The Glade 4.0

It's not obvious to me, I'd like to see some evidence of that. Keep in mind that there would be an exemption for essentials in every realistic consumption tax I've seen proposed.


You are aware that there are capital gains taxes, correct? That be included in "taxable" income. Taxable income is just that taxable. What other money did he make that's not taxable? How should one be taxed on things that aren't "taxable"?


No, the point is that he's perfectly fine finding a way to "only" pay the minimum amount he's required to by law. Yet he says others should pay more, when he's obviously not willing to put his money where his mouth is.



No, I'd like to see the evidence you spoke of in the quoted line:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

What Xeq fails to realize is that the middle class is considered rich by those writing the tax code. Tax the rich sentiments include the middle class. The rich, however, are financially empowered to hire accountants to minimize their actual tax payments while the middle class just fills out the forms and shells out money.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It seems to me that Mr. Buffet is making a moral argument, especially when he makes statements like this:



[my bold]

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I agree that there's almost always a moral dimension to any issue advocacy, but there again, I think you have to consider the means/ends distinction. If the point is to achieve a specific end, belief in a moral obligation to take effective action doesn't imply a belief in a moral obligation to take ineffective action. Buffet may well think a system where the rich pay a larger share of the government tab is morally preferable (the desired end), and he may think the rich have a moral obligation to support and advocate for such a system (effective means, therefore morally obligatory), but that doesn't mean he thinks they have a moral obligation to donate money to the government if doing so doesn't help reach the goal of enacting such a system (ineffective means, therefore not morally obligatory).

Do you believe Buffet's individual action would be ineffective? Would his action spur others? Would their collective action be ineffective? At what point does it become effective?

Further, a person calling for forced compliance with their beliefs has an obligation to act within their capabilities to do so. Calling for forced compliance of others brings with it a higher obligation to personal action.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

For the most part, yeah, I think symbolic personal actions rarely shift policy to any great extent. If Buffet voluntarily gave an extra 8% of his income to the government, would you be more inclined to rethink your position on taxes? If Al Gore chose to live in a small, energy-efficient house rather than a mansion, would you be more willing to support a Federal cap-and-trade program? Do you think liberals would be more inclined to support entitlement cuts if a few high-profile conservatives chose not to accept Medicare and Social Security? Those are all doubtful propositions, in my opinion.


I largely disagree - again, based on the means/ends distinction - but I am at least sympathetic to your view on the level of personal morality. If you feel it's a cop out or hypocritical for people to advocate for a policy without living by its dictates in advance, that's fine. It's not an argument against the policy itself though (well, it's an ad hom argument, I guess), and it's in that context that I object to its use. Either higher tax rates for the rich is a good policy or a bad one on the merits, irrespective of whether Warren Buffet is personally choosing to donate extra money to the government coffers. Pointing out that he could, but does not, do so really doesn't make the case against the policy itself.

Earning a lot of money doesn't make you rich, any more than earning little or no money makes you poor.

I don't believe Buffet writing a check for millions of dollars every year would be symbolic. As to others' actions changing my inclinations, when someone calls for implementation of their beliefs through the use of Gov't to force compliance while they don't voluntarily comply with what they think is "right" (or in many cases do the exact opposite of what they advocate) I am surely less inclined to support their beliefs. So, by extension, yes, I Guess I would be more inclined if they "put their money where their mouth is". I think other who have stated publicly that they are like-minded and have advocated Buffet's beliefs would also be inclined to follow suit; their combined action would definitely not be merely symbolic..



I agree that it doesn't discredit the policy itself, but it is telling when even a policy's advocates refuse to comply without the application of Gov't force. If it doesn't merit voluntarily compliance by its advocates why would it merit forced compliance by others without their strong beliefs?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'm skeptical - I think you'd probably have a higher opinion of the individual in question, but I doubt you'd actually change your views on the substantive point. That said, maybe because I seemingly place more weight on the means/ends distinction than you do, I'm less open to persuasion by personal example and thus underestimating its potential impact on your views.


Again, for me it's a question of means vs ends and symbolism vs substance. A soldier might advocate for and be perfectly willing to participate in a particular attack plan as the means to achieving overall victory, yet not see any value in launching his own one-man charge if the plan is rejected, because such a charge, despite all the heroic symbolism of it, would not be a substantively helpful contribution to achieving victory.

You asked if I'd be "more inclined to rethink my position". If someone advocates something don't think is correct and doesn't act upon it themselves, I will tend to believe that my original take on the issue is bolstered by the advocate's own inaction. However, if someone advocates a position, and acts on it, I will tend to give their position consideration. Their actions will cause me to wonder if there's something I am missing. My level of response to the actions of the advocate seems to vary wildly in your posts from "inclined to rethink" to "change your views". The mere action of the advocate probably won't change my views, but it may be enough to cause me to rethink the whole thing.



Buffet and friends writing millions of dollars worth of checks is substantive to me, that may be where we differ.
I really don't see how Buffet, his billionaire friends and the others advocating the position writing checks for tens and hundreds of millions of dollars is the equivalent to "a one man charge". That aside, I still believe Buffet does more good with his money than the Gov't would, but that's not really the discussion.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

People who have none or minimal assets are far more prone to malinvestment than people of means. Money simply investedis in no way a gaurantee of growth.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Fair point. Not trying to move the goalposts or anything. I guess my own underlying assumption here is that getting someone to reconsider their position is of no value (in terms of changing the actual policy) if they still come to the same conclusion anyway, but that probably isn't true over the long-term.


Yeah, that's probably part of it. I see it as a drop in the bucket - even if Buffet inspired a thousand mega-rich people to write $10 million checks every year (which is itself quite improbable) and 10,000 more to write $1 million checks every year (virtually impossible), we're still only talking about $20 billion a year, which is roughly what the military spends on air-conditioning for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, not much in the grand scheme of things. That's why I actually agree with your point that Buffet (and all those others he might inspire with personal action) can do more good with that money than the government would, but I add the caveat "in the absence of a large-scale policy change". Without the policy change to overcome collective action problems and get mass participation via the actual tax system, even a sizeable number of highly-motivated individuals would just be wasting their money if they cut extra checks to the government.

So, a sizeable number of individuals cutting checks to the government is wasted money. But an *even more* sizeable number of individuals cutting checks to the government isn't? I'm confused, here.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I see your point. I guess I'd rather people rethink than dismiss, if my actions had anything to do with it.



If gaining $20 billion isn't much, then taxing those with an income of $1 million or more at 45% is similarly not much. That comes out to $31 billion - it's only ~9/10 of a percent of what the Gov't spent last year. Hell, do it up and tax 'em at 50% for $500,000+, 60% for $5 million+, 70% for $10 million+, and you get $133 billion - less than 4% of the budget, that's not much.

Heheheh, I'd argue that with the policy change there'd be a bigger waste of money by cutting the checks to the Gov't.

edit: Bah, Kaff beat me.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

OHAI original topic...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart- ... guy-right/

If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity

luckiest 1 per cent of humanity

Luck is the lottery. Luck is shooting at a squirrel and finding an oil well. Luck very rarely makes you rich. Hard work, education, sacrafice, and taking opportunities as they present themselves usually do.

I'm trying to figure out a name for this derangement. It seems the more successfull a liberal is, the more they need to either try to get a moral counterweight in their own mind ( think pam anderson and PETA or recent Matt Damon bs). I used to think it was isolated to just Hollywood- where they seem to get guilty for making so much money that they usually implode. Now I think it's got to be tied somehow to their personal philosophies.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

The military does not spend anything like 20 billion a year for troops on air conditioning. I recall the thing you're talking about; this figure came from some retired general. He also had a financial stake in it somehow. Anyhow, 20 billions is more like the total yearly fuel bill for everything - jets, vehicles, and generators, and while all of those things have air conditioning, that's only a small part of their energy use, especially for jets and vehicles. Also, the air conditioning is not just for the troops - it's for the computers too, especially in aircraft and vehicles.

As for the "luckiest 1% of humanity", well, anyone living in the U.S. today or most other developed nations, IS in the luckiest 1% of humanity compared to everyone that ever lived! Even the most dirt poor backwoods redneck or most destitute inner city single mother has access to technology and services that most of history couldn't even have conceived of and many people today have no hope of seeing.

Nobody "owes" anyone anything just for being "lucky", if its even luck. The only thing anyone owes to the poor is A) not stomping them down if they do try to better themselves and B) whatever their personal morals tell them they owe. We certainly don't "owe" them learning that the only way to make it is to tax the successful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Spot on. +1

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Wow. That's so **** up on so many levels.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

You're kidding, right? Luck can very much make you rich. Luck alone generally won't make you rich if you're already poor, but plenty of people are lucky enough to be born into rich families and therefore probably will be rich no matter what they do. The education you receive is almost 100% luck. Did you get born into a family that could afford to pay for a quality one? You have no control over that. Theoretically you could put yourself through college, but the people with the drive, intelligence, and work ethic to graduate college while working full time are extraordinarily rare. This goes double if you're already coming from a shaky educational background making college that much harder. Every college I've ever attended flat out tells you that you should not work full time while attending college full time, as the statistics say doing this virtually guarantees you will fail.

Landing a quality job is as much luck as it is skill, I'm sorry to say. You've got to be at the right place at the right time, click with the interviewer, and be there when they really need to hire someone that they're willing to take a chance on someone with minimal experience. You can compensate for bad luck with a better work ethic, as it lets you keep plugging away at it through failure, but everyone's work ethic is different. Some people will land that job without having to put in any effort, others despite having similar skills can work for years and never get there.

The "failure = laziness" angle is just despicable, I'm sorry. Plenty of lazy people make great livings on pure talent and luck, while plenty of hard working people can't get anything because they have no talent and bad luck.

10/10 on the trolling Xeq. I got quite mad until I realized you responded without reading my post.

Saying people are rich due to luck vs hard work is pants on head retarded. That hard work sometimes is generations of family effort. Its long hours spent learning, working, risking... You think folks have access to a better education because of luck? Actually with our dept of edu you may be correct. Hopefully states will continue to root out that cancer and get teachers who are worth the exorbant amount of money we pay in education per student. Until then- public education is a crapshoot some places.

No matter how much you tax the people who "do" in this country the "do nots" will not catch up. They don't want a chance, they want their freebees. The manic liberals need to yoke the producers to this cart of entitlement. But the cart is too big and too laden to pull anymore. No matter how hard they beat the producers with regulation taxation and guilt- its not going to move.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

You're doing that "they" thing you like to criticize me about, BTW.

Yes, many "do nots" just want their freebies and will never go anywhere. That doesn't make it true of all of them.

I used the word once and it didn't apply to you as far as I know. Unless you are only looking for your handouts.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Once you take from those that earn the money, anyone you give any of it to is getting a freebie.

So, how do you rationalize taking someone's money and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it? Why do your needs (that you haven't met for yourself) obligate me (someone who has earned my needs and then some) in any way?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It isn't "luck" what family you get born into. You wouldn't be you if you were born under any other circumstances.

More importantly, it isn't because of luck that you get born into a family with money. IT's because one or more of your predecessors worked hard, and decided to pass it to his descendents. Acting as if you somehow deserve it less because someone else worked hard to get it and pass it to you is just an attempt to focus on the recipient while ignoring the efforts of the giver.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."