Stephen King: "Tax me, for fuck's sake!"

[Question Mark]

Article Linky

Stephen King lays out a pretty solid argument for raising taxes on the rich, and clarifies a lot of tax equality talking points and misconceptions.

To me, the article makes a lot of sense.  In fact, I think it's goddamn amazing!  He laid it out better than I ever could.  I can't really see any obvious flaws in his argument or logic.  But what about you guys?

[Torch]

One easy way to remove a tax break for high income earners is to remove the FICA tax cap.

Everyone pays 6.2% of their income into FICA (i.e. Social Security) every year, if you aren't one of the very few, such as clergymen, who are exempt.

That tax is capped at $106,800. Every dime an employee earns over that amount is free from the FICA tax (not Medicare though, there is no income cap on Medicare earnings).

Removing that cap would go far to easing SSA's solvency issues.

[Oniya]

What I'd like to know is:  with all these people coming forward and saying 'take my money!', is there an agency that they could simply write a check out to without filing 87 pages of obfuscating forms?  If not, maybe there should be.  If there is, why don't they?

[Question Mark]

What I'd like to know is:  with all these people coming forward and saying 'take my money!', is there an agency that they could simply write a check out to without filing 87 pages of obfuscating forms?  If not, maybe there should be.  If there is, why don't they?

The number of generous rich people is not a big number.  Yes, there are some philanthropists and so on, but if you have a choice to write a million dollar check, I think most of us would say no.  Having the government REQUIRE that payment helps a great deal.  It's the same reason people tend to perform better when there's a structure/rule/guideline.  It keeps things from falling through the cracks, gives the sensation of a safety net, and makes it a higher priority.

[Etah dna Evol]

I also think you'll find this wave of "tax me already" is a political gimmick.

[Question Mark]

I also think you'll find this wave of "tax me already" is a political gimmick.

I don't think I understand you.  Could you elaborate?

[Silverfyre]

I don't think I understand you.  Could you elaborate?

+1.  I fail to see how someone who is not running for any sort of public office is using this as a "political gimmick".  Publicity, sure.  But political? 

[Etah dna Evol]

+1.  I fail to see how someone who is not running for any sort of public office is using this as a "political gimmick".  Publicity, sure.  But political?

I don't think I need to make the case that celebrities and politicians are often intertwined. I think we can assume that premise to be true.

What I mean is that people like Warren Buffet use tax gimmicks all the time. I very much doubt that he doesn't take every deduction he can and pay as little in taxes as he can to increase his profit margin. He also failed to inform the public what he pays a 15% tax rate and what capital gains tax is. The entire argument is for show and plays well only on the uninformed. Celebrity politicking is all it is.

[Avis habilis]

Celebrity politicking is all it is.

To what end? For whose benefit?

[Beguile's Mistress]

Who and/or what are they politicking for and why?

[Silverfyre]

Those are the questions I am also interested in seeing answered as I just don't instantly see "celebrity makes political statement = celebrity becoming politician".

[Etah dna Evol]

To what end? For whose benefit?

To their own benefit and the group they associate with.

[TheGlyphstone]

So who is Stephen King associating with here for benefit? Writers? Maine residents? Rich people? People who hate Twilight? He fits into all those categories, but I can't see any of them benefiting from his statement.

[Avis habilis]

To their own benefit and the group they associate with.

What benefit accrues to Stephen King from advocating for higher taxes on his income bracket?

[Beguile's Mistress]

If you're implying that Stephen King's stance on being taxed is going to benefit a politician who who would that be and how does it benefit them? 

I'm not going to vote for a person because Stephen King wants to pay more taxes. 

[Silverfyre]

If you're implying that Stephen King's stance on being taxed is going to benefit a politician who who would that be and how does it benefit them? 

I'm not going to vote for a person because Stephen King wants to pay more taxes.

Well said.  My thoughts exactly.

[Etah dna Evol]

Either I am talking above your heads, which I shouldn't be. Or you're fighting rhetorically against my associating Obama with Warren Buffett (who is an Obama fundraiser >_<) and the assumption that they have goals that can be furthered by using each other (its not like Obama named it the Buffett tax), by ignoring the unstated assumption and asking inane specifics about a general statement.

Either way, my answer is the same. Re-read my original post.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I also think you'll find this wave of "tax me already" is a political gimmick.

So are you saying that Obama is campaigning on a platform of "Elect me!  Steven King, et al, want to pay more taxes!"

I'm in favor of a flat tax but that has nothing to do with who is running for office although the results of the election might influence the trend toward a flat tax.

I could see it as politicking if Obama took the position Stephen King states and King is supporting him for it. 

[Etah dna Evol]

So are you saying that Obama is campaigning on a platform of "Elect me!  Steven King, et al, want to pay more taxes!"

I'm in favor of a flat tax but that has nothing to do with who is running for office although the results of the election might influence the trend toward a flat tax.

I could see it as politicking if Obama took the position Stephen King states and King is supporting him for it.

That is what I was inferring yes.

[Callie Del Noire]

Let me put it this way.. even if today.. the government froze everything. Wages, expenditures and every single cent at the current rates we would accure debt faster than we can pay it. Even if we only cut, gutted, and streamlined our budget it will grow.

I have steadily increased in what I pay the federal government, and right now am in month ten of an on going argument with over my disability retirement pay with the IRS. I am a full time student, acruing a fairly big debt with little option of getting a job here in Jax unless things change. (I got a line on a job but it's at least 9 months away before the contract starts)

Looking at the way I have to manage my budget.. when I've cut my expenses.. that leaves increasing payments to reduce my debt. For me that is paying out more interest on what few long term debts I have..and doing without, and occasionally asking family for a bit of help, and a LOT of praying that I do't get a surprise like this weekend where someone spiked my tired (and six other folks in my apartment complex).

So, unless you can show how else to come up with more money.. I would humbly offer that Stephen King is correct in that if we're not going to continue to defer our whopping debt to our children (and theirs in turn) that means less tax breaks for the upper earners. 'Trickle Down' doesn't work. It hasn't for the oh.. 30 years I've watched it get used. Ronnie Reagan increased capital gains and estate taxes..and the economy THRIVED under his leadership. Clinton kept most of those increase for the first part of his term..and the economy CONTINUED to grow.

Bush II cut all those nasty mean taxes..and a mere eight years we got cronyism, debt and influence peddling on a scale that depresses me so much I can watch the national news anymore. It's all about 'kill the Unions' or 'Cut education'. Wow..how incredibly short sighted to gut the infrastructure we need to change the labor market since it's now 'impossible' to deliver jobs back to the US in manufacturing since big business has looted, pillaged and electioneered things to reward them for outsourcing.

We need to increase taxes. Yes, even for people who make a TON of cash. (Horrors). Reform corporate tax codes to lower the MASSIVELY high levels at the upper range, while closing the loopholes that reward outsourcing, hiding cash overseas and all the other tricks. Or do you think it's fair for a company like GE to get tax CREDITS while making record profits and cutting something on the order of 20,000 US jobs in the last 3 years?

We are growing ever more reliant on talent pools in places like China, India and elsewhere. These economies are growing and developing, while we are not. 

[Vekseid]

What I'd like to know is:  with all these people coming forward and saying 'take my money!', is there an agency that they could simply write a check out to without filing 87 pages of obfuscating forms?  If not, maybe there should be.  If there is, why don't they?

Anyone can just write a check to the treasury.

Anyone who claims that sort of thing will solve this country's revenue problem is either lying outright or seriously deluded/misinformed as to the sort of structural revenue problems this nation has. Warren Buffet can write a $30 billion dollar check. Okay. He's paid for a couple of days. But now that's gone.

Forever. Not until he makes it back - he's an old man, and not planning to live much longer.

Forever.

Essentially, hypocrites like Chris Christie and others who clamor for 'just write a check' want these people to give up their own political influence for absolutely no meaningful, long-term, sustainable change in current policy. It's exactly the sort of crap they say they want to prevent in the form of a 'nanny state', even though most of their 'nanny state' bullshit is either a straight-up lie or a system they are actually trying to bring about themselves (FairTax, benefits for the poor going down faster than wages, etc).

To their own benefit and the group they associate with.

Please start providing actual meaningful, reasoned-out commentary rather than knee-jerk reactionary phrases that are only vaguely distinguishable from trolling.

For example:

I don't think I need to make the case that celebrities and politicians are often intertwined. I think we can assume that premise to be true.

What I mean is that people like Warren Buffet use tax gimmicks all the time. I very much doubt that he doesn't take every deduction he can and pay as little in taxes as he can to increase his profit margin. He also failed to inform the public what he pays a 15% tax rate and what capital gains tax is. The entire argument is for show and plays well only on the uninformed. Celebrity politicking is all it is.

This is a subtle version of a lie. Just because you couch it in 'I very much doubt' doesn't make it any less of a lie.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-topcompanytaxes/berkshire-hathaway/

Compare another company of a friend of his:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/microsoft-tax-havens-profit-bill_n_911779.html

Buffet doesn't route his corporate revenue through Nevada, to name one colossal example that is currently wrecking Microsoft's home state.

[Etah dna Evol]

We need to increase taxes. Yes, even for people who make a TON of cash. (Horrors).

I agree with tax increases but it also needs to come with budget cuts. I am sick of the Republican/Democrat stand off on this issue. What we need is to abolish the IRS and instead of a "progressive" or "regressive" tax system, we need a proportional tax system.

