Warren Buffet calls Bush tax plan "Voodoo Economics"

Dback Jon · May 20th, 2003, 11:43 AM

That uses "Enron-style" accounting.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news..._tax/index.htm

From a man who's opinion I trust....

Mike Olbinski · May 20th, 2003, 11:52 AM

And your thoughts on this are.......????

Mike

WizardOfAz · May 20th, 2003, 11:52 AM

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets," Buffett added.

He closed the piece by saying that the "government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 11:56 AM

*startled*

Wait a minute! Are you saying that a registered Democrat who raised money for Hillary Clinton and favored unilateral nuclear disarmament said something critical of a Bush economic policy????

Boy, am I glad I was sitting down when I read this. The windows nearly shattered....

Dodged a big one there.

schutd · May 20th, 2003, 11:58 AM

Finally an opinion laid out in terms a regualr joe like me can understand.

I'd certainly be interested in hearing a counter to his argument, but right now, in my admittedly limited understanding of economic prinicpals as a whole, this tax cut sounds like more Reaganomics. The rich get richer...

schutd · May 20th, 2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
*startled*

Wait a minute! Are you saying that a registered Democrat who raised money for Hillary Clinton and favored unilateral nuclear disarmament said something critical of a Bush economic policy????

Boy, am I glad I was sitting down when I read this. The windows nearly shattered....

Dodged a big one there.

Wayward, you are pretty level headed. How bout offering up a link to some dissenting opinion rather than just trashing the guy cause he's a liberal.

By the way, you mention the favoring unilateral nuclear disarmament as if its a bad thing...

Dback Jon · May 20th, 2003, 12:03 PM

Buffett nailed it right on the head. This tax cut is all wrong - it will do little to stimulate the economy, and will just create a bigger hole for us to get out of (deficit).

Bad Idea, Terrible timing.

WizardOfAz · May 20th, 2003, 12:05 PM

To be fair, Buffett operates in an apolotical environement. He is so beloved by his investors that he can really do no wrong in their minds.

What he fails to factor into his opinion, is the political reality that The President is operating in currently. (And before anyone trashes me what I am about to say is very it as true if there were a democrat in the White House.) The political clout that the current administration is going to gain from this will go along way in helping him get reelected. While it is true that Buffett may not "need" $310 million (that looks as ridiculous as it sounds) the people who get that money will work to ensure Bush is relected.

It is further true that there may very well be 310,000 families that could use $1,000 each, but they will not do much to return Bush to office.

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 12:08 PM

schutd,

The fundamental concept against this tax cut is that the rich get some of their money back. What I can't understand is why this is such a bad thing in liberals' eyes.

Directly from the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 56% of all taxes. The top 10% pay 67% and the top 50% pay 96% of all taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50% pay only 4% of the total tax burden.

If the rich are paying such an inordinate share of the tax burden, doesn't it stand to reason they should benefit commensurate with that burden?

Besides, it is those with that type of money to invest that do so, spurring economic activity. How many people making $25,000 a year are going to invest in the stock market? It is those with money who start the small business that employ (i.e. give jobs to) those on $25,000 a year.

Giving money back to everyone who pays taxes will spur the economy. If it makes you feel better, yes this is Reaganomic or as Bush called it in a campaign speech, 'voodoo economics'. Thing is, it worked. It worked splendidly. Now liberals will immediately throw up the whole 80's deficit thing, but they can't argue that the revenue increase during the 80's was many times over what the tax cuts 'cost'. The deficits arose from exorbitant spending as large-scale increase in the military.

Again, I ask. What is wrong with giving those that pay the taxes some of it back?

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by schutd
Wayward, you are pretty level headed. How bout offering up a link to some dissenting opinion rather than just trashing the guy cause he's a liberal.

By the way, you mention the favoring unilateral nuclear disarmament as if its a bad thing...

Please see my post.

Besides, I was illustrating a point. How is Buffet trashing Bush anything big story?

And, I do think us giving up all our defenses while our enemies do not is a bad thing. What do you think held/holds all the baddies at bay??

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 12:13 PM

According to the liberals' definition of 'rich', my family falls into that category. Trust me, I am NOT rich. With another child coming in days and still no house, driving a 12 year old car, I certainly don't feel rich.

$1,000 more a year IS a big deal to me. I'm all for a political figure offering me back more of MY money.

Dback Jon · May 20th, 2003, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan

Again, I ask. What is wrong with giving those that pay the taxes some of it back?

By eliminating the dividend tax, you are allowing some to earn income with out paying ANY taxes on it.
The House plan, to tax dividends as capital gains (which is what they really are) is a much more fair approach. Or, for a bigger "bang for the buck" have dividends be deductible for the corporations that are issuing them.

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
To be fair, Buffett operates in an apolotical environement. He is so beloved by his investors that he can really do no wrong in their minds.

I will argue that while he may be in an apolitical environment, he's never been apolitical himself.

Quote:

What he fails to factor into his opinion, is the political reality that The President is operating in currently. (And before anyone trashes me what I am about to say is very it as true if there were a democrat in the White House.) The political clout that the current administration is going to gain from this will go along way in helping him get reelected. While it is true that Buffett may not "need" $310 million (that looks as ridiculous as it sounds) the people who get that money will work to ensure Bush is relected.

Wiz, here's a question to ponder. If you recognize that it is a good thing politically, why are democrats so vehemently against it? If it is largely agreeable, couldn't it at least be considered to be a good thing?

WaywardFan · May 20th, 2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dback Jon
By eliminating the dividend tax, you are allowing some to earn income with out paying ANY taxes on it.
The House plan, to tax dividends as capital gains (which is what they really are) is a much more fair approach. Or, for a bigger "bang for the buck" have dividends be deductible for the corporations that are issuing them.

DBack, question.

What do you think about some other 'fairer' tax structure? A flat tax, a consumption or sales tax? Something that will necessarily tax more on those that spend more (the 'richer') but everyone largely pays the same RATE?

Just curious.

As far as taxing dividends, I personally think double taxation is immoral. Besides, pensions are largely invested in situations where a dividend tax cut or elimination would be beneficial. This means all the blue hairs and snow birds.

WizardOfAz · May 20th, 2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WaywardFan
Wiz, here's a question to ponder. If you recognize that it is a good thing politically, why are democrats so vehemently against it? If it is largely agreeable, couldn't it at least be considered to be a good thing?

I don't think that it is a coincidence that as President Bush starts his reelection campaign that he will begin to drift to the right once again to reassure the party hard-liners that he is deserving of their support for another four years. Once the party nominations is assured he will begin to drift back to the center to make sure he can gain the necessary electoral votes to serve another four years.*

*Feel free to substitute Clinton if the above psoted somehow offended you, because the point was just as valid when he was running for a second term.

Warren Buffet calls Bush tax plan "Voodoo Economics"

How do you really feel, Warren?