Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks Owner: "The wealthy should pay lots of taxes"

[Soul Crusher]

post a link

Dear God - go to any freaking news site.   

[Straw Man]

Dear God - go to any freaking news site.   

dude

I've told you many many many time

I believe nothing you say without a source

for all I know you're confusing the sunsetting of the Bush Tax cuts

[Soul Crusher]

dude

I've told you many many many time

I believe nothing you say without a source

for all I know you're confusing the sunsetting of the Bush Tax cuts

That's part of what his overall plan is counting as deficit reduction.   Its a tax hike no matter how you count it.   

[Straw Man]

That's part of what his overall plan is counting as deficit reduction.   Its a tax hike no matter how you count it.   

so you are merely referring to the sunset of the Bush tax cuts (which should have already happened by now) ?

didn't the tax cuts add ~ 1 trillion + to the deficit already so why sholdn't he count that as deficit reduction when they finally expire

[Soul Crusher]

so you are merely referring to the sunset of the Bush tax cuts (which should have already happened by now) ?

didn't the tax cuts add ~ 1 trillion + to the deficit already so why sholdn't he count that as deficit reduction when they finally expire

They didnt ADD anything.   Spending grotesque amounts of money ADDED to the debt.   

[bears]

I never said the entire system was inequitable

do you believe that "solutions" to our problems need to be addressed at both revenue and spending or solely spending?

Perhaps the most basic objection to Buffett’s plea is a practical one: the tax increases he suggests would barely begin to erase the deficit or the debt.

This point, while important, doesn’t affect Buffett’s central argument because Buffett himself conceded it to Charlie Rose: “I don’t think that what I’m talking about on taxes solves the deficit gap at all. But I think fairness is important.”

Buffett disagrees with you dude.

[Straw Man]

Perhaps the most basic objection to Buffett’s plea is a practical one: the tax increases he suggests would barely begin to erase the deficit or the debt.

This point, while important, doesn’t affect Buffett’s central argument because Buffett himself conceded it to Charlie Rose: “I don’t think that what I’m talking about on taxes solves the deficit gap at all. But I think fairness is important.”

Buffett disagrees with you dude.

disagrees about what?

from page 1 of this thread

the only "problem" it addresses is the inequity in the tax system.

It certainly won't (by itself) fix the deficit or pay down the debt but it's part of the equation
The Repubs won't even acknowledge that this IS part of the equation

I'm for a balanced approach that includes both revenue and spending

[bears]

disagrees about what?

from page 1 of this thread

he agrees with me that its not going to help at all.

[bears]

disagrees about what?

from page 1 of this thread

its not part of the equation.  its a drop in the bucket.

[Soul Crusher]

its not part of the equation.  its a drop in the bucket.

I really dont understand the point of all this crap.   What does buffest want to do - raise cap gains to 39%?  Yeah - brilliant - guess who gets hit the worst in that charade?   

I mean really - WTF is this crap? 

If obama wanted to say swap income tax rates w cap gains or something like that - fine make that argument.   

However - what he is doing is pure garbage economics, garbage math, lying, distorting, and polarizing an issue he knows nothing about.   

[JBGRAY]

Again, we have a SPENDING problem far above and beyond where we have a TAXING problem.

Increased revenues only means more useless expenditures such as aid to Israel and Saudi Arabia, bloated Defense spending, tax loopholes for bullshit "Green" companies, government investments(LOL), and more bureaucracies. 

[bears]

I really dont understand the point of all this crap.   What does buffest want to do - raise cap gains to 39%?  Yeah - brilliant - guess who gets hit the worst in that charade?   

I mean really - WTF is this crap? 

If obama wanted to say swap income tax rates w cap gains or something like that - fine make that argument.   

However - what he is doing is pure garbage economics, garbage math, lying, distorting, and polarizing an issue he knows nothing about.   

and thats exactly my point.  i am not wholly opposed to taking some additional tax revenue from the most wealthy if we need to.  I want what's best for our economy.  Period.  My personal opinion happens to be that taking more tax money out of the rich is a completely futile act and will accomplish nothing good unless we get our ridiculous spending under control.  and the fact that Obama's speech writers let him come out and say that the rich are paying less than the middle class and poor is ridiculous because the statistics are more than crystal clearthat this is incorrect.

[Straw Man]

its not part of the equation.  its a drop in the bucket.

he must think it's part of the equation since he is in favor of it

I've also said (many times actually) that both sides of the equation need to be addressed.

btw - Buffett is not really in favor of any drastic spending cuts "right now" either

Here's the full interview (I think this is the one where your one sentence quote is from)

[Soul Crusher]

The problem Straw is that obama has ZERO credibility on the spending side of this.   

[bears]

he must think it's part of the equation since he is in favor of it

I've also said (many times actually) that both sides of the equation need to be addressed.

btw - Buffett is not really in favor of any drastic spending cuts "right now" either

Here's the full interview (I think this is the one where your one sentence quote is from)

no he doesn't.  he wants to do this in the name of fairness.  not because it will have any sort of significant impact on our situation.  because it will not.  

