Warran Buffett bitching about taxes again
Posted on November 1st, 2007 at 3:17pm by bile Tags: Berkshire Hathaway, Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly, charity, debt, donation, freedom, healthcare, insurance, liberty, Michael Moore, NBC, politics, property, taxes, United States Congress, Warran Buffett, your moneyhttp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…
During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.”There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said.
If he really wanted to ‘pay his fair share’ he could not only voluntarily give the government more but he could give gifts to those he felt were paying too much. Perhaps he would like the 70%+ top tax bracket back from WWII? Does he ignore the fact he’s paying taxes on capital gains and dividends vs. the receptionist’s wages? It’s taxed before he gets it at 35%. Then he pays 15% on that. It just floors me… he wants the government to force him to pay more taxes when he can freely give them more and ask others to do the same. It’s like when Bill Maher complained to Bill O’Reilly about the Bush tax cuts. He said effectively the same thing as Buffett is. “The rich aren’t paying their share… I’d gladly pay more.” When O’Reilly showed him the form where you can give more than required Maher just stopped dead in his tracks, looking like a deer in headlights. They aren’t dumb guys and I doubt they are ignorant to the fact they can pay more… so what is it? What’s their justification for wanting the threat of force to be used to take (more of) the property of their fellow citizens? They have the means and connections to supply many of the services the government does… why don’t they? Why can’t Michael Moore setup his own insurance company if the thinks they are so horrible? Why must all these plans of their be implemented by a proxy at the barrel of a gun?
![[Post to Twitter]](http://blogofbile.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro4.png){kind=icon}
Related posts:
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am
Debate topics fell off the front page, so link will go here: David Brooks’ satire on the Democratic Debate.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
I love the Clinton A Few Good Men quote at the end.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I’ll lump my OT links in with Warren’s page. NYTimes discusses the Farm Bill debate.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Argh… what a load of horse shit. This guy doesn’t want to fix the system. He just wants to rework the system to his liking. Another one of those delusional ‘the government can work if we just get the right people running it’ people. It’s not the actors that make the system wrong… the system is inherently fucked. He still wants a welfare state, he still wants regulated markets, he still wants subsidies. He says we shouldn’t subsidized something because the WTO says it’s illegal? Last I checked the Constitution was the highest law in the land and I’m pretty sure it says nothing about a corporate welfare state. This guy is rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Perhaps if producing food to feed the population wasn’t considered an “occupation” but a moral necessity you wouldn’t have to worry about any of these subsidies or regulations. Hell you wouldn’t have to worry about a market at all.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
And who would be providing these services? Those who did… that would be their occupation. Would the government be providing this? How would it pay for it? How would they provide for all the different foods people want or would we all get slop like from The Matrix movies because it’s the cheapest?
People are perfectly able to grow their own food. They choose not to.
Just like Michael Moore is capable of starting an insurance company… you and every other socialist/communist are more than welcome to go about making it your moral obligation to provide food for people. Let me know how it works out. It was tried in the USSR and failed. It was tried in China and failed. It was tried in the USA and failed. It was tried in North Korea and failed. It was tried in Cuba and failed. Your ideas require everyone to act the same and want the same things and is completely contrary to reality. It’s therefore not only impractical and fails to work but more importantly is immoral when forced on people as it must be. That force only adds to it’s failure. The only way for the ideal socialist/communist society to work is for people to be mindless automatons… something out of Equilibrium. Only by limiting people’s natural tendencies and possibilities can anything close to what you want come about without the use of force.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Another Farm Bill link. To bring this back on topic, does Paul support Lautenberg’s FRESH Act?
November 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
It’s a Senate bill so he can’t actually support it. I’m not seeing on Thomas a House version. If it still has subsidies and/or regulations I highly doubt he would. I’m not interested in reading the whole thing but looking quickly at a few sections it appears to contain both subsidies and regulations… so my guess would be no he does not support it.
Yeah… no. Again… it’s not fixing the system… it’s playing with the numbers and players. Not to forget unconstitutional.
November 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Why my dear beetlbumjl, the discussions never get sidetracked, they just get down to the core issues very quickly.