and spends much of remaining money on philanthropy.
Great, but that does not somehow undo the existence of the tax dodge. Apple, General Electric, etc also make philanthropic donations.
philanthropy he himself says shouldn't be necessary if the government safety net programs were properly funded.
Actually he said that he preferred the Gates foundation because he thought Bill and Melinda would more effectively spend the money, in other words do more "good" per dollar. More funding to the government does not change the inefficiency of seeking a government solution rather than a properly vetted private solution.
there are economies of scale to government support that even he cant match.
Again, he believes more "good" per dollar comes from private sources. Also scale assumes a one size fits all solution, which is often not the case when addressing social problems. Many social problems have a local component, which is why they are sometimes better addressed by a more local government or a private effort. Scale only works when the problems are uniform. Polio immunization, yes. Unemployment, homelessness, no.
It's also perfectly reasonable to say "These actions, if we all took them, would improve things, but if just I do it, it won't help much, so I'll do something that will improve things more under current conditions." That isn't hypocrisy.
That is the tragedy of the commons fallacy.
It also does not matter how good the excuse, how rational the excuse, hypocrisy simply remains failing to live up to one's beliefs. Again, beliefs often have a cost, and hypocrisy is about compromising beliefs to avoid a cost.
Of course he finds ways to lower his tax liability, but that's not avoiding taxes.
Doing things like transferring wealth via trusts rather than a will and probate is absolutely about avoiding taxes. We're not talking about tax deductible donations here.
He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
No he isn't,...
He is structuring the transfer of money to the Gates foundation to avoid taxation.
... and no it isn't. He is saying he and others should owe more taxes. He does not at any point say somebody should pay taxes which they do not owe.
The problem with your logic is that he does not owe some taxes because he actively takes measures to avoid normal taxation. He structures the transactions to avoid taxes much like some major corporations do with their income. Perfectly legal, but hypocritical given his talk on the political stage.
I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to say they support paying more taxes for infrastructure, etc, while voluntarily donating money to private organizations working for the public good.
The problem is that like major corporations accounting for their revenue, he is structuring the transfer of money to avoid taxation that would pay for that infrastructure.
That's a terrible characterization of things. He thinks he should pay more in taxes. He has the option to pay taxes or to avoid taxes, he chooses to avoid taxes. His actions do not match his professed belief. That's hypocritical.
Nope, he follows the rules but is arguing the rules could be better. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
Hypocrisy is about actions not following professed beliefs. Whether the actions are legal or common is irrelevant. Only that actions and words differ matters.
He's saying they should change the rules, but that doesn't mean he should start playing as if they already have.
That's not what is going on. He's asking for additional taxes while he avoids the current taxes. We're not talking about him paying some additional amount now. The real point is that he is perfectly willing to avoid current taxes, why would he be less inclined to avoid taxes if there were additional taxes? Especially when he has found a non-governmental charitable foundation that is likely to do more "good" per dollar than the government. His justification to avoid is unchanged.
Then he should advocate that others follow his example and give to reputable charitable organizations that do social good, that generate more "good" per dollar than the government.
Umm, well, he's pretty well-known for advocating precisely that. Do you actually know anything about Warren Buffett?
The problem, the inconsistency, is that when he is in a political venue he is not doing that. Rather he is acting as a political prop advocating something that operates contrary to this pledge, making less money available for such philanthropy. I'm well aware of his pledge, you may have noticed I referred to it a few times.
To recommend something that contradicts his actions, paying more in taxes, something that generates less "good" per dollars does not make sense...
Unless it's the only way to pry the money from the fingers of scrooge-like billionaires who don't want to voluntarily give up their money to charity. Again, government taxes can compel them to, while private charities can't. So it's much better than nothing, as long as it's still working in the right direction (according to Buffett's ideology, anyway).
It is not the only way to pry money from Scrooge. Government can do more to encourage contributions to approved charities. The problem is that government's actions are more to the contrary, crowding charities out and displacing them more and more. Buffets political statements will result in less philanthropic contributions, its counterproductive to the spirit of his pledge, as greater amounts are taken in taxes charitable givers will have less to give. Again, crowding out, diverting, displacement.
