• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

BILLIONAIRE KOCH TO BILLIONAIRE BUFFETT:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
“Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-koch-taxes-buffett-2011-8#ixzz1VXvoxVV9
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
“Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending. I believe my business and non-profit investments are much more beneficial to societal well-being than sending more money to Washington.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/charles-koch-taxes-buffett-2011-8#ixzz1VXvoxVV9

I believe this is true also.

The problem is that we are borrowing money we don't have from the Chinese and putting it on as an IOU our children have to pay.

I think Koch needs to be taxed to the hilt until this structural problem is solved.

All the tax breaks to the Kochs and other wealthy Americans have not produced the jobs we need. It has just concentrated the nation's wealth in the hands of the few and stopped a lot of opportunity for other small businesses to capture that demand by the middle class.

My argument isn't so much as to take the money from the Kochs and their enterprises, as it is to make the largest enterprises pay more of the tax burden so that the smaller enterprises have a little better advantage and opportunity.

When you have great wealth and can use it to create market power games to capture industries, you exclude others in the short term from that business to keep the business for yourself. This is what price discrimination allows if you are one of the big players. It concentrates opportunity and wealth into the hands of the few who can play these games while hiding behind short term arguments of "efficiency" which is just opportunistic pricing.



Tex
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
tex wrote:

The problem is that we are borrowing money we don't have from the Chinese and putting it on as an IOU our children have to pay.

the problem is the federal government borrowing money to buy votes for themselves now at our childrens expense.
government SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM!they already take WAY too much of our money in taxes-
the problem is they spend WAY WAY WAY WAY too much.

all politicians take an oath to God to support protect and defend our Constitution, then they vote for all this unconstitutional spending- lets vote them out! at least there were a few that held to principles and didn't vote to raise the debt limit- we need to add to their ranks!
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
All the tax breaks to the Kochs and other wealthy Americans have not produced the jobs we need.


Tex


Which tax breaks are you talking about?

How about the Bush tax cuts. Were you and Soapweed asleep on those tax cuts as to accuse me of making them up?



Let me first agree with BOTH of you that the government does not need to be the main part of the economy. They waste money and resources much of the time and their existence (if not being borrowed from the Chinese) comes from the money generated in our economy. They have been overspending and under taxing for some time. Continual budget deficits prove that is undeniable.

The republicans believe that their overspending and under taxing is fine when they are doing it but not when the democrats come to town. This is hypocrisy at its greatest. This isn't meant as an excuse to say that democrat's spending is fine either, it is just meant to say that republicans really have no credibility on this issue and only say the right thing when they can blame it on someone else. Too many fall for it and all their made up propaganda that goes with it, in Soapweed's case it is probably a little senility due to his age. I am alright with that, Soap, but it doesn't make it right.

Having continual deficits does not make our economy stronger, it leverages it off of Chinese or other borrowing. It leverages up the economy to where when you get in a bind, you are already maxed out.

I do fault the Obama administration for not having enough convictions on our recent bank failure and letting them all have a walk and keep the money. The last financial crisis was 1/40 th as big and we had thousands of convictions. We have something in the neighborhood of ten today on our recent one. Is Eric Holder meant to dabble with the DOJ on all these issues and not get anything done for the sake of the rich crooks paying off the parties?



Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
All the tax breaks to the Kochs and other wealthy Americans have not produced the jobs we need.


Tex


Which tax breaks are you talking about?

How about the Bush tax cuts. Were you and Soapweed asleep on those tax cuts as to accuse me of making them up?


Tex


They expire at the end of 2012.

edited to add: How can you say the Bush tax cuts did not save or create jobs?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex?

How many employees did Koch Industries have in 2001?

How many do they have now?

Are the majority of their employees in the US, or other Countries?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Tex is quite the charchter. He admits the government spends too much..and his answer is give them more money toblow after all they screwed up with all the tax money they got before.

Go find an alcoholic and Tex's answer seems to be is give him more alcohol and try and solve the alcholics problem. Would you agree ot?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
Tex is quite the charchter. He admits the government spends too much..and his answer is give them more money toblow after all they screwed up with all the tax money they got before.

Go find an alcoholic and Tex's answer seems to be is give him more alcohol and try and solve the alcholics problem. Would you agree ot?

Thanks, Larry, for misrepresenting my position. I guess that is the only way you can win arguments.

We do need spending decreases. Our country allowing China to have a manipulated currency and then supporting excess political spending by subsidizing U.S. debt has been part of the problem. It made selling our industries to China profitable and allowed them to buy parts of our economy with the Wal marts of the world deflating the value of work in this country and the economy as a whole. It has been a terrible failure for our economy.

I just think it is disingenuous for Bush to have these huge tax cuts while loading the spending on future generations having to pay off the Chinese. It has been economic suicide.

