Makes me want to vomit. How many damn times do I have to hear about [uck fay]ing Warren Buffet's secretary?
I can understand why business people with shit tons of money don't mind paying higher taxes. They already have their money, and that keeps smaller people from popping up to cut into their markets. Also Warren Buffet would be the last person I'd talk to about others paying their "fair" share.
I'm about convinced that he and this administration have cut a deal where he will be the spokesman for higher taxes if the administration will do certain things that are in his best interests (see Keystone Pipeline).
He stands to make far more with his political capital (ie Obama rejected the Keystone deal) than he would lose paying a higher tax rate.
on his way to the top of the heap, Buffett ran from taxes at every single opportunity and even made up some new reasons.
The overwhelming majority of business men/women do that. I don't fault anybody that uses tax loopholes to their advantage.
i bet his secretary makes more money than the overwelming majority of americans. i'd be shocked if it was less than 6 figures. i'd love to know her salary. hopefully someone will find it out.
You've got to think the there are some GOP party interns tasked with this one and only task in national and Nebraska HQ.
probably. don't tell me the second richest man in teh world's executive assistant is making $30K a year or something. Every time I see this it pisses me off. Particurally considering buffett taking full advantage of the charitable deduction and specifically designing it to lower his current taxes. as though the typical rich person is giving away 10% of his net worth every year.
What do you all think of the proposal to not give tax breaks for outsourcing jobs and giving more tax breaks to those that create jobs at home? I have been an advocate of this idea for years.
seems to me like it is completely unprovable. i.e. who is to say the jobs wouldn't have gotten created anyway? it would have to be a pretty material cut to make any difference here. i thought this was an excellent article explaining some of the issues american business have producing here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...eezed-middle-class.html?scp=3&sq=apple&st=cse
That point could be made from either position. If the intended result of tax cuts is job creation, tie the two together. Don't hope that's what will happen.
easier said than done in my opinion. you can't force people to go out and hire people they wouldn't have hired otherwise. personally my guess is this type of tax credit would mostly just benefit those who would have hired anyway. of course i'm sure the administration would count 100% of them as new jobs created by the tax credits.
At the end of the day, it's probably still cheaper (and in many cases more efficient) for a company to ship these jobs overseas, even with tax credits.
that's my thought as well cardinalvol. the key is to start training people from HS for non easily outsourced jobs rather than trying to keep jobs where americans aren't just competitive. history has proven that new industries will pop up to replace ones moved overseas. we need to make sure people are trained for those rather than trying to keep $20 an hour manufacturing jobs.
Agreed 100%. Goes back to a point I made in another thread. It's up to state and local governments more than the feds to do this. Also, a common phrase in my line of work is "Don't let the tax tail wag the dog."
it's energy that obama needs to focus on if he really wants to generate jobs. blocking the canadian pipeline is a great way to kill job growth. god forbid we generate thousands of high paying jobs.