He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money
That is still only an example of following the rules as they currently exist. And it is still not hypocritical to advocate different rules while following those in place.
Wrong. It is absolutely hypocritical to act against one's publicly professed ideals and goals. He says one thing, does something else, its hypocritical. That it is legal or common changes nothing.
So you want to change a rule somewhere, you are saying you should never argue for changing the rule, but instead break it, otherwise you are a hypocrite?
That's a terrible characterization of things. He thinks he should pay more in taxes. He has the option to pay taxes or to avoid taxes, he chooses to avoid taxes. His actions do not match his professed belief. That's hypocritical.
Even if Buffet believes the Gates Foundation is more effective at solving social problems than the government, it does NOT follow that he thinks the government is TOTALLY incapable of solving social problems -- just perhaps less efficient.
Then he should advocate that others follow his example and give to reputable charitable organizations that do social good, that generate more "good" per dollar than the government. To recommend something that contradicts his actions, paying more in taxes, something that generates less "good" per dollars does not make sense... unless there are ulterior motives. Perhaps furthering his political party is worth a little "less" social good in his mind, or it is good business sense to be known as the "good" wall street'er and have a seat at the political table in this era of increased reform and regulation.
So if I'm a Brit who advocates to change to right-hand traffic, but still drive on the left while the law has not changed, I am hypocritical?
Poor analogy. You confuse the mandatory with the optional.
I don't get it. Driving is optional. Paying taxes is mandatory. How does this affect the argument?
Which side of the road you currently drive on is not optional, its not an avoidable regulation. Paying the inheritance tax in the US is effectively optional given how easy it is to avoid.
He is not saying one thing and doing another. He is not saying "some" rich people should pay more (that would be impossible, because competitors that do not, will eat his and his clients lunch). He is saying ALL rich people should pay more. Two different things really.
What does "some" or "all" have to do with anything. He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
No, it's perfectly reasonable to act in one's self interest while believing and advocating that global unrestrained self-interest yields a less than optimal global outcome.
Wrong. Self-interest is not an exemption to hypocrisy, it is merely an excuse for hypocrisy. Being true to one's beliefs often has a cost.
I'd argue that's not hypocritical at all. Ultimately capitalism depends on self-interest to function. What is ridiculous is to tell people not to make use of every advantage available to them.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with legality or common. The later does not undo the former.
What's far more important is to make sure that the rules that we all play by maximize the benefit to society as a whole.
It is hypocritical to demonstrate by deed that more benefit for society is obtained by private organizations while simultaneously calling for more taxation in a political stunt. The non-hypocrital action would be to call for more public donations to trustworthy private organization doing social good.
It's not hypocritical for a sports team to advocate changing an unfair rule, even if they follow it and benefit by it.
Following the rules are mandatory in this scenario, not optional as in the Buffet case.
It's not hypocritical for a white man to support diversity in tech yet accept a tech job with female/minority applicants.
You confuse diversity with quotas. Diversity is really about leveling the playing field so that minorities have equal opportunities at preparation and education so that they do not lack the skills necessary for a particular position. For example a proper STEM education for all.
It's not hypocritical for a company to advocate for increased environmental standards in their industry while following the existing standards.
Yes, it is. They could voluntarily exceed the standard, as some companies do.
For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation.
We should put a stop to that. And to all charitable deductions from taxes. After all, every dollar that one thoughtlessly tithes to a church or donates to a 501(c)(3) is money that can't be passed on to heirs, and therefore is being greedily ripped away from the reach of the estate tax by the 83% of Americans that give to charity.
You bastards!
Or maybe just not be hypocritical and just admit that private organizations can often do a better job than government and that government is not always the solution, and that government should learn to live on a budget and only get involved when necessary and not when it just gives politicians more time on camera.
Barely anybody in this country ends up paying the inheritance tax, it doesn't exist as a revenue stream.
