Warren Buffett: Trickle-Down Theory Doesn't Work

[secretariat]

Maybe one of the world's richest men knows a thing or two about the economy.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/warren-buffett-read-lips-raise-taxes/story?id=12199889

 

[Dick Whitman]

Yep.

Liberals are right and conservatives are (mostly) wrong when it comes to economics.

Problem is that liberal economics just sound counterintuitive. The GOP has an easier sell.

P.S. I'm assuming an ideally functioning, efficient government. I understand that wasteful spending and willy nilly regulation can muck things up. Which is one legitimate reason that conservatives don't trust Democratic economic proposals - because they feel that what actually gets passed, larded with earmarks and such, is not even closely related to what was proposed in theory.

 

[spnited]

Never mind the last 10 years. Reagan tried to convince us trickle down worked 30 years.
It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.
Give the rich more money and all you have is richer rich people while the middle class treads water.

 

[Point of Order]

Yeah, I thought this was long settled.

 

[YankeeFan]

Is someone stopping Warrwn from giving the government more of his money?

Also, notice that when he decided to give away hundreds of millions of dollars he chose to do so through Bill Gates' charity and not give it to the government.

I'll bet he thinks Bill will spend it better.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Is someone stopping Warrwn from giving the government more of his money?

This is the, "Al Gore has a high electricity bill!" argument, applied elsewhere.

Just as I know that recycling a single plastic bottle isn't going to stop global warming and save the planet, Warren Buffet knows that even his sizable contribution to the federal government would not boost the economy in any noticeable way.

These changes have to be matters of sweeping policy that bind everyone.

 

[RickStain]

I don't think the last 10 years can be used as proof for or against anything like that. It's just proof that if you live it up on debt for awhile, eventually it all falls apart.

 

[YankeeFan]

How much of Warren Buffett's wealth is "income"?

If you want to tax the super wealthy, you need to tax wealth not income.

Let's see if Warren is in favor of that.

By the way he's already planning his estate, it's pretty clear how he feels.

 

[SpeedTchr]

If the old goat feels so strongly about this, he should immediately sign over his entire fortune to the Treasury. Put your money where your mouth is, old man. You too, Gates Sr.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If the old goat feels so strongly about this, he should immediately sign over his entire fortune to the Treasury. Put your money where your mouth is, old man. You too, Gates Sr.

Again, he knows that this wouldn't do any good. It has to be a collaborative, widespread effort.

What you're saying makes as much sense as the people who say Al Gore should live in a tent in the woods.

Either would be a gesture with no impact.

 

[SpeedTchr]

****, it has to start somewhere. Since he is the one flapping his gums about it, let him make the ceremonial first deposit.

 

[OnTheRiver]

****, it has to start somewhere. Since he is the one flapping his gums about it, let him make the ceremonial first deposit.

By this logic, Bush should've given Jenna an M-16 and a flak jacket, right?

 

[Dick Whitman]

****, it has to start somewhere.

Yes, with legislation.

Where it should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Dick Whitman]

Warren Buffett is right.

Republicans are wrong.

And all the crowing about how Warren Buffett should play lone wolf martyr and sign over his fortune to the Treasury doesn't change those two basic facts.

 

[SpeedTchr]

Oh, I see. Everything for you, ****, should be forced by legislation. Good to know where you stand.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Oh, I see. Everything for you, ****, should be forced by legislation. Good to know where you stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary

 

[OnTheRiver]

Who left the lid off the jar of ****ty Logic?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Oh, I see. Everything for you, ****, should be forced by legislation. Good to know where you stand.

Leave the site for a while. Turn off Rush. Turn off Hannity. Turn off Beck. Turn off Sarah. Go read a book by a real economist. Go read a policy magazine with articles written by real experts. Go read the Wall Street Journal.

Then come back when you have some actual thoughts on the matter instead of Palin-esque one-liners.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I don't necessarily disagree with the argument that the rich should be paying more.

However, I've never seen a good definition of where "rich" starts.

 

[Brian]

I thought 'Mad Men' did a fantastic job of poking fun at this disconnect between economists and modern conservative theory when it inserted casually the fact that the marginal tax rate was about 90 percent at the time for the highest tax bracket.

It's in the mid 30s now, isn't it?

I think we'd all agree that 90 percent isn't a good idea, but it seems they could work out a deal where the top bracket pays another 10 to 15 percent, but with stipulations with the increase that the government can't raise those taxes any higher over a set period of time.

It would ensure that the government didn't get the idea it could keep shaving off more and more and it wouldn't be enough to trip the dreaded anti-incentive to earn that conservatives often rail against (with good reason, to a certain extent).