Juan Williams Offers Simple Solution to Deficit: ‘We Just Have to Tax People’
In an argument which would make his ex-NPR colleagues proud, Juan Williams took to Fox News Sunday to push for tax hikes to reduce the deficit. Scolding Brit Hume, an exasperated Williams contended: “You’re going on as if, ‘you know what, we don't know in America how to help our own deficit problems.’ We do. We just have to tax people.”
Moments before, in assessing Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s expected plan on how to slow budget growth, Williams insisted “tax increases should not be off the table,” chastising Ryan for, during an interview with Chris Wallace earlier on the show, rejecting a tax increase: “I don't know why it is that he somehow suggests the rich in the country have no obligation to support the country.”
Of course, “the rich” already pay far more than their fair share.
In the latest year for which IRS data is available, 2008, “the top 1 percent of tax returns” – those earning over $380,000 -- “paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income,” the Tax Foundation’s Mark Robyn and Gerald Prante reported late last year. Robyn and Prante also noted: “The top 5 percent,” who made more than $159,000, “earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.”
From the April 3 Fox News Sunday:
JUAN WILLIAMS: Let me just say, tax increases should not be off the table. I don't know why it is that he somehow suggests the rich in the country have no obligation to support the country.
CHRIS WALLACE: I want to talk about politics of this because the Democrats, and you can certainly already see it if not from the President, from Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer in the Senate, they think that budget politics is going to work for them, that they’re going to be able to go out in 2012 – and that's exactly what Paul Ryan said – and say look at these Republicans they're going to take away your Medicare.
BRIT HUME: Throw momma from the train.
WALLACE: And they’re going to take away all the goodies that you have depended on. The counter-argument from Ryan is that we're in such trouble and the country has woken up to it, that being serious about the debt is actually good politics.
HUME: What the Democrats are likely to do has always worked. Always worked. The question is, in the aftermath of the 2010 election, is whether things are now different and whether the party that leads on trying to do something serious about this mammoth yawning deficit and debt that we face will win politically. I'm not sure. Look at Wisconsin where they passed this bill which will have a major effect on the budget in years to come. Labor fought it tooth and nail. Labor may end up winning a judgeship election out there to throw the judge in favor of the bill passed off the supreme court in favor of their own guy. Public opinion is mixed out there at best. Governors who have fought this issue on the budget have seen their popularity decline markedly. In some cases their popularity has recovered. But the indispensable ingredient was winning, in other words having the reforms, the proposals that cuts go into effect and benefits that flow there from become recognizable to the public. These House Republicans, they can't singlehandedly do that. All they can do is vote something and go as far as they can-
WILLIAMS: -succeeded in taking taxes completely off the table. Remember, Governor Walker out there cut taxes for the rich. Remember, that there’s been extension of the Bush tax cuts. And you’re going on as if, “you know what, we don't know in America how to help our own deficit problems.” We do. We just have to tax people.
HUME: Juan, what we need is not higher tax rate. What we need is higher revenue. How do you get higher revenues? You get higher revenues from an expanding economy. That's where the big money comes from.
WILLIAMS: GE paying no taxes. That’s good for America? C’mon, you know that's not right.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Simple insanity
Submitted by rockyracoon on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:08am.
Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Government never taxed it's way out of a recession/depression; it has never worked, and it can't work.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
So true. No doubt.
Submitted by russedav on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 12:14pm.
With the richest 1% already paying taxes equal to the bottom 95%, Juan just isn't playing with a full deck, just 52 jokers. Even if taxes increased, so would the spending, getting exactly nowhere, not addressing the problem at all. One thing we should do is to take every last cent from the members of Congress who voted for this financial disaster and auction off everything they have (including all their clothes) and pay that toward the debt and make them find their own wood to make their own barrels to wear (let the women keep their bras) and see how they like being homeless.
You can take the liberal out
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:15am.
You can take the liberal out of NPR......
I don't know why it is that he somehow suggests the rich in the country have no obligation to support the country.
Williams continues to propagate the canard that the rich pay no taxes.
And the answer to the question of how much is "fair" is always "More."
I don't know how GE manages to pay no taxes, and that probably isn't right, but that's a long way from the rich not supporting the country.
"rich paying no taxes", BS
Submitted by DebinFla on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 9:24am.
I'm disappointed in Juan Williams, but not surprised. I was suspicious when Fox hired him, but thought....hmmmm maybe he's coming around. I see that's not the case. And I, too am horrified that GE paid no taxes, but CONGRESS is who gave them those "loophole" laws by catering to their lobbyists. We should be screaming at our elected people in Washington, the American people did not create the deficit, THEY DID. Congress exempts themselves from odumbocare, WHY are they allowed to do this? If we don't start placing blame where it belongs- THE GOVERNMENT, nothing is gonna change.