That it is easy to dodge does not change the fact that his actions are hypocritical.
The whole point of it is to prevent landed gentry, the government doesn't care if you pay it to them or give it out to foundations, the end result is the exact same thing.
Wrong, the end result is not the same. Warren Buffet correctly believes that the Gates foundation will more effectively spend his money. More good per dollar via the foundation.
Plus this whole "a special tax" for a "targeted purpose" is a scam. It is a legislative trick to get additional revenue to pay for "popular" or necessary things rather than have these things paid for out of the general budget where these things should be funded. This frees up, diverts, these general budget funds for pork projects that the public would not be supportive of. Its like the various state lotteries that "fund" education. As soon as the state sees how much education gets from the lottery it reduces accordingly the general budget education funding to free up those funds for pork.
He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money
That is still only an example of following the rules as they currently exist. And it is still not hypocritical to advocate different rules while following those in place.
Wrong. It is absolutely hypocritical to act against one's publicly professed ideals and goals. He says one thing, does something else, its hypocritical. That it is legal or common changes nothing.
Or maybe they were but their competitors were not.
Historically that is how rich folk addressed various social and public issues. And it continues today, look at Warren Buffet. He is dodging the inheritance tax by transferring wealth to the Gates foundation, believing that Bill and Melinda can more effectively spend his money to benefit society than the US government can. His "raise my taxes" talk is just a political stunt.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
Yeah, I watched that Bond movie, too. I was pretty impressed.
Bond movie, no. How about recent historical events? Since the 1980s the US military has help the NK special forces types to be very capable. Really good on infiltration, sabotage, etc. Explained in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Slashdot Mirror
and spends much of remaining money on philanthropy.
Great, but that does not somehow undo the existence of the tax dodge. Apple, General Electric, etc also make philanthropic donations.
philanthropy he himself says shouldn't be necessary if the government safety net programs were properly funded.
Actually he said that he preferred the Gates foundation because he thought Bill and Melinda would more effectively spend the money, in other words do more "good" per dollar. More funding to the government does not change the inefficiency of seeking a government solution rather than a properly vetted private solution.
there are economies of scale to government support that even he cant match.
Again, he believes more "good" per dollar comes from private sources. Also scale assumes a one size fits all solution, which is often not the case when addressing social problems. Many social problems have a local component, which is why they are sometimes better addressed by a more local government or a private effort. Scale only works when the problems are uniform. Polio immunization, yes. Unemployment, homelessness, no.
It's also perfectly reasonable to say "These actions, if we all took them, would improve things, but if just I do it, it won't help much, so I'll do something that will improve things more under current conditions." That isn't hypocrisy.
That is the tragedy of the commons fallacy.
It also does not matter how good the excuse, how rational the excuse, hypocrisy simply remains failing to live up to one's beliefs. Again, beliefs often have a cost, and hypocrisy is about compromising beliefs to avoid a cost.
Of course he finds ways to lower his tax liability, but that's not avoiding taxes.
Doing things like transferring wealth via trusts rather than a will and probate is absolutely about avoiding taxes. We're not talking about tax deductible donations here.
He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
No he isn't, ...
He is structuring the transfer of money to the Gates foundation to avoid taxation.
The problem with your logic is that he does not owe some taxes because he actively takes measures to avoid normal taxation. He structures the transactions to avoid taxes much like some major corporations do with their income. Perfectly legal, but hypocritical given his talk on the political stage.
I don't think it's hypocritical for someone to say they support paying more taxes for infrastructure, etc, while voluntarily donating money to private organizations working for the public good.
The problem is that like major corporations accounting for their revenue, he is structuring the transfer of money to avoid taxation that would pay for that infrastructure.
Is he "dodging" taxes or putting his money where it can do more good?
He's doing both.
That's a terrible characterization of things. He thinks he should pay more in taxes. He has the option to pay taxes or to avoid taxes, he chooses to avoid taxes. His actions do not match his professed belief. That's hypocritical.
