Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

TAXES: Super-rich will find ways to avoid paying

Letter by Roy Broman, University Place on Aug. 24, 2011 at 11:12 am with 134 Comments »
August 24, 2011 11:12 am

There has been much said about taxing the super-rich, presumably on their income rather than assets. A suggested super-rich income is more than $175 million per year. How many people make this much?

Let’s assume that there are 1,000 in this category with a combined income of $175 billion per year. Tax these folks at 100 percent of their income. This will reduce the annual deficit at current rates by about 12 percent. The debt is likely to increase since we have an increase in the debt limit which the government will not allow to go to waste. How likely is the scenario to play out?

The super-rich measured by income will not stand idly by even if taxed at more nominal rates. They will find ways to avoid paying taxes by various methods to reduce their taxable income by working less, retiring, liquidating their business, shipping jobs overseas, downsizing and so on.

We can be sure that the net effect of substantially raising taxes on the super-rich annual income will have the net effect (as history reveals) in less taxation dollars to the government.

The better approach is to allow the likes of Warren Buffet to spend their money directly on various beneficial activities of their own choosing which will be much more efficient and cost-effective than any government agency.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 134
  1. Such sophistry. Such avoidance of reality.

    But the same logic we shouldn’t bother attempting to enforce any laws because criminals will figure out how to avoid punishment.

  2. old_benjamin says:

    Although Buffet said the rich aren’t taxed enough, he expressed a preference for picking his own charities rather htan paying more taxes.

    Reason: The private charities he picks will spend his money more efficiently than the government.

    Who’d a thunkit?

  3. Reason: The private charities he picks will spend his money more efficiently than the government.

    You have a citation of where he stated this? Please share.

  4. nwcolorist says:

    This letter shows a realistic, common sense, understanding of the issue.

    Unfortunately, the opposition is not so much interested in increasing tax revenues as they are punishing the “rich” for being good at what they do.

  5. Having the “super-rich” in the first place undermines democracy and the republic.

  6. geeterpontiac says:

    beerBoy,

    Warren Buffet said,

    “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html

  7. Thanks GP….you do know that Buffett made that donation five years ago. Perhaps the economic crisis has made him rethink whether he, and others in his bracket, should foregoe the luxury of determining where there money goes to and, instead, help with the deficit…..

  8. old_benjamin says:

    Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That’s an act of generosity, but if the government’s purposes are so vital, why doesn’t he simply give the money to the IRS?

    Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: “Well, that’s a choice and it’s an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I’d absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html

  9. Mr. Broman, have you gotten a permit for all the strawmen you set on fire?

    Who has suggested that the super-rich are those with an income of $175 million a year? Who has suggested taxing that income at 100%? Who has suggusted that higher taxes (on anyone) should be sole method of eliminating the deficit? In addition, your claim that history shows raising taxes on the “super-rich” results in less taxation dollars to the government doesn’t seem to be borne out by Johnson’s 1968 tax increase, Bush Sr’s 1990 tax increase, nor Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

    Please try again, next time addressing proposals people have actually made, and supporting claims of history with evidence.

  10. ” The better approach is to allow the likes of Warren Buffet to spend their money directly on various beneficial activities of their own choosing which will be much more efficient and cost-effective than any government agency.”

    So why should only the super rich get to decide where their taxes go to? I sure would like to be able to decide where my tax money goes to as well, or am I not intelligent enough to make such lofty decisions because I just happen to be a middle class earner?

  11. nwcolorist says:

    Just as we will always have the poor, we will always have the rich – in all types of political systems. It’s a fact. And remember, the “poor” in America are rich by world standards.

    Consider the positives of the rich: they put hundreds of thousands of people to work, they pay half of all income tax revenues, they provide philanthropic foundations to help worthy causes, etc. Consider those factors in the mix before condemning them.

  12. Once again, trickle down does not work.

  13. old_benjamin says:

    \”Perhaps the economic crisis has made him rethink whether he, and others in his bracket, should foregoe the luxury of determining where there money goes to and, instead, help with the deficit….. ”

    More likely, Buffett talks out of both sides of his mouth. He takes all the tax breaks he can but wants to pay more taxes. Right, and Ghadaffi is a selfless public servant.

  14. The super rich — or “the filthy rich” as my mother used to say should have to pay their taxes like everyone else. Further, should they feel it appropriate they are free to give as many additional dollars as they like towards getting the country out of debt.

  15. Dave98373 says:

    “Once again, trickle down does not work.”—But the current Obama stimulost money give-away is working so well for all of us. Give me a break.

  16. “They will find ways to avoid paying taxes by various methods to reduce their taxable income by working less, retiring, liquidating their business, shipping jobs overseas, downsizing and so on”

    Quit providing tax breaks for outsourcing. Tax more when they do that.

    Anyone that wants to retire or liquidate just creates a new place in the supply and demand chain for a new business. Have a nice retirement

    Working less? Do you think they are paying themselves hourly????

    I hate to say this, but with today’s humid heat, someone must have sipped on the koolaid a bit too much….

  17. Dave….ask Rick Perry about Obama’s stimulus program. Texas took $7 billion.

  18. So…..how does the fact that Buffet gave billions of dollars to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation change what he is saying now – 5 years later?