The reason why GE didn't pay
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:43pm.
The reason why GE didn't pay taxes was all the subsidies they got from the government for their "GREEN" efforts, so in actuality it's far worse!
BTW- If all taxes are born by the customer when buying the product or service, then does taxing a business make any sense at all? Taxes upon businesses are merely stealth income taxes upon the individual.
No, Juan
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:12am.
No more taxes, stop the insane spending spree and get the country's finances in order. You don't and couldn't run your household finances that way and we do not either. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just easily get more income in as we spend it in our personal lives. Well, we can't and the government with all of it's growing size and the out of control spending for God knows what, can't either.
No more taxes period, stop the irresponsible government spendin and debt.
Typical NPR Leftwing attitude.
I guess Juan doesn't think this deep recession is deep enough
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:36am.
So he's elected the full-blown depression option.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I'm short on money this month. I know what to do!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:42am.
Demand my employer pay me more or go to jail. That'll do it!
Who is the employer Juan? We, the People, or the Government?
OK let's tax
Submitted by jpk3 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:47am.
and we should start with the appx 49% who work but pay no income taxes, even if it's a low tax of 3%. I've heard talk about closing loop holes with companies how about the loop hole that allows a refund that is more than the taxes withheld or receiving a refund that was never put in. Let's have a real audit of the tax exempt organizations, I'll bet there are more than a dozen that violate the rules, like I don't know campaigning from the pulpit.
jpk3
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:21pm.
I am in total agreement. Many times I have been in line behind people that use food stamps to pay for food. Then use cash to pay for hard liquor and cigarettes.
No such thing!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:56pm.
I regularly have conversations with people, who come tax time, get more back from the federal government then they have had withheld in income taxes. This free money is called Earned Income Tax Credit. I have never heard any of the recipients of these monies call them what they really are, which is welfare payments for meeting certain criteria. These people always call these monies "tax refunds", which is a joke.
Secondly, people who receive large, bulk EIC payments, tend to go out and blow that payment on things they cannot afford, like big screen televisions or fancy phones. IF, (and big IF), we have to have an EIC program, then those monies should be pro-rated on a monthly basis and should come in the form of food stamps. I know many people who blow their large EIC welfare payment in March or April, and end up with no money come the fall.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish17
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:00pm.
If you enjoy the EIC you'll absolutely love this.
Saw this story today on CNN while biding my time in the dentist's waiting room.
Adoptions gone south.
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:23pm.
I have heard of cases where couples end up "un-adopting" a child when things go horribly wrong. If this happens in this case, will these people have to send a check back to the feds?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Actually the problem isn't
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:54am.
Actually the problem isn't that taxes need to be raised it is just that there are so many ways to avoid paying them. And that applies to both personal and corporate taxes.
Big corporations have the ability to move money offshore to avoid paying taxes while the small business owner gets stuck paying the full bill since they don't have the means to do so.
Those evil multinationals
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:09am.
I guess they are loading up the empty freighters from China with cash and moving that money overseas.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
We have plenty of money...
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:22pm.
...just stop spending. We have a spending problem; not a revenue problem. How do people miss this? Our government has become nothing but a re-election machine.
The government bails out the banks and they say thank you by charging the poor $30 return check fees and $5 ATM fees. Your welcome. We bail out Wall Street and (get them back on their feet after 9/11) they say thank you by raping our retirement savings. Your welcome. We bail out the housing market and they pay us back with unexpected balloon payments unprecedented foreclosures.
And we are fighting wars to make the world safe for democracy? We need to save ourselves from whatever this democracy has become--a re-election machine.
Evil Banks and Wall Street
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:43pm.
The banks didn't need bail out money. They didn't want bail out money. TARP created a huge slush fund that the government used to peddle political influence and save the United Auto Workers. The banks needed regulatory relief, not borrowed money from the feds, (which they paid off, with interest).
Yes, the banks rip people off with $30 return check fees and $5 atm fees. When people go to the movies, they get ripped off by shelling out $10 for a large popcorn and $6 for medium coke. Stupid is as stupid does.
There are plenty of ways to avoid any of the fees charged by any Wall Street firm regarding your IRA. A fool and his money are soon parted.
These are just liberal talking points aimed at demonizing business. The only monopoly here that can't be avoided is the federal government.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I got off track
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:51pm.
