By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 21 April 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
I agree, austerity measures are needed to bring the country into surplus.

These measures need to include both increases in taxes and spending cuts. I'm really a fan of the 'Buffett' tax, it only seems sensible.


I wouldn't mind seeing tax increases, but the Buffet Rule just seems problematic.  It is afterall essentially a giant tax on new investments.  I don't know if they've properly covered the buffet tax in New Zealand, because few places can actually barely be forced to cover it correctly here but essentially it's an "Alterantive Minium Tax" that taxes investments and only hits people whos main form of income is people who put most of their money in the economy through investments and stocks.

Such a thing would likely case hesistance in areas of high risk. (which is where rich people are valuable) and cause a move more towards "safer" invesments.  Which would make things hard for the average investor. (something like 40-60% of people hold investments in the US.)

Problematic because rich people investing is more or less "Free" stimulus, without the need of the government taking on a huge debt that it may or may not ever decide to pay off.


It's a giant tax on income from investments for people earning above a threshold. It's not right that people earning millions pay far less a percentage of their income in tax than somebody earning a middling wage. I find regressive taxation systems morally wrong.

You do realize you've completely changed your arguement here right?

Your original arguement was the buffet rule needs to exist to bring the country into a surplus.  I've explained how such a rule may actually cause the opposite to be true, after which you've made a moral arguement against it... essentially conceding that such a rule would be harmful to the economy as constructed, but just would like it because it would be more moral in your view.

Do I find it moral that somebody pays less taxes for buying and selling shares in companies then working at the same companies?   No.  Do I think it helps the economy by spurring investments... from pretty much everybody?   Yes.

Do I think said investments in turn end up enhancing everbodys lives including those who pay more taxes on a middling income?   Also yes.

Do I think it's moral to do something to make things more "fair" yet hurt everyones lives?  No, don't really find that moral either.

Kinda seems like a rewrite is needed that would exempt your riskier investments.  By say giving cheaper tax rates or even to IPOs and stocks under 2 years of age when purchased, while loweirng IPO restrictions.


I believe there are moral and economic arguments for the Buffett tax. The fact is that increased taxation on investment has not been shown to significantly decrease investment and the idea that low taxes on investment spurs the economy doesn't have a whole lot of proof behind it. At the same time it's morally repugnant.