The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[theprofromdover]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If Buffet were really serious, he ought to donate the difference between what he pays in taxes and what he thinks he should pay, to charity or something. Talk is cheap, though I guess talk is better than nothing, a little.

Jesus , vos es bardus.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Factories, mines, and railroads built their own cities. It makes sense since the US is now a consumer rather than an industrial economy.

They would barcode their citizens, of course, for easy inventory.

The barcode tattoo is the new fad here. Most ridiculous thing ever. How do you explain that to yourself when you are 50?

An Electrician can get into trouble in some of those "factory" built towns or neighborhoods. They have industrial voltages in some of them, not just your basic 120 /240. Walmart towns would have to be built by China and shipped here, would fall apart after one open and closed the front door 12 times

Heh. This is probably more of a risk than we know.

If Buffet were really serious, he ought to donate the difference between what he pays in taxes and what he thinks he should pay, to charity or something. Talk is cheap, though I guess talk is better than nothing, a little.

This response baffles me. We are one of the lower taxing countries of the industrial world for the uber-rich(unless I am misguided). We lag behind in many things- education, healthcare including prenatal care and outcome, innovation, etc. What does not taxing the uber-rich achieve? And Buffet is donating massive amounts of cash so his talk is not cheap. He puts his money where his mouth is.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

He just gave 37 Billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2006. Is that enough???

That's great, of course. But, if he wants to make a point on the tax issue, he could make a powerful statement by donating an amount equal to what he thinks he should pay as an example that who knows, maybe someone else would follow? I love how people always take something beyond what is said.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What I don't get is why he didn't do it the old fashioned way.

Donate $18 billion to Senators with the promise of another $18 billion if they get it passed. What a moran.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

That's great, of course. But, if he wants to make a point on the tax issue, he could make a powerful statement by donating an amount equal to what he thinks he should pay as an example that who knows, maybe someone else would follow? I love how people always take something beyond what is said.

I think you should find another rich guy as an example. Maybe, oh I don't know, Mitt Romney.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I think you should find another rich guy as an example. Maybe, oh I don't know, Mitt Romney.

I didn't pick the example, just responded. But, someone like George Soros would be a good example of someone who does a lot of bad with his money, let alone pay more or do good. As I said, Buffet talking about paying more taxes is better than nothing, which is what most of the very wealthy do or say.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Pretty soon Warren Buffet will just be able to buy the entire country from the government and we can all be slaves for Berkshire Hathaway.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I get a kick out of the "ultra-rich" scumbags who publicly whine that all the other "ultra-rich" people should be paying more taxes, yet they refuse to send a single dime over the absolute minimum to the U.S. Treasury themselves. If Buffet was serious he would cut a check today and save the self-righteous preening.

 

[duper]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I don't think Bob is wrong to suggest that talk is cheap with Buffet, but I'm not sure that it is as simple as that. Maybe other superwealthy folks would follow the example, but then again, I suspect many would just think Buffet is a fool. Because frankly, and I am admittedly a cynic here, I suspect that precious few people have ever accumulated a billion dollars by being generous. I think that (I forget who already suggested it) the more effective thing for him to do would be to use some of that money to lobby congress to change the tax code.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I don't think Bob is wrong to suggest that talk is cheap with Buffet, but I'm not sure that it is as simple as that. Maybe other superwealthy folks would follow the example, but then again, I suspect many would just think Buffet is a fool. Because frankly, and I am admittedly a cynic here, I suspect that precious few people have ever accumulated a billion dollars by being generous. I think that (I forget who already suggested it) the more effective thing for him to do would be to use some of that money to lobby congress to change the tax code.

Agreed. Things are rarely simple.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I get a kick out of the "ultra-rich" scumbags who publicly whine that all the other "ultra-rich" people should be paying more taxes, yet they refuse to send a single dime over the absolute minimum to the U.S. Treasury themselves. If Buffet was serious he would cut a check today and save the self-righteous preening.

I don't see it that way at all. I think if Buffet's preferences would be (in this order):

1. Rich people donate much, much more money to non-profit charities with impeccable ethics and intelligent wealth management strategies
2. Failing that, if he can't get rich people to donate (through his words and example), then taxes should be raised on rich people.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in advocating for higher taxes but then donating his own money to charity instead of the Treasury.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I don't see it that way at all. I think if Buffet's preferences would be (in this order):

1. Rich people donate much, much more money to non-profit charities with impeccable ethics and intelligent wealth management strategies
2. Failing that, if he can't get rich people to donate (through his words and example), then taxes should be raised on rich people.

I don't think there's anything hypocritical in advocating for higher taxes but then donating his own money to charity instead of the Treasury.

Studies have shown that the higher a person's income, the smaller percentage of their income they give to charity.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Studies have shown that the higher a person's income, the smaller percentage of their income they give to charity.

Right - and increasing taxes will either lead to more revenue for the Treasury (good) or more charitable giving (better).

(and yet, to people like 5MM, I'm still somehow lumped in with the board's Conservatives. Go figure.)

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Right - and increasing taxes will either lead to more revenue for the Treasury (good) or more charitable giving (better).

Which is why any reform to the tax code needs to keep the charitable giving deduction in some form. Private philanthropy and assistance is vastly superior to a government organized welfare state.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I get a kick out of the "ultra-rich" scumbags who publicly whine that all the other "ultra-rich" people should be paying more taxes, yet they refuse to send a single dime over the absolute minimum to the U.S. Treasury themselves. If Buffet was serious he would cut a check today and save the self-righteous preening.

If tea baggers were serious, they'd stop accepting their social security checks and medicare benefits. I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one, though.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

If tea baggers were serious, they'd stop accepting their social security checks and medicare benefits. I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one, though.

Why should they do that...even the candidates they cream their pants over dont do that

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Which is why any reform to the tax code needs to keep the charitable giving deduction in some form. Private philanthropy and assistance is vastly superior to a government organized welfare state.

Agreed.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

For what its worth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2

I'm sure the people on the lower end of the Bush Tax Cut bracket would sing a much different tune, and you've heard this before from celebrities, but I think there's something to listen to here. I especially like his use of numbers without bogging them down with too many caveats. 17% compared to 33%+.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Private philanthropy and assistance is vastly superior to a government organized welfare state.

What do you do about the people it doesn't reach? Eventually you are going to have to make a choice with someone: government assistance or let them starve.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What do you do about the people it doesn't reach? Eventually you are going to have to make a choice with someone: government assistance or let them starve.

That's based on the assumption that private charity can't reach some segment of the society that government can, which I would say is certainly at least questionable. Though given the feds' endless growth and ever extending reach into all areas of our lives, I can forgive people for assuming that the feds should be the primary source of care for the less fortunate. And of course it's not as though Almington or myself or anyone is advocating elimination of federal assistance to the most needy.