You're right. I'm just mad and venting and got off point. Don't get me wrong. I am not demonizing business or the rich, but banks are a necessary evil. I don't have to go to the movies. I do have a problem with CEO's who cut my pay and collect muti-million dollar bonuses. I do have a problem with CEO's who send send jobs that pay $30/hr here to counties who pay 30 cents an hour. Minimum wage in most Chinese larger cities is around $160/mo.
I am against. monopolies and the consolidation of power. Companies are NEVER too big to fail. But some companies become too big to succeed. They can live with billions in profits but not absorb billions in losses.
Our government has it's fingers in pies in has no business being in. Education, Energy, EPA, and Health Care are just a few. Obama brought "trillion" in the American lexicon. He can spend trillions, but just hang tight for the screams about cutting trillions. Government jobs are not jobs that count. The government is overhead. Business is profit.
But I'm rambling now. Simply put...Stop Spending.
The national deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Personally, I don't think the
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:01am.
Personally, I don't think the GE thing is such a scandal. It would be nice if they didn't feel the need to sink millions into lawyers and accountants to figure out how not to pay corporate taxes, but I'm not a big fan of corporate taxes to begin with. My guess is that every union would support a zero percent tax rate for corporations if that money was instead deposited in employee payroll or pension funds. As it is, those lawyers and accountants have to pay taxes, so the money isn't "non-taxed", it's merely paid by other entities besides "GE".
What Juan and other liberals ought to consider is the amount of revenue that would have been generated had there not been a need to extend unemployment benefits on multiple occasions. GE didn't "transfer" company money to lawyers to skirt the tax code in lieu of hiring, they simply had no need to hire. Put those unemployment benefit payment back in the coffers (or China's, as it were) and collect tax payments from those working in lieu of not working, and the debt and deficit picture looks a whole lot different. Same for the bailout money.
It would have also helped if GE could have kept more labor in the US rather than hiring from outside the country. But labor costs (labor, health, and legacy) in this country have driven companies that prefer profits to loses, to look elsewhere.
There's a structural problem when it comes to the tax code, and an equally anti-business problem when it comes to labor. Until those issues are solved, any recovery is short-lived. If economics is a zero-sum game, as liberals claim that it is, then they need to look inward at their own (unions) to see how they're bringing down American productivity, and therefore -revenues.
This is what is wrong with
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:06am.
This is what is wrong with liberals. They do not think. Raising taxes will not get rid of this deficit, spending cuts will.
When will these libturds realize that this country does not have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem. This leviathan of a government spends to much of our money!! Cut the waste, drop the useless programs and agencies. Goodbye Dept of Education, goodbye EPA.
Scoob,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:13am.
The Dept. of Energy should be on the chopping block along with the EPA, as they seem only interested in impeding energy production - along with a whole lot of other things, too.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I agree Dave. How many
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:54am.
I agree Dave.
How many useless agencies are out there? How many have overlapping functions?
What the libturds do not understand is that a big government is a burden on the taxpayer. Government jobs do not generate revenue?
Just think, the salary a government worker receives is paid by someone who actually makes or provides a service that people will pay for. A McDonalds restaurant creates more wealth and more jobs that generate revenue than any government agency.
Scoob,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:02am.
My dog generates more real revenue than all government employees combined.
Yeah, the Departments of Energy and Education are but two of Jihad Jimmy's gifts that just keep on giving.
-Or is that taking?
And Tricky Dick's contribution was the EPA.
Vote for the American in November
Juan Williams deserves
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:07am.
the Paul Krugman Prize in Economics.
I wonder just how much
Submitted by inquiringmind on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:11am.
I wonder just how much revenue we would raise if we did increase the tax rates on the over $250,000 crowd. My guess is not nearly enough to offset the deficit.
I would guess it would simply be an exercise in making the left FEEL good about exacting their pound of flesh but it wouldn't solve anything.
"There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza a hole."
Good question, inquiring....
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:24am.
I think I read somewhere that we could tax ALL income earners over $500K per year at 100% of their income and not come close to offsetting current spending.
As Paul Ryan is fond of saying, it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.
I just saw some Democrat on with Martha McC and I have been screaming at the TV. The democrats are already attempting to put the spin against the "mean" cuts, Medicare for seniors will be destroyed, defunding cancer research at NIH, blah, blah, blah.
Sometimes I wish for a Tom Clancy-like solution to this Congress of do-nothing greedy idiots. Truly. We'll never be rid of the self-aggrandizing leeches called the democrat party.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Just make sure that ones like
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:31am.
Just make sure that ones like Rubio, West, Ryan, Bachmann, DeMint and other like minded folks are out of town visiting their constituents when that happens Blonde. ;-)
The banner on my blog page
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:50am.
