The left's need for more taxes -

[slamdunkpro]

This was going on the Howard Dean thread and I thought it warranted it’s own.

Warren Buffett (Ultra super rich limo liberal) has decided that taxes are good and we should all pay more.

Excerpts from article and quotes:

"We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future -- it will mean we are prospering -- but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us,"

"Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

Last May, Buffett wrote a Washington Post opinion article criticizing a key element of Bush's tax package -- a cut in tax rates on corporate dividends. Buffet urged that any tax cuts should go to lower-income people or others "who both need and will spend the money gained."

First off let’s get one thing straight – the reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes (Congressional Budget Office Report from this year). If you have a tax cut of course it’s going to mostly go to the wealthy since they pay most of the taxes.

So, It’s been said that Buffett has been fighting for higher taxes, he doesn’t use all the deductions available (yeah right like he does his own taxes – I’ll bet he hasn’t even seen a 1040 in 30 years) and on and on and on.

So here’s the challenge for all our Democrat friends out there: Answer the following without resorting to rhetoric, insults or other nonsensical claptrap. I made it multiple choice to make it easier: (Seriously, I would like an answer)

1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

A: Because I only support the notion of higher taxes for everyone but me.
B. I forgot where my checkbook is
C: My polo pony ate my checkbook
D: I just like to see my name in the New York Times

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.

A: Once the law passes there will be an exemption written in it for me and my kind and everyone’s taxes will go up but mine. This will further enslave the lower classes so that we can dominate the country and dictate our way of life to the little people BWAHAHAHAHAH (evil laugh)
B: If I don’t take every deduction, my company shareholders will sell their stock and I’ll only be able to buy one Bentley next year.
C: If I overpay the boys at the Harvard club will call me a chump
D: I get good press by beating up Republicans, The New York Times doesn’t really expect me to actually do anything.

3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?

A: The government might do something I don’t like with it.
B: Being a rich liberal means I should be the government
C: Because in all those rube red states those common folk keep electing the wrong people
D: Us rich folk can decide whets best for our money, it’s only the little people who need guidance

4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?

A; If you go to City College you deserve to wait tables
B: My gardener doesn’t have a degree, if it’s good enough for him……
C: “The world needs ditch diggers too” (credit Judge Smails)
D: It’s really just a plot so we can have a winning football season.

Flame on! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

"the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes"

I assume this refers to the federal income tax only. When all taxes are included, this is not true. And the top 20% earn a much greater portion of their income not in wages, but in other forms of income. Wages, of course, are taxed as they are earned; the upper classes get to shield, hide and defer income which comes in forms other than wages.

I have quoted Warren Buffet here before. But here again are some of his thoughts on taxes:

"Charlie [Munger] and I have absolutely no complaints about these taxes. [He is referring to the $390,000,000 Berkshire Hathaway paid in taxes in 1993.] We work in a market-based economy that rewards our efforts far more bountifully than it does the efforts of others whose output is of equal or greater benefit to society. Taxation should, and does, partially redress this inequality. But we remain extraordinarily well treated."

"If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow redistributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enromously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent--maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody wil pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever--I think society has a big claim on that."

And here is what Bill Gates Sr. says:

"Individual effort is indispensable to wealth building. But success is not entirely the result of individual brains and effort. Success is a product of having been born in this country, a place where education and research are subsidized, where there is an orderly market, where the private sector reaps enormous benefit from public investment. For someone to assert that he or she has grown wealthy in America without the benefit of substantial public investment is pure hubris."

"What is it worth to opeate within this marvelous system? What's wrong with people who accumulate $20 million or $100 million or $500 million putting a third of that back into the place that made possible the enormous accumulation of wealth for them? What is it worth to be an American?"

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this refers to the federal income tax only.

[/ QUOTE ]

No - all taxes


[ QUOTE ]
When all taxes are included, this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK you got me there; when you include things like State and property taxes the top 20% pay 85% of all taxes.

The quotes you listed are great - they make my point. But you didn't answer the question - If these rich guy really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

the top 20% earn a much greater portion of their income not in wages, but in other forms of income. Wages, of course, are taxed as they are earned; the upper classes get to shield, hide and defer income which comes in forms other than wages.[/qote]

If, as liberals assert the top income earners are using so many loopholes to cheat their way out of paying taxes how come they still pay such a high precentage of the tax. It just doesn't make any sense.

[ptmusic]

Your title and many of your statements in this thread are insulting.

"The left" (in the title) - everyone on the left has a need for more taxes?

"If Buffett and the other limo liberals...." and "these rich guy...." - You are implying that all rich liberals think about this subject the same way. Sean Hannity says the same thing many times every day: "These liberals....".

If you are NOT talking about everyone on the left or every rich liberal, then you shouldn't make these sweeping generalizations.


-ptmusic


p.s. "Answer the following without resorting to rhetoric, insults or other nonsensical claptrap" - this is exactly what you have done in this thread.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Your title and many of your statements in this thread are insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Durbinesque Apology – If this post offends or insults you, then I’m sorry that you feel that way /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If you are NOT talking about everyone on the left or every rich liberal, then you shouldn't make these sweeping generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm NOT talking about all liberals or all rich guys - I'm addressing statements made me specific liberal rich guys. They lumped themselves togther.

