Slog
News & ArtsMonday, August 15, 2011
Economy Warren Buffet: Tax the Rich
Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:39 AM
NYT:
OUR leaders have asked for "shared sacrifice." But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors.There is no other path to economic recovery than this one. Buffet is aware of this fact, but his mega-rich friends refuse to accept this fact.
Nouriel Roubini in WSJ:
Karl Marx had it right. At some point Capitalism may destroy itself. You cannot keep on shifting income from labor to Capital without having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. That's what has happened. We thought that markets worked; they're not working. The individual can be rational. The firm, to survive and thrive, can push labor costs more and more down, but labor costs are someone else's income and consumption. That's why it's a self-destructive process."Neoliberalism is over. If the rich refuse to deal with this fact, the recession will refuse to go away.
1
Neoliberalism?
I believe the term you are looking for is "Reaganomics" or "trickle down economics".
I believe the term you are looking for is "Reaganomics" or "trickle down economics".
3
Loved his observation that there's class warfare going on "and my class is winning."
Somehow Buffet's messages need to be at the core of the discussions about deficit reduction -- I know Patty Murray is listening and her heart's in the right place, but do the Democrats have the stomach and the strategies to win? Or do the Republicans win by virtue of their approach -- "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable"?
Somehow Buffet's messages need to be at the core of the discussions about deficit reduction -- I know Patty Murray is listening and her heart's in the right place, but do the Democrats have the stomach and the strategies to win? Or do the Republicans win by virtue of their approach -- "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable"?
5
buffet can call for higher taxes on the rich all he wants - there's no chance he'll actually have to pay any because no-new-revenue is an absolute for the GOP. and when the bush tax cuts expire in 2013, all they have to do is take another hostage.
6
Warren Bluffet can write a check for $5 billion today and send it to the federal government. If he's so convinced that he should pay more, then let him. So far, he's all talk and no walk.
And Patty Murray is the dumbest fake-blonde in the pack. What she doesn't know about economics is pretty much everything there is to know about economics.
Here's a thought:Quit looking to government to underwrite your life. Get a job, start a business or win the lottery, but no more holding your hand out to goverment for "free" stuff. It's the spending that got us into trouble, not the tax policy (although that's not helping). Spend less, save more and shrink government. Pretty simple.
And Patty Murray is the dumbest fake-blonde in the pack. What she doesn't know about economics is pretty much everything there is to know about economics.
Here's a thought:Quit looking to government to underwrite your life. Get a job, start a business or win the lottery, but no more holding your hand out to goverment for "free" stuff. It's the spending that got us into trouble, not the tax policy (although that's not helping). Spend less, save more and shrink government. Pretty simple.
7
Mr. Buffet,
Please write the check you think you should pay for back taxes, forgo your 'extraordinary deductions' and pay the rate you think reasonable. None of this is illegal, and the IRS will gladly cash your checks. Until then, you're just pandering to the left wing media this this country.
Mr. Mudede,
Because you're a loser who can't write, think coherently or earn a paycheck that keeps the lights on predictably or the rent paid or pay for medical care, you want someone else to subsidize your lifestlye. Please move somewhere this is the norm, and leave a country you despise so heartily to those who love it.
Please write the check you think you should pay for back taxes, forgo your 'extraordinary deductions' and pay the rate you think reasonable. None of this is illegal, and the IRS will gladly cash your checks. Until then, you're just pandering to the left wing media this this country.
Mr. Mudede,
Because you're a loser who can't write, think coherently or earn a paycheck that keeps the lights on predictably or the rent paid or pay for medical care, you want someone else to subsidize your lifestlye. Please move somewhere this is the norm, and leave a country you despise so heartily to those who love it.
8
Better for the mega-rich to contribute to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (as Buffet already has) as their money will be more effectively spent than lost in the general fund.
9
Do you morons seriously think the 8000 odd individuals he's talking about can be taxed enough to make any difference on the $1.5 trillion deficit?
Everyone's taxes need to go up, everyones free shit needs to be cut.
Everyone's taxes need to go up, everyones free shit needs to be cut.
11
"Quit looking to government to underwrite your life. Get a job, start a business or win the lottery, but no more holding your hand out to goverment for "free" stuff. It's the spending that got us into trouble, not the tax policy (although that's not helping). Spend less, save more and shrink government. Pretty simple."
