Refreshingly honest opinion from someone who is both an insider and an established expert.
The crux:
- I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.
Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that.
Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist. I do like that he proposes to raise the 250,000 bar to 500,000. 250k is a very nice household income but if you have a family of 5, you would be at from rich these days.SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”
-well said.
From what I know, I think Obama is saying $200k for an individual, and $250k for a family. That seems to punish married couples, although I suppose they could file separately. He should just make it $200k for an individual, or $400k for a family. The difference could be made up on the high-end, taxing Warren et al. with a marginal rate like he suggests.
That makes much more sense to me. [edit] and filing separately comes with its own penalties. There are tax advantages to being married.
The average household has 2.5 children. Having 3 is not hyperbole. Don't get me wrong, a $250k household intake is not too shabby even with 5 people under a roof but it is not "wealthy" either.
Warren is still full of crap. He hides billions in taxable estate money from the government, his companies are in constant litigation over taxes, and he personally lobbies for bailout money for other companies that he invests in. Then he lectures us about paying more taxes. I prefer guys like Larry and Bill who just STFU and do their own thing. -XC
There are often hypocrisies with those that choose to ascend the soap box. Some that come quick to mind are Jon Edwards, Al Gore and Newt Gingrich. Though they may be hypocrites, it doesn't make the topics they champion any less "real". Warrens point about taxing returns not leading to less investment is correct IMO.
It certainly can. Patraeus shagging some chick doesn't affect his judgement on military matters. Al Gore consuming conspicuously certainly taints his judgement on climate matters. Warren Buffet is, at best, manipulating public matters for his own gain. At worst he's a blowhard who doesn't get critical feedback for being a hypocrite. In either case, listening to him is something that should have one's internal BS filter on 11. _XC PS - There is a ton of debate on tax/investment/etc in economics. It's not "settled science."
It certainly can. Patraeus shagging some chick doesn't affect his judgement on military matters. Al Gore consuming conspicuously certainly taints his judgement on climate matters.
-sure, but that doesn't make Global Warming less "real". I may know that there is an obesity epidemic and I may even preach that people need to be more health conscious. Then, I may go eat a 10 piece chicken nugget, large fries and a coke. This doesn't make the obesity epidemic any less real just because I'm an idiot. PS. Gore makes me shudder too. Edwards makes me guffaw in amazement and Gingrich makes me chuckle as only a cartoon character can. Buffet I really enjoy listening to. Some great Charlie Rose interviews with Warren.