The banner on my blog page says, 'there is not a revenue problem in Raleigh. There is a spending problem that has been there from 18+ years of Democrats rule." The same thing applies to Washington. I know Bush is to blame for some but this national debt didn't really balloon until Obama started it 26 months ago.
I am sick of hearing the same mantra from the left that old people are going to be dying in the streets and kids will look emaciated like they do in Africa for going hungry.
Bill Whittle and IowaHawk explain it marvelously...
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:33am.
go to this YouTube cache of Bill Whilttle's "Eat the Rich" and you'll see how futile this 'tax the rich' stupidity is (and always has been)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
In point of fact, as the percentage of th population that pays the majority of the tax take gets smaller then the impact of any economic hiccup goes up geometrically. Today. QED.
stop spending, Juan
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:18am.
How is it that liberals NEVER seem to understand 'stop spending'? Where does this belief come from that you can just confiscate the earnings of the successful people and they will do nothing about it (static scoring)?
Again and again I hear the Marxists ranting that we have to redo that which never worked in the history of man. Apparently they are so sold on their own superior intellect that they can make it work while so many others have failed. Is it hubris or stupidity? In the end it doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.
G*d, I hate intellectuals.
Why Not "...Just Stop Spending so Much?"
Submitted by scottyusmc on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:18am.
Why can't this government make the same decisions that every household in America make on a daily basis. I cannot decide that I "want" a million dollar home and two cars then go to my boss and force him to pay me enough money to achieve it. What idiots!!!! Common Sense is not a Common Virtue in DC.
It can't work.
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:24am.
Taking the entire networth of the top 5% of income earners (those with AGI of over $160,000...That is any and all of their homes, vehicles, bank accounts (including retirement), all their stock protfolios, etc... all of their money no matter where or what it is would not even equal the current projected deficit of $1.6 trillion
Look for a video on YouTube called "Eat the Rich" for an excellent explanation of just how deep the hole is and why spending cuts are THE ONLY answer. It is EXCELLENT!
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/04/eating-the-rich-and-still-left-hungry/
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Part time Congress with term limits! -- YES!
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:44am.
For some long time now I've been convinced that one of the problems is that these Beltway Bandits have way too much time to do damage. Add to that the growing self image of royalty that seems to go with longer and longer stays inside the Beltway and you get our current diaster.
I'd say six years in the House and either six in the Senate and that's that - go home. In addition, I'd say no more than three months in session unless there's a war or major national disaster and the President can call for a special session with a Constitutional constraint that they can ONLY legislate directly to that issue and none other. If a budget is not passed in session, they go to jail with work release - to pass the bill, only. Oh yeah, no country club jail either. They get the D.C. regular jail(s) - a real hell hole and a stimulus to get it done.
Works for me.
How to encourage laziness
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:47pm.
Term limits - a lazy solution to make a lazy electorate even MORE lazy.
The CA legislature has term limits, and the CA government, last I checked, is not exactly the model anyone wants to follow.
The San Antonio city government has term limits and I notice no increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of city government whatsoever. In fact, the ONLY thing I have noticed is increased voter laziness. "Ho-hum. My councilman (or the mayor) is a bum but I'll just wait until he is term limited out."
There is NO substitute for an involved citizenry. Not even a sorry cop-out like term limits.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns...I have noticed here in CA
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:50pm.
That term limits are really useless. All it does is make the usual suspects play musical chairs with their elected offices. Take our midget mayor for example. He was a city councilman, got termed out, became an assembly member....termed out, then became a state senator....termed out, now he is is the failed mayor of L.A......to be termed out....where is he off to next??? If the voters keep electing these losers to other offices, whats the point? You still have a zero in office, no matter which office it is.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Good point!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:48pm.
That's a really good point, BEGRUNT, one which I had not considered. The term limit crowd has this romantic notion of ending "career politicians" (never mind they were born in some cases before the nation was), but they occur anyway, following the path you describe.
Scuba Dude had an intriguing idea some time ago, and it's this: instead of term limits, dump the politicians' goodies. Meaning whether you serve 20 or 3 terms in the U.S. House, you won't be getting ANY retirement. Or any other retirement bennies either. If you REALLY say you are doing the job for your constituents, you will want to participate anyway. You get a paycheck, but other than that, that's it. (You better go out and get your own damn medical insurance too.) I like this because I think this will act as a term limit, yet at the same time keep the voting public involved.
Term limits to me were an intriguing idea until I saw what happened with San Antonio city government.
