We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes, nobody is stopping him from sending in a check. The Feds welcome donations, but get none from the mega-wealthy - including offshore Soros and offshore Kennedy.
If you do not feel you are sufficiently taxed, don't complain - just ACT. Send it in, and give your conscience some relief.
Taxes are not progressive enough. h/t, Dr.X. (By the way, if it needs to be said, I disagree with this link, entirely. I am in favor of a flat tax of 13% on everyone, with no deductions and no increase above 13% except in wartime.)
nobody but nobody who has both looked these two's advocacy of higher taxation and also their actual personal practices, will be appalled that the citizens have not ridden 'em outta town on a rail, tarred & feathered.
Of course, it's already been taxed at least twice while you were alive, so upwards of three-quarters of that dollar of risk capital you began with (provided that the ordinary risk of 'risk' hasn't relieved you of it in the interim) will have gone to finance the Giant Sucking Machine in DC.
Better hope that at some point while you owned it it threw off some capital-formation (which will also get taxed several times).
Hey, who let this crap get so outta control? If you described 2007 to George Washington in 1776, would he have bothered raising an army and fighting for seven or eight years?
I think what ole Warren is saying, is that until somebody comes up with a surefire way to keep the American machine safe and competitive without having to rely mostly on the rich, we’re stuck with a progressive tax system.
No, commander. WB's 'talking his book'. The man's full of it when he speaks on public policy. WB's top priority is WB and the public's perception of WB. I'm sure he's always prepared to buy good family concerns in liquidation for taxes. Buy low!!
narrow down, CC. The objection is with the punitive aspects of the system.
For example, the estate tax, which causes all sorts of asset mal-investing (where it creates enormous growth disincentives), causes successful entrepreneurs to slack off at certain levels and ages (fewer new jobs and less new taxable income created), and has been demonstrated repeatedly to have an oppurtunity cost far greater than the revenue it hauls in.
The tax brought in 24 bbl in '06 and cost the Treasury alone a good chunk of that--in already-paid taxes of course--to inspect, audit, and enforce.
Nah --it's strictly punitive. In a race, would tripping the fast runners make the slow runners speed up? No, it would just hurt the fast runners AND demoralize for everyone else the whole idea of running fast in first place.
It's class-warfare, is all it is--and it costs a LOT.
What you must understand--and I admit it requires a cognitive leap--is that the class-warriors are not stupid; they DO know all the above, but DO NOT CARE that it is a money-loser.
How can this be, you ask? It's because behind all the Neanderthal static-analysis misdirection is the coldly intelligent understanding that too much private property means too few class-warfare voters.
>>''The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) spent $9.6 million on lobbying last year and is on pace to spend more than $10 million this year — and that’s on top of the lobbying efforts by its individual members, the life insurance companies. Why? One life insurance industry lobbyist estimated last year that the industry gets about 10 percent of its business through estate planning.''