  19. old_benjamin says:

    How does what Buffet is saying now consistent with the fact that he takes all the tax breaks he can get?

    Answer: He knows HIS money is bettter spent by non-governmental entities. Of course, others aren’t as smart as he is, so they have to give their money to the government.

  20. Don’t know what charities old-ben is talking about, but here are a couple of three sites to get us on the same page.

    http://www.charitynavigator.org
    http://www.charitywatch.org
    http://www.volunteerguide.org/volunteer/charityratings.htm

    for additional sites enter ‘rating charities’ in your search engine

  21. Since raising taxes on the rich doesn’t increase tax revenue that much, why does Obama keep telling us we should raise taxes on the rich? It’s not about tax revenue. It’s about firing up the liberal base – class warfare. Plan on hearing about “fair share” all the way until November, 2012.

    BB – it doesn’t change a thing. Warren is still not taking a salary and lives off of his capital gains.

  22. Nwcolorist,

    The letter does not show a realistic, common sense understanding of anything but how to repeat a right wing talking point.

    NO ONE, other than the right wing, is talking about taxing anyone at 100%.

    The Obama tax plan would:

    Return the top two rates (currently 33% and 35%) to their 2001 rates of35.5 and 39.1;

    Return the CGT to 28%.

    Close tax loop holes that help the rich to avoid paying there true share of the tax bite.

  23. Dave98373 says:

    Did anyone else notice the new poll that came out tonight that had every single Repub. candidate (including Perry) leading Obama by nearly ten points each?
    And KArd- you forgot to mention that Rick Perry’s administration was responsible for creating 40% of the entire nation’s new jobs last year. Texas didn’t really have a choice in taking the stimuLOST when it came to the damage Obama did to our battered economy (like all lefty programs, it came with strings attached.)

  24. BB – it doesn’t change a thing. Warren is still not taking a salary and lives off of his capital gains.

    ummm…..I suggest you read what Buffett actually wrote…..he has proposed and increase on ALL income tax for the uber-rich, including Capital Gains. A higher rate for those whose income is over a $1mill/year and an even higher rate for those who earn over $10 mill/year.

  25. And remember, the “poor” in America are rich by world standards.

    I think you are confusing Somalia’s standards for the World’s standards….

    Poverty in the United States

    * In 2008, 39.8 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 — the second consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty (Census Bureau 2010).
    * The 2008 poverty rate (13.2 percent) was the highest since 1997 (Census Bureau 2010).
    * In 2008, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 10.3 percent and 8.1 million, respectively, up from 9.8 percent and 7.6 million in 2007 (Census Bureau 2010).
    * 15.4 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or less than about $10,000 a year for a family of four (CBPP 2007).
    * 16 million low-income households either paid more for rent and utilities than the federal government says is affordable or lived in overcrowded or substandard housing (CBPP 2007).
    * 46 million Americans — more than one in every seven — do not have medical insurance (USBC 2009 p. 20).

    http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

  26. blakeshouse says:

    It is totally amazing to here the socialist / neo marxists talk about “fair share”.. Nothing but BS and lib speak for income redistribution, nothing more.

    the fact is that the top 5% of earners in the country pay more than 60% of the fed income taxes now collected. The bottom 49% pay 0 and in fact get more back than they payed in the first place (wealth redistribution).

    A simple flat tax and possibly a small national sales tax and EVERYONE will have an actual stake in things…

    Heaven forbid that these socialists actually have to run on issues instead of the politics of class envy!!!!!!

  27. socialist / neo marxists

    So…..the “father of modern capitalist thought” was actually a ‘socialist/neo marxist’!

    “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ….[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] ‘remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'”

    Adam Smith

  28. The Original United States Chamber of Commerce

    “Why shouldn’t the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them.”

    Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

    Filene (of Boston’s Filene’s Department Stores) founded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to encourage businesses to contribute to the welfare of their communities. He eventually quit the organization, disappointed that it had become a bastion of right-wing conservatism and an anti-tax lobby.

    http://www.ctj.org/html/quotes.htm

  29. Speaking of Buffett……

    Warren Buffett will invest $5 billion in Bank of America, stepping in to shore up the company in the same way he helped prop up Goldman Sachs and General Electric during the financial crisis.
    http://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-invest-5-billion-bank-america-132343764.html

  30. There has been much said about taxing the super-rich, presumably on their income rather than assets. A suggested super-rich income is more than $175 million per year.

    $175 million per year income……where did that figure come from? Buffett’s proposal is for those who earn $1mill/year and $10mil/year.

    Let’s assume that there are 1,000 in this category

    So you are doing “facts and figures” based upon an assumption.

    Tax these folks at 100 percent of their income.

    No one has suggested that….

    So this letter attempts to “refudiate” Warren Buffet’s proposal by dealing with a population that is not the same as the one Buffett has proposed, making an assumption about the actual numbers and then suggesting that the rather modest increase in tax rate that Buffett (and others) has suggested for this group should be at 100%

    As I wrote be for….who needs to read Waiting for Godot when there is so much absurdist literature available in the TNT letters to the editor.