Oh, here's a horrifying thought: watch your joker Villaraigosa (sp?) run for CA gov (or Lt Gov if that is run for as a separate office in CA, which I think it is, but I am not sure).
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Williams has a gradeschooler's understand of economics
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:28am.
It just boggles the mind how a national pundit could still cling to these silly arguments. Take the accumulated weath of all America's "rich" along with their internal organs and you still would not come close to touching one year of Obama's deficit. His argument is childish..
Poor, stoopid Juan.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:35am.
I'll tell Juan what I always tell my poor, stoopid, commie sister every time she starts this rant; there is NO LAW that prevents each and every liberal who wants to from contributing all the money they wish to the government. How many do that? ZERO!
Someone even asked Warren Buffett not long ago in an interview when he was discussing that rich people should pay more in taxes, why he didn't just give millions to the government instead of his tax-free charities. His answer was classic. He said that the government wouldn't spend the money as wisely as "his charities" do.
In the same breath he says pay more in taxes, then says the government doesn't spend wisely. I'm still wondering how he made so much money with a mind like that.
I also tell my commie sister, "You want to pay reparations?" Pick out a family and give them all your money. "You want to house the homeless?" I'll drive you downtown and we can pick out two bums for each of your three empty bedrooms and bring them home for you to watch over.
Want to know how far that project went?
Buffet
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:41am.
I think he was talking more about tax avoidance and not raising income taxes.
"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.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. "
http://ww_.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
True, rick ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:51am.
... but he is free to send the government ALL his money if he chooses to, and feels that it will be used wisely. Apparently he doesn't feel that way.
I'm willing to bet that regardless of how the tax laws are changed, old Warren ain't going to pay a hell of a lot more than he already does, and maybe even less.
Furthermore...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:28pm.
"but he is free to send the government ALL his money if he chooses to, and feels that it will be used wisely"
Furthermore, his secretary is free to make a living via investing, just like Warren Buffet. No one forces her to work for a salary instead of investment income. She chose her career path, just like Buffet chose his.
sounds like BS to me
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:05am.
I ran the numbers for 2010. If she was single and her taxable income was $60K then the tax would have been $11,188 for a 18.6% tax rate. If her gross was $60K then her taxable was $50,650 using standard deductions and her tax rate was 14.7%.
Buffett is a known social leftist much like Soros. They rape and plunder in the capitalist world and then pontificate on the evils of capitalism. Must be a guilt trip thing.
While I will accept....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:12am.
While I will accept moral guidance from God and my pastor, when Buffet says "you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”, it really puts a burr under my saddle blanket. The "rest of humanity" Really, Warren? All 6.9 billion of them? But, then, all he said was "think about" them. I guess he really didn't say to do anything, did he?
Rick- what Buffet said was misleading - the amount he "paid" is after all legal deductions, while the 30% rate (actually 28%) is the withholding rate - before deductions, if any. The amount she probably paid was significantly less.
OBTW, how's that wind farm coming, Warren? You are quite the "wind generator", yourself.
Well
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:49pm.
Well, say what you want. He has pledged to give away something like 85% of his wealth to charity and the Gates Foundation. At least he's not asking people to do something he isn't willing to do himself.
However...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:51pm.
But he IS asking people to do something he isn't willing to do himself. He is whining for evil rich people like himself to pay even more in taxes, YET instead of giving away 85% of his wealth to the government, he is giving it to charity and the Gates Foundation.
If he doesn't think he is paying more in taxes, he can give that 85% of his wealth to the Department of the Treasury. Is he? No.
When rich people whine that they aren't paying enough in taxes, the REAL reason they want to pay more in taxes is to erect another barrier of entry, so that they don't have to live near icky nouveau riche types.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Pledging" to give away...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:27pm.
is the same thing as "thinking about" the "rest of humanity" (?!), which, by the way, is tax deductible, unlike giving it to the government which is just plain wasteful.
Buffet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:25pm.
But with all he's giving or going to give away, Buffet's lifestyle won't change one iota. He's not going to be flying coach or make any of the other choices the rest of us do. When he gives it ALL away and lives on $60,000 a year I'll be impressed. Until then, he's just another rich guy trying to change the rules so no one else can get as rich as he did.
Precisely, rad
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:52pm.
Until then, he's just another rich guy trying to change the rules so no one else can get as rich as he did. EXACTLY, rad! When these guys start whining that they aren't taxed enough, all they are doing is begging for a barrier to entry to their privileged world. It's disingenious.
I still remember when Joe Kernen ripped into one guy who whined about "How we rich really don't pay enough in taxes" by saying "Do it!" repeatedly on Squawk Box one morning some months back.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 9:57pm.