Generalities and platitudes. The only part of the government that needs shrinking is the MIC, because that's where the spending is profligate. 700 fucking billion dollars per year - 6 times what China spends. And that doesn't include the cost of the Iraqi and Afghani armies who are fully funded by your tax dollars.
& who, SPECIFICALLY, is holding out their hand for free stuff? Poor children who like eating? Greedy student loan borrowers? Oh, right, the homeless and the long term unemployed.
Generalities and platitudes. The only part of the government that needs shrinking is the MIC, because that's where the spending is profligate. 700 fucking billion dollars per year - 6 times what China spends. And that doesn't include the cost of the Iraqi and Afghani armies who are fully funded by your tax dollars.
& who, SPECIFICALLY, is holding out their hand for free stuff? Poor children who like eating? Greedy student loan borrowers? Oh, right, the homeless and the long term unemployed.
12
SB, you don't LOVE this country, you only love yourself. You and your kind would rather, as @10 so colorfully puts it, see this country go down the toilet, rather than lift a finger to do anything that doesn't directly benefit yourselves.
13
Entirely Un-original paranoic leftwing lunatic @10-
So move. No-one stands with a gun to your head making you stay in 'AmeriKKKa.' If you hate the place so badly, think it evil and so on, just move.
Oh, wait. No-where you'd want to move, with a liberal drugs policy and 'free' medical care (paid for by someone else is apparently how liberals define 'free') and subsidized housing and so on, would accept you. You have to have some skill or financial assets or something to offer even poor nearly bankrupt Italy to move there, and the standards get more rigorous as you consider the more viable European states. And while you're all about how each civilization is equal in value and all that rot, I'd bet you've never considered Africa or Asia as new home countries. All that dirt and poverty and war in those countries entirely equal in value to ours makes you shudder, does it?
So move. No-one stands with a gun to your head making you stay in 'AmeriKKKa.' If you hate the place so badly, think it evil and so on, just move.
Oh, wait. No-where you'd want to move, with a liberal drugs policy and 'free' medical care (paid for by someone else is apparently how liberals define 'free') and subsidized housing and so on, would accept you. You have to have some skill or financial assets or something to offer even poor nearly bankrupt Italy to move there, and the standards get more rigorous as you consider the more viable European states. And while you're all about how each civilization is equal in value and all that rot, I'd bet you've never considered Africa or Asia as new home countries. All that dirt and poverty and war in those countries entirely equal in value to ours makes you shudder, does it?
14
@9: You pay the deficit off by recovering the economy, like we did in the 90s. One way to recover the economy is to recirculate via taxes some of the money that is just sitting there dormant in trust funds.
And Charles - Warren Buffet, hero of this thread, is the veritable poster child of neoliberalism.
And Charles - Warren Buffet, hero of this thread, is the veritable poster child of neoliberalism.
15
@12
No. Liberal policies are the tools for the destruction of this nation, as are those of the far right fringe. My concern comes from a deep love of this nation and what made it great once upon a time. Even Bernie Sanders or Baghdad Jim McDermott and I have more in common with regard to this love of country than we have opposed. They just happen to be wrong on nearly every political or socio-economic point.
We need government for some things, and must pay for that government in taxes. We need, despite your hatred of the 'MIC.' a national defense, if not perhaps as robust and expensive as ours is. We need roads and courts and all the other things which go to making a level playing field for citizens. And the wealthy ought to pay their share of the taxes to pay for these things, as ought the middle class and poor.
You define 'fair share' as 'everything they own, the rich bastards!' I define it as a reasonable payment based on what they gain as citizens.
No. Liberal policies are the tools for the destruction of this nation, as are those of the far right fringe. My concern comes from a deep love of this nation and what made it great once upon a time. Even Bernie Sanders or Baghdad Jim McDermott and I have more in common with regard to this love of country than we have opposed. They just happen to be wrong on nearly every political or socio-economic point.
We need government for some things, and must pay for that government in taxes. We need, despite your hatred of the 'MIC.' a national defense, if not perhaps as robust and expensive as ours is. We need roads and courts and all the other things which go to making a level playing field for citizens. And the wealthy ought to pay their share of the taxes to pay for these things, as ought the middle class and poor.
You define 'fair share' as 'everything they own, the rich bastards!' I define it as a reasonable payment based on what they gain as citizens.
