[From the class of 09]

How many times have these 2 written checks to the IRS for money that they didn't legally owe?

You'd have to ask them. The point? I just don't get how these are the two liberals that anyone has a problem with all of a sudden...plenty of others to choose from that aren't giving all their money away How about Steve Job's I know sly's a fan

[LUconn]

The point is, if they're "trying to do the right thing", they full well know that giving their money to charitable organizations is more efficient and better served rather than giving it to the government to do whatever it is they do with it. If you're gonna whine about not being taxed enough, put your money where your mouth is and give more.

Also, I don't even know if you can give money to the government. I bet nobody knows because nobody's ever tried.

[jbock13]

Also, I don't even know if you can give money to the government. I bet nobody knows because nobody's ever tried.

I found it.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... t/gift.htm

Here's another explaining the history of the program. The 1st link shows how much this program has received over the years.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

[From the class of 09]

The point is, if they're "trying to do the right thing", they full well know that giving their money to charitable organizations is more efficient and better served rather than giving it to the government to do whatever it is they do with it. If you're gonna whine about not being taxed enough, put your money where your mouth is and give more.

Also, I don't even know if you can give money to the government. I bet nobody knows because nobody's ever tried.

Yeah that's the problem with our country too many people complaining about not being taxed enough. If these two did pay more than they had to it still wouldn't solve the problem that is our current tax system. They are saying the tax system needs fixed. You are kinda defending the current system

[LUconn]

I'm defending paying as little income tax as possible.

[jbock13]

But I think that's LUconn's point. If people are complaining about not paying enough taxes, why don't they do so voluntarily?

[From the class of 09]

I'm defending paying as little income tax as possible.

In an ideal world we would all like to pay as little tax as possible. But our leaders past and present have given us a few trillion in debt we get to pay off so we have to fix the system and this means paying something. Not saying we shouldn't cut spending but they've proven they can't do that enough to balance the budget. Even the republicans are going to let bushes tax cuts go.

[From the class of 09]

But I think that's LUconn's point. If people are complaining about not paying enough taxes, why don't they do so voluntarily?

They are saying the system is broken (as is everyone else now years later) so while yes they could pay more, that doesn't fix the problem that the tax system is broken.

[jbock13]

The tax system is just a byproduct of a massive central government. You don't kill the root the weed just comes back. I realize that what I'm arguing is not mainstream and will never happen without a complete breakdown, but I have started to believe that out country is too big, has too divergent interests, to protect the liberty of the people. I think the time has come to discuss regional governments that make more natural sense given the economic and social make up of these regions. The southeast, northeast, west coast, etc could all rule themselves more effectively at this point.

As you know, that's how the founders designed it. The national government had few powers, and the states were left up to themselves to have rules on marriage, taxes, etc. It's sad to see how the few have hijacked our government.

But I honestly feel you're on to something as far is regional government. Even though sadly it'll probably never happen.

[jbock13]

But I think that's LUconn's point. If people are complaining about not paying enough taxes, why don't they do so voluntarily?

They are saying the system is broken (as is everyone else now years later) so while yes they could pay more, that doesn't fix the problem that the tax system is broken.

So then my question would be, how come they aren't for a consumption tax? Wouldn't they be paying their "fair share" at that point? It's a rhetorical question but it goes to show my opinion that they're just in it for the self-rightous media love. Why, how "progressive" they are, if you will.

[WinthropEagleFan]

In a perfect world, nobody would pay any federal income taxes, but that horse was let out of the barn a while ago now, so let's just say that the income tax isn't going to be repealed anytime soon. If there are going to be federal income taxes, then they have to be applied as fairly as possible...and to me, the minute you introduce any deductions, credits, exemptions, phase-outs, loopholes, etc., then fairness goes out of the window.

Everyone (ie. both major parties) uses the tax code to carry out their agendas, and we all become selfish/hypocrites about how the tax code should be written. A lot of people complain about the 47% of people that pay no federal income tax, but they take every credit/deduction available to them, and would take enough to get down to 0 tax if possible...I know that I feel that way. So to me, that's no different than Buffett/Gates saying they should pay more taxes, but not voluntarily doing it. I think that if there has to be an income tax, then it should be the same nominal rate for all (why should the government reward certain types of income and/or expenses w/ tax breaks?)...but I'm not about to start ignoring the credits/deductions that are available, even though I think they are the reason for so many of the problems with the current tax system.

So where am I going with this? I guess I hate both parties as never before too...of course I haven't been a fan of either one ever since I've been able to vote. Both sides cater to special interests and selfish agendas. And I'm not saying that any other party would do anything differently if they got in power either.

[WinthropEagleFan]

But I think that's LUconn's point. If people are complaining about not paying enough taxes, why don't they do so voluntarily?

They are saying the system is broken (as is everyone else now years later) so while yes they could pay more, that doesn't fix the problem that the tax system is broken.

So then my question would be, how come they aren't for a consumption tax? Wouldn't they be paying their "fair share" at that point? It's a rhetorical question but it goes to show my opinion that they're just in it for the self-rightous media love. Why, how "progressive" they are, if you will.

I don't know about Gates, but Buffett has talked about being pro-consumption tax in the past:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/Warren_ ... _Interview

Tom: Of all the tax lines that you've seen proposed over the years, a flat tax, a consumption tax, a more progressive income tax, which is the one that appeals to you the most?

Warren: Well, in theory a progressive consumption tax makes the most sense. I mean, if you tax the people who use the resources of society rather than ones who-- who-- who provide the resources of society, that makes more sense. And a consumption tax can be very progressive.

[jbock13]

A "progressive" consumption tax, is not a consumption tax. For example, a progressive consumption tax would be more like the FairTax program, which in various proposals would say something like "10% of what you make, if you make $30,000". It still leaves many who are paying no taxes. It's not a "fair or flat" consumption tax. Thus, in my opinion, it's not really a consumption tax.

A problem that we have in this country is that we need everyone to have some skin in the game.

Warren Buffet: "I mean, if you tax the people who use the resources of society rather than ones who-- who-- who provide the resources of society, that makes more sense." This quote makes me shake my head. If these are the people who "move the economy", why would you tax them more? That's what we're doing right now, and obviously that isn't working. Quite frankly, obviously Buffet knows nothing about economics.

On the side note, I don't mean to come across as demonizing those who disagree with me. I enjoy the debate and arguments and learning how others think about issues. So, no hard feelings to anyone.

[From the class of 09]

Quite frankly, obviously Buffet knows nothing about economics.

Wait tell me this was a joke? Right?

[BJWilliams]

A "progressive" consumption tax, is not a consumption tax. For example, a progressive consumption tax would be more like the FairTax program, which in various proposals would say something like "10% of what you make, if you make $30,000". It still leaves many who are paying no taxes. It's not a "fair or flat" consumption tax. Thus, in my opinion, it's not really a consumption tax.

A problem that we have in this country is that we need everyone to have some skin in the game.

Warren Buffet: "I mean, if you tax the people who use the resources of society rather than ones who-- who-- who provide the resources of society, that makes more sense." This quote makes me shake my head. If these are the people who "move the economy", why would you tax them more? That's what we're doing right now, and obviously that isn't working. Quite frankly, obviously Buffet knows nothing about economics.

On the side note, I don't mean to come across as demonizing those who disagree with me. I enjoy the debate and arguments and learning how others think about issues. So, no hard feelings to anyone.

[jbock13]

You can criticize all you want, I stand strongly by my statement. Read his quote. It's exactly what we're doing to our economy right now. Also, look where Buffet has made his money. He's carved out a government monopoly for himself. Research the estate tax.

Care to tell me where I'm wrong BJ?

[From the class of 09]

You can criticize all you want, I stand strongly by my statement. Read his quote. It's exactly what we're doing to our economy right now. Also, look where Buffet has made his money. He's carved out a government monopoly for himself. Research the estate tax.

Care to tell me where I'm wrong BJ?

I'm done with this one, you have your views and I'm sure your correct. Buffett doesn't now anything about economics or finance. The liberals are all trash and none could be a lost person with a heart. If the conservatives could just win back the presidency I'm sure they won't follow their trend of deficit spending and increasing government like they have since the 80's.

[jbock13]

haha wow. It's funny, you say we agree on most things, then you paint me as some Reagan hack? Amusing to say the least.

[RubberMallet]

warren buffet actually isn't a very good economist. he carved out his chunk of wealth being able to read companies and basically being a stock picker. (he also profited healthily on pushing the tabacco industry) just one tiny part of economics. he has some ridiculous ideas on real estate, taxes and such.

[BJWilliams]

You can criticize all you want, I stand strongly by my statement. Read his quote. It's exactly what we're doing to our economy right now. Also, look where Buffet has made his money. He's carved out a government monopoly for himself. Research the estate tax.

Care to tell me where I'm wrong BJ?

Besides the fact that you cant even spell the man's name right...you are talking about one of the richest men
in the world. He may have made his money "picking stocks" but youd think that he'd at least know a little about economics and investing to me a multi-billionaire...

[ALUmnus]

It seems like things got turned around backwards here, especially with regards to Buffett's quote. People needs to read more slower.

[RubberMallet]

of course he has a little bit of knowlege. but the man is regularly ripped apart in economic editorials. he does himself a disservice by speaking out as there are times he is just out and out wrong.

he doesn't even understand the credit rating system.

my broker is a millionaire. he basically does what buffet did on a smaller scale. he'll even tell you that he himself is a terrible economist.

[jbock13]

Let's just isolate the quote.

"I mean, if you tax the people who use the resources of society rather than ones who-- who-- who provide the resources of society, that makes more sense."

Does this make any sense when you're trying to grow an economy?

[BJWilliams]

Maybe...but I haven't ever owed the IRS (usually if I sent anything in it was sent back because I didn't make enough) so I really cant say whether that makes economic sense or not (at least from within my own context)...and ALUmnus thankfully gets that he has TWO t's in his name and not one (as you and RM unfortunately forgot...Im a spelling and grammar nazi what can I say)

[RubberMallet]

i concede on the grounds that i spelled bufet wrong. were you on the debate team? you're good.