It's why I've always had my crush on Joe Kernan. I'm such a nerd.
Nice link
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:36am.
How about one that actually works?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Sorry about that
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:45am.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
got a dash under the one www
Thanks aston
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:56am.
Thanks for posting the link, aston. I wanted to check it out to see if that's what Buffet really said. If the quote is accurate, then Buffet is just lying. If he was paid $46 million in salary and wages from a company, he would have been taxed at the highest possible rate, much higher then an individual making only $60,000 in income.
Buffets tax is based on unearned such as capital gains and other sources that are taxed at a considerably lower rate. If one wants to make the argument that capital gains needs to be taxed at a higher level, that's a different argument.
If the U.S. were to significantly raise it's capital gains tax, however, capital would leave the United States, so it's not an easy solution.
A fair solution would be to lower the income tax to the same level, or lower, then the capital gains rate.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I was thinking the same thing
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:37pm.
they should lower top marginal rate and raise capital gains and meet somewhere in the middle. Income is income whether it comes from earnings or investments.
They should abolish corporate taxes completely so the small business owner is on the same playing field as the larger corporation. Money would flow back from overseas and small businesses would have more money to hire employees.
Then institute a national VAT tax to make up for the corporate tax.
Silliness
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:55pm.
Income is not income. Income is wages, salaries, tips. The end. If it is not any of those things, it is a capital gain. Check the law sometime.
What we need to do is to cut corporate taxes to 17% so that our corporate taxes are finally less than other countries (like Canada's). That's 17% with no loopholes or breaks or higher rates for being more profitable.
And yeah, you want to institute a national VAT to make up for corporate taxes. Attack C, watch people slam their wallets shut, watch corporate profits fall and watch people lose their jobs, watch small businesses fall by the wayside. No thank you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think we
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:55pm.
I think we are going to agree to disagree on this one. I believe if there was no corporate tax burden you (especially right now) would see increased competition and increased hiring. Companies aren't hiring right now due to uncertainty with their taxes increasing under the Obama administration.
With no tax you wouldn't have to worry about it.
There would be increased competition for smaller companies as they would be on equal footing with large corporations as far as their tax expenses (which is not true now). Lower corporate taxes would also lead to more payroll for the employees as companies have more money that they were giving to the government before.
I thought individual business owners where supposed to know better how to allocate their money than letting the government do it?
If the VAT is on non-essential items, if you don't want to pay the tax you don't buy the item. I don't pay a cigarette tax because I don't smoke. Those companies seem to be doing OK by me.
Are you kidding me?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:48pm.
A VAT on 'non-essential" items? Who determines what is "non-essential"? YOU? A bunch of Socialists?
You want corporations to invest more at home, but then, you decide to declare war on consumer spending - 66% of GDP - which will only damage profitability of small businesses. By the way, in your zeal to defend small businesses, many of them would shut their doors if that VAT passed, because many small businesses do not have B2B transaction agreements and thus will pass the VAT directly onto their customers.
Tax all corporations at 17%. Corporations, small businesses, mid-sized ones, are all looking for predictability. If a mom-and-pop shop or a business like Boeing knows that 1, 5, 10, 20 years from now, all they have to do is pay 17% of their earnings in taxes, they then can project what their earnings and returns will be with a greater degree of certainty, and can plan accordingly. They aren't investing right now because they know that a capricious, capitalist-hating administration is calling the shots in this country, so no one will make a move. And who can blame them?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Tax Happy
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:02pm.
Aston, you are tax happy.
"Let''s raise capital gains taxes!" "Let's institute a national VAT tax!" I'm not going to look at your profile, but I am going to guess that you are from Europe somewhere.
Raising taxes on capital would result in capital fleeing the United States and going somewhere where it is taxed less. It would result in the lowering of monies received and hurt our economy. Bad idea, but maybe it makes liberals feel better, and sometimes that's all that really matters.
A VAT tax is a hidden tax that no one realizes they are paying. This is the liberals favorite kind of tax. If incomes stay the same, all a VAT tax accomplishes is destroying the economy and transffering a percentage of the economic output directly to the government. If you want a bigger federal government, I can see why you are in favor of a VAT tax.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You mean
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:09pm.
You mean I am tax happy after I said to get rid of the corporate tax rate and lower the top marginal tax rate right?
I concur with your idea that increasing capital gains may move capital offshore so that is fine.