16
Have the richest of us pay a percentage of their income that's equal or higher than us schmucks who get paychecks? When they're currently paying only about half the percentage we are?
Crazy talk.
Next thing someone will say is that wars aren't free.
Crazy talk.
Next thing someone will say is that wars aren't free.
17
Talk is cheap. Mr. Buffett and like-minded pals need to lobby. Until Buffett is more of a boss than Norquist, nothing will change.
18
So you think you pay taxes? The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of income earners pay over 38 percent, and the top 10 percent pay almost 70 percent of federal income taxes paid.
Instead of bitching about percentages, why not everyone pay the same amount? That's fair, isn't it?
But the whole argument is irrelevent since the level of government debt at all levels is such that tax increases will never solve the problem. The only solution is reduce spending. Why do you think liberals like Andrew Cuomo are laying the wood to government-sector unions in New York?
Spending is unsustainable. Government in all areas, including DofD, must be reduced. Much of government should be eliminated since it's pure waste and profligacy.
Instead of whining about the homeless or starving kids - what are you doing, BTW - how much extra comes out of your pocket to address these issues? - why not start a private charity, solicit funds from the likes of Warren Bluffet, et al, and address the issue yourself? Or is your talk as facile and cheap as is Bluffet's?
Instead of bitching about percentages, why not everyone pay the same amount? That's fair, isn't it?
But the whole argument is irrelevent since the level of government debt at all levels is such that tax increases will never solve the problem. The only solution is reduce spending. Why do you think liberals like Andrew Cuomo are laying the wood to government-sector unions in New York?
Spending is unsustainable. Government in all areas, including DofD, must be reduced. Much of government should be eliminated since it's pure waste and profligacy.
Instead of whining about the homeless or starving kids - what are you doing, BTW - how much extra comes out of your pocket to address these issues? - why not start a private charity, solicit funds from the likes of Warren Bluffet, et al, and address the issue yourself? Or is your talk as facile and cheap as is Bluffet's?
19
Wow...never saw people defend rich people so vehemently.
Still haven't heard why they should pay 15% when we pay %30, regardless of what percentage of total taxes they make up.
It isn't like they are using that extra 15% they've kept to actually create any jobs.
Still haven't heard why they should pay 15% when we pay %30, regardless of what percentage of total taxes they make up.
It isn't like they are using that extra 15% they've kept to actually create any jobs.
20
You will never be rich.
Stop acting like you will be by defending the assholes who are.
Those fuckers don't give a shit about you. You are just cattle to them.
Stop acting like you will be by defending the assholes who are.
Those fuckers don't give a shit about you. You are just cattle to them.
21
@18 Yes the relatively stable institutions and relatively sound education system and infrastructure (that is those things that you owe your wealth to) in this country is all 'waste and profligacy'.
This question has been put to the 'I got mine' crowd many a time but I've never heard an adequate answer: what is exactly your vision of the future? You and all those other 'job creators' in your fortified compound, a vast permanent underclass outside, dying left and right from 19th century diseases? Sounds like feudalism to me. Ah the golden age!
This question has been put to the 'I got mine' crowd many a time but I've never heard an adequate answer: what is exactly your vision of the future? You and all those other 'job creators' in your fortified compound, a vast permanent underclass outside, dying left and right from 19th century diseases? Sounds like feudalism to me. Ah the golden age!
22
@20 Yes, yes and more yes.
We fetishize wealth in this country, whether it's reality shows glamorizing those trust fund Kardashian brats, or TV preachers promising that God will make you rich if you give them money.
Fact is, if you make that tiny ultra-rich minority pay their share, they will still make money and live lives that are much more comfortable than most of ours will ever be. Pretending that doing so will somehow destroy American business or leave those people unable to live decent lives is just that, pretending.
We fetishize wealth in this country, whether it's reality shows glamorizing those trust fund Kardashian brats, or TV preachers promising that God will make you rich if you give them money.
Fact is, if you make that tiny ultra-rich minority pay their share, they will still make money and live lives that are much more comfortable than most of ours will ever be. Pretending that doing so will somehow destroy American business or leave those people unable to live decent lives is just that, pretending.
23
Piper Scott @6:
I heard this exact-same comment from Pat Buchanan this morning on MSNBC, and it makes for a snappy comeback, but all it is is an ad hominem attempt to distract from the issue at hand.
