State Wobegon

Why argue contra to a position no one has taken? No one is saying we should storm the Bastille or eat the rich.

But it certainly seems fair to me (and to Warren Buffett) to bring into line what the rich pay and what the poor pay - as a function of percentage. By that measure, the rich pay a very great deal less.

In that prior example, half as much.

 

Well, Michael Moore for one, has proposed it.

And, all of the rhetoric we hear is that the "rich" need to pay more, and then we set our sites on the guy making $250,000.

Meanwhile, folks like Buffett, Gates, Bill Clinton, the Facebook kid and others, say that they should pay more in taxes. Everyone fawns over their selfless statements. Then they go after the guy making $250,000.

If Buffett, Gates, etc. were really selfless, they'd propose a tax on their wealth. And, until they do that, please spare me the next article that paints them as patriotic heroes for proposing higher income taxes on guys making $250,00 per year.

A guy would have to not only make, but save, $250,000 per year, every year, for one million, eight hundred and eighty thousand years to accumulate Buffett's wealth.

But we should go after him. And we should congratulate Buffett for suggesting it and write fawning articles about him for proposing such a thing.

Meanwhile, he's planned his estate to keep it away from the federal government upon his death.

 

He began his annual contributions to the Gates Foundation in 2006. The sixth installment is due this month.

 

Is this supposed to refute something I said?

Buffett has given about $8B to the Gates Foundation:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38046115/Warren_Buffett_s_1_6_Billion_Stock_Donation_to_Gates_Foundation_Lifts_5_Year_Total_to_8_Billion

The stock price is almost exactly where it was last year, so I expect he'll be giving them about $1.6B worth of stock any day now:

http://quote.morningstar.com/Stock/s.aspx?t=BRK.B

His plan is to give them 85% of the stock he holds in Berkshire Hathaway.

But his plan was never to simply turn the money over to the federal government upon his death.

He set up his first foundation over 40 years ago. He's also created foundations for each of his three kids:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

Buffett wants the federal government to take more money from the doctor who takes care of your mother.

He doesn't want to give the federal government any real portion of the wealth he has accumulated over his lifetime.

 

My impression from your posts was that you were saying he wanted to hold on to the money while he was alive, but donate it at death. If I read them wrong, I apologize.

Given the multiple times you've pointed out sneeringly that his estate will pay a greatly reduced tax because of his charitable contributions, can we infer that you oppose this form of estate planning?

 

i.e., my car analogy:

The car is the United States of America. The owner of the car (in ideal theory, that is) is the citizens of the United States of America. The money put into the car to keep it running is the taxes.

Where do you put your taxes? Most, if not all, in the engine, because without an engine, the car sits in the junk heap? Or, do you put some money in the engine, but distribute most of it elsewhere so that the entire car will run, and is safe?

Republicans argue the first. Give tax cuts to the wealthy, and, allegedly, it will trickle down to the rest of us. Democrats argue the second. Make sure everything works, instead of having one super-special part of the car.

 

Except, under the Democrats 10 percent of the car isn't working right now.

 

Which is why you put money into the 10 percent of the car that isn't working.

Instead, you have a party that wants the money put into the engine, which already is running just fine, and then just drag the broken 10 percent along with it. And if it breaks off and ends up in the road, oh well.

 

The engine is running fine? Really?

 

The car analogy is stupid. Makes no sense. Here is an idea...why not have more than one car and let everyone do what they want to the car they bought and paid for? If I have enough money to buy two, three or even five cars why do you think the government has the right to take one of my cars and give it to someone else?

 

So, you're in favor of secession, then? Divide the country into, say, North, South, Midwest and West, and let each section decide how they want things.

And yes, AQB, the engine is running fine. It's been running fine for the last 30 years. It's been getting better with age.

Meanwhile the rest of the car is falling apart because the people who want to put the money into the engine keeps complaining about the need to put money into the rest of the car.

And that doesn't count putting in money for the radio (i.e., pork). Everyone complains about it. But no one has the guts to do anything about it.

 

Crap. "Connection problems" just wiped out my smart and thorough reply to Waterytart's post.

And I'm too tired to write it again.

Maybe tomorrow.