But I will quote myself from another post: "when Clinton, Buffet, Gates, Kerry and Kennedy (Republicans too! Busch, Arnold, Limbaugh, Frist and all the rich members of congress) start using the short form, then I will too. Lead by example you cheap bastards! "

[ QUOTE ]
"Answer the following without resorting to rhetoric, insults or other nonsensical claptrap" - this is exactly what you have done in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't answere the questions - and neither have you. All you did was attack me.

I find it interesting that in the other thread where this was brought up, and in this one, not one Democrat has attempted to actually answer the question(s). Instead, I’ve been summarily dismissed, personally attacked, insulted and ignored

So in deference to you I will ask a more targeted question:

If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?

I await an actual answer.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your title and many of your statements in this thread are insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Durbinesque Apology – If this post offends or insults you, then I’m sorry that you feel that way /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If you are NOT talking about everyone on the left or every rich liberal, then you shouldn't make these sweeping generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm NOT talking about all liberals or all rich guys - I'm addressing statements made me specific liberal rich guys. They lumped themselves togther.

But I will quote myself from another post: "when Clinton, Buffet, Gates, Kerry and Kennedy (Republicans too! Busch, Arnold, Limbaugh, Frist and all the rich members of congress) start using the short form, then I will too. Lead by example you cheap bastards! "

[ QUOTE ]
"Answer the following without resorting to rhetoric, insults or other nonsensical claptrap" - this is exactly what you have done in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't answere the questions - and neither have you. All you did was attack me.

I find it interesting that in the other thread where this was brought up, and in this one, not one Democrat has attempted to actually answer the question(s). Instead, I’ve been summarily dismissed, personally attacked, insulted and ignored

So in deference to you I will ask a more targeted question:

If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?

I await an actual answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to answer your questions, and I won't now. My postscript was referring to the rhetoric and insults you made, specifically the generalizations.

You did mention specific people, but in other parts of your posts, you made sweeping generalizations. That's what I was criticizing.

The fact that others make generalizations doesn't make it right.

-ptmusic

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
My postscript was referring to the rhetoric and insults you made, specifically the generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What rhetoric? What insults? The multiple choice answers were meant to be goofy and sarcastic. That’s why I finished with Seriously – I’d like an answer.

[ QUOTE ]
but in other parts of your posts, you made sweeping generalizations. That's what I was criticizing.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that others make generalizations doesn't make it right

[/ QUOTE ]

Then call them on it, don't attack me when I use their words against them.

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to answer your questions, and I won't now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? You just made my point from the last post - Attack, insult, dismiss, ignore.

Methinks you’re trying to deflect (another Democrat tactic) this from the questions I asked to “you’re just attacking the left in general”. Sorry – The question still stands for all that dare:

1. If Buffett and the other limo liberals think their taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

2. Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.

I’ll even throw in another one:

1A If Buffett and the other limo liberals who keep spouting off about this don’t want to kick in more then why don’t they shut the hell up about the rest of us?

We’ll skip 3 and 4 for now since you can’t even answer #1.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that others make generalizations doesn't make it right

[/ QUOTE ]

Then call them on it, don't attack me when I use their words against them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do call "them" (pun intended) on it, and I'm calling you on it too.

Rephrase your questions without generalizations like "the other limo liberals" and I'll do my best to answer them.


-ptmusic

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Rephrase your questions without generalizations like "the other limo liberals" and I'll do my best to answer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, you didn't.

See earlier post.

From the ealier post
[ QUOTE ]
So in deference to you I will ask a more targeted question:

If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?


[/ QUOTE ]

[wmspringer]

Even though you're trolling, I'll go ahead and respond.

[ QUOTE ]

First off let’s get one thing straight – the reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes


[/ QUOTE ]

Very good. Now tell us how much of the money they have.
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying. The one statistic you'll never see republicans mentioning is total taxes paid (federal income tax, state income tax, social security, etc) as a percentage of all income (both wages and investments). (In other words, the one that actually matters)



[ QUOTE ]
1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, above you quoted him as saying he DOES....so I guess that invalidates your question. However, a few civic-minded people can't make up for all the others.

[ QUOTE ]

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above

[ QUOTE ]

3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?


[/ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich?

[ QUOTE ]
4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?


[/ QUOTE ]

Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[slamdunkpro]

First – Thank you for actually responding and trying to answer the questions.Even though you threw a barb in /images/graemlins/tongue.gif )

Now – it’s hammer time /images/graemlins/grin.gif/images/graemlins/grin.gif/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said overpaying anywhere – I just stated a documented fact.

Take your example; the top 10% are paying 90% of the taxes while the remaining 90% are paying 10% or 1.111 % each. If you make 95% of the money and the money pool is $10,000, then each of the others made $555 and change. Let’s say the minimum standard of living is $200 and the tax rate is 23% for you and 5% for the little guys with no deductions. Your tax bill is $2185 and theirs is $27.75 each. Do the math and you’ll see that it’s within a couple of dollars of 90/10. Now we have a tax cut of 2% across the board. The little guys get a refund of 55 cents or 5% of the 27.75 they paid in tax and you get a refund of $43.70. Is that 78 times larger than the little guy’s refund? – yes, Was your tax bill 78 times larger? YES Are you still paying 90% of the taxes? Yes.

Should the little guy get a larger break rate than you? Yes. Should they get a refund that is more than $27.75? No, because that’s all they paid. More is a handout or Wealth redistribution.