So how exactly is Warren Buffett supposed to write that check out? Does the government take donations? And what difference does it make if Warren Buffett is the only one writing the check? The guy's a multi-billionaire, not a multi-trillionaire. The biggest difference he can make is by advocating for a more progressive tax system--you know, like we used to have under that notorious socialist Ronald Reagan.
Of course by Piper and Pat's standard, no one should have a right to say we should go to war unless they vow to volunteer. And any business in favor of greater regulation of their industry should begin acting as if their industry was already regulated, thus giving their competitors an advantage.
Well, I won't doubt we're a country of stupid people who can fall for such stupid talking points.
Warren Bluffet can write a check for $5 billion today and send it to the federal government. If he's so convinced that he should pay more, then let him. So far, he's all talk and no walk.
I heard this exact-same comment from Pat Buchanan this morning on MSNBC, and it makes for a snappy comeback, but all it is is an ad hominem attempt to distract from the issue at hand.
So how exactly is Warren Buffett supposed to write that check out? Does the government take donations? And what difference does it make if Warren Buffett is the only one writing the check? The guy's a multi-billionaire, not a multi-trillionaire. The biggest difference he can make is by advocating for a more progressive tax system--you know, like we used to have under that notorious socialist Ronald Reagan.
Of course by Piper and Pat's standard, no one should have a right to say we should go to war unless they vow to volunteer. And any business in favor of greater regulation of their industry should begin acting as if their industry was already regulated, thus giving their competitors an advantage.
Well, I won't doubt we're a country of stupid people who can fall for such stupid talking points.
24
@23
Keep writing that, and even thinking that if you actually do.
Yes, you can deliberately over-pay on taxes in a number of ways. For someone like Buffet, simply having his accountants work to avoid loopholes as diligently as currently they work to find them would be the simplest.
Point is, the same people loudly proclaiming about how unfair our tax system is and how much more they should pay, well they don't. Ever. In fact, as I noted, they work very hard and pay specialists to avoid the taxes they DO owe.
And you can't possibly have missed that point. The liberal middle classes and wealthy so all-fired up to pay more taxes can, any time they want. That they haven't speaks volumes about what they truly believe.
Keep writing that, and even thinking that if you actually do.
Yes, you can deliberately over-pay on taxes in a number of ways. For someone like Buffet, simply having his accountants work to avoid loopholes as diligently as currently they work to find them would be the simplest.
Point is, the same people loudly proclaiming about how unfair our tax system is and how much more they should pay, well they don't. Ever. In fact, as I noted, they work very hard and pay specialists to avoid the taxes they DO owe.
And you can't possibly have missed that point. The liberal middle classes and wealthy so all-fired up to pay more taxes can, any time they want. That they haven't speaks volumes about what they truly believe.
25
My complaints at Mr. Mudede for promoting the propaganda from the mega-rich:
Firstly, Mr. M., Warren Buffet always writes this purely disingenuous claptrap to shift everyone's attention form him to elsewhere.
It was Warren Buffett who complained about those weapons of mass financial destruction, credit derivatives and their underlying securitizations, but when push came to shove, and there was mention of reining them in under the Dodd-Frank Act, Buffet immediately hired a bunch of congressional critters to circumvent that action.
When people mention all those so-called "tax loopholes" they are either espousing their pure ignorance or lying like a mofo: it is exactly the super-rich who pay their corrupt congress creatures to alter the tax code and write tax laws and exemptions expressly for themselves.
Anyone who has taken the time (and it does involved considerable time investment) to study the tax code and the surrounding history of all its contextual changes, realizes this is so.
The classic and often-repeated case is when Louis B. Mayers, the ancient film producer, was about to retire, and hired several congressional critters to write a special tax change, solely for his benefit, stipulating that the specific tax dodge he was pulling would only work retro-actively, that anyone doing the same from the insertion of that tax code would be applicable (completely incomprehensible to those IRS analysts in the late '50s who first read it, but understood it completely when Mayers tax attorney cited it as his exemption from paying taxes on his estate).
Buffet recently gave something like $30 billion (if I read correctly) to that Gates Foundation, for a major tax avoidance scam, and it will then be turned around and invested by the Gates Foundation in Buffet's funds --- that's how that works.
