Well, what more supporting evidence do I need then the fact that most wealthy areas vote overwhelmingly for Democratic politicians and progressive policies tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few? I judge policies on the basis of actual results, not the proclaimed intentions of those who espouse those policies.
Warren Buffet suggests that people like himself aren't paying enough taxes, yet he does not do anything to pay what he says is his fair share, which leads people to suspect that he has an ulterior motive. You think that people who think he has an ulterior motive are conspiracy theorists. What conspiracy did I suggest? I suggested that Warren Buffet's motives for calling for higher taxes on the wealthy were that he would make money that way.
Anybody who takes financial advice from Glenn Beck deserves what they get. On the other hand, it is quite clear from the things Glenn Beck has said over time that he is a believer in having a fairly substantial stake in gold. That is consistent with the positions he has taken on various financial issues. Positions which predate gold dealers advertising on his show. Glenn Beck has long been a sympathetic to the idea that the U.S. should return to the gold standard. I don't listen to Glenn Beck, but I occassionally did so in the past (enough to have a pretty good first hand idea of his ideology).
It's a streatch that a man who became rich by selling people funds that help them avoid taxes supports increasing taxes so as to increase the sales of those funds? As opposed to thinking that a man who makes a lot of money and uses every tax deduction available to him, thinks that he should be paying more taxes, when, in addition to the fact that he is not required to take advantage of every tax deduction he is eligible for, he has the option of paying the government more than he owes, yet doesn't.
He sells funds that, among other ways, help people avoid taxes by investing in tax-free municipal bonds. Warren Buffet's company sells various funds that invest people's money in ways that reduce the amount of taxes they pay.
The best way to deal with this would be to set the income tax rate at the same for everyone and do away with all tax deductions, except for one that applies to everyone. Get rid of these social engineering tax deductions designed to encourage people to take actions that politicians approve of.
There are two things to keep in mind about this. First, Warren Buffet makes part of his money from selling people plans to minimize their tax burden. Second, this appears to be a new income tax, the reason that Warren Buffet pays the rate he does is because he doesn't pay income tax, he pays capital gains tax. The way this article presents this, this new tax bracket will not effect Warren Buffet's taxes at all.
Warren Buffet's whole article was disingeuous. He knew full well that most people would not notice the fact that in order for the tax code to be changed to increase his taxes to close to the same percentage as the middle class, it would require changing the capital gains tax rate, yet most people would think of it in terms of the income tax rate.
In that light, creating a new, higher income tax bracket is unlikely to have quite the intended impact that many would like to see: having the ultra-wealthy pay at least as great a percentage of their annual income as taxes as their secretaries, minions, and housekeepers.
Or they will follow the model of our current Treasury Secretary and just not pay it.
The problem is that half a trillion dollars over ten years is barely significant compared to the amount of money the federal government spends over 10 years. So, what we are talking about is a tax increase right now in exchange for an insignificant cut in spending over ten years that might not even happen.
Warren Buffet wants the tax rate on the wealthy to go up because he makes money by selling people methods of sheilding their money from taxes. What Warren Buffet doesn't tell you when he talks about the percentage of his income that is taxed is that that money was already taxed once when the corporation that he owns earned it in the first place, then it is taxed again when it is paid out to him (which is the tax rate he tells you about).
And for some people, it means complaining that their taxes are too low while somehow forgetting they have the option of paying more if they want to.
Actually, if you carefully parse what people like Warren Buffet say, you will realize that he is complaining that other people who earn as much as he does are not paying enough in taxes. The reason that he would like to see the tax on other people who make a lot of money increased is because he makes money off of helping people avoid taxes, if the tax rate on the rich goes up, the demand for that service will go up.
Consolidation of wealth however leads to threats to the continuation of society as we know it. The challenge though, is that many of those with wealth believe they would benefit more from a new society in which more wealth was consolidated.
Which is why the wealthy generally favor the progressive politics of the Democratic Party. They know that the policies of the Democratic Party help them consolidate ever more of the wealth of the country in thier own hands.
We all know what happens when Republicans propose tax cuts and spending cuts. Taxes decrease on the rich...
Then please explain why the share of federal tax revenue paid by the richest fraction of the U.S. population increases every time Republicans pass tax cuts.
Of course, as someone else pointed out, the best way to judge a country's medical care is not by the types of metrics used in that study, but by comparing survival rates for those diagnosed with particular illnesses (where the U.S. ranks much higher). One of the interesting things to look at in the metrics used in the study you linked is "infant mortality rate". In the U.S., if a baby is born alive and dies while still an infant, it counts towards infant moratlity rates. In some countries, if the baby does not survive 24 hours, it is considered still born. There are several other similar variations in how some of the other statistics are counted that make those metrics a suspect way to compare health care systems. Another example, the life expectancy for Japan is higher than for the U.S., yet Japanese-Americans have a higher life expectancy than Japanese living in Japan.
You completely misread what he said. To rephrase so that even someone like you can understand. People come to the U.S. for medical care because of the overall quality of the care. However, there are some conditions that do not yet have a good treatment approved in the U.S. (due to the length of time and complexity of getting a new treatment approved by the FDA). In those cases, the wealthy from the U.S. will go somewhere where those treatments are available (or, at least some treatment is available, even if its efficacy is questionable).