[ QUOTE ]
The one statistic you'll never see republicans mentioning is total taxes paid (federal income tax, state income tax, social security, etc) as a percentage of all income (both wages and investments). (In other words, the one that actually matters)

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the CBO the real $ amounts match the percentages.

1. [ QUOTE ]
Hmm, above you quoted him as saying he DOES....so I guess that invalidates your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-answer. He says he pays what he pays but should pay more – why doesn’t he.?

[ QUOTE ]
However, a few civic-minded people can't make up for all the others.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m not asking them to make up for everyone else – just lead by example.

2. – Non- Answer. It’s a different question

Why does he need a law? Is he so undisciplined that he can only do it if forced? Why not just write the check?

3. [ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! An answer! Even if it is rhetoric. First, they are the ultra rich. Second, If I accept your answer as non-rhetoric, then why didn’t they do this when Clinton was in office, or during Carter’s fiscal crisis? Or LBJ’s? They’ve had this money for a long time. (Gates is excused from LBJ and Carter, but not Clinton)

4. [ QUOTE ]
Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[/ QUOTE ]

Aww, a cop-out non-answer. I did the research before asking the question – do a little and you’ll find numerous Buffett and Kennedy foundations that award scholarships to places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Wharton, and (I have to be fair and credit the Kennedy’s on this one) Grambling.

Anyway – thanks for playing!

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rephrase your questions without generalizations like "the other limo liberals" and I'll do my best to answer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, you didn't.

See earlier post.

From the ealier post
[ QUOTE ]
So in deference to you I will ask a more targeted question:

If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough, you asked this particular question without a generalization, so I'll try to answer, even though neither one of us can get in the heads of these two.

They already do give more than their share in the form of charity, as you have said elsewhere (although you unfairly said "poor people need not apply" in regards to scholarships - tell this to my old roommate who was from a poor family). AND, the money from just a handful of rich guys is just a drop in the bucket compared to what our federal government is currently spending. Giving fewer tax breaks to ALL the ultra rich would be much more significant than just Buffett and Gates giving a few more dollars. So their time and money is probably better served trying to convince others to cut loopholes in the tax code.

We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase taxes too.

But I have no idea what they are thinking, and neither do you.

-ptmusic

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said overpaying anywhere – I just stated a documented fact.

Take your example; the top 10% are paying 90% of the taxes while the remaining 90% are paying 10% or 1.111 % each. If you make 95% of the money and the money pool is $10,000, then each of the others made $555 and change. Let’s say the minimum standard of living is $200 and the tax rate is 23% for you and 5% for the little guys with no deductions. Your tax bill is $2185 and theirs is $27.75 each. Do the math and you’ll see that it’s within a couple of dollars of 90/10. Now we have a tax cut of 2% across the board. The little guys get a refund of 55 cents or 5% of the 27.75 they paid in tax and you get a refund of $43.70. Is that 78 times larger than the little guy’s refund? – yes, Was your tax bill 78 times larger? YES Are you still paying 90% of the taxes? Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. What do you say we repeal all of the tax cuts since Bush took office and replace then with a flat percent decrease for everyone. No? Didn't think so.

And again, keep in mind that the middle class often pays as much in social security and medicare taxes as they do in income taxes. So, since the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in SS than the rich do (because of the cap), cutting everyone's income tax by 1% is a proportionately bigger cut for the rich.



[ QUOTE ]
3. [ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! An answer! Even if it is rhetoric. First, they are the ultra rich. Second, If I accept your answer as non-rhetoric, then why didn’t they do this when Clinton was in office, or during Carter’s fiscal crisis? Or LBJ’s? They’ve had this money for a long time. (Gates is excused from LBJ and Carter, but not Clinton)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall Clinton making tax cuts targeted at the super-rich. (For that matter, Clinton was getting rid of the debt rather than trying to double it)

[ QUOTE ]

4. [ QUOTE ]
Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[/ QUOTE ]

Aww, a cop-out non-answer. I did the research before asking the question – do a little and you’ll find numerous Buffett and Kennedy foundations that award scholarships to places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Wharton, and (I have to be fair and credit the Kennedy’s on this one) Grambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great! Point me to one...I'd like to go to MIT.
Oh wait...you said they're only available to the rich. Be sure to point me to the minimum income requirements also.

[andyfox]

What percent of total income does the top 20% have? And what percent of their reported income do they pay overall in taxes? The richest 15 percent control nearly all of the financial assets of the country.

I can't answer your question for Mr. Buffet.

[andyfox]

The richest 1% earned 21 percent of all reported income in the year 2000. The richest 400 earned over 1 percent of all income. Therefore their percentage of the total dollars paid in taxes for the rich and superrich will be quite high. In fact, in 2000, the richest 1% paid more than 37 percent of individual federal income taxes.

However, when all federal taxes are considered, the top 1 percent's share drops to about 25 percent. If you tally up the economic benefits to the top 1 percent that do not show up in income statistics, then the richest 1 percent are taxed more lightly than the middle class.