[Straw Man]

The problem Straw is that obama has ZERO credibility on the spending side of this.   

a good part of the deficit under his administration is from debt incurred by former administration and problems (unpaid wars, economic meltdown) started under former administrations.   It would have been nice (and fiscally responsible) if Bush said we have to raise taxes to pay for these wars.  Instead he lowered taxes and increased spending which was a double whammy

Reducing spending is the key to deficit reduction but the revenue side is an indispensible part of the equation

[Soul Crusher]

a good part of the deficit under his administration is from debt incurred by former administration and problems (unpaid wars, economic meltdown) started under former administrations.   It would have been nice (and fiscally responsible) if Bush said we have to raise taxes to pay for these wars.  Instead he lowered taxes and increased spending which was a double whammy

Reducing spending is the key to deficit reduction but the revenue side is an indispensible part of the equation

Well Bama has spent three years completely neglecting that side of it and no one, including Senate Dems, are willing to go along with any more tax hikes until spending discipline is evidenced.   

Solyndra alone is scaring anyone off from giving bama more money to spend.   

[Straw Man]

Well Bama has spent three years completely neglecting that side of it and no one, including Senate Dems, are willing to go along with any more tax hikes until spending discipline is evidenced.   

Solyndra alone is scaring anyone off from giving bama more money to spend.   

yeah, maybe because when he got in office he was facing an economic meltdown

any chance you can remember that?

you can't start drastically slashing spending (especially domestic spending) unless your intention is to make things much worse, kill GDP even more, kill unemployment even more, and make the economic hole we gave to climb out of  even deeper.

If you watch the the Buffet interview or read the NYT article you'll see he is in favor of spending cuts and entitlement reforms but not drastic changes at the present time

[Soul Crusher]

yeah, maybe because when he got in office he was facing an economic meltdown

any chance you can remember that?

you can't start drastically slashing spending (especially domestic spending) unless your intention is to make things much worse, kill GDP even more, kill unemployment even more, and make the economic hole we gave to climb out of  even deeper.

If you watch the the Buffet interview or read the NYT article you'll see he is in favor of spending cuts and entitlement reforms but not drastic changes at the present time

And?    Its not so much what was being spent - but what Bama spent it on.   Ball washing plans, solyndras, union bailouts, unendning UI extensions, etc.


He has zero credibility on anything.   Trillions of dollars and we have literally NOTHING to show for it.     

[GigantorX]

Taxing "millionaires and billionaires" won't solve any problems, not even close. How many "millionaires and billionaires" are there in the U.S.? And I'm not talking wealth or what's in the saving account or other such things, I'm talking about taxable income. How many?

This is cover for a broad tax hike, it isn't just "millionaires and billionaires" it's people who make 200k and over or families that jointly file at 250k. It includes them too, but I guess they are flying around in private jets, lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills and twirling their mustaches in corporate board room...

Extracting more money out of the private economy to filter through inefficient govt. programs and hand out to people who don't produce anything is bad news. Same thing with the payroll tax cut...it's just stupid economics.

And dragging out Buffet, Cuban or even Ron Howard (WTF?!) to tell me they need to be taxed more is moronic and misleading. What are those 3 taxpayers annual income? They are representative of a very, very, very microscopic segment of the U.S. population.

Good grief.

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah let's tax more people so we can spend more money on solyndras, expensive muffins, ball washing, etc. 


brilliant. 

[Straw Man]

Yeah let's tax more people so we can spend more money on solyndras, expensive muffins, ball washing, etc. 
brilliant. 

don't forget pointless wars, tax credits for the wealthiest corporations, incredibly excessive defense spending, corporate welfare, etc..

[Soul Crusher]

don't forget pointless wars, tax credits for the wealthiest corporations, incredibly excessive defense spending, corporate welfare, etc..

 Agree!   

[tonymctones]

straw the problem is much more with spending and the amount of ppl that dont pay taxes then it is with the "rich's" tax rates.

that will account for very little, the big big BIG problem is spending...why not push to address that in a more aggresive fashion instead of taxes...

you do know the majority of the income tax receipts come from the middle class right?

thats whats going to need to be taxed in order to make revenue from income tax big enough to make a difference.

I said it before the election no matter who got in the tax rates would get hiked and the still will sooner or later

[MM2K]

don't forget pointless wars, tax credits for the wealthiest corporations, incredibly excessive defense spending, corporate welfare, etc..

Im against corporate welfare and tax credits for the wealthiest corporations. Not so sure why you are against defending the country. Do you even care that ending the wars would only save about $100 billion per year? Defense spending is only at 5% of GDP. It was at 10-15% of GDP during the height of the Cold War. YOu are focusing on the wrong things.