|
On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it.
How do you know?
|
On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know?
How do I know what ?
|
On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where they have to spend their money in order to acquire more status. They can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
he lives in the same house that he bought 50 years ago which is very modest even compared to a lot of middle class people, doesn't drive any fancy cars, doesn't even have fences around his house, nor bodyguards. he's a pretty simple guy actually, he does own a jet, but he is a big reason why bill gates setup the gates foundation etc...when he dies he's donating almost his entire fortune to charity.
yes he is famous for his wealth, but he is hardly famous by traditional standards.
|
On August 17 2011 13:08 sunprince wrote:
Yes, but he's suggesting only to increase the taxes on the wealthiest 0.3% anyway, which that graph would support as reasonable.
And I don't disagree, but it's not necessary to make that case while spouting falsities such as the US has a regressive tax system or that corporations barely pay taxes.
Absolute taxes per capita doesn't mean anything. As GDP goes up, of course people end up paying more taxes in absolute terms as the average income increases.
In terms of the deficit, there is no fundamental reason for inflation-adjusted spending per capita to increase. Thus the fact that tax rates are lower doesn't explain the deficit, because revenue per capita is higher. The fact that medical costs are skyrocketing, on the other hand...
|
On August 17 2011 12:32 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 12:14 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2011 12:12 macil222 wrote:
I don't believe anything Warren Buffet says.
The reason is because he is already as rich as he is going to get. He already has the fame and status of being one of the top couple richest people in the world and he may have held that title for a short period of time.
He is a greedy selfish bastard and he doesn't give a damn to give the same to chance to everyone else that he had.
There is a reason the ultra super rich suddenly become "philantropists" Its because they want more and more, and there comes to a point where you have to spend your money in order to acquire more status. You can only buy so many cars, companies, mansions and towers before it stops adding anything new to their status so instead they seek to purchase a legacy with their money.
They've gotten everything that they want out of life and can now afford to spend their money on something even greater...legacy. Warren Buffet does not have a heart, and he is not some folksy nice guy who gives a damn about people. He is a business man who wants to purchase his small place in the history books next to the Carnegie and Rockefeller. And you have absolutely no idea whether you are right, wrong, or somewhere in between. For all you know, Buffet could be a old broken man nearing the end of his life, sad and depressed by the fact that he has everything when millions of others have absolutely nothing and wants to make whatever difference he can. I am absolutely convinced that I am right. If he felt that way then he would give away his money now, sell his mansion, sell his stake in his company and start living like a regular person. But he is never going to do that. He is going to live like a king until the day his heart gives out. If he really cares about the poor who have very little then he would not be saying any of this. The system that produces the most wealth for everyone is a system based on free markets. The problem with our system, especially in the United States is not the free markets, its the lack of free markets. Too much regulation, and too much government/corporate collusion. Look at how many people have gotten rich thanks to warren buffet. Think about all of the stuff those people buy and the jobs that creates. Look at the wealth he created, wealth that would not otherwise exist. Think in terms of his entire lifespan and every dollar that was not taxed. Think about how each of those dollars got multiplied several times over. Higher taxes means less future wealth for everyone. And what would a government a spend that money on? Would they generate more wealth? No they would squander on some phony program to help the poor, which does nothing but hurt the poor by creating dependency. (give a fish vs teach to fish..) For all the hate the socialists give to capitalism the so called poor in the western world are as well off as the rich were decades ago. In the United States "poor" people with subsidized housing have separate rooms for each child, health care, big televisions in mutliple rooms, broadband, a car for each adult, no lack of appliances and sufficient and often new furniture. It is so easy to focus on the inequality and cry about it, rather than take the time to realize that if we had forced equality all along then we would simply all be poor, far poorer than the "poor" are today. Now there are genuine poor in other parts of the world and they need help. Churches do a very good job, there are many charities and organizations such as the peace corp. So encourage pepole to donate and volunteer. Ultimately its up to people in those countries to build a civilization for themselves. If you are talking about a nation taxing its citizens to redistribute wealth to other nations for some sort of global level equality then that is even worse but lets not get into that.
he actually does live a very normal life. his life is pretty well documented in this regard, the only 'luxury' possession he owns being a jet. i think if you read a little bit about him, you'd figure out how wrong you are in that regard.
this has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism.
|
Sure yes, billionaires like him should be taxed more since he probably takes advantage of many loopholes and deductions that us normal people cannot take advantage of.
I do not think it is fair for him to call for tax increases on somebody that is single and make $100k or $200k a year because there is a huge huge difference between him and his friends (bill gates, george soros, ect) who have thousands upon thousands of millions and smart, but hardworking people who have worked all their life and are finally at the top of their career or whatnot and making a lot of money but still well under 1million a year.
People like him, bill gates, george soros, ect are so so rich at this point money means nothing to them. All they care about is power and how history views them.