[andyfox]

"the reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes"

Mathematically, yes. But operationally, no. The tax cuts could easily have been structured so that the upper income groups got a smaller percentage of the tax cuts. It was a political decision.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct. What do you say we repeal all of the tax cuts since Bush took office and replace then with a flat percent decrease for everyone. No? Didn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try but this isn’t about Bush. This is about ultra-Rich Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes. (BTW Bush cut taxes at every income level

[ QUOTE ]
And again, keep in mind that the middle class often pays as much in social security and medicare taxes as they do in income taxes. So, since the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in SS than the rich do (because of the cap), cutting everyone's income tax by 1% is a proportionately bigger cut for the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are sooooo correct! Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the most regressive taxes and the two largest socialist programs out there. Please remember that these are both Democrat programs and that the Republican have been trying to put forth alternatives to Social Security for the last 12 years. Who’s been blocking Social Security reform? Democrats

But I digress: This isn’t about Social Security or Medicare. This is about ultra-Rich Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes.

Again, (in case you forgot)

1. If Buffett and the other limo liberals think their taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall Clinton making tax cuts targeted at the super-rich. (For that matter, Clinton was getting rid of the debt rather than trying to double it)

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn’t, He raised taxes. But the point was in response to an earlier post that the Buffett & company don’t want to send money to the Fed now because the eeevil Bush administration will just give it to the Ultra-Rich.

I responded with the question asking if not now then why didn’t they do it when a Democrat (Clinton) was in office?

[ QUOTE ]
Great! Point me to one...I'd like to go to MIT.
Oh wait...you said they're only available to the rich. Be sure to point me to the minimum income requirements also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look them up yourself it only took me 10 minutes to find a half dozen.

Once again – No Answers – Just diversion and retoric

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
They already do give more than their share in the form of charity, as you have said elsewhere

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn’t about charity. Both Buffett and Gates (and the Kennedys and others) have impressive philanthropic records.

The question is that since both of them keep shooting their mouths off in the press about wanting to pay higher taxes; why don’t they just do it? Why do they need a law?


[ QUOTE ]
(although you unfairly said "poor people need not apply" in regards to scholarships - tell this to my old roommate who was from a poor family)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK the Poor people bit may have been a little over the top, but most of the scholarships I found that were directly from the families were for students of expensive prep schools like Sidwell. I’ll admit I didn’t spend a lot of time looking them up I just looked at the first dozen or so.

[ QUOTE ]
Giving fewer tax breaks to ALL the ultra rich would be much more significant than just Buffett and Gates giving a few more dollars. So their time and money is probably better served trying to convince others to cut loopholes in the tax code

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I’ll accept that as the first legitimate non-rhetoric answer to question 1. I think it’s misguided but it’s a good answer with one caveat: Gates said the Uber-Rich guys should kick in a third of their net worth. 30 billion would not be insignificant. And I’m back to if he feels that way – then lead the way – Write the Check, or shut the hell up!

[ QUOTE ]
We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase taxes too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m going to change one little word and say yes: We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase revenue too.

There are 2 ways to do this A: Raise taxes: or B: Decrease taxes to increase capital for spending on business which creates jobs which increases the tax base which means more people paying taxes, witch means more revenue. Guess which party likes which answer?

C’mon, you’re pretty good – take a shot at the other 3.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
What percent of total income does the top 20% have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter? They still pay 78% of the Federal Tax Burden and 85% of all taxes.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
However, when all federal taxes are considered, the top 1 percent's share drops to about 25 percent. If you tally up the economic benefits to the top 1 percent that do not show up in income statistics, then the richest 1 percent are taxed more lightly than the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice smoke screen but…it doesn’t change the facts – the top 20% pay 78% of all federal income tax . If you go further the other way the top 50% of all wage earners pay 96% of all Federal Income taxes.

It still doesn’t answer the questions.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematically, yes. But operationally, no. The tax cuts could easily have been structured so that the upper income groups got a smaller percentage of the tax cuts. It was a political decision.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, don’t spout that tired “It may look like that and the math may work out that way but these facts really aren’t true” Democrat smoke and mirror rhetoric. Face it – it’s true. Hell, the CBO study was requested by Democrats; who then tried to bury it after it was done. I’ve read your posts – you’re a smart guy – think about it.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes"

I assume this refers to the federal income tax only. When all taxes are included, this is not true. And the top 20% earn a much greater portion of their income not in wages, but in other forms of income. Wages, of course, are taxed as they are earned; the upper classes get to shield, hide and defer income which comes in forms other than wages.

I have quoted Warren Buffet here before. But here again are some of his thoughts on taxes:

"Charlie [Munger] and I have absolutely no complaints about these taxes. [He is referring to the $390,000,000 Berkshire Hathaway paid in taxes in 1993.] We work in a market-based economy that rewards our efforts far more bountifully than it does the efforts of others whose output is of equal or greater benefit to society. Taxation should, and does, partially redress this inequality. But we remain extraordinarily well treated."

"If you're a marvelous teacher, this world won't pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it. Now, am I going to try to come up with some comparable worth system that somehow redistributes that? No, I don't think you can do that. But I do think that when you're treated enromously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent--maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody wil pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever--I think society has a big claim on that."

And here is what Bill Gates Sr. says:

"Individual effort is indispensable to wealth building. But success is not entirely the result of individual brains and effort. Success is a product of having been born in this country, a place where education and research are subsidized, where there is an orderly market, where the private sector reaps enormous benefit from public investment. For someone to assert that he or she has grown wealthy in America without the benefit of substantial public investment is pure hubris."

