General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn Warren Buffett and Stephen King
On Warren Buffett and Stephen King
By Clive Crook
May 4 2012, 2:48 PM
The continuing argument about plutocrats who want to be taxed more heavily is puzzling to me. It seems to cause confusion where there really shouldn't be any. There are those who say: If Warren Buffett wants to pay more tax, he should shut up and just send a check to the IRS. And there are those who find that idea ridiculous and irrelevant: Buffett's saying the tax code is unfair, and he can't put that right by sending in a donation.
Two of The Economists' bloggers (here and here) have been debating Stephen King's recent contribution to the tax-me-more literature. King's with Buffett.
One of The Economist's bloggers found this impressive--mainly, so far as I can tell, because King had chosen the right side. Apparently, all right-minded people want the "if-you-want-your-taxes-raised-why-don't-you-send-the-IRS-a-bigger-cheque" meme finally dead and buried.
All right, but before we bury it let's see if we can understand it. I think it's childishly simple once you recognize that two separate questions are involved.
Would IRS donations by Warren Buffett and Stephen King help to remedy the inequity they say the tax code causes? Yes.
In other words, Warren Buffett and Stephen King should write generous checks to the IRS and not shut up, but keep demanding the fairer system they say they want.
more...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/on-warren-buffett-and-stephen-king/256754/
katsy
(4,246 posts)"Put your money where your mouth is" is what they are suggesting.
My problem with that is that it effectively raises the taxes of the group of people who understand the social value of a progressive tax code and leaves the greedy untouched.
I'm pretty sure that in the battle of titans, I want our side as well financed as the other. Tax them equally. That would be a level playing field.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)Taxes are not voluntary and shouldn't be.
Has there ever been a government financed by voluntary contributions? If there has, it certainly didn't last long.
How does it improve fairness in the tax code to have voluntary contributions from a handful of people? How does it increase government revenue to allow the rich to choose how much tax to pay?
Do I get to choose too?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Warren Buffet supports charities
Warren Buffett has supported the following charities:
Animal Rescue Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Girls Inc.
Glide
James Redford Institute for Transplant Awareness
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Music Rising
NoVo Foundation
Smile Train
Causes supported
Animals, At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths, Blood, Marrow & Organ Donation, Cancer, Children, Creative Arts, Disaster Relief, Education, Family/Parent Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Miscellaneous, Poverty, Unemployment/Career Support, Women
***************
Stephen King
Stephen King has supported the following charities:
Heifer International
Jimmy Fund
STK Foundation
AIDS, Animals, Cancer, Children, Health, Human Rights, Hunger, Poverty
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Some of the worst right wing corporate fat cats have similar impressive donation records.
The IRS is not a black hole.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)And I commend anyone who gives to causes, but I think more of our taxes should do the same. But instead everyone acts like there's just not enough money so those in need pay the most. There's more than enough money to take care of every single problem we have, including investing in the future in renewable energy. War isn't a 'necessary evil'. It's a moneymaker for corporations and warmongers.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)But in the end, Buffett's and King's net worth still land in the top 1%.
They will become part of the financial 99% when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers.
I'll take their votes.
Better than nothing.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have pledged to give half their money to charity. Lots of people are better off for having these people be wealthy.