  31. Dave98373 says:

    Blake- You expect socialists to contribute money?…out of their own wallet?..hard earned money?..that they earned via social services?
    If we as a nation are going down that “tax” road then it really needs to be as you suggest….BTW—I like the way you think!!!!

  32. One more:
    We can be sure that the net effect of substantially raising taxes on the super-rich annual income will have the net effect (as history reveals) in less taxation dollars to the government.

    Please. Cite the historical data. But don’t parse it. Cite ALL of the data, not just the few years that support your claim.

  33. Dave and ______house.

    You do realize that Buffett is one of the most successful.capitalists in America, don’t you?

  34. aislander says:

    beerBoy wrote that perhaps Buffett and the other super-rich folks should forgo the “luxury” of choosing where their own money goes.

    First; that choice is not a luxury. It was once considered a right in America.

    Second; what makes you believe–in spite of massive evidence to the contrary–that the Federal government will do a better job of distributing that money.

    Third; experience tells us that any additional moneys coming into the treasury just will be spent rather than applied to reducing deficits and debt…

  35. harleyrider1 says:

    Let’s see. One cannot grow up and become a millionaire anymore, then retire or sell their business?

    You don’t take all the taxable deductions available to you? But it’s wrong for others if they make or have more money than you?

    In Russia, Eastern Europe to name a few countries, for years they confiscated the property of the rich and soon ran out out of money. Then, they had no one to blame it on so they blamed it on America. And when they received exposure to America and education, they wanted what we had.

    I guess we need to take all that away too. But what then? Will you get off your butt and make your own money and stop being envious of your neighbor?

  36. BLHouse – noun, verb, “socialist/marxist”

  37. “Dave98373 says:
    August 24, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    Did anyone else notice the new poll that came out tonight that had every single Repub. candidate (including Perry) leading Obama by nearly ten points each?”

    HUH???????

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

  38. “And KArd- you forgot to mention that Rick Perry’s administration was responsible for creating 40% of the entire nation’s new jobs last year.”

    From ABC.com:

    But there is another side to that Texas spirit and it includes statistics that Perry is less likely to tout on the campaign trail: His state leads the country in low-wage jobs.

    “There are a lot of people living in very dire straits,” Texas Monthly senior editor Paul Burka, who has covered state politics for 30 years, said. “We have the highest percentage of people without health insurance. We do very little to support people who aren’t making it.”

    Texas has the highest rate of uninsured workers in the country at 27.4 percent, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and State Health Access Data Assistance Center at the University of Minnesota.

    The Perry era has meant a jump in working poor. Almost 10 percent of the employed make the minimum wage, compared with 6 percent nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    and with all that Federal money in the bank…..

  39. “harleyrider1 says:
    August 25, 2011 at 10:10 am
    Let’s see. One cannot grow up and become a millionaire anymore, then retire or sell their business?”

    Well….no one actually said that….but the hyperbole probably tastes good in your mouth.

    The truth is that self made millionaires are rare in today’s market because “family money” controls said market. Even Bill Gates might have not succeded had Bill Sr not been a man of means.

  40. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy…let’s say we tax the “super-rich” EXACTLY as you suggest. How much revenue will that generate? And how much will that be as a percentage of the deficit?

  41. aislander – that would EXACTLY as Buffett suggests.

    I don’t have the percentage of the deficit but I’m sure it will be higher than the current amount be collected from that group (otherwise there wouldn’t be all this resistance from people like you who aren’t in that group).

    But……are you saying that any tax increase can ONLY be justified if it completely solves the deficit problem?

  42. aislander says:

    No. I’m saying we’re Tax Enough Already, and that a tax increase can be justified only if it categorically does NO harm to the economy…

  43. aislander says:

    Should have read: “Taxed Enough Already…”

  44. “But……are you saying that any tax increase can ONLY be justified if it completely solves the deficit problem?”

    A complete turn around from the “cut Planned Parenthood and NPR” days,huh? During that time it was “everything helps” from the Conservative Camp.

  45. Kard samples –

    “Quit providing tax breaks for outsourcing. Tax more when they do that.”

    Like…hmmm…Jeffrey Imelt ( G.E.) who was recently appointed as a “Jobs Creator” by mr. Obama ( shovel-ready jobs were not really “shovel-ready” ha ha ha) and is heavily involved with
    Chinese manufacturing and export commerce ( spiral light bulbs?)

    How many liberals does it take to change a mandatory squiggly Chinese manufactured light bulb? “Why Change it.”

  46. no karnos cutting planned parenthood and npr will also help in cutting the defict. See if we spend less then we need less…

    every little bit helps :)

  47. aislander says:

    Also, xx, there is a moral difference between NOT taking someone’s property and spending less of what has been confiscated–or borrowed–already…

  48. aislander says:

    For the ethically-challenged among us: spending less is morally superior to taking more…

  49. For the ethically-challenged among us: spending less is morally superior to taking more…

    Wasn’t it just like week you reminded me that life is amoral……….

  50. there is a moral difference between NOT taking someone’s property and spending less of what has been confiscated–or borrowed–already…

    again with the “moral” claim…..

    And…..love the (false) equivalence of “confiscated – or borrowed” with taxation.