I personally believe in the Fair Tax. If we tax consumption, then rich people will pay more taxes because they buy more things and not because they are being targeted by socialistic policies.

[Avis habilis]

I agree with tax increases but it also needs to come with budget cuts. I am sick of the Republican/Democrat stand off on this issue. What we need is to abolish the IRS and instead of a "progressive" or "regressive" tax system, we need a proportional tax system.

I personally believe in the Fair Tax. If we tax consumption, then rich people will pay more taxes because they buy more things and not because they are being targeted by socialistic policies.

Proportional in the sense of "take more of the poor's income than the rich's" then? Because a consumption tax eats up a greater proportion of a low-wage earner's income than a high-wage earner's.

We have a proportional tax system now (or at least that's what the idea was) - if you have more, you pay proportionately more.

[Etah dna Evol]

This is a subtle version of a lie. Just because you couch it in 'I very much doubt' doesn't make it any less of a lie.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/08/17/how-buffett-saves-billions-on-his-tax-return/

Because a consumption tax eats up a greater proportion of a low-wage earner's income than a high-wage earner's.

If a consumption tax is a tax on goods and services, richer people who buy more expensive things will pay a lot more. This is not about becoming a self-appointed Robin Hood, we should not be out to punish the wealthy and successful.

We have a proportional tax system now (or at least that's what the idea was) - if you have more, you pay proportionately more.

My understanding is that progressive Tax systems shift the tax burden to the richest, regressive systems shift the tax burden to the poorest and proportional tax systems rely on a fixed number like the flat tax or the fair tax.

[Avis habilis]

If a consumption tax is a tax on goods and services, richer people who buy more expensive things will pay a lot more.

Which will still be a much smaller fraction of their income.

[Etah dna Evol]

Which will still be a much smaller fraction of their income.

This isn't about "evening the odds." There are plenty of European countries that try that. Have fun with the 50% tax rates. This is about collecting enough money for the Federal Government to function without needing a body like the IRS and without singling out and punishing success.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The lower your income the more of it you spend on good and services, sometimes as much as 100% and frequently go into debt to acquire the necessities.

Those who earn a higher income don't spend all their money.  They reinvest it.

I don't see how a proportional tax is fair.

[Avis habilis]

Have fun with the 50% tax rates.

You mean as was the case in the States from 1932 to 1986? Except when it was as high as 92, I mean.

I assume we're talking top brackets here. As far as I know there's no flat 50% tax rate anywhere.

This is about collecting enough money for the Federal Government to function without needing a body like the IRS and without singling out and punishing success.

Without the IRS, who collects the tax? At any rate, "punishing success" is still a canard. A higher tax rate on high earners still leaves them with a boatload more money than low earners. Not really seeing what the disincentive to make a lot of money is there.

[Vekseid]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/08/17/how-buffett-saves-billions-on-his-tax-return/

Are you offended that Buffet takes a charity deduction? It's a deduction, not a credit, mind you.

You made a rather specific claim - that he finds every loophole he can. You point to him taking... a charity deduction.

My understanding is that progressive Tax systems shift the tax burden to the richest, regressive systems shift the tax burden to the poorest and proportional tax systems rely on a fixed number like the flat tax or the fair tax.

Any sales/vat/use tax system is by definition regressive. The 'Fair Tax' system starts off with a credit, however, so the extremely poor end up getting some benefit, and its cost gets shifted to the middle class, hollowing them out.

However, the economic burden placed by a 30% consumption tax is never really considered by the frauds promoting it.

I personally believe in the Fair Tax. If we tax consumption, then rich people will pay more taxes because they buy more things and not because they are being targeted by socialistic policies.

Even the those who promote the 'Let's rape the Middle Class' tax a.k.a. FairTax widely acknowledge that those making over $200k per year will pay even less than they do now. On top of being patently ridiculous and an economic disaster waiting to happen - it's the very definition of the 'nanny state'. Give everyone a bit of free cash - enough to live off of, if poorly - and take a 30% cut out of every single purchase made, meaning those whose money moves the fastest (i.e. the poor) are paying 30% less. And that's assuming production doesn't fall (because some people will actually try to live off of their quite-literal government handouts) and demand along with it (because the vast majority of the country just took a ~20% pay cut).

You mean as was the case in the States from 1932 to 1986? Except when it was as high as 92, I mean.

94, actually.

[RubySlippers]

I looked into the fair tax and have a simple question: what about the homeless? Most have no residence, a good number lost all their ID including social security and I know most have no mailing address and none use banks.

And it will not destroy the underground economy, all I and many would do is order from places outside the US, deal with undergrounders who would not collect the tax and make those ignoring taxation to charge under the competition for their goods and services that are taxable. Say I want to sell cigarettes off the books I would order them from Mexico, sell them without any taxes and charge a fair markup and since its cash its pretty much untraceable. You could do this for clothes, food, prepared foods, most services and the like. If you don't bother with licenses and insurance taxes are the next thing an undergrounder ignores. And small internet sellers would collect it to pocket the profits and charge less for the goods that is what I would do. How do I know lets say I know from experience on what I would do.

In my area this would amount to a 30% sales tax that is crazy.

[Rinzler]

If a consumption tax is a tax on goods and services, richer people who buy more expensive things will pay a lot more.

Perhaps, but not necessarily their fair share. When I used to work for a wholesale firm that traded goods with Value Added Tax, I'd regularly take orders from middlemen established in offshore tax-havens (UK Crown Dependancies, to be exact) who could avoid paying the tax...on behalf of clients and other firms who were actually based on the UK mainland.

In fact, a lot of the firms involved in the industry I was working in (nutritional supplements) established offshore offices in order to trade goods while avoiding the tax.

[Saerrael]

I assume we're talking top brackets here. As far as I know there's no flat 50% tax rate anywhere.

Allow me. 52%; the Netherlands. People earning € 56.491 and above.

Source (Dutch);
http://financieel.infonu.nl/belasting/81171-inkomstenbelasting-2012-belastingtarieven-en-schijven.html


Sorry to not source from the official tax site as... that site sucks balls (in my modest opinion) in ways of linking and generally finding ones way.

[Etah dna Evol]

My statements were my general opinion based on legal knowledge, political knowledge and awareness of current events and I am entirely out of my depth. I hope I came bow out of this conversation gracefully without looking like to much of a wad.

[AndyZ]

It's rather sad to see people still talking about Warren Buffett and his desire to pay more in taxes.  Do people not realize that his firm owes like a billion dollars in taxes?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

You can certainly write a check to the government, but if he's not paying what he already owes by law, of course he's not going to.

It's like how Al Gore talks about global warming caused by CO2 which are destroying the coastline, buys a house on the coastline and has an insanely high carbon footprint.  You can see the lie because if they actually believed these things, maybe they wouldn't do extra, but they wouldn't act so openly contrary to their own claims.

[vtboy]

It's rather sad to see people still talking about Warren Buffett and his desire to pay more in taxes.  Do people not realize that his firm owes like a billion dollars in taxes?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ#ixzz1WRoIlYSf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

You can certainly write a check to the government, but if he's not paying what he already owes by law, of course he's not going to.

It's like how Al Gore talks about global warming caused by CO2 which are destroying the coastline, buys a house on the coastline and has an insanely high carbon footprint.  You can see the lie because if they actually believed these things, maybe they wouldn't do extra, but they wouldn't act so openly contrary to their own claims.

Your comment illustrates one of the problems with celebrity. No matter how valid the message, it is almost certain to get lost in the cacophony which is sure to follow over the celebrity's own foibles. Are Berkshire's tax arrears really an answer to Buffet's point that it is grotesque for the rich to pay personal income taxes at rates shockingly lower than those paid by working stiffs? Does Al Gore's large carbon footprint mean he is wrong about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and that we should now blithely continue to burn fossil fuels? All too often, despite good intentions, celebrities end up only providing opportunties for those with other agendas to distract from matters of real consequence with dim witted cynicism, like that offered up by Chris Christie. And, to be fair, I don't think Stephen King's coarse rant has done much to improve the level of public discourse on tax policy.

[OldSchoolGamer]

This isn't about "evening the odds." There are plenty of European countries that try that. Have fun with the 50% tax rates. This is about collecting enough money for the Federal Government to function without needing a body like the IRS and without singling out and punishing success.

The problem with that statement is that too many people are "successful" (read: rich, your definition) whilst contributing little to nothing of actual value.  Consider the people who made millions and billions inventing phony "securities," peddling dodgy mortgages, etc., etc., etc.

[AndyZ]

Your comment illustrates one of the problems with celebrity. No matter how valid the message, it is almost certain to get lost in the cacophony which is sure to follow over the celebrity's own foibles. Are Berkshire's tax arrears really an answer to Buffet's point that it is grotesque for the rich to pay personal income taxes at rates shockingly lower than those paid by working stiffs? Does Al Gore's large carbon footprint mean he is wrong about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and that we should now blithely continue to burn fossil fuels? All too often, despite good intentions, celebrities end up only providing opportunties for those with other agendas to distract from matters of real consequence with dim witted cynicism, like that offered up by Chris Christie. And, to be fair, I don't think Stephen King's coarse rant has done much to improve the level of public discourse on tax policy.

See, if Buffett actually believed that he should pay more taxes, he would at the very least pay the taxes that he owes.  If Al Gore actually believed that carbon dioxide was a problem, he wouldn't create so much of it.

Perhaps the example isn't obvious enough.