But ya if he really cared he would just give more money to the government and stuff now, not when he dies. I mean the fact that he is giving it away when he dies shows just how power hungry / selfish he is - why not give it away now if he truly didn't care?
Just the fact that people like him or bill gates or george soros can have so much above and beyond what even what I would consider very successful people are making (ppl making $100k+ a yr) is disgusting and shows how messed up things are.
But ya I feel like what will ending up happening is taxes will be raised on the middle class like usual while him and his friends might pay a little extra but when you have like 60,000 million who really cares if you pay a bit more.
Oh and I feel like people don't want their pity handouts, they would rather have jobs and earn a decent and honest living rather than living as a parasite off pigs like him and his billionaire friends.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know?
He's wrong, you still pay the taxes on that money (estate tax) before it goes to charity.
|
On August 17 2011 13:39 domovoi wrote:
And I don't disagree, but it's not necessary to make that case while spouting falsities such as the US has a regressive tax system or that corporations barely pay taxes.
I can't speak for others, but I've consistently argued in this thread that the US has a progressive tax system up to the upper-middle class only, after which the system becomes regressive.
As for corporations, they do pay very little from a historical perspective, very little compared to their statutory rates, and less than average on a contemporary global comparison. Further, those that do avoid taxes (particularly extreme cases where they have 0 or negative tax liabilities) are overrepresented among the largest (Fortune 500) companies.
On August 17 2011 13:39 domovoi wrote:
In terms of the deficit, there is no fundamental reason for inflation-adjusted spending per capita to increase. Thus the fact that tax rates are lower doesn't explain the deficit, because revenue per capita is higher. The fact that medical costs are skyrocketing, on the other hand...
Many forms of spending are tied to things such as average costs and average wealth (poverty levels, for example).Therefore, you can generally expect total spending as a percentage of GDP to remain constant, just as you can expect total revenue as a percentage of GDP to remain constant, if spending/taxing habits remain the same.
Revenue per capita doesn't matter, because if you simply have 50% inflation then revenue per capita will increase by 50%, but costs will go up by 50% too.
The deficit results when spending increases as a % of GDP without a corresponding increases in revenue as a % of GDP, or when revenue decreases without a corresponding decrease in spending. Obviously, we've done both since the Bush era tax cuts/foreign military adventures/population aging, so we have a deficit: http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S. Spending And Revenue In Relation To GDP.GIF
|
On August 17 2011 06:38 thebigdonkey wrote:
No doubt the libertarians and the elitist right will not be happy to read this.
I would never claim to represent either of these groups, but I would think that libertarians, especially, are much more concerned about the government spending less money than which citizens' money is being spent.
|
warren buffett has been giving away like 1.5 billion dollars of his company's stock annually for the past 5 years, and continues to do so. you may not like his ideals and there's a ton of mega rich people that can be bad guys, but warren buffett is not one of them.
he's been living in the same house for like 60 years now and drives his own cadillac. buffett along with li ka shing are notorious for living a plain lifestyle.
|
On August 17 2011 14:06 Drowsy wrote:
I would never claim to represent either of these groups, but I would think that libertarians, especially, are much more concerned about the government spending less money than which citizens' money is being spent.
As someone who leans libertarian, I'm more concerned with the massive debt and deficit, which will inevitably require more and more government to handle.
Reducing unnecessary spending by reforming SS/Medicare and cutting military budgets would be the preferred way to go about it, but realistically it won't be enough without revenue increases too.
|
On August 17 2011 13:33 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? How do I know what ?
Everything you claimed. How do you know? I do not know how I could be clearer. You explicated Buffett's actions so vividly...surely it's based upon some hard evidence? Or is that just sort of what it feels like because it looks like it works out in that light, with that spin?
You claim Buffett's actions are founded in symbolism - hence my allusion to "explication" the way a student might explicate an author's poem (who might also be very far from the author's true intent). I want to know why you think Buffett's gesture is to "stick it to the Gov." Surely you must have hard evidence, perhaps a statement by Buffett or something, somewhere, regarding this particular matter.
|
On August 17 2011 14:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 14:06 Drowsy wrote:
I would never claim to represent either of these groups, but I would think that libertarians, especially, are much more concerned about the government spending less money than which citizens' money is being spent. As someone who is libertarian-leaning, I'm more concerned with the massive debt and deficit, which will inevitably require more and more government to handle. Reducing unnecessary spending by reforming SS/Medicare and cutting military budgets would be the preferred way to go about it, but realistically it won't be enough without revenue increases too.
military spending would be the best, since the US spends more on military per year than the next 17 countries combined
|
On August 17 2011 14:13 oldgregg wrote:
military spending would be the best, since the US spends more on military per year than the next 17 countries combined
I agree, but it's still not nearly enough to close the deficit on its own.
|
On August 17 2011 13:57 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? He's wrong, you still pay the taxes on that money (estate tax) before it goes to charity.