  51. aislander – somehow it seems to me that spending less is a lost concept on these types of discussions. With the exception of the “liberal gene”, I have no other explanation as it is simple math.

    Revenues = X, spending must equal or be less than X.

    Also, the moral issue is becoming more cognizant to me lately. We all get to destinations in different ways. I think I started with the AIG thingy.

    The bonuses and how they were going to be retroactively taxed even though the government knew of and approved of that contract when they bailed out AIG. A few politicians were like so what, they have money, we need it, take it via a tax. Use the system to punish.

    The next was the union folk heading to the house, no one home except a young boy, and this mob of people outside chanting, not on the sidewalk but on the front steps of the house. The worst part was that literally no one had any concept of what they had done, invading a man’s property. And worst, upon hearing that a boy was alone in the house… no friggin’ shame.

    I am sadly starting to realize, how do you negotiate to do what is best for this country when the people you need to negotiate with have an inaccurate moral compass?

    Inner strength…. And a sense of humour. :)

  52. There are services provided for taxation. The reason they are mandatory is that many Conservatives would avoid taxes and enjoy the services.

  53. “The next was the union folk heading to the house, no one home except a young boy, and this mob of people outside chanting, not on the sidewalk but on the front steps of the house. The worst part was that literally no one had any concept of what they had done, invading a man’s property. And worst, upon hearing that a boy was alone in the house… no friggin’ shame.”

    I’m not sure what this has to do with the subject, but it certaining sounds like the mobs that gathered in front of the hospice where Terri Shavio was dying, along with other patients. Brings a whole new meaning to “rest in peace”. I believe the mob was disguised as the religious righteous….

  54. alindasue says:

    xx98411 said, “The next was the union folk heading to the house, no one home except a young boy, and…”

    And… stop right there. I don’t know what incident you are talking about or what it has to do with this conversation, but obviously you are trying to play the emotion card by citing this little boy alone in the house supposedly being overwhelmed by a union mob…

    I don’t know whose house it was – you didn’t say – but I assume it was probably some legislator’s house or CEO’s house. It doesn’t matter. Either way, you have a little boy who was left at home alone.

    Why was that boy left at home alone?

    If it was the home of someone the union would benefit from picketing, then they no doubt earned enough to afford child care. Did his parents not care enough… or maybe they were home and hiding? Either way, it just doesn’t seem to work out the way you describe it.

    Then xx98411 said, “Inner strength…. And a sense of humour.”

    … or was your whole story intended as a joke? That would explain the lack of details…

  55. alindasue – Actually I was responding to aislander and the moral issue he commented on.

    Emotion card, no not me or my post would have been more cycnical or over the top. You would have know I was playing the emotion card related to the subject. So as far as this thread is concerned I was responding to aislander an feel free to ignore that post.

    Actually the story is true, it was late 2008, it was a member of AIG, the boy was a teenager, it was not a big deal for him to be home alone, except for the busload or two of union folk on the doorstep.

    “If it was the home of someone the union would benefit from picketing, then they no doubt earned enough to afford child care. Did his parents not care enough… or maybe they were home and hiding? Either way, it just doesn’t seem to work out the way you describe it.’

    wow, judge much???

  56. karnos you do such a great job of ignoring me before.

    No need to comment on my post, move along, nothing to see here…..

    PS – way to dump Terry Schiavo on the thread for a post that is not relevant to the thread… ;)

  57. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Emotion card? Like BHO stating it was possible SS checks would not go out if he did not have a bigger credit card? Or the video of grandma getting pushed off a cliff?

  58. xx and aislander – pray tell, when was that glorious time when the US government had a balanced budget? And why is it suddenly so important now?

    btw – a budget can be balanced by increasing revenue, decreasing spending or…..both!

  59. I vote decrease spending…

    Becasue at yet another record defict over a trillion dollars – year 3 and counting – it is clear beyond any doubt that DC sucks at math and the ability to balance a budget.

    Because at 14.whatever trillions dollar owed to creditors, which is pretty much our GDP (what we earned) and we have just authorize another Super Duper Visa card with a trillion in cash advances… that my friend demonstrates that DC is inhabited by a bunch of cash-crack addicts who are unable to stop borrowing to pay the regular bills.

    why now you ask… acutally why not 230+ years ago?

  60. I vote a balanced, pragmatic approach but then…..I’m not loyal to an ideology.

  61. my position has nothing to do with any ideology, very pragmatic approach to a government that is too big.

    Cut the size of government, cut the scope of government and in turn the budget necessary to run a monstrosty… you wont need to raise the tax rate pretending that it will be enough.

    In 230+ years it has never been enough…

  62. Dave,
    According to Real Clear Politics:.
    Obama 43.8% vs ‘Republican’ 43.0%
    Obama 46.8%, Romney 45.6%
    Obama 48.4%, Perry 41.8%
    Obama 50.3%, Bachmann 41.5%

    Xx – ‘every little bit helps’
    Then let’s go after tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations.

  63. xx……yeah….the Terri Shavio incident was every bit as disgusting as your rant……but when cornered, you try to deflect as though I’ve brought up the forbidden topic.

    Funny….when Conservatives are rude, they don’t want the world to notice.