"What is it worth to opeate within this marvelous system? What's wrong with people who accumulate $20 million or $100 million or $500 million putting a third of that back into the place that made possible the enormous accumulation of wealth for them? What is it worth to be an American?"

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing liberals seem obsessed with is whether or not the rich "deserve" their income or assets.

To quote one of the greatest movies of all time, "deserve's got nothing to do with it".

As Buffett points out in his quote, great teachers and nurses get paid less than great bankers. The question of whether they deserve more for their efforts is a red herring.

It's not a relevant question.

natedogg

[Triumph36]

All of that writing just to show open contempt.

"Why doesn't he just shut up and pay more taxes?"

Because people like you wouldn't be posting about that on Internet message boards. Did you ever stop and think that when someone thinks something is wrong in general, they do not simply fix it in their own lives and move on, but try to change things in general? Considering the tenor of your other posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you never thought that way.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
To quote one of the greatest movies of all time, "deserve's got nothing to do with it".

[/ QUOTE ]

Love it! Right up there with "Out here due process is a bullet"

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing liberals seem obsessed with is whether or not the rich "deserve" their income or assets.


[/ QUOTE ]

One thing conservatives seem compelled to do is to generalize about liberals. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-ptmusic

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
All of that writing just to show open contempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, all that to point out hypocrisy. Throughout history great leader and visionaries have led by example and from the front, these guys are just throwing around talking points.

I respect Buffett for what he has accomplished and, as I said in another post (this time the short version) when they use the short form when they don’t need to, I will too. (please no comments about how they can’t use the short form – it’s a metaphor (simile actually))

[ QUOTE ]
Because people like you wouldn't be posting about that on Internet message boards. Did you ever stop and think that when someone thinks something is wrong in general, they do not simply fix it in their own lives and move on, but try to change things in general? Considering the tenor of your other posts, I wouldn't be surprised if you never thought that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, more attacks, deflections and insults – but no answers. The only comment I’ll make about this claptrap is: I’m not the one that said they should do this – They are the ones making these statements – I just want to know why they don’t follow through.

Any Republicans want to take a crack at the 4 questions? – The Democrat talking points are getting old.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing conservatives seem compelled to do is to generalize about liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least the public ones /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

One thing liberals seem obsessed with is whether or not the rich "deserve" their income or assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is a rather common obsession (or should I say "affliction").

I think one main reason for this obsession is nutshelled in the title of Thomas Sowell's book, The Quest For Cosmic Justice.

Here is an excerpt from his one-page condensation:


(excerpt)

"Cosmic justice is one of the impossible dreams which has a very high cost and very dangerous potentialities.

What is cosmic justice and how does it differ from more traditional conceptions of justice-- and from the more recent and more fervently sought "social justice"?

Traditional concepts of justice or fairness, at least within the American tradition, boil down to applying the same rules and standards to everyone. This is what is meant by a "level playing field"-- at least within that tradition, though the very same words mean something radically different within a framework that calls itself "social justice." Words like "fairness," "advantage" and "disadvantage" likewise have radically different meanings within the very different frameworks of traditional justice and "social justice."

John Rawls perhaps best summarized the differences when he distinguished "fair" equality of opportunity from merely "formal" equality of opportunity. Traditional justice, fairness, or equality of opportunity are merely formal in Professor Rawls' view and in the view of his many followers and comrades. For those with this view, "genuine equality of opportunity" cannot be achieved by the application of the same rules and standards to all, but requires specific interventions to equalize either prospects or results. As Rawls puts it, "undeserved inequalities call for redress."

A fight in which both boxers observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules would be a fair fight, according to traditional standards of fairness, irrespective of whether the contestants were of equal skill, strength, experience or other factors likely to affect the outcome-- and irrespective of whether that outcome was a hard-fought draw or a completely one-sided beating.

This would not, however, be a fair fight within the framework of those seeking "social justice," if the competing fighters came into the ring with very different prospects of success-- especially if these differences were due to factors beyond their control.

Presumably, the vast ranges of undeserved inequalities found everywhere are the fault of "society" and so the redressing of those inequalities is called social justice, going beyond the traditional justice of presenting each individual with the same rules and standards. However, even those who argue this way often recognize that some undeserved inequalities may arise from cultural differences, family genes, or from historical confluences of events not controlled by anybody or by any given society at any given time. For example, there was no way that Pee Wee Reese was going to hit as many home runs as Mark McGwire, or Shirley Temple run as fast as Jesse Owens. There was no way that Scandinavians or Polynesians were going to know as much about camels as the Bedouins of the Sahara-- and no way that these Bedouins were going to know as much about fishing as the Scandinavians or Polynesians.

In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice."

(end excerpt)

Here linked is the rest of his condensation:

http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

[andyfox]

Of course it matters. The percentages by themselves, without context, are meaningless. So they pay 78% of the Federal tax burden. What if their income is 98% of the total income? Or 2%? What if they represent 98% of the total population? Or 2%?

[andyfox]

The smokescreen is saying that the top 20% pays 78% of the taxes. What is their portion of the total income? What portion of their earnings is in taxable income?