All budgets are based on inflows and outflows. We need to get that balanced by BOTH cutting and raising taxes on the wealthy who have benefited by selling our economic system down the road. I am pretty upset that there have been few convictions in the banking industry and on Wall Street that the country had to save. They profited while leveraging up the economy and got tax breaks for doing it.

Just the huge concentration of wealth--- bigger than before the Great Depression--- shows that our economic policy has been tilted to the very wealthy at the expense of the country.

It isn't an either or answer. It is a both answer.

Larry, you probably have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, don't you? Since you can't, do you really believe others can't do it?

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
I am so proud of you that you can chew gum. You can be proud of yourself :lol:

I didn't misrepresent you. You yourself admit the government spends too much..and your answer is give them more money to blow. That has never worked before, so why in Gods world do you honestly belive increasing revenue will solve the problems this time. Are you some rocket scientist that has it figure how more taxes will solve all the economic woes.
IT HAS NEVER WORKED BEFORE but you are so smart that it will work for you this time. You are the fools tool
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Larrry said:
Tex is quite the charchter. He admits the government spends too much..and his answer is give them more money toblow after all they screwed up with all the tax money they got before.

Go find an alcoholic and Tex's answer seems to be is give him more alcohol and try and solve the alcholics problem. Would you agree ot?

Thanks, Larry, for misrepresenting my position. I guess that is the only way you can win arguments.

We do need spending decreases. Our country allowing China to have a manipulated currency and then supporting excess political spending by subsidizing U.S. debt has been part of the problem. It made selling our industries to China profitable and allowed them to buy parts of our economy with the Wal marts of the world deflating the value of work in this country and the economy as a whole. It has been a terrible failure for our economy.

I just think it is disingenuous for Bush to have these huge tax cuts while loading the spending on future generations having to pay off the Chinese. It has been economic suicide.

All budgets are based on inflows and outflows. We need to get that balanced by BOTH cutting and raising taxes on the wealthy who have benefited by selling our economic system down the road. I am pretty upset that there have been few convictions in the banking industry and on Wall Street that the country had to save. They profited while leveraging up the economy and got tax breaks for doing it.

Just the huge concentration of wealth--- bigger than before the Great Depression--- shows that our economic policy has been tilted to the very wealthy at the expense of the country.

It isn't an either or answer. It is a both answer.

Larry, you probably have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time, don't you? Since you can't, do you really believe others can't do it?

Tex



Without all the spending of the Democratic congress in 2007/2008, the budget was on track to be balanced, even with the Bush tax cuts.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
I am so proud of you that you can chew gum. You can be proud of yourself :lol:

I didn't misrepresent you. You yourself admit the government spends too much..and your answer is give them more money to blow. That has never worked before, so why in Gods world do you honestly belive increasing revenue will solve the problems this time. Are you some rocket scientist that has it figure how more taxes will solve all the economic woes.
IT HAS NEVER WORKED BEFORE but you are so smart that it will work for you this time. You are the fools tool

No, Larry, my answer, while chewing gum, is to tax a bit more where the money is and where the money ruined the economy AND spend less.

I have talked about specific cuts, you have talked generalities.

You just don't have anything but a mantra going and it has no substance in it. You probably think it would be great for China to fund all of our government while passing the bill to the next generation. I think that has been the problem. They are selling bits of the economy off so that the next generation has fewer job opportunities.

Tex
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Tex said:
You probably think it would be great for China to fund all of our government while passing the bill to the next generation. I think that has been the problem. They are selling bits of the economy off so that the next generation has fewer job opportunities.

Tex

Now there YOU going tyrying to come up with your idea of what I think.

You are only using the added tax as a relief valve for poor congress and presidential choices. They have to take the money they have and make the cuts to fit in those parameters. Not be some wimpy azzed and not have the guts to cut. Anyone who wants to raise raise taxes has no cajones and should be gone. Any moron could balance a budget if they had a way to make things balance by taking from someone else. Crooks do it all the time. Are you a crook
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Larrry said:
Tex said:
You probably think it would be great for China to fund all of our government while passing the bill to the next generation. I think that has been the problem. They are selling bits of the economy off so that the next generation has fewer job opportunities.

Tex

Now there YOU going tyrying to come up with your idea of what I think.

You are only using the added tax as a relief valve for poor congress and presidential choices. They have to take the money they have and make the cuts to fit in those parameters. Not be some wimpy azzed and not have the guts to cut. Anyone who wants to raise raise taxes has no cajones and should be gone. Any moron could balance a budget if they had a way to make things balance by taking from someone else. Crooks do it all the time. Are you a crook

When a segment of the population, in this case the richest segment, are not paying as high a percentage in taxes as everyone else, Larry, you are giving them an advantage.

Of course you seem to support that policy.

I will go with Buffet's argument on that any day. He sees the rich are being coddled and everyone else is paying for part of their wealth in a larger percent of taxes going to the government. The amount that they have in a tax break is going to China in the form of debt. That has to stop.