Nope, he follows the rules but is arguing the rules could be better. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
Hypocrisy is about actions not following professed beliefs. Whether the actions are legal or common is irrelevant. Only that actions and words differ matters.
He's saying they should change the rules, but that doesn't mean he should start playing as if they already have.
That's not what is going on. He's asking for additional taxes while he avoids the current taxes. We're not talking about him paying some additional amount now. The real point is that he is perfectly willing to avoid current taxes, why would he be less inclined to avoid taxes if there were additional taxes? Especially when he has found a non-governmental charitable foundation that is likely to do more "good" per dollar than the government. His justification to avoid is unchanged.
Then he should advocate that others follow his example and give to reputable charitable organizations that do social good, that generate more "good" per dollar than the government.
Umm, well, he's pretty well-known for advocating precisely that. Do you actually know anything about Warren Buffett?
The problem, the inconsistency, is that when he is in a political venue he is not doing that. Rather he is acting as a political prop advocating something that operates contrary to this pledge, making less money available for such philanthropy. I'm well aware of his pledge, you may have noticed I referred to it a few times.
To recommend something that contradicts his actions, paying more in taxes, something that generates less "good" per dollars does not make sense ...
Unless it's the only way to pry the money from the fingers of scrooge-like billionaires who don't want to voluntarily give up their money to charity. Again, government taxes can compel them to, while private charities can't. So it's much better than nothing, as long as it's still working in the right direction (according to Buffett's ideology, anyway).
It is not the only way to pry money from Scrooge. Government can do more to encourage contributions to approved charities. The problem is that government's actions are more to the contrary, crowding charities out and displacing them more and more. Buffets political statements will result in less philanthropic contributions, its counterproductive to the spirit of his pledge, as greater amounts are taken in taxes charitable givers will have less to give. Again, crowding out, diverting, displacement.
He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money
That is still only an example of following the rules as they currently exist. And it is still not hypocritical to advocate different rules while following those in place.
Wrong. It is absolutely hypocritical to act against one's publicly professed ideals and goals. He says one thing, does something else, its hypocritical. That it is legal or common changes nothing.
So you want to change a rule somewhere, you are saying you should never argue for changing the rule, but instead break it, otherwise you are a hypocrite?
That's a terrible characterization of things. He thinks he should pay more in taxes. He has the option to pay taxes or to avoid taxes, he chooses to avoid taxes. His actions do not match his professed belief. That's hypocritical.
Even if Buffet believes the Gates Foundation is more effective at solving social problems than the government, it does NOT follow that he thinks the government is TOTALLY incapable of solving social problems -- just perhaps less efficient.
Then he should advocate that others follow his example and give to reputable charitable organizations that do social good, that generate more "good" per dollar than the government. To recommend something that contradicts his actions, paying more in taxes, something that generates less "good" per dollars does not make sense ... unless there are ulterior motives. Perhaps furthering his political party is worth a little "less" social good in his mind, or it is good business sense to be known as the "good" wall street'er and have a seat at the political table in this era of increased reform and regulation.
So if I'm a Brit who advocates to change to right-hand traffic, but still drive on the left while the law has not changed, I am hypocritical?
Poor analogy. You confuse the mandatory with the optional.
I don't get it. Driving is optional. Paying taxes is mandatory. How does this affect the argument?
Which side of the road you currently drive on is not optional, its not an avoidable regulation. Paying the inheritance tax in the US is effectively optional given how easy it is to avoid.
You know what? When you're the only guy in the room insisting he's right, against all opposition, chances are that you're wrong.
Silly AC. There are far more people in the room than those who are arguing and you have no idea what those silent individuals are thinking.
Not to be confused with his cousin, Mail, who will be assembling new iPhones, the next building over.
Wow, so a Trump campaign promise might actually be feasible. Apple returning to domestic manufacturing. ;-)
... Apple likely built this as a testbed for robot manufacturing ...