Let's say that some celebrity named Joe Doe has published books talking about how great chastity is over the last twenty years, that you should save yourself before marriage and all such, and a scandal breaks out that he's slept with a few hundred women over the last few years.

I'll accept the argument that if Joe Doe was fooling around before marriage, he could theoretically have "seen the light" and done the whole born-again virgin thing.  However, if he's still having sex even after putting out books on chastity, he obviously does not believe that chastity is the way to go, or else he'd be doing so himself.

I can see why a drug addict might be a special case for this, where an addict talks about the problems inherent with using drugs yet is unable to stop.  An alcoholic can honestly believe that they shouldn't be drinking and do it anyway. 

It doesn't mean that the message is wrong; it means that they themselves do not believe what they are saying.  If they don't believe it, and it's demonstrable that they don't believe it, why would you use them as an example?

I get that if the problems are unrelated, it's not a fair critique.  If Joe Doe has a cocaine habit, there's always someone will blast him for that and try to infer that chastity is wrong as a result.  However, these are direct problems with what these people say, which shows that they cannot possibly believe what they say.

Sorry for repeating myself; I don't know how else to say it.

[vtboy]

See, if Buffett actually believed that he should pay more taxes, he would at the very least pay the taxes that he owes.  If Al Gore actually believed that carbon dioxide was a problem, he wouldn't create so much of it.

Perhaps the example isn't obvious enough.

Let's say that some celebrity named Joe Doe has published books talking about how great chastity is over the last twenty years, that you should save yourself before marriage and all such, and a scandal breaks out that he's slept with a few hundred women over the last few years.

I'll accept the argument that if Joe Doe was fooling around before marriage, he could theoretically have "seen the light" and done the whole born-again virgin thing.  However, if he's still having sex even after putting out books on chastity, he obviously does not believe that chastity is the way to go, or else he'd be doing so himself.

I can see why a drug addict might be a special case for this, where an addict talks about the problems inherent with using drugs yet is unable to stop.  An alcoholic can honestly believe that they shouldn't be drinking and do it anyway. 

It doesn't mean that the message is wrong; it means that they themselves do not believe what they are saying.  If they don't believe it, and it's demonstrable that they don't believe it, why would you use them as an example?

I get that if the problems are unrelated, it's not a fair critique.  If Joe Doe has a cocaine habit, there's always someone will blast him for that and try to infer that chastity is wrong as a result.  However, these are direct problems with what these people say, which shows that they cannot possibly believe what they say.

Sorry for repeating myself; I don't know how else to say it.

I don't believe I've used Warren Buffet or Al Gore as examples of anything, save the possibly destructive effect of celebrity on advocacy.

Acting inconsistently with their messages doesn't necessarily mean that Buffet and Gore do not believe what they are saying. More plausibly, I think, it would suggest they are selfish or weak or have an overweaning sense of importance. In any case, it is difficult to imagine their supposedly inconsistent behavior would cause nearly so much of a stir were it not for their celebrity.

In any case, please note that Buffet's situation is materially distinguishable from Gore's. Buffet's famous comment concerned unjustly discrepant effective tax rates paid on widely disparate personal incomes. I have not heard, and strongly doubt, Buffet is in arrears on his personal taxes. The link you provided is instead to an article about Berkshire Hathaway's corporate income taxes, a very different matter. Though the article is hardly a font of enlightenment, it appears that the tax arrears, which the company acknowledged, are more likely the result of some previously unsettled issue of tax law or accounting than of impropriety. Moreover, as CEO, Buffet is under a fiduciary duty to Berkshire's shareholders to minimize, to the extent legally possible, what the company pays out in taxes. Berkshire's indebtedness for back taxes in no way makes Buffet a hypocrite.       

[Callie Del Noire]

Though the article is hardly a font of enlightenment, it appears that the tax arrears, which the company acknowledged, are more likely the result of some previously unsettled issue of tax law or accounting than of impropriety. Moreover, as CEO, Buffet is under a fiduciary duty to Berkshire's shareholders to minimize, to the extent legally possible, what the company pays out in taxes. Berkshire's indebtedness for back taxes in no way makes Buffet a hypocrite.     

Well stated.. I like the way you said it. It properly draws the line between his personal and business outlooks, which might at times class. Well said.

[AndyZ]

I don't believe I've used Warren Buffet or Al Gore as examples of anything, save the possibly destructive effect of celebrity on advocacy.

You likely haven't.  I wasn't targeting you as an instigator in this problem, and apologies if it came out that way.

Acting inconsistently with their messages doesn't necessarily mean that Buffet and Gore do not believe what they are saying. More plausibly, I think, it would suggest they are selfish or weak or have an overweaning sense of importance. In any case, it is difficult to imagine their supposedly inconsistent behavior would cause nearly so much of a stir were it not for their celebrity.

I'm not really sure that celebrity status has any effect upon whether something is hypocritical, though.  I'll attempt to give an example.

When I was young, I really wanted a pool, and talked to my dad about it.  Rather than just dismissing me out of hand (my parents being mostly awesome), he sat me down and talked about the expenses of a pool, and the kinds of things that we'd have to give up.  I soon came to realize that I didn't really want a pool, not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it wouldn't be worth everything that came along with it.

Now, that didn't mean that my childish desire to have a pool suddenly vanished, but my logical side had to accept that it wasn't going to happen, that there were reasons for it and it just didn't work.  I consider it an important experience of growing up, realizing that you can't just take one aspect of something and expect it to work in all circumstances.

If someone said that everyone should have a pool, I would want to look in his yard to check for one.  If he lacked one and I asked him why not, only to receive a host of excuses, I would not believe that everyone should have one.  This happens regardless of celebrity status, because people talk about celebrities more widely than they gossip about their neighbors.

Now, even if he did have one, it wouldn't fully convince me, but it's one way to watch for hypocritical liars.  With politicians, it's one of the easiest.

In any case, please note that Buffet's situation is materially distinguishable from Gore's. Buffet's famous comment concerned unjustly discrepant effective tax rates paid on widely disparate personal incomes. I have not heard, and strongly doubt, Buffet is in arrears on his personal taxes. The link you provided is instead to an article about Berkshire Hathaway's corporate income taxes, a very different matter. Though the article is hardly a font of enlightenment, it appears that the tax arrears, which the company acknowledged, are more likely the result of some previously unsettled issue of tax law or accounting than of impropriety. Moreover, as CEO, Buffet is under a fiduciary duty to Berkshire's shareholders to minimize, to the extent legally possible, what the company pays out in taxes. Berkshire's indebtedness for back taxes in no way makes Buffet a hypocrite.       

I don't know too much about fiduciary duties, but are you saying that corporations have more of a right to hold out money from the government than citizens do?  If so, please explain.  I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't know too much about fiduciary duties, but are you saying that corporations have more of a right to hold out money from the government than citizens do?  If so, please explain.  I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think he means that you can judge Warren Buffet the Individual's actions in his personal statements while seeing that he isn't the ONLY person involved with the decision making process in the processes of his company.

[Vekseid]

In any case, please note that Buffet's situation is materially distinguishable from Gore's. Buffet's famous comment concerned unjustly discrepant effective tax rates paid on widely disparate personal incomes. I have not heard, and strongly doubt, Buffet is in arrears on his personal taxes. The link you provided is instead to an article about Berkshire Hathaway's corporate income taxes, a very different matter. Though the article is hardly a font of enlightenment, it appears that the tax arrears, which the company acknowledged, are more likely the result of some previously unsettled issue of tax law or accounting than of impropriety. Moreover, as CEO, Buffet is under a fiduciary duty to Berkshire's shareholders to minimize, to the extent legally possible, what the company pays out in taxes. Berkshire's indebtedness for back taxes in no way makes Buffet a hypocrite.     

Sortof. "What taxes do we really owe?" is not exactly a trivial question for large corporations, so past-due taxes are common. There's nothing particularly 'nasty' about Berkshire having ~1 billion in dispute over a decade-long period in which it otherwise paid something like ~$50 billion in taxes.

That this shouldn't be the case is, really, just another argument for cleaning up the tax code.

[vtboy]

I'm not really sure that celebrity status has any effect upon whether something is hypocritical, though. 

Agreed. But, when the hypocrite is well known, the hypocrisy is more likely to take center stage, at least temporarily, to the detriment of public discussion of the merits of the matter in issue. But for Buffet's notoriety, it is unlikely that either his views on the tax code or Berkshire's tax arrears would have drawn much public attention. Due to his celebrity, though, those who oppose raising tax rates on the wealthy have seized upon the latter issue to avoid the former.

When I was young, I really wanted a pool, and talked to my dad about it.  Rather than just dismissing me out of hand (my parents being mostly awesome), he sat me down and talked about the expenses of a pool, and the kinds of things that we'd have to give up.  I soon came to realize that I didn't really want a pool, not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it wouldn't be worth everything that came along with it.

Now, that didn't mean that my childish desire to have a pool suddenly vanished, but my logical side had to accept that it wasn't going to happen, that there were reasons for it and it just didn't work.  I consider it an important experience of growing up, realizing that you can't just take one aspect of something and expect it to work in all circumstances.

If someone said that everyone should have a pool, I would want to look in his yard to check for one.  If he lacked one and I asked him why not, only to receive a host of excuses, I would not believe that everyone should have one.  This happens regardless of celebrity status, because people talk about celebrities more widely than they gossip about their neighbors.

Now, even if he did have one, it wouldn't fully convince me, but it's one way to watch for hypocritical liars.  With politicians, it's one of the easiest.