  64. “The next was the union folk heading to the house, no one home except a young boy, and this mob of people outside chanting, not on the sidewalk but on the front steps of the house. The worst part was that literally no one had any concept of what they had done, invading a man’s property. And worst, upon hearing that a boy was alone in the house… no friggin’ shame. ”

    HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXATION….and then the author has the gall to say this….

    “PS – way to dump Terry Schiavo on the thread for a post that is not relevant to the thread…”

    Terri Schavio would not have ended up on this thread had you not diverted the thread to a similar situation.

    Physician, heal thyself.

  65. “concernedtacoma7 says:
    August 25, 2011 at 4:24 pm
    Emotion card? Like BHO stating it was possible SS checks would not go out if he did not have a bigger credit card? Or the video of grandma getting pushed off a cliff?”

    DEATH PANELS?????

    Funny…the TEA Bag Patrol is taking it on the chin for their activities on the deficit ceiling and they are trying to deflect it off on the Social Security checks statement…..as if they have proof that the checks would have gone on…..

    the TEA Party has less approval than Muslims and Atheists in America. Nice work, people. From “elected” to “rejected’ in less than a year.

  66. Dave98373 says:

    KardNo- You cite realclear as a reliable “source”? LMAO!….you should have e-mailed the WH for that info…you would have gotten it quicker!!!

  67. Dave98373 says:

    KardNo- With respect to the Tea Party…your frustration (along with the frustration of BHO and extremists) and continued short-sighted thinking forgets one fact–the Tea Party is not some abstract concept or Democratic “enemy” (thank you Joe Biden). They are Americans…who vote…and the movement is growing. When you (and everybody else) instinctively attack them in personal ways, it only sways voters to their cause.

  68. karnos, dude, cross conversations happen all the time on these threads, so please, save me the…. whatever you think you are doing.

    You jumped the gun and stuck you face in it. You just had to say something…

    The worst part is that I corrected you (and alindasue) about the situtation…

    She is smart enough to let it go… what’s up with you.

    You don’t have to response to every little post on the thread. I know you can’t help yourself but easy big boy, let it go, take a chill pill…

  69. …and the worst part of this is that you have the gall to lecture me about unrelated posts.

    “Why do Republicans talk about gay bestiality and entertain their clients at lesbian bondage shows? “

    Did you really need to stick your face in that conversation too? Again alindasue was at least playin’ along, but you???

    The gall you think you have… don’t you dare lecture me.

  70. What – exactly – does morality have to do with economic policy?

    There are accusations that one side (or the other) wants to destroy the US. This us v. them mentality may make you feel much better about your FAITH in your IDEOLOGICALLY determined beliefs but it doesn’t do much for the creation of pragmatic, real world solutions.

    Awhile back old_benjamin intoned that all morality comes from G_d. I argued that point but I would agree that religion is a source of a sense of moral superiority. And, since it is clear that several of you worship at the altar of the Market as God it follows that you fervently believe that anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs is immoral.

  71. In order to have this discussion correction/perspective needed so you know who you are talking to..

    The God stuff… I have some faith, don’t go to church, have read portions of the Bible, see religion as a way of believing in something outside myself but look in the mirror as I am the one who determines the course of my life… does this help???

    In no particular order, readers digest version…

    You have a person/group who when speaking point outside themselves and says “they need to share the wealth” translation: we need to take from “them”. (Please tell me you see a problem with “taking”)

    You have another who believe a group of people who just want to save some money to “go to hell” They just simply believe something different that you… that’s all

    If that is a sample of a position to measure against, then fornication yeah!!! I feel a lot better about my faith in America then those yahoos.

    Pragmatic – Tell me what is both positive and/or negative about my position that we cut unnecessary spending first, take a look at the role of government to determine what services we provide and then determine the budget necessary to provide those services, adjust as necessary.

    Pragmatic… I think so, but noooooo, “we need a balanced approach” WTF does that mean??? Hip cocked to raise taxes, regardless of the wild spending, puleaze.

    Old Ben – his belief, I respect it, I respect him for his belief, I probably do not “believe” to his depth in faith. Superior to me… hardly. Superior to him… not in his lifetime. Respect on both sides I am sure. You got an issue with religion and that moral superiority thingy, you got the issue. My behavior nor anyone else’s should affect you and your self-esteem in any way.

    Because you don’t share my moral beliefs doesn’t make you immoral… it just makes you different from me… sometimes it really is that simple.

    Oh yeah, the original question… just my peanut gallery view that if you take, that’s right take money from a group of people, who already pay on average more than their fair share to the federal income pot, that my friend is government sponsored robbery.

    The reason you need to take this money from them are many, all self imposed by yet another group of people we are dumb enough to elect them over and over again.

    *they can’t do basic math (PS – 70% of the Lawmakers have no economic education or training)
    *they are spending other people’s money and have no sense of morality themselves with that responsibility to be good stewards of OUR money
    *everybody got their hand out, yep you guessed it, for other people’s money, so they can to “respond to the needs of their constituents” … who want other people’s money

    I wish they had some morality to effectively deal with economic policy of this nation. Then they would have some sense of shame in what they do.