Check out Form 706, and specifically Schedule O, bud. Charitable contributions reduce the taxable estate, but thanks for playing...
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 14:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:57 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? He's wrong, you still pay the taxes on that money (estate tax) before it goes to charity. Check out Form 706, and specifically Schedule O, bud. Charitable contributions reduce the taxable estate, but thanks for playing...
"Reduce" means "less taxes" not "no taxes", or did the words definition change on me when I wasn't looking? To be fair, he had promised to donate that money to the Gates Foundation a very long time ago.
|
On August 17 2011 14:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 13:33 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? How do I know what ? Everything you claimed. How do you know? I do not know how I could be clearer. You explicated Buffett's actions so vividly...surely it's based upon some hard evidence? Or is that just sort of what it feels like because it looks like it works out in that light, with that spin? You claim Buffett's actions are founded in symbolism - hence my allusion to "explication" the way a student might explicate an author's poem (who might also be very far from the author's true intent). I want to know why you think Buffett's gesture is to "stick it to the Gov." Surely you must have hard evidence, perhaps a statement by Buffett or something, somewhere, regarding this particular matter.
His words in the OP are that he and people like him should contribute more to the government. His public statements about his intentions to give all or nearly all of his estate to charity prevent the government from collecting any estate taxes.
I don't recall saying his actions are "founded in symbolism" or that his gesture is to "stick it to the Gov". It's simply the effect of his choice that the Government gets nothing in estate taxes from a man who is preaching with comments in the OP that he and others like him should pay more.
|
|
|
On August 17 2011 14:25 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 14:22 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:57 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? He's wrong, you still pay the taxes on that money (estate tax) before it goes to charity. Check out Form 706, and specifically Schedule O, bud. Charitable contributions reduce the taxable estate, but thanks for playing... "Reduce" means "less taxes" not "no taxes", or did the words definition change on me when I wasn't looking? To be fair, he had promised to donate that money to the Gates Foundation a very long time ago.
And does "reduce to 0" translate to "less taxes" or "no taxes" ? If he gives it ALL to charity, the remaining estate to be taxed is a big goose egg. I have no criticism of his choice to give it all to charity. My criticism is of his recent comments, which given his previously stated position about his intentions for his estate, seem quite hypocritical.
|
On August 17 2011 14:32 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 14:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:33 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 17 2011 13:29 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 13:21 riotjune wrote:
Warren Buffett could have willed his entire fortune to his children or his dog, but he plans to give his family a fraction (they will still get by comfortably) and the rest to charity. The rich have no formal societal obligation to the poor, but it'd almost be a crime if they didn't help out those who are less fortunate. If you can help out the lot of society since you possess the wealth and power to do so, sure why not. He might be rich, but he has and will probably donate more money to charity than any of us ever will.
Buffett could be selfish and trying to further his legacy. But it's still better than keeping everything for himself or his family. I'm not going to criticize his decision to donate. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, he definitely deserves the comfort of his lifestyle more so than those who never gave up a cent for a good cause. Maybe this will set a good example and people will be more generous and help out others because they can. You do realize that by directing his assets to go to charity after he dies, he is telling the government they don't get $1 in estate taxes. He's making the point in his actions that We, The People, prefer to spend our money the way we see fit as compared to letting the government spend it, better than any Right-Wing, Tea Party Conservative ever could. He's publicly calling for higher taxes be paid by himself and those like him, but his actions are to pay absolutely none when he dies. And he is praised for it. How do you know? How do I know what ? Everything you claimed. How do you know? I do not know how I could be clearer. You explicated Buffett's actions so vividly...surely it's based upon some hard evidence? Or is that just sort of what it feels like because it looks like it works out in that light, with that spin? You claim Buffett's actions are founded in symbolism - hence my allusion to "explication" the way a student might explicate an author's poem (who might also be very far from the author's true intent). I want to know why you think Buffett's gesture is to "stick it to the Gov." Surely you must have hard evidence, perhaps a statement by Buffett or something, somewhere, regarding this particular matter. His words in the OP are that he and people like him should contribute more to the government. His public statements about his intentions to give all or nearly all of his estate to charity prevent the government from collecting any estate taxes. I don't recall saying his actions are "founded in symbolism" or that his gesture is to "stick it to the Gov". It's simply the effect of his choice that the Government gets nothing in estate taxes from a man who is preaching with comments in the OP that he and others like him should pay more.
The fact that you're going on and on about estate taxes, which are totally beside the point that Buffett is making, leads me to believe you have no good argument for the actual issue.
Forget about Warren Buffett. Do you believe that the super rich should pay the same amount as the middle class, in terms of percentage of earnings, wherever that earning comes from? This is the issue, and for some odd reason you seem to want to dodge that issue and go on about how Warren Buffett is this or that. Forget about him, address the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