"A VAT tax is a hidden tax that no one realizes they are paying. This is the liberals favorite kind of tax. If incomes stay the same, all a VAT tax accomplishes is destroying the economy and transffering a percentage of the economic output directly to the government. If you want a bigger federal government, I can see why you are in favor of a VAT tax".
We are already paying corporate taxes on all of our items that we purchase which is hidden in the cost. So the destruction of the economy is already underway.
Getting rid of corporate taxes would remove a large portion of the IRS so government could actually get smaller.
Corporate Tax
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:50pm.
By all means, let's get rid of the corporate income tax. Wonderful idea. It would take away about 1/2 of the liberal b*tching and we'd no longer have to listen about all the so called loopholes that are a constant harangue of the left. We'd also get rid of a ton of lobbyists.
Arguing in favor of a VAT tax by saying we have a hidden corporate tax right now doesn't make any sense. A federal VAT tax is a bad idea.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Granted
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 4:41pm.
maybe the Vat isn't the way to go. But there has to be a better way to generate revenue for the government that doesn't allow tax avoidance which pushes the burden on the smaller companies.
Obviously if you get rid of corporate tax you'd look for revenue elsewhere I just don't know where that would be.
Flat Tax
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:20pm.
Flat tax of 15% on all personal income above $3,000. No deductions. No exemptions. The more you make, the more you pay. Sounds fair to me. No credits (But we don't need to tax the 12 year old mowing lawns.)
I just picked that number off the top of my head. Maybe 10% is a better number.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I thought
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:30pm.
I thought that was a good idea when Jerry Brown suggested it in 1992 when him and Laffer thought a 13% rate was good starting point. You could wipe out the entire IRS and shrink government as a bonus.
Fantasy
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:54pm.
Or we could go with the 17% flat tax proposed by Steve Forbes in 1996.
But getting rid of the IRS is fantasy. Hence, I just want the IRS reduced to about 100 bean-counters working somewhere within the beltway.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would bet you're not your sister's favorite person, Bubba
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:03pm.
Hilarious.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
She's a commie, Blonde ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:08pm.
... but she loves me like her little brother!
Sounds like you're doing your job, then
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:12pm.
By being annoying as hell.
Good for you. It's your constitutional duty as a conservative to annoy liberals, particularly ones in your own family.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That is why I have such
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 7:43pm.
That is why I have such amazement for the family in the Blind Side who did exactly as you suggested to your sister. Sometimes a miracle does happen when you take a risk. But there is a difference between what that family did, and what socialists do. In Venezuela, instead of being voluntary, the law mandates that middle class and rich families house the homeless (or the poor). The government has the right to take away your home if it decides you did not open your doors to those it considers in need. This is one of the kinds of laws that Mugabe got Rhodesia (I will never call it by the Z name) in big trouble with.
Liberals don't want to learn the concept that there is no merit to charity if it's at the point of a gun or prison, or where you use the point of a gun or prison to take money away from a third party to give it to your special interest(s). It is thievery pure and simple.
One would think now that Juan works in the private sector...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:39am.
...that he would be a little more cognizant of what it takes out in the real world to put the money in his paycheck each week.
Unlike National Proletariat Radio, Fox cannot use the police powers of government to point guns at taxpayer's heads and force them to cough up more money.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
There ain't enough money
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:41am.
To a liberal, the solution is always easy.
However!
For argument's sake, let's say the 'top one percent" of people - men, women and children, in this country (even though they are not all wage earners) total 3.1 million people.
That means each person would have to pay an additional $532,000 in taxes to balance the budget.
Of course the actual number of TAXPAYERS in that 1% is far smaller, so will someone explain that the top 1% of wage earners (the "rich") don't have anywhere near that much money?
Use a graphic!
Atta boy, Juan!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 10:54am.
Can a Nobel Prize in economics be far behind?
As part of that 5% of taxpayers who pay 58.7% of all personal income tax collected (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html), excuse me for thinking that my wife and I have fulfilled our "obligation".
Maybe Krugman can put in a good word for him
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:46am.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Ahhhhh da Thug Solution
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:32am.
I'll just take it from someone else.
roflmmfao
Too Much Time on FNC
Submitted by BW222 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 11:55am.
The bad thing about Juan Williams getting whacked by NPR is that he appears on FNC more frequently.
I saw this...During this exchange, the look...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:17pm.
on Brit Hume's face was priceless...He and Juan have a history of mixing it up about issues, and this was another moment where Juan's runaway, irresponsible liberalism provoked an exasperated response from Brit.
All in all, Juan Williams is a good guy and I like him okay, but he is most definitely a committed lib, as his "we just have to tax people" comment makes very clear.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Typical Liberal TAX and SPEND
Submitted by lkotur on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:17pm.