    BB – tell what is wrong with the principles behind the Ten Commandments? I know they came on a stone from a dude that went up a mountain, had a conversation with a burning bush and came back down with some rocks thinking that the etchings were words from God…. kinda like seeing Jesus Christ in some toast… but I digress…

    How about “Thou shall not steal” – dude, is that not pithy and poignant at the same time?

    You can even paraphrase the Ten Commandments to come up with more appropriate words to live by… How about instead of “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s hot, sexy, buns of steel wife” you can take a financial spin and say “Thou shall not covet thy rich neighbor’s Grant filled wallet” (which helps to obtain and maintain a hot, sexy, buns of steel wife but I digress ;) )

    Religion, dudes talking to burning bushes, don’t knock it dude. There is some wisdom there, it’s better to work for it than have it handed to you.

    If you want to lead a nation, a people, you must have some moral compass to guide you, otherwise you are a weak, spineless, drone sifting in the wind like a leave in the wind.

  72. Saw this online and had a much-needed laugh.

    BREAKING EARTHQUAKE NEWS:

    President Obama announced that the DC Earthquake occurred on an obscure fault-line known as “Bush’s Fault.”

    Maxine Waters called for a Congressional Investigation of suspicious Tea Party Terrorist connections to the Earthquake. Waters cited the fact that the Earthquake emanated from the very place she suggested the Tea Party go. Conservatives responded saying that it was likely just the result of the Founding Fathers collectively rolling over in their graves.

    Most Analysts agree that DC Residents should expect severe aftershocks for the next several months…as the Country moves decisively to the Right!

  73. harleyrider1 says:

    Kardnos: from “the” letter since you didn’t read it:

    “The super-rich measured by income will not stand idly by even if taxed at more nominal rates. They will find ways to avoid paying taxes by various methods to reduce their taxable income by working less, retiring, liquidating their business, shipping jobs overseas, downsizing and so on.”

    I thought that meant what it said: millionaires avoid taxes by retiring or selling their business.

  74. harleyrider….if you recall (or read the comments) I addressed that part of the letter also.

    BTW – You don’t avoid taxes by selling something. Once retired, you can still pay taxes if you have an income.

  75. xx…..have you been taking editing classes from glovesR?

    You conveniently leave off that both of my comments were in relationship to comments made by you and aislander.

  76. “RealClearPolitics is a political news and polling data aggregator[2] based in Chicago, Illinois. The site’s founders say their goal is to give readers “ideological diversity.”[3] They have described themselves as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias,[4] and while some have suggested the commentary is conservative-leaning,[5] the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum.”

    Yeah….right from the White House, Dave. You are not much on research, are you?

  77. RE: sozo’s humorous post

    “When asked about the Bush Fault, the Republican Party assembled a half dozen scientists from oil companies that claim the fault doesn’t exist and the earthquake was a result of God’s reaction to the “Gay Agenda”.

  78. I specifically said you need not respond to every post, especially ones that are two people just yacking… just a thought dude

  79. xx…..if you don’t comprehend…..I comment on what I want to…not what you try to control.

  80. Hey Dave…..

    But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.

    Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

    Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

  81. “xx…..if you don’t comprehend…..I comment on what I want to…not what you try to control.”

    some of use have more control of ourselves than others…

    OK, ditto a-wipe.

  82. “BB – tell what is wrong with the principles behind the Ten Commandments?”

    40% of the Commandments are all about “hurting God’s feelings”.

    6 of 10 have anything to do with lifestyle.

    One simple principle requires no religion, just logic….

    Treat others as you wish to be treated

  83. xx…..your postulating is boring at best.

  84. karnos – I want nothing from you. I just respectfully informed you of why a post was made.

    we are the classic frog and the scorpian… just can’t let it go can you…

    believe it or not I am trying to help you in my own demented way.

  85. “40% of the Commandments are all about “hurting God’s feelings”.

    6 of 10 have anything to do with lifestyle.’

    not much of a sense of humour huh?

  86. ItalianSpring says:

    Occasionally I tune in to Medved (usually within 5 minutes I can detect him wavering on conservatism, or he mentions his devotion to the maverick John McLame and I have to turn him off). Medved spoke about tax rates for the wealthy and what the governments own studies have shown: no matter what the top tax rate is set at, the rich typically pay a tax rate of about 20 percent (the church and God only expect 10%). This proves that the “rich” (which now includes me by the way, under the Indonesian’s definition) DO find a way to dodge the higher taxes. I would therefore recommend that the libs look for a way to tax the 45+% of Americans who pay NO TAXES. Maybe they can afford a 20% tax rate?

  87. KARDNOS,
    One thing RCP does well is to monitor several major polls and present the both the individual poll results and the averaged results.

    Thus while one or two pools show Perry over Obama, the average if the polls show Obama over Perry.

    I-S,
    Follow Jesus’ teaching and give up all you own and you too can be part of the ‘45%’ that are privileged to pay no Federal Income Tax because they are blessed with low incomes.

    And if you would stop listen to fox spews entertainment you would know that the ‘45%’ do pay taxes, just not Federal Income Tax.

  88. xring…..so, I’d say I’m pretty safe in contending that RCP isn’t a tool of the Administration…..