The Gates Foundation is just like any other, a tax exempt, wealth and ownership hiding dodge, promoting its investments (the spread of Monsanto's GMOs throughout Africa and the planet, the privatization of all public education, vaccines from its invested-in biopharmaceuticals, etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
And to cite Nouriel Roubini, a member of that lobbyist group for the international ultra-rich, the Bretton Woods Committee (brettonwoods.org) is truly insulting to us plebes out here -- we proles truly resent his scumbag, hypocritical swinish kind.
More...
Firstly, Mr. M., Warren Buffet always writes this purely disingenuous claptrap to shift everyone's attention form him to elsewhere.
It was Warren Buffett who complained about those weapons of mass financial destruction, credit derivatives and their underlying securitizations, but when push came to shove, and there was mention of reining them in under the Dodd-Frank Act, Buffet immediately hired a bunch of congressional critters to circumvent that action.
When people mention all those so-called "tax loopholes" they are either espousing their pure ignorance or lying like a mofo: it is exactly the super-rich who pay their corrupt congress creatures to alter the tax code and write tax laws and exemptions expressly for themselves.
Anyone who has taken the time (and it does involved considerable time investment) to study the tax code and the surrounding history of all its contextual changes, realizes this is so.
The classic and often-repeated case is when Louis B. Mayers, the ancient film producer, was about to retire, and hired several congressional critters to write a special tax change, solely for his benefit, stipulating that the specific tax dodge he was pulling would only work retro-actively, that anyone doing the same from the insertion of that tax code would be applicable (completely incomprehensible to those IRS analysts in the late '50s who first read it, but understood it completely when Mayers tax attorney cited it as his exemption from paying taxes on his estate).
Buffet recently gave something like $30 billion (if I read correctly) to that Gates Foundation, for a major tax avoidance scam, and it will then be turned around and invested by the Gates Foundation in Buffet's funds --- that's how that works.
The Gates Foundation is just like any other, a tax exempt, wealth and ownership hiding dodge, promoting its investments (the spread of Monsanto's GMOs throughout Africa and the planet, the privatization of all public education, vaccines from its invested-in biopharmaceuticals, etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
And to cite Nouriel Roubini, a member of that lobbyist group for the international ultra-rich, the Bretton Woods Committee (brettonwoods.org) is truly insulting to us plebes out here -- we proles truly resent his scumbag, hypocritical swinish kind.
26
@18, Piper Scott cites that same old tired far rightwing whackadoodle propaganda bilge and flotsam,
"So you think you pay taxes? The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of income earners pay over 38 percent, and the top 10 percent pay almost 70 percent of federal income taxes paid."
Bulltwacky, the sum of ALL taxes making up the tax revenues up to 2009, collected at the individual level, are paid for the lower 90% --- that's all taxes, taxes on the gas you put in your vehicles, taxes on foodstuffs, taxes on items purchased retail, etc., etc.
But Piper Scott, the chatbot, only repeats the talking points and has no comprehension of where she/he/it speaks.
"So you think you pay taxes? The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay less than 3 percent of federal income taxes paid. The top 1 percent of income earners pay over 38 percent, and the top 10 percent pay almost 70 percent of federal income taxes paid."
Bulltwacky, the sum of ALL taxes making up the tax revenues up to 2009, collected at the individual level, are paid for the lower 90% --- that's all taxes, taxes on the gas you put in your vehicles, taxes on foodstuffs, taxes on items purchased retail, etc., etc.
But Piper Scott, the chatbot, only repeats the talking points and has no comprehension of where she/he/it speaks.
27
Seattleblues,
You're misreading what Buffett said. He didn't say "the rich should all voluntarily donate more to the government" he said, "the rich should all be taxed more."
Those are two very different things. Charity and fees are not the same.
One billionaire donating money (i.e., Buffett writing a check) is only a drop in the bucket. It must be thousands of drops - required drops - not a couple volunteers, in order to make a difference.
You're misreading what Buffett said. He didn't say "the rich should all voluntarily donate more to the government" he said, "the rich should all be taxed more."
Those are two very different things. Charity and fees are not the same.
One billionaire donating money (i.e., Buffett writing a check) is only a drop in the bucket. It must be thousands of drops - required drops - not a couple volunteers, in order to make a difference.
28
@8, Phoebe on NE 79th
"Better for the mega-rich to contribute to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (as Buffet already has) as their money will be more effectively spent than lost in the general fund."