I don't know about that putz, but I work 60+ hours a week and don't make six figures. If you want higher taxes, Juan, just write a check to the IRS out of your own checking account and keep your damn hands off of what I EARN!
I agress with Williams, but
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:40pm.
I agress with Williams, but not quite how he imagined it. I would begin taxing again all those, some 50% now, that don't pay taxes and stop paying people that not only don't pay taxes, but get money back. Our taxing authority is not a welfare agency. It is designed to provide revenue to run our government.
Now, if that were to be done, the protests in D.C. would make those in Wisconsin look like small potatoes. Nevertheless, I believe it must be done.
Insidious is a larger and larger group of the electorate that are getting a free ride. Some say, that at some point, if they vote as a block, the rest of us would be doomed. I think that moment has long since past.
Folks, this administration has added 5 trillion dollars to our national debt in just two years. This year alone we will spend $1.8 trillion dollars more at the federal level than we are taking in in taxes.
This has got to stop. The Republicons have to get some backbone. $60 billion dollars in cuts to this year's budget is laughably small. They must bring this government to a standstill until reasonable people agree to slash this budget by at least 500 billion dollars this year and 750 billion dollars next year and so forth until we have a balanced budget.
Urge your congressman and senators to bring to the floor of their respective houses a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. That is the only way that we can bring these sprendthrift cretins back in line.
A Libtard is a Socialist is a Marxist
Submitted by sheik yermami on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 1:46pm.
Take him out with the garbage already!
And take Gerry Rivera, Alan 'Skeletor' Colmes and O'Reilly with the trash too!
Oh Juan, I know you have to
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:07pm.
Oh Juan, I know you have to peddle the liberal tropes to be called a liberal, but it's time to find your inner Neo-con. We already determined that even IF you taxed all the rich people at 100% you wouldn't even come close to closing the budget deficit.
So Juan, are you are now implying everyone get a tax increase? You have heard of the term Stagflation where unemployment is high (wages are stagnant as a result) but inflation is occurring? Look around you Juan, food and energy prices are rising, inflation is here. Where are the wage increases? With millions unemployed and virtually ALL job growth in the part time category there is no way to increase one's income to just keep up with the cost of living. And you want to further reduce NET income of the taxpayers whose wages aren't increasing but their expenses are?
Come on Juan you know the answer here, reduce spending, i.e. eliminate ALL the extra spending initiated since Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in January 2007.
We don't tax the rich.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:42pm.
At least not now, but there is constant calling for a wealth tax (which involves taxing your net worth, home(s), investments, cash, etc).
We tax the high income earners And most of them may be considered rich.
If I started making a million dollars a year, between federal, state, local taxes, fees, utility taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes. Add in the increased cost of utilities, gasoline, food, and products, it would take me a very long time to be considered rich.
To me, rich means having a high level of disposable income riding out the current economy as investments.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Not sure I get your post
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:51pm.
Are you in favor of a tax on assets?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Not really.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 7:53pm.
It would be a form of double taxation. The only way I can think of that will make it work is if the IRS taxes the greater of the two, income or assets, above a certain income level. Even then there would be great wailing in anguish, tearing of cloth, and gnashing of teeth.
Remember, every single Democrat in the senate is a multimillionaire, but they only get taxed on their income and investments and have about a billion tax deductions to lower their bill. They won't give that up for a straight percentage of their wealth.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Not really.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 7:52pm.
Duplicate.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Maybe we such tax the Stupid.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:44pm.
Maybe we such tax the Stupid. Surely that would become a real incentive to smarten up?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Jack,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:08pm.
LOL - Here in Georgia, we already have a tax on the stupid.
We call it the Georgia Lottery.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Funny dave!
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 7:22pm.
Funny dave!
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Juan Krugman.
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 3:43pm.
Juan Krugman.
Jaun- OK Where Do We Find These Rich People.
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 6:22pm.
Jaun has only had a few weeks since escaping NPR to defelop Mathimatic literacy. He does not realize that the Laffer Curve is a LAW not a theory. He does not know that the capital that keeps all of American industry going cannot pay the deficit over the next four years if Obama is re-elected. The Chinese have no capital gains taxes, zero, nothing this is why they are beating us in the market place. Jaun does not understand that. A couple of decades ago John Stassel did not understand these facts but does now.so there maybe hope for Jaun...someday..
Look around even further..
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 8:57pm.
Not only do the Chinese not have capital gains taxes, but many countries in freaking EUROPE have very low capital gains taxes. And the ONLY country with higher corporate taxes is Japan!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)