  89. On the alleged “45%” –

    Contrary to what many assume, membership in the group isn’t restricted to the poor.

    It’s true that the vast majority of the 69 million households make less than $50,000 — with very heavy representation among households making less than $30,000.

    But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million. The vast majority of that group — 4.3 million — make between $50,000 and $100,000. Another 485,000 make between $100,000 and $500,000. And the remaining 18,000 make $500,000 or more

    5 million households making 50K to 1 million are paying no income tax. Now THERE is something to be concerned about.

  90. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “Wasn’t it just like week you reminded me that life is amoral……….”

    I KNEW liberals would have trouble with the idea that LIFE is amoral, but that WE are creatures who may choose to act morally or not. It is when we try to impose moral order on the universe that we fall on our faces, often imposing immorality in our pursuit of what WE believe to be moral. Hitler and Lenin did exactly that…

  91. aislander says:

    If everyone is so concerned that some are escaping the income tax, why not get rid of the tax and start over with something that EVERYONE will pay, and that will involve those who currently compose the “underground economy?” A consumption tax (with a rebate for those below a certain income level, to protect the poor) would do exactly that. Or isn’t the generation of revenue why some people want to tax?

  92. “often imposing immorality in our pursuit of what WE believe to be moral”

    ” Bush said: “After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

  93. Consumption taxes take care of the wealthy.

  94. aislander says:

    …and apparently, beerBoy, we want the wealthy to take care of all of us–not that they don’t already do so. Thank god for all those jobs provided by poor people…

  95. Jobs are “created” by labor need.

    No one is employed as a financial favor.

  96. ItalianSpring says:

    Here’s some sales taxes that the “poor” (the richest poor in the world) never pay:
    sales tax on crack
    sales tax on pot, medical or otherwise
    sales tax on meth
    sales tax on the sale/exchange of stolen property

    They also don’t pay taxes on property or money they receive through theft and fraud.

    One tax Obomba would never pass: a tax on voting for him

  97. often imposing immorality in our pursuit of what WE believe to be moral. Hitler and Lenin did exactly that…

    and yet….you are arguing for an economic policy based upon morality……..

  98. From another post:
    2. The Reason SS checks might not have gone out was because the Federal Government would not have had funds TO PAY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO SEND THE CHECKS OUT. It had nothing to do with rather the SS had the funds for the checks – which they did.

    KARDNOS,
    Rcp is not a White House front group.

    RCP says while anyone can post, RCP also admit the blogs run about 90% right wing and 10% liberal/progressive. Which means less than 10% would be Pro-White House.

    However, their polling results are the most unbiased I have ran across.

  99. xring – a majority of Social Security checks are direct deposit, the information technology systems are relatively automated…

    good try…

  100. aislander says:

    Willfully obtuse, beerBoy? There is a difference between acting in concert with our moral compasses and imposing our idea of morality on others. I know that laws against murder, theft (except for that by government?), assault, rape, and other crimes is society’s imposing of morality, but that has to do with the external effect of our actions on the well being of others. Your observation was not about that…

    …and opposing gay marriage is not imposing morality. Forcing gay marriage on an unwilling populace is (“forcing” is a synonym for “imposing”)…

  101. LarryFine says:

    As always, excellent point Ai.

  102. Forcing gay marriage on an unwilling populace is (“forcing” is a synonym for “imposing”)…

    I wasn’t aware that there was a movement afoot to force heterosexuals into same gender marriages.

  103. aislander – thank you for your display of sophistry, it is quite entertaining to see how you can argue that policies that fit your sense of morality aren’t based in a sense of morality.

    Next will you finally solve the problem of just how many angels can dance on the head of that pin?

  104. SandHills says:

    Higer Federal Tax on their capital gains. States and counties can have a sliding scale to tax luxury level property – higher licence fees for boats/cars and higher rates for property.

    Corporations should not get deductions for private jet travel or leasing luxury cars.

    Focusing on higher “income tax” for those making above $250k will not hurt the rich all that much – but you can tell by the fight the GOP is making to defend the call for just eliminating the Bush tax breaks is how difficult it will be to go after their true sources of wealth.

    Look for a suffering middle class to tote an extra bale or two to make up e slack.

  105. Capital Gains should have a sliding scale just like other Income.

  106. Which, btw, is exactly what Bufffett was suggesting for those in the $1 mil + per year club.

  107. aislander says:

    Should I have said “forcing the acceptance” of gay “marriage” on an unwilling populace? By the way, I don’t care what anyone calls their relationships. I care what my society calls them, and, as long as the differences between men and women exist, saying that the union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is the same as that between a man and woman, will be a lie. And I do not wish to be a party to such a lie…

  108. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Bb and the other extreme left- where is the line in the sand where you demand personal responsibility? You all preach for the rich to fund a national healthcare, retirement, and defense. So we will have a country further divided among to producers and the takers. The bottom half of society will have no motivation to produce. What do you end up with?

    Our nation was made great based on a foundation of personal responsibility. You believe if you hand half the population food, shelter, and security they will be motivated to become producers in society? Look at today’s ghettos. Look what happened when clinton reformed welfare. Stop the handouts and daydreaming of a society where people act in manner benefiting anyone but themselves. Communism failed. A capitalistic society can only support a socialist one for only so long. Look at the failed states of Europe.