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct. What do you say we repeal all of the tax cuts since Bush took office and replace then with a flat percent decrease for everyone. No? Didn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try but this isn’t about Bush. This is about ultra-Rich Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes. (BTW Bush cut taxes at every income level


[/ QUOTE ]

But if I'm understanding you correctly (and please correct me if I'm not), you claim that the rich pay more than their share in taxes and that the tax cuts were fair. I'm pointing out that that isn't true, and the cuts disproportionately benefited the superrich.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And again, keep in mind that the middle class often pays as much in social security and medicare taxes as they do in income taxes. So, since the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in SS than the rich do (because of the cap), cutting everyone's income tax by 1% is a proportionately bigger cut for the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are sooooo correct! Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the most regressive taxes and the two largest socialist programs out there. Please remember that these are both Democrat programs and that the Republican have been trying to put forth alternatives to Social Security for the last 12 years. Who’s been blocking Social Security reform? Democrats

[/ QUOTE ]

Reform? More like trying to destroy the programs..
The problem isn't the existence of the programs, as republicans believe. The problem is:
1) Social Security doesn't have a good enough return (which is why I conditionally support private accounts, just not in a way that will destroy the program)
2) The cap makes the taxes regressive

First thing to do, obviously, is get rid of the cap and make it a flat tax.

[ QUOTE ]

He didn’t, He raised taxes. But the point was in response to an earlier post that the Buffett & company don’t want to send money to the Fed now because the eeevil Bush administration will just give it to the Ultra-Rich.


[/ QUOTE ]

Y'know, I'm remembering something that Buffett said a while back, when he gave his opinion on the proposed elimination of the tax on dividends. It was along the lines of how, if that passed and his company gave a dividend, he would be paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

In other words, he's speaking up now because the unfair Bush tax cuts are a large part of the problem. (And yes, they're largely the fault of the republicans in Congress, but Bush leads the party so he gets the blame)


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great! Point me to one...I'd like to go to MIT.
Oh wait...you said they're only available to the rich. Be sure to point me to the minimum income requirements also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look them up yourself it only took me 10 minutes to find a half dozen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, googled for them. I only checked out the first few, but I couldn't find any that had a minimum income level to apply.

Anyway, keep in mind that the only reason republicans hate Buffet is that he sees Bush's policies for the disaster they are. Remember, the other year he was backing Schwarzenegger for governor.

[slamdunkpro]

I addressed this in an earlier post. How about trying to answer the questions?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
But if I'm understanding you correctly (and please correct me if I'm not), you claim that the rich pay more than their share in taxes and that the tax cuts were fair. I'm pointing out that that isn't true, and the cuts disproportionately benefited the superrich.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh…where to begin.
No – I’m saying that Buffet and crew are carping about how they and everyone else aren’t paying enough in taxes. And I’m looking for someone to explain why if they feel this way they don’t just pay more of their own accord to set an example; plus; why do they need a law to do this?
As to the last sentence – now write this down of course the upper income people (The superrich if you like) got a bigger dollar amount tax break – THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES – GET IT?

If I make $50,000 a year, pay $5,000 in taxes and get a 20% tax cut I get a $1,000 refund. If Buffett makes $10,000,000 a year, pays $1,000,000 in taxes and gets a 1% tax cut he gets a $10,000 refund. Is my tax cut percentage larger? Yes. Is his dollar amount larger? Yes. Can I get a $10,000 refund like buffet? No. BECAUSE I DIDN’T PAY THAT MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM
If someone at a minimum wage job makes $12,000 and because of deductions pays $0 Income Tax should they get a tax cut? No. THEY DIDN’T PAY ANY TAXES TO START But to the Democrats this person was denied a tax cut by the eeevil Bush plan.

This is like trying to herd cats!

[ QUOTE ]
Reform? More like trying to destroy the programs..
The problem isn't the existence of the programs, as republicans believe. The problem is:
1) Social Security doesn't have a good enough return (which is why I conditionally support private accounts, just not in a way that will destroy the program)
2) The cap makes the taxes regressive
First thing to do, obviously, is get rid of the cap and make it a flat tax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Republicans don’t want to end Social Security – this is a Democrat scare tactic. But they do want to fix it. I don’t think it matters what they propose – The Democrats will stick their fingers in their ears and shout NO NO NO NO.
The truth is that the Democrats need Social Security broken because it’s an election issue for them – but this is for another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Y'know, I'm remembering something that Buffett said a while back, when he gave his opinion on the proposed elimination of the tax on dividends. It was along the lines of how, if that passed and his company gave a dividend, he would be paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

[/ QUOTE ]
That’s a red herring – the key word is percentage This is more doublespeak claptrap.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, he's speaking up now because the unfair Bush tax cuts are a large part of the problem. (And yes, they're largely the fault of the republicans in Congress, but Bush leads the party so he gets the blame)

[/ QUOTE ]
More irrelevant claptrap rhetoric – This isn’t about Bush or his tax cuts it’s about What Buffet and Gates said. Re read the original question
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, googled for them. I only checked out the first few, but I couldn't find any that had a minimum income level to apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me, there are very few middle class or poor kids that go to Sidwell


[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, keep in mind that the only reason republicans hate Buffet is that he sees Bush's policies for the disaster they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
More rhetoric; I don’t hate Buffet, I just want to know why he doesn’t follow through based on his comments.

How about trying to answer the questions instead of spitting out the Democrat talking points book

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
First thing to do, obviously, is get rid of the cap and make it a flat tax

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand how the so-called surplus works? Lifting the cap is the *opposite* of what should be done.

natedogg

[andyfox]

"1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they [sic] taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?"

-Maybe they do. I'm not privy to his tax returns.

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.

-Maybe he doesn't take every deduction. Again, without seeing his tax return, I couldn't say.

3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?

-Again, maybe he does.

4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?

-Don't know if this is true or not.

[andyfox]

"how they and everyone else aren’t paying enough in taxes. And I’m looking for someone to explain why if they feel this way they don’t just pay more of their own accord to set an example; plus; why do they need a law to do this?"

I don't think Buffett believes "everyone else" is not paying enough; I think he means everyone else in his own income bracket. Andy maybe he does pay more than he would have to if he took every advantage the tax code offers to him. Without seeing his return, how can we say?

A law is needed because, even if Buffett vountarily gave more, not everyone would. Why do we need a law that says you must stop at a red light?

Your summary of the Democrats' opposition to Bush's tax cuts is wrong. Their opposition stems from exactly what Bush said: that a woman who was a corporate executive making $200,000 a year deserved the same percentage tax cut as a waitress making $20,000. They felt that the $20,000 earner was having a more difficult time making ends meet and could use a larger percentage tax cut.

The federal income tax system is not onerous on the poor, since they don't pay any federal income tax; and it's not onerous on the rich and superrrich since it is a political document written by their lawyers for their benefit. It's the middle class that gets screwed.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he doesn't take every deduction. Again, without seeing his tax return, I couldn't say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Buffet avoids Tax havens. He has publicly said so and he seems pretty open with showing what his Institute makes and what it pays. He's a proud taxpayer.

Deflecting to Buffet isn't the issue. Buffet (and others) make an argument about why the taxcuts shouldn't be weighted away from people like him. To simply say, "why doesn't Buffet Pay more" is really avoiding the real argument... ie, if Buffet right?

Its a not so clever misdirection.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Buffett believes "everyone else" is not paying enough; I think he means everyone else in his own income bracket

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a hairsplit but he did say this and included himself.


[ QUOTE ]
A law is needed because, even if Buffett vountarily gave more, not everyone would. Why do we need a law that says you must stop at a red light?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the question; the jist of the original question is
If he thinks he should be paying more (his words) why is he waiting for a law?

[ QUOTE ]
Their opposition stems from exactly what Bush said: that a woman who was a corporate executive making $200,000 a year deserved the same percentage tax cut as a waitress making $20,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now the party of the “level playing field” , equity across classes and “the opposer of special interests” wants to elevate a particular group and make them a special interest?? (Just goofing)

But seriously, when Reagan announced his tax cuts the Dems screamed that it wasn’t fair and it wasn’t equal across the taxpayer base. Now their screaming because its across the board. Face facts – Democrats oppose every tax cut.

[slamdunkpro]

Yeah, another articulate poster (Andy too!).

[ QUOTE ]
He's a proud taxpayer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one said he wasn’t I’m just asking about his and Gate’s public comments – are they just hot air or are they prepared to back them up with action?

[ QUOTE ]
To simply say, "why doesn't Buffet Pay more" is really avoiding the real argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not the one who brought this up – Buffett and Gates did. This is about their public statements – not tax policy in general.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Social Security doesn't have a good enough return (which is why I conditionally support private accounts, just not in a way that will destroy the program)
2) The cap makes the taxes regressive

[/ QUOTE ]

Social security was origionally sold as a way to make sure old people had some money to live on through forced savings when they couldn't work anymore. To call it a regressive tax is ridiculous you shouldn't get more out then you paid in aside from a reasonable intrest level, if there was no cap top income earners would be getting a pathetic return on their supposed 'investment' Liberals just want to find more ways to facilitate the redistrabution of wealth. That's why I'm proposing a new plan, it's called a bank account put that 15% of all your income in a bank account and don't touch it till you're old enough to retire trust me if you're under 40 you'll be much better off then if you had paid it in to social security. The problem being of course that the elderly being a powerfull voting block have voted themselves a bunch of free cash and are getting far more back then they put in at the expense of the young, this trend can not continue and by the time I retire I'll be getting far less then I put in, but since the current payers of social security pay for the benifits of the current recipients (the government having long since spent the money they paid in) we're trapped in a vicious cycle.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
No one said he wasn’t I’m just asking about his and Gate’s public comments – are they just hot air or are they prepared to back them up with action?


[/ QUOTE ]

First- he already does by avoiding ways other less scrupulous people hide their taxes.
Second- Obviously they are prepared- ie, when the laws are changed, they will happily pay the additional taxes.

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not the one who brought this up – Buffett and Gates did. This is about their public statements – not tax policy in general.

[/ QUOTE ] No. Their statements are about how the tax policies are unfair and harmful. They are talking about what changes they think will be better for our country.

If someone said, "I think we should send troops to BLANK country to protect the citizens because an armed uprising is a threat to stability in the area and there will be many thousands of innocent people slaughtered..." You might guess people like you would say, "Why don't you fly over there by yourself and stabilize the country?!?"

Which is essentially how they're responding to Gates and Buffet's comments about how they think the tax breaks disproportiately and wrongly favor people like them.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Second- Obviously they are prepared- ie, when the laws are changed, they will happily pay the additional taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why does he need to wait for a law?