Yes, actions inconsistent with one's stated beliefs are often, but not always, evidence that the beliefs are not truly held. This tends to be especially true when the beliefs concern matters of personal morality. When Senator Larry Craig was caught propositioning a man in an airport lavatory, for example, it was fair inference that his record denunciations of homosexuality were a sham (it is, of course, possible that Craig is afflicted by self-loathing, and that his opposition to homosexuality is sincere, if pathetic).

Personal behavior is a less reliable barometer of the sincerity of one's stated views, I think, when the matter in issue is choice of public policy. One's views on how society may best promote its material welfare -- for example, whether it should enact laws aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption -- are likely to be products of fact and reason, even if faulty. Personal conduct, on the other hand, is frequently driven only by appetite. Thus, although Al Gore is diminished in my eyes by his rapacious consumption of fossil fuels, I am by no means convinced he does not believe what he has said about global warming. And, Al Gore's hypocrisy certainly furnishes no ground to reject the theory he has advocated, that burning carbon-based fuels creates greenhouse gases which will lead to an ever warmer planet, with catastrophic consequences.   

All that said, I don't disagree that an advocate's hypocrisy provides additional cause to examine his statements closely, especially when the advocate is a politician. 

I don't know too much about fiduciary duties, but are you saying that corporations have more of a right to hold out money from the government than citizens do?  If so, please explain.  I think I know what you mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

No, of course not. Corporations must pay what the law requires them to pay, just like other taxpayers. However, determination of the amount of tax due can be as much art as science. As you might imagine, the complexity of the calculation varies pretty directly with the size and diversity of the company, and honest tax experts can come up with significantly divergent answers. This is why good tax lawyers and good tax accountants -- i.e., those who know how to minimize the tax bill within the limits of law -- get big bucks.

It is management's legal responsibility to steward corporate assets for the financial benefit of the corporation's owners. The duty requires management to get good tax counsel and to take advantage of whatever lawful means there are -- loopholes, if you like -- to minimize the corporation's tax liabilities.

Whether it makes sense to tax corporate income and, if so, at what rates, and subject to what credits and deductions, are different and thorny questions, probably best left for another thread.   

[Lord of Shadows]

Allow me. 52%; the Netherlands. People earning € 56.491 and above.

Source (Dutch);
http://financieel.infonu.nl/belasting/81171-inkomstenbelasting-2012-belastingtarieven-en-schijven.html


Sorry to not source from the official tax site as... that site sucks balls (in my modest opinion) in ways of linking and generally finding ones way.

Sorry Netherlands don't have a flat tax of 52%, they have a progressive tax system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_Netherlands

[Etah dna Evol]

Sorry Netherlands don't have a flat tax of 52%, they have a progressive tax system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_Netherlands

Nobody made the claim that the Netherlands had a flat tax. My original claim that started this line of argument as that some European Pseudo-socialist countries had close to 50% tax rates.

From your Wiki source:

Code Select Expand

For 2011, income tax for persons under 65 is as follows:
. . .
On all income over €55,694: 52%

[Shjade]

Nobody made the claim that the Netherlands had a flat tax.

Which is why Saerra's response (the one being quoted in Lord of Shadows's post) is a little misguided and prompted Lord of Shadows pointing out it isn't a flat tax, which is what Avis (to whom Saerra was providing this as an example) stated he was looking for in a prior post:

I assume we're talking top brackets here. As far as I know there's no flat 50% tax rate anywhere.

In other words, Avis said "there's no flat 50% tax rate anywhere, only progressive 50+% tax rates;" Saerra responded, "actually, there's a progressive 52% tax rate;" and Lord of Shadows observed, "right, that's what Avis said: it's progressive, not flat."

And now hopefully everyone's back on the same page.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think there is something in King's argument. It was quite clear in the past that when we had a more.. tiered tax scale that there was more money going in to the government and a more equitable spread. You can't say that it's fair for someone like me who is barely able to work due to school and disability paying more than someone like Mitt Romney who grossed something like 200+ MILLION last year.

Even Ronald Reagan, king of 'tax cuts', put increases on capital gains.

Bluntly put, by me, we're needing more cash as well as budget cuts. We're cutting so much 'fat' that we're hitting bone in parts and places. You can't get certain things cut. Ever. God forbid that congress, who by and far are all well off by any measure. (Median income of your 'average' congressman is something around. 1.79 MILLION in 2008) cut their own benefits while looking for ways to cut essential government structure like military and intelligence fields, much less cut the 'bloat' of the post office (such as their own FREE postage. Franking privileges in congress go into the MILLIONS every year. With little or no oversight)

I hear a lot of 'smaller' government, but I see the outcome of it more tellingly. You got things like the mortgage bond issues. Reform not downsize. That takes money. 'Trickle down' doesn't work. 

[AndyZ]

Apologies for the delay, but as nice as you've been to me over various threads on here, I wanted to do a little better than just repeat what I've already said, so I've been thinking.

I've been considering an extreme example to see if the law applies.  Let's take the extreme example of a man who believes that all guns should be made illegal, and takes it upon himself to buy a handgun and shoot a lot of people.  "That'll show them how dangerous guns are."

Even in doing so, he must first purchase a handgun and accept the fact that he's going to kill a lot of people to prove his deluded point.  The horrifying act of killing, arguably the worst thing that guns can do, is something that he'll have to do in order to prove his point.

Agreed. But, when the hypocrite is well known, the hypocrisy is more likely to take center stage, at least temporarily, to the detriment of public discussion of the merits of the matter in issue. But for Buffet's notoriety, it is unlikely that either his views on the tax code or Berkshire's tax arrears would have drawn much public attention. Due to his celebrity, though, those who oppose raising tax rates on the wealthy have seized upon the latter issue to avoid the former.

I think it's inherent to celebrity status regardless.  If Stephen King wasn't famous, why would he get any media time telling that he wanted to be taxed further, unless one of the political parties gave him some sudden attention?

Similarly, if Bob from down the block says that we need to have a law that bans growing red roses in your garden, and he has red roses in his garden, people will point that out even though he has no celebrity status.

Yes, actions inconsistent with one's stated beliefs are often, but not always, evidence that the beliefs are not truly held. This tends to be especially true when the beliefs concern matters of personal morality. When Senator Larry Craig was caught propositioning a man in an airport lavatory, for example, it was fair inference that his record denunciations of homosexuality were a sham (it is, of course, possible that Craig is afflicted by self-loathing, and that his opposition to homosexuality is sincere, if pathetic).

Not overly familiar, but assuming everything is as you say (not that I doubt you, but I lack faith in the media) and he was attempting to ban homosexual acts (since you can't ban homosexuality itself unless you intend to commit genocide) then his attempts to proposition another man for homosexual acts perfectly fit within this logic.

Personal behavior is a less reliable barometer of the sincerity of one's stated views, I think, when the matter in issue is choice of public policy. One's views on how society may best promote its material welfare -- for example, whether it should enact laws aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption -- are likely to be products of fact and reason, even if faulty. Personal conduct, on the other hand, is frequently driven only by appetite. Thus, although Al Gore is diminished in my eyes by his rapacious consumption of fossil fuels, I am by no means convinced he does not believe what he has said about global warming. And, Al Gore's hypocrisy certainly furnishes no ground to reject the theory he has advocated, that burning carbon-based fuels creates greenhouse gases which will lead to an ever warmer planet, with catastrophic consequences.   

Here I'm confused with regards to your comparison of Larry Craig and Al Gore.  Both, in my perspective, seem to have lofty claims about what public policy should be yet cannot follow them.

Let's say that Al Gore believes what he says, that every molecule of carbon dioxide kills the planet and shortens the lifespan of humanity.  Short of being a nihilist, how could such a person possibly continue to burn fossil fuels, especially at the alarming rate which he does?

People who have unprotected sex with strangers either believe that it won't cause a pregnancy or that an abortion can be had, or that they'll raise it.  Maybe they don't think about it at all.  People who play russian roulette similarly either want to die or believe that this time it'll be safe.

If you truly believe that actions you take can directly harm the planet on a sufficient scale as to affect billions of people, how could you possibly do it?

People are not dumb beasts, incapable of reason or suppressing their urges.  People who engage in wanton sex aren't incapable of controlling themselves; they choose not to.  People who try to kill themselves aren't being mentally possessed by some outside force, but want to die.

Now, a person can believe that wanton sex, suicide, or flagrant fossil fuel uses are foolish actions.  The issue comes when a person both claims against those actions and indulges them him/herself.

To claim that Al Gore knows that fossil fuels are killing the planet, yet continues to use them, is to claim one of two things.  You can proclaim him as a willing and knowing murderer of our planet (or attempted murderer if you don't believe in human-caused climate change), and thus a willing and knowing murderer of several billion people.  Alternatively, you can proclaim him as something beneath human, incapable of understanding the consequences of his own actions even as he warns of the actions of others.

You seem to believe that there's another option.  I'm sorry that I don't see it.  Maybe the gun-banning shooter believes that the sacrifice of a few people in a public way is a small consequence when compared with the many other people who die?  I don't believe any sane and rational person would accept that argument, and I don't believe you're saying that Al Gore is either insane or irrational.

All that said, I don't disagree that an advocate's hypocrisy provides additional cause to examine his statements closely, especially when the advocate is a politician. 

I should also note that Al Gore's actions do not themselves dispute climate change, simply the belief of a man who claims to know all the facts.  It is more the fact that he himself does not believe which causes relevance.