Arabs may have lived in Palestine for quite some time, but they have only ever owned Palestine for short periods of time. Jews have lived in Palestine for all of that time as well.
Please name one Palestinian political leader who has expressed that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state?
Perhaps you are unaware that the current Palestinian political leadership has stated that not all Palestinians will be considered citizens of the new Palestinian state if the UN recognizes it as a state. Not even all Palestinians currently living within the borders of this state will be considered citizens of it.
Actually, the Roman province of Syria did not include the modern country of Israel. The modern country of Israel was a separate province of the Roman Empire. The Romans called it Judea until after the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. when they started calling Palestine.
lonesome al gore & upstart jesse ventura both gave up lives of complete american dream comfort (& are paying dearly) to promote the truth. why should we care?
Yeah, we should really feel for these suffering martyrs, who are making a fortune out of their "martyrdom". Al Gore has increased his welath over 10 fold out of his "environmental activism". I am not as familiar with Jesse Ventura's activities, but what I have seen suggests that he, also, is making a fortune out of spreading the word about "conspiracies".
The question becomes how far in advance of making the announcement had the decision been made and, more importantly, did any executives involved in delaying the announcement receive elevated bonuses because the stock had not yet taken the hit from the announcement (even though the decision was already made). If the decision was delayed for the purpose of ensuring that certain executives would receive a larger bonus than they would have if it was announced sooner, those suing have a case. Of course they would still have to prove that this actually was the reason for the delay.
That is not a product of free trade, or even subsidies. That is a product of "disaster relief", which is a different problem all together. On the other hand, I will not defend farm subsidies either. I do not think that the government should be routinely providing subsidies to farmers (there may be special case occassions where farm subisidies are legitimate for a limited time, we can discuss those limited cases as they occur).
The problem here is not that they failed to accurately predict the earthquake. The problem is that they tried to reassure people that there was no danger, when, in fact, there was deadly danger. It did not help that there was a fear monger trying to spread panic and burnish his reputation by successfully predicting 100 of the last 10 major earthquakes.
The thing is they didn't say, "We think the risk is low", they said there was "no danger". I do not support this prosecution, but the scientists involved acted irresponsibly by trying to convince people there was no danger.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what more supporting evidence do I need then the fact that most wealthy areas vote overwhelmingly for Democratic politicians and progressive policies tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few? I judge policies on the basis of actual results, not the proclaimed intentions of those who espouse those policies.
Of course it is, money is just how he keeps score. Once he has it, he doesn't need it anymore and can give it away.
Warren Buffet suggests that people like himself aren't paying enough taxes, yet he does not do anything to pay what he says is his fair share, which leads people to suspect that he has an ulterior motive. You think that people who think he has an ulterior motive are conspiracy theorists. What conspiracy did I suggest? I suggested that Warren Buffet's motives for calling for higher taxes on the wealthy were that he would make money that way.
Anybody who takes financial advice from Glenn Beck deserves what they get. On the other hand, it is quite clear from the things Glenn Beck has said over time that he is a believer in having a fairly substantial stake in gold. That is consistent with the positions he has taken on various financial issues. Positions which predate gold dealers advertising on his show. Glenn Beck has long been a sympathetic to the idea that the U.S. should return to the gold standard. I don't listen to Glenn Beck, but I occassionally did so in the past (enough to have a pretty good first hand idea of his ideology).
It's a streatch that a man who became rich by selling people funds that help them avoid taxes supports increasing taxes so as to increase the sales of those funds? As opposed to thinking that a man who makes a lot of money and uses every tax deduction available to him, thinks that he should be paying more taxes, when, in addition to the fact that he is not required to take advantage of every tax deduction he is eligible for, he has the option of paying the government more than he owes, yet doesn't.
He sells funds that, among other ways, help people avoid taxes by investing in tax-free municipal bonds. Warren Buffet's company sells various funds that invest people's money in ways that reduce the amount of taxes they pay.
The best way to deal with this would be to set the income tax rate at the same for everyone and do away with all tax deductions, except for one that applies to everyone. Get rid of these social engineering tax deductions designed to encourage people to take actions that politicians approve of.
There are two things to keep in mind about this. First, Warren Buffet makes part of his money from selling people plans to minimize their tax burden. Second, this appears to be a new income tax, the reason that Warren Buffet pays the rate he does is because he doesn't pay income tax, he pays capital gains tax. The way this article presents this, this new tax bracket will not effect Warren Buffet's taxes at all.
Warren Buffet's whole article was disingeuous. He knew full well that most people would not notice the fact that in order for the tax code to be changed to increase his taxes to close to the same percentage as the middle class, it would require changing the capital gains tax rate, yet most people would think of it in terms of the income tax rate.
In that light, creating a new, higher income tax bracket is unlikely to have quite the intended impact that many would like to see: having the ultra-wealthy pay at least as great a percentage of their annual income as taxes as their secretaries, minions, and housekeepers.
Or they will follow the model of our current Treasury Secretary and just not pay it.
