The left's need for more taxes -

[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?