This is like saying “I think that You and I should be wearing seat belts and as soon as the seat belt law passes, I’ll start”

[ QUOTE ]
If someone said, "I think we should send troops to BLANK country to protect the citizens because an armed uprising is a threat to stability in the area and there will be many thousands of innocent people slaughtered..." You might guess people like you would say, "Why don't you fly over there by yourself and stabilize the country?!?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll turn this around

If someone said, "I think the two of us and our friends should go over and bring some troops to BLANK country to protect the citizens because an armed uprising is a threat to stability in the area and there will be many thousands of innocent people slaughtered..." You might guess people like you would say, "As soon as there is a law requiring a draft so that everyone else is forced to go then I’ll go too.?!?"

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying “I think that You and I should be wearing seat belts and as soon as the seat belt law passes, I’ll start”


[/ QUOTE ]

No its not. I think you're being ridiculous. Buffet pays his taxes, avoids tax shelters that other people use. His point is that he personally wants to pay more taxes. He thinks the taxcode is unfair and harmful to the country. He paying more isn't going to fix the problem. The whole thing has to change.

You continue to ignore all the points they make and keep saying the same dumb thing over and over.

[ QUOTE ]
I’ll turn this around


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I expect you to continue pretending that the issue is whether or not Buffet should just pay extra taxes which isn't the issue at all. I have no illusion that you won't continue to chase down strawmen and continue to go off topic. Do anything you can to ignore the substantive points being made by people with clearly more insight into economics then you. Keep pretending the issue is about Buffet and NOT about our national tax policies and what Buffet has to say about it.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
His point is that he personally wants to pay more taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly - so what is stopping him? That's what this whole thread is about.

[ QUOTE ]
You continue to ignore all the points they make

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has made any substantive replies except ptmusic. The rest have been rhetoric, insults, and diversionary claptrap.
Just like this......

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I expect you to continue pretending that the issue is whether or not Buffet should just pay extra taxes which isn't the issue at all. I have no illusion that you won't continue to chase down strawmen and continue to go off topic. Do anything you can to ignore the substantive points being made by people with clearly more insight into economics then you. Keep pretending the issue is about Buffet and NOT about our national tax policies and what Buffet has to say about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh, more insults and rhetoric – Since I started this topic I know what it is about: Specific statements made by specific individuals. . What this tread is not about is national tax policy, if it was, you’d most likely be surprised at my views. Stay on topic please.

[Triumph36]

Your argument is absurd. You don't like Buffett and you don't like taxes. That's fine. But it's obvious what his message is, he just used an unfortunate rhetorical device to grab headlines. When someone says "I want to pay more taxes,", that is eyecatching because who would ever say that? But that is not his main message, that he, Warren Buffett, wants to pay more taxes.

You, on the other hand, desired to misinterpret his message and worked yourself up into a furor over how ridiculous it is.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly - so what is stopping him? That's what this whole thread is about.

[/ QUOTE ] I mistyped. I'd think considering what I've said in the past and based on everything else in the post, you'd realize this was a mis-type on my part.

[ QUOTE ]
No one has made any substantive replies except ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ] They meaning Buffet and Gates. Buffet wrote a long letter outlining his views on the taxcode.

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh, more insults and rhetoric –

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is neither. Stating a fact is not an insult or rhetoric. Your question was your taking a tangent from the real issue... ie, the problems with the taxcode. Buffet made an argument as to what he thought was wrong with it. Rathar then address his arguments, you go off on this silly little tangent that has no bearing on Buffet's points or the central issues raised.

Pointing out exactly what you did is not rhetoric.

[slamdunkpro]

OK our sample period is over. Based on the responses the answers to the questions seem to be….

1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

They really don’t want to but it makes good press. And (credit ptmusic) they would rather try to use their money to effect political change.

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction..

See answer to #1.

3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?

Because when it comes down to it, they don’t trust the government anymore with their money than you do with yours; but free press is free press.

4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?

Because they’re Democrats and school vouchers are Republican proposals
(this isn’t meant to be insulting – I just don’t see any other justification).

Thanks to all who played and tried to effect a civil discourse.

[andyfox]

"1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

They really don’t want to but it makes good press."

-Buffett gets plenty of good press. He's widely regarded as an investment genius. Why do you doubt he believes what he says he believes? Wouldn't it be easier for him to take non-liberal, more typically business-oriented positions?

"2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction..

See answer to #1."

Have you seen his tax returns? How do you know he takes every deduction? Hasn't he specifically said that he doesn't?

"3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?

Because when it comes down to it, they don’t trust the government anymore with their money than you do with yours; but free press is free press."

-Maybe they don't trust the government any more with their money than with mine, but maybe they have genuinely heartfelt ideas about the policies that they like and they don't like. I have ideas about that, so do you, why shouldn't they? And Buffett doesn't worry about having to get free press.


"4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?

Because they’re Democrats and school vouchers are Republican proposals (this isn’t meant to be insulting – I just don’t see any other justification)."

-Again, why do you assume Buffett and Kennedy are not genuinely opposed to school vouchers? Kennedy, as a prominent Democratic politician, might be expected to oppose any Republican plan, but he did work with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind plan and, according to the president, he's a devoted supporter of the public schools. He's been in the Senate for a long time, his record is pretty clear on where he stands politically. Buffett is not a politician and we do not know if he votes Democratic or not. Aren't scholarships for those who need financial help? Also, do we know exactly which universities Kennedy and Buffett sponsor and what the details of the scholarships they support entail?