The problem is that half a trillion dollars over ten years is barely significant compared to the amount of money the federal government spends over 10 years. So, what we are talking about is a tax increase right now in exchange for an insignificant cut in spending over ten years that might not even happen.
Warren Buffet wants the tax rate on the wealthy to go up because he makes money by selling people methods of sheilding their money from taxes. What Warren Buffet doesn't tell you when he talks about the percentage of his income that is taxed is that that money was already taxed once when the corporation that he owns earned it in the first place, then it is taxed again when it is paid out to him (which is the tax rate he tells you about).
And for some people, it means complaining that their taxes are too low while somehow forgetting they have the option of paying more if they want to.
Actually, if you carefully parse what people like Warren Buffet say, you will realize that he is complaining that other people who earn as much as he does are not paying enough in taxes. The reason that he would like to see the tax on other people who make a lot of money increased is because he makes money off of helping people avoid taxes, if the tax rate on the rich goes up, the demand for that service will go up.
Consolidation of wealth however leads to threats to the continuation of society as we know it. The challenge though, is that many of those with wealth believe they would benefit more from a new society in which more wealth was consolidated.
Which is why the wealthy generally favor the progressive politics of the Democratic Party. They know that the policies of the Democratic Party help them consolidate ever more of the wealth of the country in thier own hands.
We all know what happens when Republicans propose tax cuts and spending cuts. Taxes decrease on the rich...
Then please explain why the share of federal tax revenue paid by the richest fraction of the U.S. population increases every time Republicans pass tax cuts.
Of course, as someone else pointed out, the best way to judge a country's medical care is not by the types of metrics used in that study, but by comparing survival rates for those diagnosed with particular illnesses (where the U.S. ranks much higher). One of the interesting things to look at in the metrics used in the study you linked is "infant mortality rate". In the U.S., if a baby is born alive and dies while still an infant, it counts towards infant moratlity rates. In some countries, if the baby does not survive 24 hours, it is considered still born. There are several other similar variations in how some of the other statistics are counted that make those metrics a suspect way to compare health care systems. Another example, the life expectancy for Japan is higher than for the U.S., yet Japanese-Americans have a higher life expectancy than Japanese living in Japan.
You completely misread what he said. To rephrase so that even someone like you can understand. People come to the U.S. for medical care because of the overall quality of the care. However, there are some conditions that do not yet have a good treatment approved in the U.S. (due to the length of time and complexity of getting a new treatment approved by the FDA). In those cases, the wealthy from the U.S. will go somewhere where those treatments are available (or, at least some treatment is available, even if its efficacy is questionable).
Arabs may have lived in Palestine for quite some time, but they have only ever owned Palestine for short periods of time. Jews have lived in Palestine for all of that time as well.
Which group is that? The British did not own Palestine for 1000 years and before them the Ottomans did not either.
Please name one Palestinian political leader who has expressed that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state?
Perhaps you are unaware that the current Palestinian political leadership has stated that not all Palestinians will be considered citizens of the new Palestinian state if the UN recognizes it as a state. Not even all Palestinians currently living within the borders of this state will be considered citizens of it.
Actually, the Roman province of Syria did not include the modern country of Israel. The modern country of Israel was a separate province of the Roman Empire. The Romans called it Judea until after the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. when they started calling Palestine.
Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.
I don't have the option. My congressman is a Democrat.
Well, in that case just go to his office to give him the BJ, or mail him a stack of $100 bills( he'll keep them in his freezer).
Well, he was an alarmist. He had predicted something like 10 of the last 3 earthquakes.
lonesome al gore & upstart jesse ventura both gave up lives of complete american dream comfort (& are paying dearly) to promote the truth. why should we care?
Yeah, we should really feel for these suffering martyrs, who are making a fortune out of their "martyrdom". Al Gore has increased his welath over 10 fold out of his "environmental activism". I am not as familiar with Jesse Ventura's activities, but what I have seen suggests that he, also, is making a fortune out of spreading the word about "conspiracies".
The question becomes how far in advance of making the announcement had the decision been made and, more importantly, did any executives involved in delaying the announcement receive elevated bonuses because the stock had not yet taken the hit from the announcement (even though the decision was already made). If the decision was delayed for the purpose of ensuring that certain executives would receive a larger bonus than they would have if it was announced sooner, those suing have a case. Of course they would still have to prove that this actually was the reason for the delay.
That is not a product of free trade, or even subsidies. That is a product of "disaster relief", which is a different problem all together. On the other hand, I will not defend farm subsidies either. I do not think that the government should be routinely providing subsidies to farmers (there may be special case occassions where farm subisidies are legitimate for a limited time, we can discuss those limited cases as they occur).
The problem here is not that they failed to accurately predict the earthquake. The problem is that they tried to reassure people that there was no danger, when, in fact, there was deadly danger. It did not help that there was a fear monger trying to spread panic and burnish his reputation by successfully predicting 100 of the last 10 major earthquakes.
The thing is they didn't say, "We think the risk is low", they said there was "no danger". I do not support this prosecution, but the scientists involved acted irresponsibly by trying to convince people there was no danger.