Gates at the G20 Summit proposes a Robin Hood tax

[captainmcd]

Evita, No need to get personal. You started this thread but have not given your two cents worth. I am only trying to point out that those 99% protests seem to think that the 1% are guilty for the economic problems of the world, and would like to reduce things to the lowest common denominator by penalizing success and rewarding failure. That same hope that success should be penalized could easily be applied to the health care of the world, and then the stupidity of this negative thinking becomes obvious.

 

[evitaduarte]

Evita, No need to get personal. You started this thread but have not given your two cents worth. I am only trying to point out that those 99% protests seem to think that the 1% are guilty for the economic problems of the world, and would like to reduce things to the lowest common denominator by penalizing success and rewarding failure. That same hope that success should be penalized could easily be applied to the health care of the world, and then the stupidity of this negative thinking becomes obvious.

You really are that dumb.

 

[captainmcd]

Evita!, what's the matter? Juan didn't take you out last night? Sat in front of your computer worring about how to get other people to take care of your descamisados?
Oh!, that's right, I did see you in Recoleta.

 

[evitaduarte]

For complete Samuelson text
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/07/budget_fairy_tales_left_and_right_111957.html

Following is today's Atlantic Monthly summary:
"As the Super Committee determines how to reduce federal deficits, both liberals and conservatives are creating "fictions" to support their preferred policies. Conservatives argue, "We can reduce deficits and cut taxes by eliminating 'wasteful spending.'" Liberals say, "We can subdue deficits and raise social spending by taxing 'the rich' and shrinking the bloated Pentagon." Both make deficit reduction sound relatively painless. On the conservative end, there are, in fact, wasteful government programs which Samuelson thinks should be cut: he cites Amtrak, farm subsidies, and others. Entitlements, too, need trimming. "But plausible savings don't match conservative rhetoric. All the suspect 'discretionary' programs come to tens of billions, not hundreds of billions," and to match the trillions we need to cut, we'd have to look at unthinkable cuts to federal expenditures like the FBI, he writes. Trimming entitlements won't save money, it will just account for the growing pool of beneficiaries. On the liberal end, it is a myth to think that tax increases only on the rich will match our budget deficits. The rich already fund much of the government. Sen. Harry Reid's plan to raise taxes 5.6 percentage points on those making over $1 million would raise $453 billion over 10 years compared with a projected $8.5 trillion deficit. Liberals won't admit that unless social security and Medicare are significantly reduced or restructured, we'll face either huge deficits, huge tax increases, or cuts to discretionary programs. Neither side will do it, but both "need to identify the most justifiable spending cuts -- lots of them -- and the least damaging tax increases, which will still be sizable."

 

[redrum]

Gates joins Buffet and other fair minded rich people to support an increase in taxes on the wealthy. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/03-7

what a joke. as if gates and buffet would ever pay their fair share. don't make me laugh.

warren buffet is one of the biggest insiders there is. his "aw shucks", ukalele playing, nebraska boy image is nothing more than a carefully crafted facade. saying that the rich should be taxed more is disingenuous on his part and extremely naive on yours.

Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

never mind the fact that more taxes will solve nothing with the economy. the last thing anybody, including the rich, needs are more taxes. the US has all the revenue it needs. it has a spending problem, not an income problem.

 

[redrum]

You really are that dumb.

spoken like a true intellectual. i love it when those who are unable to articulate an argument, resort to name calling and attacking the speaker.

you should feel proud.

 

[RSPlayer]

Purpose is to levy a tiny tax on financial transactions.
Back in 1990, the amount of yearly world financial transactions was 15 times the world's nominal GDP. Nowadays, it's about 75 times that.
Just a 0.05% tax would generate around 700 billion of US$. That would also encourage long-term investments against short-term ones.

How about a "tiny" 0.06% tax on all (cash, check, electronic) bank deposits and a 0.06% tax on all (cash, check, electronic) bank withdrawals for businesses? Hey that sounds familiar, been happening here in Argentina for several years. Has it helped the Argentines and/or the people doing business here?

 

[JWB]

what a joke. as if gates and buffet would ever pay their fair share. don't make me laugh.

warren buffet is one of the biggest insiders there is. his "aw shucks", ukalele playing, nebraska boy image is nothing more than a carefully crafted facade. saying that the rich should be taxed more is disingenuous on his part and extremely naive on yours.

Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

never mind the fact that more taxes will solve nothing with the economy. the last thing anybody, including the rich, needs are more taxes. the US has all the revenue it needs. it has a spending problem, not an income problem.

Wow, finally some sanity. Thanks Redrum!!