No, of course not. Corporations must pay what the law requires them to pay, just like other taxpayers. However, determination of the amount of tax due can be as much art as science. As you might imagine, the complexity of the calculation varies pretty directly with the size and diversity of the company, and honest tax experts can come up with significantly divergent answers. This is why good tax lawyers and good tax accountants -- i.e., those who know how to minimize the tax bill within the limits of law -- get big bucks.

It is management's legal responsibility to steward corporate assets for the financial benefit of the corporation's owners. The duty requires management to get good tax counsel and to take advantage of whatever lawful means there are -- loopholes, if you like -- to minimize the corporation's tax liabilities.

Whether it makes sense to tax corporate income and, if so, at what rates, and subject to what credits and deductions, are different and thorny questions, probably best left for another thread.   

I agree that if loopholes and legal exploits exist, it doesn't make you a bad person to take advantage of them.  If it did, then they should not legally exist.

If I stop paying my taxes for several years, I can expect to have the IRS knocking on my door.  A corporation who fails to pay taxes should expect the same.  In this, I see no difference between a person and a corporation.

If the system is designed so that corporations and people are able to simply avoid paying lots of money for significant periods of time, without interest accumulating for back money owed, then this should be closed.  If it exists, though, I want to know about it because I want to use it.

[vtboy]

Apologies for the delay, but as nice as you've been to me over various threads on here, I wanted to do a little better than just repeat what I've already said, so I've been thinking.

I've been considering an extreme example to see if the law applies.  Let's take the extreme example of a man who believes that all guns should be made illegal, and takes it upon himself to buy a handgun and shoot a lot of people.  "That'll show them how dangerous guns are."

Even in doing so, he must first purchase a handgun and accept the fact that he's going to kill a lot of people to prove his deluded point.  The horrifying act of killing, arguably the worst thing that guns can do, is something that he'll have to do in order to prove his point.

Sorry, but I'm lost here. If the point is that this lost soul's opposition to gun ownership cannot reasonably be inferred from his homicidal rampage, I agree. Since there is no question but that he sincerely wants handguns proscribed, your example seems to create room for the possibility that Al Gore has decided to blast greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a means of mobilizing resistance to the practice. Perhaps so, but I think it more likely Gore is just a very flawed human being who, despite understanding the damaging consequences of his conduct, prefers his luxuries to promotion of the commonweal.

I think it's inherent to celebrity status regardless.  If Stephen King wasn't famous, why would he get any media time telling that he wanted to be taxed further, unless one of the political parties gave him some sudden attention?

Similarly, if Bob from down the block says that we need to have a law that bans growing red roses in your garden, and he has red roses in his garden, people will point that out even though he has no celebrity status.

Yes, to the extent people are even aware of Bob and his views on roses, they may point out his hypocrisy. But, who really cares about Bob? If there is serious and pervasive public debate on the dangers of growing red roses, it is unlikely many will become pro-rosies or anti-rosies because of who Bob is or what he does. The situation is, unfortunately, different with celebrities, as attitudes toward them often rub off on the public positions they take. If Al Gore is perceived to be a hypocrite or otherwise a bad person, there will be many who, without examination, will reject the merits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions simply because they are repelled by him. This is the other edge of the celebrity sword.

Not overly familiar, but assuming everything is as you say (not that I doubt you, but I lack faith in the media) and he was attempting to ban homosexual acts (since you can't ban homosexuality itself unless you intend to commit genocide) then his attempts to proposition another man for homosexual acts perfectly fit within this logic.

Here I'm confused with regards to your comparison of Larry Craig and Al Gore.  Both, in my perspective, seem to have lofty claims about what public policy should be yet cannot follow them.

Larry Craig and Al Gore are indeed similar in the respect that their private conduct departs from their publicly expressed views. My point was only that Larry Craig's homosexual acts, unlike Al Gore's consumption of fossil fuels, are expressions of a very fundamental aspect of his nature. I think it is thus more likely (but not certain) that Craig's sexual conduct indicates his private views on LGBT issues diverge from his public pronouncements, than it is that Al Gore's personal gluttony provides reliable proof he does not believe the science on global warming.

The fact that I eat to the point of obesity, for example, does not mean that I doubt the connection between obesity and shortened lifespan.

Let's say that Al Gore believes what he says, that every molecule of carbon dioxide kills the planet and shortens the lifespan of humanity.  Short of being a nihilist, how could such a person possibly continue to burn fossil fuels, especially at the alarming rate which he does?

People who have unprotected sex with strangers either believe that it won't cause a pregnancy or that an abortion can be had, or that they'll raise it.  Maybe they don't think about it at all.  People who play russian roulette similarly either want to die or believe that this time it'll be safe.

If you truly believe that actions you take can directly harm the planet on a sufficient scale as to affect billions of people, how could you possibly do it?

People are not dumb beasts, incapable of reason or suppressing their urges.  People who engage in wanton sex aren't incapable of controlling themselves; they choose not to.  People who try to kill themselves aren't being mentally possessed by some outside force, but want to die.

Now, a person can believe that wanton sex, suicide, or flagrant fossil fuel uses are foolish actions.  The issue comes when a person both claims against those actions and indulges them him/herself.

To claim that Al Gore knows that fossil fuels are killing the planet, yet continues to use them, is to claim one of two things.  You can proclaim him as a willing and knowing murderer of our planet (or attempted murderer if you don't believe in human-caused climate change), and thus a willing and knowing murderer of several billion people.  Alternatively, you can proclaim him as something beneath human, incapable of understanding the consequences of his own actions even as he warns of the actions of others.

You seem to believe that there's another option.  I'm sorry that I don't see it.  Maybe the gun-banning shooter believes that the sacrifice of a few people in a public way is a small consequence when compared with the many other people who die?  I don't believe any sane and rational person would accept that argument, and I don't believe you're saying that Al Gore is either insane or irrational.

I should also note that Al Gore's actions do not themselves dispute climate change, simply the belief of a man who claims to know all the facts.  It is more the fact that he himself does not believe which causes relevance.

I do not agree with your premise, that Al Gore either must be a mass murderer or incapable of reasoned thought.

I am certainly disappointed that, after all his good public work in alerting the world to the global warming menace, Al Gore has not adopted a less pernicious lifestyle. However, to consign him to a category peopled by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (actually, to a worse category, since these people killed only millions, not billions), is putting a bit too fine of a point on the matter. 

Nor can I imagine that Al Gore, after so convincingly articulating and popularizing theory and evidence linking human activity to global warming, fails to understand that his excessive con sumpton of fossil fuels is inimical to good environmental health.

Among human beings, perhaps among all things, imperfection seems to be the unfailing rule. I know some very good people, but have yet to meet a saint.

Though I have taken steps to reduce my own carbon footprint, I know there is much more I could do. It would by no means be impossible for me, for example, to bicycle 30 miles to work each day, erect a windmill on my front lawn, install geothermal heating in my home, and eliminate animal proteins from my diet. Each of these choices, however, would involve sacrifices I prefer not to make. If you were to infer from my doing less than I can that I do not believe the science of global warming, you would be dead wrong. I only hope this does not make me a mass murderer or a mindless.   

Is it possible Al Gore does not really believe we are burning up the planet with our profligate ways? Sure, it's possible, but I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that, like me, he is just another imperfect human being.

And, for the record, I don't think human beings possess free will any more than do other beasts. We are all pinballs bouncing off the bumpers of nature and nurture.

I agree that if loopholes and legal exploits exist, it doesn't make you a bad person to take advantage of them.  If it did, then they should not legally exist.

If I stop paying my taxes for several years, I can expect to have the IRS knocking on my door.  A corporation who fails to pay taxes should expect the same.  In this, I see no difference between a person and a corporation.

If the system is designed so that corporations and people are able to simply avoid paying lots of money for significant periods of time, without interest accumulating for back money owed, then this should be closed.  If it exists, though, I want to know about it because I want to use it.

I am not a tax expert but I am quite certain that when corporations fail to pay what they owe in taxes they, like individuals, become liable for interest and, in appropriate cases, for penalties.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am not a tax expert but I am quite certain that when corporations fail to pay what they owe in taxes they, like individuals, become liable for interest and, in appropriate cases, for penalties.

I would like to comment on this.. but given I just lost 1/4 of my grant to the IRS after something like 19 months of sending them proof I'm still too enraged that they taxed my disability and got away with it.

[AndyZ]

Vtboy, I'll give you a post when I'm awake and aware enough to give you something useful.  I just wanted to give Callie something.

I would like to comment on this.. but given I just lost 1/4 of my grant to the IRS after something like 19 months of sending them proof I'm still too enraged that they taxed my disability and got away with it.

Yeah, imagine my surprise when I found out at the start of April that beyond not having worked a day all year, I owed taxes on my unemployment.  Recursive taxation for the fail.

[RubySlippers]

The only issue I have is lets say they increase taxes by 5% on everyone to be fair that never brings in 5% more income to the government. Poorer people will just work off the books and not report the extra income, middle class and the wealthy will find more loopholes in the tax law or more deductions to lessen the impact. So lets say you wanted 5% more effective income you might need to tax actually 8% more assuming 3% will be lost due to these factors.

And I will note according some experts in the underground economy nations with a high tax rate have a proportionally higher off the books economy its hard to study but in Greece at one place you could get a soda with a receipt for 4.5 Euros or pay cash without one for 3 Euros, a sign off the books in in play. How much of that goes on in high tax nations is unsure but ancedotal evidence is its pretty much there in some form.