You just don't realize that your children are the ones who will have to pay that portion in the future. Warren Buffet sees it and so do I. The Kochs want you to believe that they need the money to make the economy go around. It is the keep allowing the rich the tax breaks so they can make jobs argument. The fundamental premise is wrong. They don't make jobs, they satisfy demand and make a business out of it. That demand only happens when the people in the economy have incomes, not an economy where one person has all or most of the income.

We shouldn't expect that Congress can't cut spending and make a more fair tax base. They should do both at the same time.

Your solution is to not let people you don't trust have access to the candy store. I agree. If you can't trust them to do these two things, vote them out.

At this point in time, the Kochs have your children paying for their portion of taxes as they amass wealth and it looks like they aren't the only ones. We have a global elite who will take the money and run to any country that makes them wealthier. They are not patriotic, but they want you to think they are. They are interested in their own wealth and seemingly care little about your kids picking up the tab for them. Warren Buffet has called this wrong and so do I.

The next time you see a high faluten event going on, why don't you go up and ask if you can buy a drink for them all and hand the bill to your kids. That is essentially what you have been tricked into supporting by not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Tex
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Larry, Tex is having a very hard time understanding that the poor pay no income taxes. According to some, the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% combined.

And 50% of the people pay none.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004657.html

Wealthy people bad.

Corporations bad.

Try finding a poor, broke corporation to give you a job.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike said:
Larry, Tex is having a very hard time understanding that the poor pay no income taxes. According to some, the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% combined.

And 50% of the people pay none.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004657.html

Wealthy people bad.

Corporations bad.

Try finding a poor, broke corporation to give you a job.

No, Mike, I totally understand it.

Separating the taxes out by income tax, SS tax, medicare tax, gas tax, etc., is only marketing. They are all taxes. The tax rate is not just the income tax rate but the over all tax rate for all of these items together. One could make lots of arguments about this tax or that tax but all of the federal taxes go together in one big pie. It doesn't matter what the label on those taxes are. They go to fund the federal government.

The fact is that when all of these taxes are combined, the rich are, like Buffet said, coddled. They pay less of their income in these taxes as a percent of income largely because we have a low capital gains tax.

I don't mind having a low capital gains tax on say the first 1 million dollars per person. After that, the other tax payers are paying the taxes or assuming the debt that these guys are not paying. We are subsidizing them getting very very wealthy and paying more as a percent of income in taxes. Buffet pointed this out even as he was taking advantage of it himself and he said it was a bad policy for the nation.

I agree.

It isn't about wealthy people being bad although I think Mark Twain had it correct in his quote, it is about other people paying more in percent of total taxes.

I really don't see why so many people support this. It is some kind of whacko thinking of protecting the rich and the wealthy and giving them advantages the average guy or gal does not have.

Corporations are not inherently bad but some of them are bad and get away with being bad because they do control so much wealth in the country. That is the rule of men, not the rule of law.

You seem to be just as quick to argue for coddling these people and making excuses for them.

I simply do not.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Mike said:
Larry, Tex is having a very hard time understanding that the poor pay no income taxes. According to some, the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% combined.

And 50% of the people pay none.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004657.html

Wealthy people bad.

Corporations bad.

Try finding a poor, broke corporation to give you a job.

No, Mike, I totally understand it.

Separating the taxes out by income tax, SS tax, medicare tax, gas tax, etc., is only marketing. They are all taxes. The tax rate is not just the income tax rate but the over all tax rate for all of these items together. One could make lots of arguments about this tax or that tax but all of the federal taxes go together in one big pie. It doesn't matter what the label on those taxes are. They go to fund the federal government.

The fact is that when all of these taxes are combined, the rich are, like Buffet said, coddled. They pay less of their income in these taxes as a percent of income largely because we have a low capital gains tax.

I don't mind having a low capital gains tax on say the first 1 million dollars per person. After that, the other tax payers are paying the taxes or assuming the debt that these guys are not paying. We are subsidizing them getting very very wealthy and paying more as a percent of income in taxes. Buffet pointed this out even as he was taking advantage of it himself and he said it was a bad policy for the nation.

I agree.

It isn't about wealthy people being bad although I think Mark Twain had it correct in his quote, it is about other people paying more in percent of total taxes.

I really don't see why so many people support this. It is some kind of whacko thinking of protecting the rich and the wealthy and giving them advantages the average guy or gal does not have.

Corporations are not inherently bad but some of them are bad and get away with being bad because they do control so much wealth in the country. That is the rule of men, not the rule of law.

You seem to be just as quick to argue for coddling these people and making excuses for them.

I simply do not.

Tex


Tex, what are the total tax % corporations pay.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
They pay less of their income in these taxes as a percent of income largely because we have a low capital gains tax.

Capital gains taxes should be lower than income taxes. Or we shouldn't have a Capital Gains Tax at all.

We pay income taxes on the income we made that paid for the investments that the Capital gains taxes derived from.
 

Latest posts

Top