Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are very hung up on attacking the billionaire!
As we have established the top 1% is $400k and up, you think those people are hiring lobbyists to represent their interests on tax code?
However, I see this now as a feckless exercise. You are too firmly rooted in your beliefs and clearly see yourself as morally superior to anyone who doesn't agree with you on this.
I am certain you are a terrific person in real life, but this is a good example of how internet 'discussions' jump off the rail so easily.
You are very hung up on attacking the billionaire!
As we have established the top 1% is $400k and up, you think those people are hiring lobbyists to represent their interests on tax code?
However, I see this now as a feckless exercise. You are too firmly rooted in your beliefs and clearly see yourself as morally superior to anyone who doesn't agree with you on this.
I am certain you are a terrific person in real life, but this is a good example of how internet 'discussions' jump off the rail so easily.
I do not think 400k qualifies anyone as a billionaire. No need to get so riled.
I'm definitely not morally superior. And if you're a closet billionaire, please accept my apologies.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
As Mike notes - Warren is free to turn over his entire wealth to the US Treasury tomorrow.
I mean seriously, whenever the lottery gets to a certain point, I get interested. Why? Cause I figure I can cash a $100MM lottery check, give Uncle Sam his 50%, take the other 50MM and generate $1.5MM a year. I can give $1MM a way every year, live large on $500K, and never touch the original $50MM.
The "working poor" pay 7.6% "income" tax, and nothing more. Sales tax, gas tax, other usage taxes, yes. Are the billionaires paying an effective rate below 7.6%?
As Mike notes - Warren is free to turn over his entire wealth to the US Treasury tomorrow.
I mean seriously, whenever the lottery gets to a certain point, I get interested. Why? Cause I figure I can cash a $100MM lottery check, give Uncle Sam his 50%, take the other 50MM and generate $1.5MM a year. I can give $1MM a way every year, live large on $500K, and never touch the original $50MM.
The "working poor" pay 7.6% "income" tax, and nothing more. Sales tax, gas tax, other usage taxes, yes. Are the billionaires paying an effective rate below 7.6%?
I don't have the quotes and references to back this up, but I thought the origin of Buffet's comments were when he noted that he paid an effective tax rate less than his secretary, wasn't it?
I think the point that keeps getting lost (or twisted) is that people like Romney are not paying high effective rates because they can afford the resources to find loopholes. Buffet is saying that he legally finds the loopholes, which is his perogative, but he thinks it is evidence of how the system is stacked in the favor of the rich (he's calling himself out!).
The whole point is that people whining about the rich having high tax RATES are ignoring the reality that their EFFECTIVE rate is next to nil, and they are therefore not paying their fair share.
Whoever pointed out that when two tax professionals can file the a return with the same info and come out with different results hit the nail on the head. Our system is too complicated. I don't blame Romney, Buffet or the working poor for doing the best they can. I blame the system that allows (if not encourages) it.
Rich people pay more in, but absolutely get more out of our infrastructure. It makes sense and the only thing that should change is the ability for (anyone) to cheat the system.
$400 will make those yuppies pay their freight!!!!!!!!!!!!
The yuppies can afford it. The poor will obviously be the ones punished by this. You need a car to function in society and this government has made it clear once again that it wants these people to disappear.
If no one else is going to pay, why should he? He's more likely to get his beliefs passed into law if he maintains his empire. He's calling for higher taxes on himself, as well as others in his class, so there's no hypocrisy here. Until those lsaws are passed he's going to use that money to play the system to change the system.
This conservative 'logic' of paying more yourself to the government if you want to change the tax system makes no sense.
If no one else is going to pay, why should he? He's more likely to get his beliefs passed into law if he maintains his empire. He's calling for higher taxes on himself, as well as others in his class, so there's no hypocrisy here. Until those lsaws are passed he's going to use that money to play the system to change the system.
This conservative 'logic' of paying more yourself to the government if you want to change the tax system makes no sense.
It is not "conservative logic" to follow one's own described belief structure is it?
If I truly believe I should do certain activities, I don't need a law demanding others do what I believe I should do.
I either do it or don't do it, and the fault is mine if I don't.
It is amazing, and very sad, the concept that people should only do what they know they should do if the government makes it mandatory.
It is not "conservative logic" to follow one's own described belief structure is it?
If I truly believe I should do certain activities, I don't need a law demanding others do what I believe I should do.
I either do it or don't do it, and the fault is mine if I don't.
It is amazing, and very sad, the concept that people should only do what they know they should do if the government makes it mandatory.
This is called a tragedy of the commons. If everyone paid nobody would be worse off, but if one person pays then they make themselves worse off, and everyone else can leech off the positive effects of their generosity while maintaining the status quo for themselves, and ultimately nothing changes.
Similarly, if any single company reduces its carbon emissions because the owner believes it's important for the environment, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to other companies and they'll likely be punished for their generosity when fewer people buy their more expensive products. The only way to fairly reduce emissions--which are something that everyone benefits from reducing, is to make everyone pay into it.
The people who espouse this belief of yours never intend to apply it. It's the ideology of a manipulator, to guilt someone into doing something pointless. You can't fix the world alone. When Hitler invaded Poland and France, and the US spent years sitting on its hands while millions died, do you think anyone said "well... if you don't like it, how about you pick up a gun and go fix it? Don't rope the government into it". You see what I'm getting at here? One person is nothing. If Warren Buffet donated his entire estate to the US coffers, and moved to Bhutan and became a monk, it wouldn't fix poverty and financial insecurity here. It wouldn't fix our broken political system. It would do nothing. He knows his money is better spent fighting the lobbying money that supports the status quo and that's how he's using it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