[Silverfyre]

That's quite the sweeping generalization you make there about all levels of society, Ruby. Any factual evidence to back up such a claim or is just speculation that such a tax hike would make entire levels of economical society go "underground" and work off the books?  Not every job market gives such opportunities.

[AndyZ]

Sorry, but I'm lost here. If the point is that this lost soul's opposition to gun ownership cannot reasonably be inferred from his homicidal rampage, I agree. Since there is no question but that he sincerely wants handguns proscribed, your example seems to create room for the possibility that Al Gore has decided to blast greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a means of mobilizing resistance to the practice. Perhaps so, but I think it more likely Gore is just a very flawed human being who, despite understanding the damaging consequences of his conduct, prefers his luxuries to promotion of the commonweal.

Yes, to the extent people are even aware of Bob and his views on roses, they may point out his hypocrisy. But, who really cares about Bob? If there is serious and pervasive public debate on the dangers of growing red roses, it is unlikely many will become pro-rosies or anti-rosies because of who Bob is or what he does. The situation is, unfortunately, different with celebrities, as attitudes toward them often rub off on the public positions they take. If Al Gore is perceived to be a hypocrite or otherwise a bad person, there will be many who, without examination, will reject the merits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions simply because they are repelled by him. This is the other edge of the celebrity sword.

Larry Craig and Al Gore are indeed similar in the respect that their private conduct departs from their publicly expressed views. My point was only that Larry Craig's homosexual acts, unlike Al Gore's consumption of fossil fuels, are expressions of a very fundamental aspect of his nature. I think it is thus more likely (but not certain) that Craig's sexual conduct indicates his private views on LGBT issues diverge from his public pronouncements, than it is that Al Gore's personal gluttony provides reliable proof he does not believe the science on global warming.

The fact that I eat to the point of obesity, for example, does not mean that I doubt the connection between obesity and shortened lifespan.

I do not agree with your premise, that Al Gore either must be a mass murderer or incapable of reasoned thought.

I am certainly disappointed that, after all his good public work in alerting the world to the global warming menace, Al Gore has not adopted a less pernicious lifestyle. However, to consign him to a category peopled by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (actually, to a worse category, since these people killed only millions, not billions), is putting a bit too fine of a point on the matter. 

Nor can I imagine that Al Gore, after so convincingly articulating and popularizing theory and evidence linking human activity to global warming, fails to understand that his excessive con sumpton of fossil fuels is inimical to good environmental health.

Among human beings, perhaps among all things, imperfection seems to be the unfailing rule. I know some very good people, but have yet to meet a saint.

Though I have taken steps to reduce my own carbon footprint, I know there is much more I could do. It would by no means be impossible for me, for example, to bicycle 30 miles to work each day, erect a windmill on my front lawn, install geothermal heating in my home, and eliminate animal proteins from my diet. Each of these choices, however, would involve sacrifices I prefer not to make. If you were to infer from my doing less than I can that I do not believe the science of global warming, you would be dead wrong. I only hope this does not make me a mass murderer or a mindless.   

Is it possible Al Gore does not really believe we are burning up the planet with our profligate ways? Sure, it's possible, but I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that, like me, he is just another imperfect human being.

And, for the record, I don't think human beings possess free will any more than do other beasts. We are all pinballs bouncing off the bumpers of nature and nurture.

I am not a tax expert but I am quite certain that when corporations fail to pay what they owe in taxes they, like individuals, become liable for interest and, in appropriate cases, for penalties.

Okay, let me try to elaborate further. 

This may be changing a little as I try to re-explain it, since I never attempted to enumerate this point before.  Apologies about confusion as a result.  Though I feel like it's basically the same, I certainly feel as though I learned a lot. ^_^  Maybe just better phrased?  Or maybe I'm still phrasing it wrong?  I know I'm terrible at explanation.

My claim is that someone who attempts to create a public policy for something that they do cannot believe in the necessity of that action.

The crazy gunman was created as an extreme example in order to better explain this claim, as well as one of my attempts to disprove it.  Although it seems as though the madman is opposed to both guns and murder, he is willing to use both, and therefore sees them as necessary and useful tools.

You mentioned that you eat to obesity but do not dismiss the correlation between obesity and shortened life span.  This doesn't break that rule because you (presumably) neither push for a law against obesity.  You accept that eating to obesity will shorten your lifespan, and so long as none of my money is going towards your medical care, I have no right to stop you.

Basically, from my understanding, you don't believe that a shortened life span is a sufficient price to pay in order to eat less.

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This is admittedly a leap of logic that I left out in earlier posts: even if you don't care about destroying yourself, it doesn't give you the right to injure others.  For example, I wouldn't care about people smoking if the secondhand didn't send me into violet coughing fits, no matter how much damage they do to themselves.

But, let's say that you don't believe that you ought to interfere with the ending of humanity.  Let's say that even as you burn through fossil fuels and talk about how it destroys the planet, the destruction of the planet does not bother you.  Would you then try to push for others not to use fossil fuels via laws while ramping up your own?  Would you buy multi-million dollar houses on the coastline when the coastline is going to be the first thing to go?

Now, I understand your point about how some people will just automatically follow and listen to celebrities, there's a difference between simple ad hominem attacks and pertinent information.  For example, there's an awful lot I could say about Al (Second Chakra) Gore that I've left out of the conversation which shows him for the monster that he is but isn't pertinent.

If the only people who make such claims cannot follow them, perhaps they shouldn't try to pass laws which affect us but to which they are exempt, whether legally or politically.  However, you weren't the one to bring celebrities into this debate, so I realize you probably already know this.

That's quite the sweeping generalization you make there about all levels of society, Ruby. Any factual evidence to back up such a claim or is just speculation that such a tax hike would make entire levels of economical society go "underground" and work off the books?  Not every job market gives such opportunities.

I don't think she's claiming that every single level of society will do this, although diminishing returns is pretty well documented.  However, you're correct in that the poor have a much harder time on simply packing up than the rich do.

Here's how it works in economics, though you shouldn't have too much trouble in seeing how it works in taxes.  If you do, let me know and I'll explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

[Oniya]

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This being an extreme example, I still feel obligated to point out that every non-plant organism on the planet creates carbon dioxide.  Therefore, if someone wanted to completely halt the creation of carbon dioxide molecules (at least to the extent that they were personally responsible for it), they would be obligated to kill themselves.

Minimizing, on the other hand, would be something a lot more 'sane'.

[Silverfyre]

I am quite aware on how diminishing returns works, but thanks for the wiki link for a quick and dirty primer.  My point is that her theory on entire parts of society going underground due to a tax hike are rather ridiculous.

[RubySlippers]

I didn't say complete segments I said more underground economics will be in play. For example John Doe a carpenter might work for ACME on the books for some work then on their time do work on the side for cash and not report it that added income not taxed. And I will note since I'm in that economy there has been an increase of such activity those unemployed long term often have to go to this to survive since your not paying taxes on this income the social security and medicare taxes are not paid, from relatives in this in high tax locations its far worse. This is the most common form this would take.

And others will find more tax cuts, things to deduct or fudge a little making a 5% tax increase not bring in 5% more income its usually less say 3.5%, so to get 5% one clearly needs to tax more say 7.5 or 8% to get the desired income for the government.

So common sense would be the rich having the most options would hide all the money they could legally from increased taxes.

[vtboy]

My claim is that someone who attempts to create a public policy for something that they do cannot believe in the necessity of that action.

I would agree with this if it were true that human beings always act consistently with their beliefs. In my experience, they do not.

You mentioned that you eat to obesity but do not dismiss the correlation between obesity and shortened life span.  This doesn't break that rule because you (presumably) neither push for a law against obesity.  You accept that eating to obesity will shorten your lifespan, and so long as none of my money is going towards your medical care, I have no right to stop you.

Basically, from my understanding, you don't believe that a shortened life span is a sufficient price to pay in order to eat less.

Sorry, but treatment of my obesity-related ailments will be covered by Medicare. Thank you for your payroll taxes. Any inference that I dispute either the link between obesity and illness or the appropriateness of Medicare would be incorrect.

Now, let's go on to global warming.  You say that you believe that the world is being wrecked by carbon dioxide.  Therefore, before the natural end of your life, the world will cease to be habitable by human beings. 

I would expect such a revelation to cause a horrified outcry, as people scurry and fight in every possible way to save the planet.  People with such faith would do everything they can in order to stop the onset of carbon dioxide, that every molecule launched into the atmosphere would bring some measurable amount of time to the inhability of Earth.

If people make such a claim (and some have), then it makes sense that they'd try to halt the creation of carbon dioxide.  This would be a logical result of the belief that human life will end if we do not act; only the most sociopathic of us would be unwilling to have the human race continue even if we ourselves would die in the process. 

This is admittedly a leap of logic that I left out in earlier posts: even if you don't care about destroying yourself, it doesn't give you the right to injure others.  For example, I wouldn't care about people smoking if the secondhand didn't send me into violet coughing fits, no matter how much damage they do to themselves.

But, let's say that you don't believe that you ought to interfere with the ending of humanity.  Let's say that even as you burn through fossil fuels and talk about how it destroys the planet, the destruction of the planet does not bother you.  Would you then try to push for others not to use fossil fuels via laws while ramping up your own?  Would you buy multi-million dollar houses on the coastline when the coastline is going to be the first thing to go?

My point about Al Gore was that, although his wanton consumption of carbon-based fuels might suggest he does not believe his public pronouncements on the causal connection between man-made greenhouse gases and the menace of global warming and on the need to regulate the former, the inconsistency may have other explanations. For example, Al Gore may simply be a latter day Louis XV ("Apres moi, le deluge") who assumes he will not live to see the worst of global warming, and gives not a tinker's dam about the horrors it will inflict on future generations. Or, he may think himself more entitled than the riffraff, and believe that when everyone else stops guzzling fossil fuels there will be plenty of atmospheric capacity for him to go on doing so. Or, like someone addicted to cigarettes or gambling or promiscuity, he may regret his behavior, but lack the strength to give up the private jet and the SUV. Or, he may have performed some sort of cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the additional good works he is able to perform thanks to use of the private jet and the SUV more than offset their aggravation of the environmental problem. Or, perhaps he believes that, until there are regulations requiring sweeping changes in carbon fuel consumpton, the value of individual sacrifice. Or, he may be thoughtless when it comes to his own behavior and his otherwise good judgment may just fly out the window. Or, he may just be a pig.

In short, the conclusion that Al Gore does not believe what he preaches is possible, but hardly ineluctable.

Now, I understand your point about how some people will just automatically follow and listen to celebrities, there's a difference between simple ad hominem attacks and pertinent information.  For example, there's an awful lot I could say about Al (Second Chakra) Gore that I've left out of the conversation which shows him for the monster that he is but isn't pertinent.

If the only people who make such claims cannot follow them, perhaps they shouldn't try to pass laws which affect us but to which they are exempt, whether legally or politically.  However, you weren't the one to bring celebrities into this debate, so I realize you probably already know this.

OK. And, further to your point (I think), look at the buckets of ink we've spilled over whether Al Gore and Warren Buffet believe what they say, as opposed to the merits of their statements.

[AndyZ]

This being an extreme example, I still feel obligated to point out that every non-plant organism on the planet creates carbon dioxide.  Therefore, if someone wanted to completely halt the creation of carbon dioxide molecules (at least to the extent that they were personally responsible for it), they would be obligated to kill themselves.

Minimizing, on the other hand, would be something a lot more 'sane'.

Depends on the levels required, the Earth's ability to handle unusually high CO2 levels, the damage done to the Earth and its habitability for human life, and how long it would take for the Earth to become uninhabitable according to the various theories.

I'm trying to find information about how long we're supposed to have or how much each tonne of CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature, but the data doesn't seem to be consistent, so I won't be able to go into significant detail on this.

I am quite aware on how diminishing returns works, but thanks for the wiki link for a quick and dirty primer.  My point is that her theory on entire parts of society going underground due to a tax hike are rather ridiculous.

Apologies if my post came off as rude or condescending.

Sorry, but treatment of my obesity-related ailments will be covered by Medicare. Thank you for your payroll taxes. Any inference that I dispute either the link between obesity and illness or the appropriateness of Medicare would be incorrect.

I should probably stop posting on here for a while; I'm having horrible luck at being clear, but I'll try to finish this out.

Would it be correct that you would decry a public policy that would ban excessive eating which leads to obesity?

My point about Al Gore was that, although his wanton consumption of carbon-based fuels might suggest he does not believe his public pronouncements on the causal connection between man-made greenhouse gases and the menace of global warming and on the need to regulate the former, the inconsistency may have other explanations. For example, Al Gore may simply be a latter day Louis XV ("Apres moi, le deluge") who assumes he will not live to see the worst of global warming, and gives not a tinker's dam about the horrors it will inflict on future generations. Or, he may think himself more entitled than the riffraff, and believe that when everyone else stops guzzling fossil fuels there will be plenty of atmospheric capacity for him to go on doing so. Or, like someone addicted to cigarettes or gambling or promiscuity, he may regret his behavior, but lack the strength to give up the private jet and the SUV. Or, he may have performed some sort of cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the additional good works he is able to perform thanks to use of the private jet and the SUV more than offset their aggravation of the environmental problem. Or, perhaps he believes that, until there are regulations requiring sweeping changes in carbon fuel consumpton, the value of individual sacrifice. Or, he may be thoughtless when it comes to his own behavior and his otherwise good judgment may just fly out the window. Or, he may just be a pig.

In short, the conclusion that Al Gore does not believe what he preaches is possible, but hardly ineluctable.

Yeah, I see your point here.  He might figure that he doesn't want to suffer in silence, and that the actual level of CO2 wouldn't be important provided it was stopped before it became catastrophic, so he might want everything to be banned in order to stop himself.

Thank you for disproving my claim ^_^ I thought I had something airtight there.

OK. And, further to your point (I think), look at the buckets of ink we've spilled over whether Al Gore and Warren Buffet believe what they say, as opposed to the merits of their statements.

I actually learned something I consider useful, though I apologize if you feel your time was wasted.

[Shjade]

I realize I'm pretty late to this and am somewhat dredging it up (though it was still on the first page!), but only just came across this and thought the folks who were heartily discussing the subject might find it interesting.

Response to Warren Buffet by CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, T. J. Rodgers.

[AndyZ]

I can only speak for myself, but feel free to pull up old threads that I've created if new information comes to light which might change the course of the conversation.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Response to Warren Buffet by CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, T. J. Rodgers.

People like this guy won't be happy until the working class lives in tin shacks with a life expectancy of 40.  Oh, and if we signed our first-born over to Satan he'd probably be tickled too.

In the 1960s, we had marginal tax rates of over 70%, we were the world's largest creditor nation, the world's largest economy, we landed men on the moon...all while defending half the planet from a superpower.

Back then we had to worry about thermonuclear war.  Today, there are women in the Sudan who have to worry about getting gang-raped so they can go out and get water for their children.  This guy's just butt-hurt that he might only be able to afford two yachts rather than three.

Someone give Rodgers a purple heart.

[TheRedFear]

Article Linky

Stephen King lays out a pretty solid argument for raising taxes on the rich, and clarifies a lot of tax equality talking points and misconceptions.

To me, the article makes a lot of sense.  In fact, I think it's goddamn amazing!  He laid it out better than I ever could.  I can't really see any obvious flaws in his argument or logic.  But what about you guys?

My only question is...who precisely is stopping him from cutting a check to the Federal government? They won't send it back. In fact if all the "Tax me for fuck's sake" liberals in Hollywood would actually put their money where their mouths are like that I might even give a fuck what they have to say on this issue.

Ah, good ol' Will Smith. He won't be moving to France anytime soon.  8-)

[Will]

Because him sending a check would be nothing but a drop in the water compared to the money brought in from increased taxes.  And that's what he's trying to encourage.  Silently sending in checks doesn't encourage or change anything.

[TheRedFear]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit. And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation, and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

When Warren Buffet and Stephen King want me to do anything but laugh at thier thoughts on taxes, they need simply do one thing.

Put up.

Otherwise?

Shut up.

[Question Mark]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit. And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation, and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

When Warren Buffet and Stephen King want me to do anything but laugh at thier thoughts on taxes, they need simply do one thing.

Put up.

Otherwise?

Shut up.

People who make this argument seem to forgot two very important facts, and commit three major fallacies.

Fact #1: The tax hike is just 1.7%.  That's it.  I wish Obama would do more, but considering the massive freakout amongst the GOP, and with Fox News whipping the conservatives into a frenzy, I suppose he'll be lucky to just get the 1.7%.  It's not even technically a tax hike, he's just letting Bush-era tax cuts expire.

Fact #2: It is not just a drop in the bucket.  Since the tax cuts were put in place, we've lost trillions of dollars in tax revenue, and what do you know, we also lost jobs and our economy tanked.  If tax cuts for the wealthy resulted in more jobs and a healthier economy, I'd back it up.  But they don't.  And it's not just a drop in the bucket, it's a major percentage!

Fallacy #1: "If they care so much, why don't they just write a check?"  Because if only the small handful of millionaires willing to do so write these checks, their donations would actually be just a drop in the bucket comparatively, and would have little to no effect.  However, if the entire millionaire+ populations pays slightly higher taxes, the increased revenue will be readily apparent, and will help take the pressure off the economy.  Personal donations will only really hurt the donators.  Not to mention, people don't like writing checks worth millions of dollars when they don't know if it will do any good.  By raising taxes, at least they have the comfort of knowing they're required to pay.  That can go a long way.

Fallacy #2: "It's just a drop in the bucket."  Oh how I hate this expression.  It must be something used a lot on Fox News: a lot of Republicans and conservatives have been parroting it in our debates.  What it's basically saying is "This tax raise will do the country good, but it doesn't immediately fix the problem, so let's discard it."  Even if it was a drop in the bucket (several trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade say it isn't), it's still a net gain for our country!  And at this time with our economy, I think we should be getting any source of income we can, whether through taxes, exports, or spending cuts.  Many small boons can add up quickly, and there's no reason this argument should be awarded any merit.

Fallacy #3: "Raising taxes on them will stifle job creation."  No.  Just no.  We lowered taxes on the "job creators," and our economy tanked and took millions of jobs with it.  Companies regularly lay off workers to fatten up their bottom line.  And yet we still believe giving them more money will make them experience a sudden change of heart and recreate the millions of jobs they just destroyed.  The true job creators are the middle class, enterprising individuals looking to start their own business and hire their own workers.  We need to tax corporations/rich more (I'm not talking Socialism here, but a flat 30% baseline would be a great start), while offering tax breaks for small businesses.  At the same time, cut the fat out of our government: no more pork barrel spending, slash wasteful military (do we really need another $1.6 billion bomber?  or a $500 million cruise missile?  or an investment of billions into prototype fighter jets that we simply don't need?), reform social spending to get rid of mooches and welfare royalty, and start investing in infrastructure.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay.. let's sum it up like this..

You have a debt.. a HUGE one.. one we DIDN'T have prior to 9/11. Fun Note: It took tax policies of 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush I and 8 of Clinton to work that up. Some of these president's policies made for a few hiccups.. BUT each president largely understood that taxes were part of the formula. Reagan.. the gipper himself.. raised taxes on the highest incomes EIGHT times in the first four years.. along with hammering capital gains. Bush.. remember 'No New Taxes?'.. he bucked down and changed that policy because.. well. he had this HUGE deficit that needed fixing. Clinton.. he was a bit more washy.. but compared to 'Dubya' he was still a taxer.. and wasn't afraid to address the issues.

Simply put.. we have to admit.. Trickle Down.. don't work. From about the 70s on.. the average middle class worker has coasted along at about the cost of living..bouncing around with 4 to 5% (give or take). Meanwhile the execs.. particularly CEOs.. (those picked on upper incomes) have had their pay increase by leaps and bounds.. as much as 500%+ in some graphs (I'm personally thinking more like the 250% to 300% myself).

These 'money makers' have gamed the system so that they can maximize their return. I'm all for tax breaks.. but I want them to make a return to the country.

You know what could do to fix some of our jobs problems? Fix the corporate tax codes. Stop rewarding companies for outsourcing and hiding income overseas. Reward corporate 'reinvestment' in their infrastructure, reinstate the OLD corporate tax rate (something below the 35+% rate for top companies we have now). Kill the current corporate tax breaks.. build breaks that bring jobs BACK to the US,  and encourage these companies to reinvest in the country they've abandoned.

Cause let me tell you.. there ARE ways to make manufacturing work. You got to accept that we've let the corporate lobbies game the system for the last 4 or 5 decades. And fix those. We can reward them for rebuilding the country and taking the long investment view rather than the short time view they do now.

Look at the people who are pushing for lower capital gains, and lower taxes on the high end tax range. You got guys like Ryan.. who is a rich kid from an entitled family.. then you got Gov Romney.. another established money family.. who then went on to MAKE money by looting pillaging and taking the 'short view' on business. Bain is a labyrinth of companies who eat other companies.. slaughter them and sell off the assetts.

We need to change the way American business works. We need to fix the taxes on the upper class (Sorry guys.. you have to at least pay your share..and the past proves that the biggest growth was while you had HIGHER taxes than now).

Let me put it to you like this.. right now the LION share of our domestic debt owned outside the country is by CHINA. Do you honestly think that they have our best interests in mind? They manipulate their currency to keep the Yuan weak against the dollar.. because it ensures they have the hook to get it.

That being said.. they are also scaling up for a confrontation in the next 2 decades. Their navy is building. Their air force is building a strategy and infrastructure to allow for rapid strike capacity, forward strike ability. Not towards us.. towards their neighbors. I will bet.. they will use this NEW military strike capacity as a hammer to leverage a reunification with Taiwan.

China is very pragmatic. They aren't simply buying our debt to ensure they get leverage in our markets.. they WILL use it as a club on us. We have to fix our debt. That will require more than simply fixing the tax code.. we need to retrain our businesses.. but it WILL require higher taxes.

Fun note.. did you know if we raised the cap on the social security tax cap that we could fix the shortfall? (A lot SAFER move than privatizing it..)

[Torch]

Fun note.. did you know if we raised the cap on the social security tax cap that we could fix the shortfall? (A lot SAFER move than privatizing it..)

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

[Callie Del Noire]

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

Well if we raise it from 100 grand (or so) a year to 250 grand it would finance social security to at least the 2070s.. assuming we can keep congress from pillaging social security for other things. Or privatizing.

[Serephino]

Sometime last year I was watching the Tonight Show, and Jay Leno was doing his Headlines thing.  One of them wasn't funny.  It was a newspaper page.  At the top it was an article about a company laying off thousands of people.  Further down the page there was an article about how the CEO's of that very same company were getting huge bonuses.  Gee, it isn't hard to figure out what they did with the money they saved by laying off all those people...

Last night on my local news they reported that the average Middle Class family is bringing in less income than they were 10 years ago.  The Middle Class is slowly shrinking, and giant corporations are making huge profits.  This madness just isn't working, and the GOP seems to want to tilt it farther.

[Vekseid]

Actually if every single Will Smith, Warren Buffet, and Stephen Kings of the world got together and set 1-10 million dollars each, you just might be surprised....

This is just a demand by sociopaths for those who aren't sociopaths to disproportionally give up their own political power so they can continue wrecking this nation.

Besides. The money from raising taxes would be a drop in the bucket for getting out of deficit.

This is pretty easy to demonstrate as a lie - the Bush tax cuts and wars, plus his inaction in the mortgage crisis when he was first made aware of it in 2004 - we wouldn't have a deficit now. The chart for this is all over the Internet.

And what little our economy gains in the short term, we'd likely lose several times over in job loss, inflation,

Another bald-faced lie - we won't have inflation in a liquidity trap without job gains. The two concepts are mutually exclusive in the current financial environment.

and all those other natural consequences of tax hikes and people like Mr. King never have to worry about.

Bogeymen promoted by sociopaths and the bigots who think that blacks make up the majority of the poor.

The natural consequences of a more progressive tax system is that money moves faster through channels with lower savings rates, but those with higher savings rates have their cash flow remain the same. Ergo, the economy grows.

Ultimately, 5% of the population is earning 25% of the income and spending 20%, taxes included.

Since local reinvestment is not occurring at this pace, this means that, each year, a portion of this nation's wealth gets transported upwards. It's not a sustainable process - and, one of Warren Buffet's laws that you may laugh at:

"An unsustainable process will stop."

I imagine this will get eventually get resolved peacefully - the conservative lie machine is built on spreading fear, and once people have little left to fear for, it fails. Most famously in the South during the Civil War, where those with 20 or more slaves declared themselves exempt from taxes. The irony of them helping to bring down the country they hoped to build for themselves certainly isn't lost on me.

Still, millions are going to needlessly suffer because sociopaths think they have an understanding of how society works.

But more importantly, if King put hismoney where his mouth is it would give him this little thing called credibility. As it stands now Mr. King, it's easy to run your self-righteous mouth about tax hikes when we all know they won't impact you in the least. Your well-payed lawyers will do what they've always done. Find the loopholes that let you dodge these new taxes.

If you have some evidence of King being a tax-dodger, you are free to present it.

Put up.

You could do with some putting up yourself, by actually studying the issues you claim to profess knowledge on, rather than spewing bullshit you've heard from people with a less than honest agenda

Otherwise?

Shut up.

Listening to your own advice might be good, just saying.

[Question Mark]

While I agree with you on pretty much everything Vekseid, I want to temper the stated opinions a bit.  For one thing, for every conservative that wants to turn America into a corporate-run plutocracy (some would argue it already is), there's a liberal who wants to turn America into big-government socialist state (again, some would argue it already is).  Both side have some good ideas, for example true fiscal conservatives want to lower taxes on everyone, not just the rich, but many mainstream conservatives *coughRyancough* are pushing higher "Stealth" taxes on the middle and lower classes.  The conservatives you mention are people like Ryan and Romney, who obviously favor the rich and the corporations if you do a little digging, and people like Ailes and Murdoch, who use deceit and/or dishonest journalism to push their agendas.  Most conservatives I know IRL have some really good ideas, and some genuine gripes with how the country is being run (like, no budget in 3 years.  lolwut).

As always, the best course is compromise.  Raise taxes on the rich to pre-millenium standards, reform social spending to cut out the waste and pump stimulus into new businesses, get a comprehensive budget, and reduce the deficit through a combination of taxation and spending cuts.  The liberal-conservative division in this country is immense; the presidential election is becoming more of a war and smearfest than a genuine competition.  It's goddamn scary.  It might not turn into a civil war, but either way, the middle class will lose.

[vtboy]

The FICA tax cap should absolutely be removed. I've advocated this for years. It would be easy to implement, would provide an immediate influx of cash, and for those paying the tax, it is relatively painless in that FICA is already deducted from one's paycheck. The deduction would simply continue instead of disappearing at some point during the year depending upon income.

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

[Torch]

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

Why not indeed?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Why not also impose FICA on non-wage income (and, of course, allow non-wage income to count toward social security benefits)? Why shouldn't those whose income consists of dividends, interest, royalties, rents, and the like pay into the system and receive benefits?

We need to decide what Social Security is.

Is it a mandatory savings account?  If it is, then remove the FICA cap, place the entire trust fund off-limits to ANYTHING other than paying benefits, and tie benefit payments to the amount of money paid in and the time the taxpayer has left the money in the system.  Truth be told, I think we've pretty much abandoned that definition of Social Security, and moved to...

Is it a transfer payment system from the young and middle-aged, able-bodied and employed to the elderly and disabled?  (This is pretty much what, IMHO, Social Security has morphed into over the past thirty-odd years.)  If so, there's no reason to even have a special FICA tax.  Abolish it, and roll it into the overall taxation system.  Figure out what changes to marginal tax rates we need (or maybe a national sales tax?) to fund the transfer payments.