Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
You've used that quote multiple times, but each time I can't help but think it's a bit misleading and needs to be looked at in context. This applies more to the U.S. because in Canada our taxes are relatively higher. Apparently, Buffett made 46 million and was taxed 17.7% while his secretary made 60,000 and was taxed 30% (without him trying to avoid paying any taxes). 17.7% is still 7820000 in taxes paid while 30% of 60,000 is 18,000, so technically, he still paid a lot more tax than most people will ever in their lifetime each year.
I would think that the favorable tax policy is to encourage entrepreneurs and investors to use that leftover money to build and invest in companies to CREATE jobs for people. Abilities that the majority of people don't have, or don't have the balls for (risk), and thus I don't think you can compare them with his employees who do jobs that are easily trainable (earning a wage is relatively safe). One of my uncle with no financial help, created his medium sized company from scratch. One guy, who ended up creating GOOD jobs for a number of people, his engineers made 50-60k USD (in the 80s when money and the USD were worth a lot more than CAD). If we want jobs, especially good ones, we need to cultivate entrepreneurs who can innovate. Even if we take a look at Vancouver, we don't have many great jobs because we lack industries. So what a blessing it is to get a company like E.A. to set up here, suddenly we have great paying software engineering jobs.
Interesting fact: Forbes, half of all US billionaire's are self-made.
|
All true.
But are they?
If that is the goal, and its trotted out everytime that someone brings upu Buffett, then people should be able to point out all the new companies that are innovating and creating new opportunity. BUT...
The gov't had to back 1/2 billion in loans to a solar panel manufacturer, and they went bust.
Yes, I am aware that it was to create green jobs, that may not have the usual returns that billionaires would look for.
If the billionaires are causing all this growth, and new investment, then the housing crisis should have been a blip in a graph, because the employment levels would be so low, that it wouldn't have happened. They've had 30 years of the money to let it trickle, but it hasn't. Open your eyes. It is sitting, at the top.
Why would I want to put m,y money in harm's way, when whatever I did to get it in the first place is still going, and I have enough to live 10 lives over without doing anything?
I'm not sitting here advocating "overthrow!" "Fuck the proletariat" "Screw the rich!" We need the rich. Greed is good. I just think that you need a fair system, where everyone has a fair shot. To me, I think it sounds reasonable that 1% get 10%, and 99% share 90%. Without that system of incentive, then you stagnate. There needs to be a group that the rest aspire to become.
Fuck...americans are the richest country, and they can't even score some fucking healthcare out of the system.
How is anyone questioning why that group on the street should even be pissed?