  109. aislander – your version of freedom requires that a portion of the population be denied certain freedoms – this makes sense as you have expressed a nostalgia for the America before the Progressive Movement, before child labor laws, before work-place safety regulations, before the 40 hr work week and overtime.

    Hopefully your “originalist” fervor doesn’t extend to a nostalgia to the time when there were only 10 Amendments when women couldn’t vote, and indentured servitude and slavery were common business practices.

  110. Wait a minute….the women’s suffrage movement was an expression of the Progressive Movement and, since you think all things Progressive are a blot on our Constitution…….

  111. Should I have said “forcing the acceptance” of gay “marriage” on an unwilling populace

    Isn’t the whole point of a representative democracy (you know….the intent of the Founders) to protect against the tyranny of the majority….

  112. aislander says:

    If individual states wish to promote a lie, that is the business of individual states. The problem lies with the “full faith and credit” clause. As for representative democracy, court decisions hardly honor that when they DO force such social aberrations on unwilling populaces.

    With regard (I won’t say “respect”) to your other points–well you accuse ME of overusing reductio ad absurdum…

  113. aislander says:

    beerBoy writes: “…your version of freedom requires that a portion of the population be denied certain freedoms…”

    Anyone who has been married knows that it isn’t about freedom, beer…

    In any case, gays ARE free to marry (any ceremony that doesn’t involve human sacrifice is fine), and CALL it marriage, but the coercion occurs when everyone else is forced to call it “marriage” when it so obviously is not.

    Are women different from men?

  114. ItalianSpring says:

    Aislander- love reading your writings. They are so true and indesputable.

    I will take it a step further. Hey bb- Should a brother be lawfully allowed to marry his sister?

    Let the twists of lib insanity and juxtaposition begin…..

  115. ItalianSpring says:

    Or how about this:

    Should two gay biological brothers be lawfully allowed to get married? Should they be allowed to produce offspring?

  116. aislander says:

    Sorry about going off topic, but I was anticipating beerBoy’s (or some other lefty’s) rejoinder…

  117. fire aislander… food for thought.

  118. LarryFine says:

    “…everyone else is forced to call it “marriage” when it so obviously is not.”

    Well stated…

  119. Anyone who has been married knows that it isn’t about freedom

    ;-)

  120. (any ceremony that doesn’t involve human sacrifice is fine)

    Or peyote (American Indian rituals) or marijuana (Rastafarian)

  121. aislander says:

    Those rituals, unlike gay marriage and human sacrifice, are victimless crimes…

  122. aislander says:

    That last post may have been a little more harsh than I intended–but it WAS teed up so invitingly…

  123. fire AWAY aislander… food for thought.

  124. Pray tell ……how is gay marriage “not a victimless crime”?

    btw…..I was ready to let this tangent (that you introduced) to go away. Why are you so set upon pursuing this?

  125. aislander says:

    It was a gratuitous shot, beerBoy, for which I expressed contrition of sorts, after which I intended to drop the subject. I also apologized for being off topic. Shall I now abase myself before the tall woman in the black leather boots? (Actually, I was hoping that someone would compare opposition to gay marriage to the anti-miscegenation laws of the southern past–I have a killer comeback for that tack…)

  126. LarryFine says:

    “praytell” … that’s one bB… ;)

  127. I was thinking about using “prey tell” for the pun.

  128. “ItalianSpring says:
    August 28, 2011 at 10:35 am
    Or how about this:

    Should two gay biological brothers be lawfully allowed to get married? Should they be allowed to produce offspring?

    How can two males PRODUCE OFFSPRING?
    No wonder there is so much ignorance about homosexuality. The opposition lacks the basic knowledge of biology.

    Oh…and marriage is not for reproduction. As The Palin Spawn proved – one can reproduce without marriage

    I think Conservatives would be best to keep their minds on lesbian bondage bars and leave the difficult discernment for the rest of us.

  129. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Kard- please provide an answer to the question in bold. Thank you in advance for the wisdom and knowledge.

    And that was a funny, subtle insult to the Palin family. You expect respect for your ability to handle the ” difficult discernment for the rest of us” while bringing up an issue totally off topic (and classless).

  130. OK…..let’s try to get this tangent back…..Will super-rich homosexuals find ways to marry at lower fees?

    Time for this thread to die…….It is all just like the Nazis and the Holocaust!

  131. aislander says:

    WHAT is “just like Nazis and the holocaust,” beerBoy? If you recall your history accurately, you know that the Nazis were not waging a holding action against radical change: they WERE radical change. Oh, and they killed lots of people, too…

    If that doesn’t address the substance of your comment, then I have no idea what the comment was about. You COULDN’T have been tarring those who disagree with your politics as “Nazis.” Could you?

  132. aislander –

    A corollary of Godwin’s Law states that once the Nazis and/or the holocaust is invoke a thread is officially dead.

    Just trying to put the poor thread out of its misery.

  133. aislander says:

    Ah. My mistake–but I HAVE seen threads continue on in spite of Godwin…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0