[DanSC]

BeaverFever wrote:

No, he is talking about what the official tax rate is for his income type (i.e. "the mega-rich" earn income almost entirely from investments, not from company payroll, which has a higher tax rate --> he thinks this is wrong).

Not necessarily. He mentioned his effective tax rate, not what the government originally asked for. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Mr. Buffett donates a lot of money to charity. In the US, these donations are tax-deductible. Usually an effective tax rate is calculated as a percentage of income actually paid to the government, not what the original bill was.

[Psudo]

martin14 wrote:

[Warren Buffet] has no leg to stand on, and this looks like more of the "do as I say, not as I do"....

Technically, he's advising the government to raise more tax revenue from the rich generally, something he doesn't have the authority to do alone. He and government are very different things, so he's not asking peers to behave differently than he behaves himself.

I certainly believe in progressive taxation. Tax reform to correct the shape of the taxation curve makes good sense today just like it did when Reagan advocated it.

[bootlegga]

Unsound wrote:

The clooney line was awesome.

Yeah, that made me LOL!

[bootlegga]

MeganC wrote:

Unsound wrote:

The problem with this is that we're all willing to do without, or give a little more, if everyone is doing the same. making a grand gesture of giving money to the debt is all well and good, but ultimately pointless if no one else does. And if not compelled, through taxes, very few people do.

How do you explain all the money people give to charity or churches? They do it and no one compels them to.

People who go to church aren't compelled?

You must go to different churches than I, for I remember our pastor mentioning tithing many times when he did his sermons - his most annoying line - God shall not be taxed (he meant your tithe should equal at least 10% or your pre-tax income). Between the pastor and peer pressure from everyone else (as well as a healthy dose of 'keeping up with the Joneses' in the who can tithe the most game), there is most definitely compulsion when it comes to giving to churches.

At least there were in the churches I went to growing up - it's one of the big reasons I don't go anymore. I hated the mentality that Joe was a better Christian than John just because he gave more to the church.

I'll agree with you about charities though...

[Psudo]

bootlegga wrote:

People who go to church aren't compelled?

More precisely, those who refuse don't go to prison.

bootlegga wrote:

God shall not be taxed (he meant your tithe should equal at least 10% or your pre-tax income)

I asked my bishop whether tithing should be 10% of gross or net, and he said whatever you feel is right. Tithing is confidential, too; the church provides opaque envelopes so you can hand in your tithing without the amount becoming public. You can donate to the various church charities the same way; just write a note indicating where you want your money to go.

[Guy_Fawkes]

MeganC wrote:

Unsound wrote:

The problem with this is that we're all willing to do without, or give a little more, if everyone is doing the same. making a grand gesture of giving money to the debt is all well and good, but ultimately pointless if no one else does. And if not compelled, through taxes, very few people do.

How do you explain all the money people give to charity or churches? They do it and no one compels them to.

Apathy.

When someone thinks of government they tend to envision a legislative assembly with many well off (rich?) faces in expensive suits arguing over a bill. It's hard for someone to willingly give money to an image like that. Now if you replace that image with a skinny foreign child or your neighborhood religious assembly, it seems much easier to part with your hard earned cash.

There is also the amount of contribution, a large percentage of the population does not vote. Some of this is because of the feeling that their one voice does not matter among the many, the same could be said about a personal contribution to the same government.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

People who go to church aren't compelled?

More precisely, those who refuse don't go to prison.

bootlegga wrote:

God shall not be taxed (he meant your tithe should equal at least 10% or your pre-tax income)

I asked my bishop whether tithing should be 10% of gross or net, and he said whatever you feel is right. Tithing is confidential, too; the church provides opaque envelopes so you can hand in your tithing without the amount becoming public. You can donate to the various church charities the same way; just write a note indicating where you want your money to go.

They might not go to prison, but IMHO peer pressure is most definitely a form of compulsion - especially when authority figures use it as a tool to squeeze larger tithes out of their parishioners.

[andyt]

It's OK to use charity for "frills", but to try to run a modern state on voluntary contributions is just nuts. And of course there isn't a modern state around that tries to do so.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

MeganC wrote:

Unsound wrote:

The problem with this is that we're all willing to do without, or give a little more, if everyone is doing the same. making a grand gesture of giving money to the debt is all well and good, but ultimately pointless if no one else does. And if not compelled, through taxes, very few people do.

How do you explain all the money people give to charity or churches? They do it and no one compels them to.

Because churches and charities aren't nickle and diming your paycheque to death 365 days a year.
The average working person basically pays to go to work. Let's say you drive to work, you pay taxes on the fuel you buy and taxes on the insurance that covers your car.
Then, the gov't takes their chunk out of your paycheque while some of the "untaxed" portion still disappears in taxes as you buy useless items like food and clothes.
The big difference is, everytime I purchase something, I'm not paying an additional 13% to churches or charities. Whereas, out of almost every dollar I spend, I get to send an additional 13% to the gov't.

Oh, and btw, a lot of people give money to the church because they feel they are compelled to do so.

[Unsound]

MeganC wrote:

Unsound wrote:

The problem with this is that we're all willing to do without, or give a little more, if everyone is doing the same. making a grand gesture of giving money to the debt is all well and good, but ultimately pointless if no one else does. And if not compelled, through taxes, very few people do.

How do you explain all the money people give to charity or churches? They do it and no one compels them to.

Umm.. what they said lol

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

IMHO peer pressure is most definitely a form of compulsion - especially when authority figures use it as a tool to squeeze larger tithes out of their parishioners.

I don't like peer pressure either, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim it is compulsion. Maybe that's because I personally defy peer pressure more often than is common.

However, your inclusive definition of compulsion inherently includes taxation as well. Is money-by-peer-pressure morally inferior to money-by-threat-of-prison?