is the danger of providers "cherry-picking" easy and profitable prospects. Evaluation depended on having a control group of prisoners not in the programme, usually impossible. And which government departments will be billed for the prisoners' improved outcomes if health, justice, social services, benefits and police are all saved future spending?
  This small scheme with a simple target – prisoners reoffending less – raised those dilemmas. Imagine the headache of drawing up watertight contracts that take a "problem family", evaluate their addictions, mental health, education, crime, truancy or unemployment, then put a price on their heads, returning to measure the cash value of any improvements a few years later. Add in top-sliced money wasted on financiers and accountants with time wasted by civil servants and evaluators. Existing family intervention projects (FIPs) are excellent – but take time and money: so will this, while the economy, jobs and wages will ultimately determine success. Here is an extraordinarily cumbersome way of creating a PFI, worse than those recently castigated by the Treasury select committee.
  All this springs from a belief that the private sector is always more efficient, whatever its mind-boggling extra costs. After all, the government can always borrow at 1% less than the private sector. Sir Ronald and the government say these are suitable investments for pension funds, ISAs and even junior ISAs where families save for their children. In other words, they are rock-solid safe. That means, as with previous employment schemes and the current work programme, if targets are missed you can bet the state will pay out anyway. So the risk will not be transferred from taxpayer to investor, but the state is borrowing expensive money to pay back later come what may. The public accounts committee will need a beady eye on money wasted on a fancy financial vehicle. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
  Some charities put their hope in these bonds in this funding drought. Other charities ask why any money their hard work and volunteers save the state isn't recycled to them instead of skimmed off to investors. This has all the hallmarks of prime political gimmickry, an eye-catching distraction from the £1.3bn the coalition has cut from charities and the 20% cut from existing early interventions such as Sure Start.
  If only Sir Ronald would instead rally the rich to pay all their taxes; with no avoidance he would raise far more than his bonds ever will. He might galvanise them to support wealth taxes earmarked for social programmes. He could shame the Philip Green and Lewis Hamilton tax avoiders. Here's what David Cameron said about rioters: "The root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years: it is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. People allowed to feel that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and that their actions do not have consequences."
  Just so, but Britain lacks a Buffett or a Bettencourt to bring the rich back into the responsible society, to reel in their soaring separation from the rest. Investing in poverty bonds for a 13% return isn't quite the same.
  
  

Quote:

---

The first pilot began a year ago: bonds were sold to cover a charity's promise to reduce reoffending by 3,000 prisoners released from Peterborough prison. A Ministry of Justice independent evaluation notes the problems. First and worst, the contractual relationships are highly complicated. Second, funding so far is mostly not private investment but from charitable foundations – money anyway destined for good works. Gaining the confidence of all participants – state, investor and the charity providing the programme – was "time-consuming" and "raises questions about the role and quality of evidence demanded by intermediaries and investors". Future schemes should "take account of the time and skills needed to develop outcome measures".
Assessing statistical significance of results was crucial and yet the right data was difficult to get – even on reoffending. A future risk is the danger of providers "cherry-picking" easy and profitable prospects. Evaluation depended on having a control group of prisoners not in the programme, usually impossible. And which government departments will be billed for the prisoners' improved outcomes if health, justice, social services, benefits and police are all saved future spending?
This small scheme with a simple target – prisoners reoffending less – raised those dilemmas. Imagine the headache of drawing up watertight contracts that take a "problem family", evaluate their addictions, mental health, education, crime, truancy or unemployment, then put a price on their heads, returning to measure the cash value of any improvements a few years later. Add in top-sliced money wasted on financiers and accountants with time wasted by civil servants and evaluators. Existing family intervention projects (FIPs) are excellent – but take time and money: so will this, while the economy, jobs and wages will ultimately determine success. Here is an extraordinarily cumbersome way of creating a PFI, worse than those recently castigated by the Treasury select committee.
All this springs from a belief that the private sector is always more efficient, whatever its mind-boggling extra costs. After all, the government can always borrow at 1% less than the private sector. Sir Ronald and the government say these are suitable investments for pension funds, ISAs and even junior ISAs where families save for their children. In other words, they are rock-solid safe. That means, as with previous employment schemes and the current work programme, if targets are missed you can bet the state will pay out anyway. So the risk will not be transferred from taxpayer to investor, but the state is borrowing expensive money to pay back later come what may. The public accounts committee will need a beady eye on money wasted on a fancy financial vehicle. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Some charities put their hope in these bonds in this funding drought. Other charities ask why any money their hard work and volunteers save the state isn't recycled to them instead of skimmed off to investors. This has all the hallmarks of prime political gimmickry, an eye-catching distraction from the £1.3bn the coalition has cut from charities and the 20% cut from existing early interventions such as Sure Start.
If only Sir Ronald would instead rally the rich to pay all their taxes; with no avoidance he would raise far more than his bonds ever will. He might galvanise them to support wealth taxes earmarked for social programmes. He could shame the Philip Green and Lewis Hamilton tax avoiders. Here's what David Cameron said about rioters: "The root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years: it is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society. People allowed to feel that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and that their actions do not have consequences."

---

Oh boy! Get ready to jump into the RDS (recidivist default swaps) market. This could be fun. It's Britain, where they already have all those on line casinos. Just publish all the details on each parolee so folks can lay down their bets on how long they'll be able to stay on the straight & narrow. Then just bundle them together & sell the packages to retirement annuity funds or the PPIIGS. Hey! What could possibly go wrong? The market will handle it. No need for government involvement. The private sector can do everything so much better... Just ask the Randian egoist cult or the Van Misesites. They wouldn't steer you wrong.

Yeppers.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...t-china-faster