They are getting ready for Trump, when they will have to manufacture domestically again. :-)
He is not saying one thing and doing another. He is not saying "some" rich people should pay more (that would be impossible, because competitors that do not, will eat his and his clients lunch). He is saying ALL rich people should pay more. Two different things really.
What does "some" or "all" have to do with anything. He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
So if I'm a Brit who advocates to change to right-hand traffic, but still drive on the left while the law has not changed, I am hypocritical?
Poor analogy. You confuse the mandatory with the optional.
No, it's perfectly reasonable to act in one's self interest while believing and advocating that global unrestrained self-interest yields a less than optimal global outcome.
Wrong. Self-interest is not an exemption to hypocrisy, it is merely an excuse for hypocrisy. Being true to one's beliefs often has a cost.
I'd argue that's not hypocritical at all. Ultimately capitalism depends on self-interest to function. What is ridiculous is to tell people not to make use of every advantage available to them.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with legality or common. The later does not undo the former.
What's far more important is to make sure that the rules that we all play by maximize the benefit to society as a whole.
It is hypocritical to demonstrate by deed that more benefit for society is obtained by private organizations while simultaneously calling for more taxation in a political stunt. The non-hypocrital action would be to call for more public donations to trustworthy private organization doing social good.
It's not hypocritical for a sports team to advocate changing an unfair rule, even if they follow it and benefit by it.
Following the rules are mandatory in this scenario, not optional as in the Buffet case.
It's not hypocritical for a white man to support diversity in tech yet accept a tech job with female/minority applicants.
You confuse diversity with quotas. Diversity is really about leveling the playing field so that minorities have equal opportunities at preparation and education so that they do not lack the skills necessary for a particular position. For example a proper STEM education for all.
It's not hypocritical for a company to advocate for increased environmental standards in their industry while following the existing standards.
Yes, it is. They could voluntarily exceed the standard, as some companies do.
We should put a stop to that. And to all charitable deductions from taxes. After all, every dollar that one thoughtlessly tithes to a church or donates to a 501(c)(3) is money that can't be passed on to heirs, and therefore is being greedily ripped away from the reach of the estate tax by the 83% of Americans that give to charity.
You bastards!
Or maybe just not be hypocritical and just admit that private organizations can often do a better job than government and that government is not always the solution, and that government should learn to live on a budget and only get involved when necessary and not when it just gives politicians more time on camera.
Barely anybody in this country ends up paying the inheritance tax, it doesn't exist as a revenue stream.
That it is easy to dodge does not change the fact that his actions are hypocritical.
The whole point of it is to prevent landed gentry, the government doesn't care if you pay it to them or give it out to foundations, the end result is the exact same thing.
Wrong, the end result is not the same. Warren Buffet correctly believes that the Gates foundation will more effectively spend his money. More good per dollar via the foundation.
Plus this whole "a special tax" for a "targeted purpose" is a scam. It is a legislative trick to get additional revenue to pay for "popular" or necessary things rather than have these things paid for out of the general budget where these things should be funded. This frees up, diverts, these general budget funds for pork projects that the public would not be supportive of. Its like the various state lotteries that "fund" education. As soon as the state sees how much education gets from the lottery it reduces accordingly the general budget education funding to free up those funds for pork.
He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money
That is still only an example of following the rules as they currently exist. And it is still not hypocritical to advocate different rules while following those in place.
Wrong. It is absolutely hypocritical to act against one's publicly professed ideals and goals. He says one thing, does something else, its hypocritical. That it is legal or common changes nothing.
Or maybe they were but their competitors were not.
Historically that is how rich folk addressed various social and public issues. And it continues today, look at Warren Buffet. He is dodging the inheritance tax by transferring wealth to the Gates foundation, believing that Bill and Melinda can more effectively spend his money to benefit society than the US government can. His "raise my taxes" talk is just a political stunt.
They are not hypocrites.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
Yeah, I watched that Bond movie, too. I was pretty impressed.
Bond movie, no. How about recent historical events? Since the 1980s the US military has help the NK special forces types to be very capable. Really good on infiltration, sabotage, etc. Explained in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...