Are you REALLY that pathetically ignorant about all things American? Does Santa Claus really live at the North Pole, cornholing those poor, helpless elves, and does Tinkerbell really live in Never-Never Land with Peter P.?????
You might want to read up on American history, labor history, financial history, and a bit of economics, dearie.
In 1913, a number of plutocratic objectives were put in place:
(1) the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (the front office for the private banksters to run things);
(2) the establishment of the Federal Income Tax;
(3) the establishment of the oil depletion allowance; and,
(4) tax breaks for foundations (and churches).
Now why do you supposed the Walsh Commission, the one perhaps honest and real commission in the history of America, came into being to push back against those tax breaks for foundations? Because Walsh and friends were super-meanies?
Negative, sweetie pie, it was because they were aware foundations were Rockefeller-instigated financial constructs to hide wealth, ownership and be tax exempt in the process.
The recommendations to deny tax breaks to foundations, plus some other actions against the Money Trusts and monopolies, faded into obscurity with the promotion of World War I by the Rockefellers, Morgan family, Mellon family, Harriman family which they profited mightily from.
With trillions sheltered in over 50,000 existing American foundations, one would think we'd be living in Shangra-la, my dear, but obviously, that's not reality.
Try looking a little deeper into things and stop accepting things at the literal, superficial level like a complete and utter douchebagger!
Try reading a bit, reading actually is fundamental.
Try Ferdinand Lundberg's The Rich and the Super-Rich
Try James K. Galbraith's The Predator State
Try Louis Brandeis' Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use it (truly an American classic)
Try Nomi Prins' Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America
And don't stop there, read Robert Scheer's latest book, as well as books by Chrisophter Hedges.
Try and sound a leetle bit like an actual human being, a not some piece of web crawling code.
More...
"Better for the mega-rich to contribute to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (as Buffet already has) as their money will be more effectively spent than lost in the general fund."
Are you REALLY that pathetically ignorant about all things American? Does Santa Claus really live at the North Pole, cornholing those poor, helpless elves, and does Tinkerbell really live in Never-Never Land with Peter P.?????
You might want to read up on American history, labor history, financial history, and a bit of economics, dearie.
In 1913, a number of plutocratic objectives were put in place:
(1) the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (the front office for the private banksters to run things);
(2) the establishment of the Federal Income Tax;
(3) the establishment of the oil depletion allowance; and,
(4) tax breaks for foundations (and churches).
Now why do you supposed the Walsh Commission, the one perhaps honest and real commission in the history of America, came into being to push back against those tax breaks for foundations? Because Walsh and friends were super-meanies?
Negative, sweetie pie, it was because they were aware foundations were Rockefeller-instigated financial constructs to hide wealth, ownership and be tax exempt in the process.
The recommendations to deny tax breaks to foundations, plus some other actions against the Money Trusts and monopolies, faded into obscurity with the promotion of World War I by the Rockefellers, Morgan family, Mellon family, Harriman family which they profited mightily from.
With trillions sheltered in over 50,000 existing American foundations, one would think we'd be living in Shangra-la, my dear, but obviously, that's not reality.
Try looking a little deeper into things and stop accepting things at the literal, superficial level like a complete and utter douchebagger!
Try reading a bit, reading actually is fundamental.
Try Ferdinand Lundberg's The Rich and the Super-Rich
Try James K. Galbraith's The Predator State
Try Louis Brandeis' Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use it (truly an American classic)
Try Nomi Prins' Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America
And don't stop there, read Robert Scheer's latest book, as well as books by Chrisophter Hedges.
Try and sound a leetle bit like an actual human being, a not some piece of web crawling code.
29
Just take ALL the money from the rich. Every single penny. Whoops, it won't pay off the current debt. Bummer. Sucks to be you. Sorry.
NB: Buffett doesn't pay much in taxes because his company rarely SELLS anything it buys. You don't pay capital gains UNTIL you sell.
NB: Buffett doesn't pay much in taxes because his company rarely SELLS anything it buys. You don't pay capital gains UNTIL you sell.
31
You can tax the rich all you want but there are fewer of them, and if you tax them more, there will be fewer yet http://www.4yourcountry.org/2011/08/fewe…
32
You can tax the rich all you want but there are fewer of them, and if you tax them more, there will be fewer yet http://www.4yourcountry.org/2011/08/fewe…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS