Warren Buffet is not alone
JJ
Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
(...)
So it got us wondering: What do rich Jews think of Buffett’s analysis
and his proposed solution?
Full story:
http://forward.com/articles/141555/
Jay
Steve Goldfarb
>Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett=92s tax rate last year was well below
>the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
Harvey Golub, former CEO of American Express, has a response to Buffett in
today's WSJ.
Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to write a
check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me, why won't the
government take more of my money." Put your money where your mouths are,
folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
--s
--
Malcolm McLean
>
> Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to write a
> check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me, why won't the
> government take more of my money." Put your money where your mouths are,
> folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
>
to write a cheque to the government every time I fly.
Steve Goldfarb
The difference is by calling for (more) taxes on airline fuel, you're
asking that other people be taxed. Buffett is explicitly asking that he
himself be taxed. He's flat-out saying "I, Warren Buffett, don't pay
enough taxes - you should tax me more." What Golub is saying, and I agree,
is if you truly feel that way, Warren, then write a check. OTOH, it seems
more like this is a ploy, and what Buffett is really saying is that other
people should be taxed more.
--s
--
JJ
What ploy? To tax others but not himself? Steve, I suspect that
Buffet is smart enough to realize that as the second richest American,
if "other people" who are high earners are taxed more, so will he.
Jay
Steve Goldfarb
>What ploy? To tax others but not himself? Steve, I suspect that
>Buffet is smart enough to realize that as the second richest American,
>if "other people" who are high earners are taxed more, so will he.
Not necessarily. When you have that kind of money, you have the ability to
shelter your income in various ways and avoid paying taxes.
I guess I don't see the point of his editorial - if he wants to pay more
taxes, then he should pay more taxes. If he wants to set an example, then
write an editorial saying "I wrote a big check to the US Treasury, if
you're worth more than $100 million then you should, too." That's all
great. But he what's he asking for, in this article? What does he want
from me? He doesn't need my permission to pay more taxes, and I personally
would prefer not to pay more taxes, I think I'm taxed more or less enough
already. So what's your point, Warren?
--s
--
Patty
elsewhere. hw ]
On Aug 22, 2:32 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
Woohoo, you said a mouthful.
Cheers Patty
Abe Kohen
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j2u6ia$kav$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Amen.
Best,
Abe Kohen
Haifa, Israel
Dennis
>> Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to
>> write a check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me,
>> why won't the government take more of my money." Put your money where
>> your mouths are, folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
>
> Woohoo, you said a mouthful.
LOL!!! Good one!
If you donate money to the US gov't, I wonder if you can take a tax
deduction for it? ;-)
Dennis
mm
>Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
Probably it came with sufficient context and what readers don't know
is that Buffet doesn't have a private office. He has a desk in the
same office/room with 20 other people, all of whom make far less than
he does, most, like secretaries, far less. Yet he pays a lower rate
than they do.
HIs objection is that he and other rich people; pay a lower rate than
do lower earning people do.
More below.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:46:08 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
<s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <bb5bd1f6-112f-4c0f...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com> Malcolm McLean <malcolm...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>On Aug 22, 9:32=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to write a
>>> check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me, why won't the
>>> government take more of my money." Put your money where your mouths are,
>>> folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
>>>
>>I think airline fuel should be taxed. On the other hand, I'm not going
>>to write a cheque to the government every time I fly.
>
>The difference is by calling for (more) taxes on airline fuel, you're
>asking that other people be taxed. Buffett is explicitly asking that he
>himself be taxed. He's flat-out saying "I, Warren Buffett, don't pay
>enough taxes - you should tax me more."
No. He's saying you should tax me and others who make a lot of money
more. He's saying you should have an actual graduated income tax,
where higher earning people pay a higher rate on the amount they earn
more than lower earning people. And at the very least you shouldn't
tax them less.
>What Golub is saying, and I agree,
>is if you truly feel that way, Warren, then write a check.
That would get more money out of one person, not hundreds of
thouseands, maybe millions of people. . Golub doesn't understand
either, I guess.
>OTOH, it seems
>more like this is a ploy, and what Buffett is really saying is that other
>people should be taxed more.
Yes, other rich people and himself. What a ploy that is.
Someone reply to this so STeve will see the mistake he made.
>
>--s
mm
Yeah, but then you have to pay taxes on the money you deducted.
>
>Dennis
JJ
Steve: This makes a lot of sense and this is why I started this
thread.
Jay
On Aug 22, 8:15 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> The original quote:
>
> >Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
> >Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
> >the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
> >for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
> >deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
> >the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
>
> Probably it came with sufficient context and what readers don't know
> is that Buffet doesn't have a private office. He has a desk in the
> same office/room with 20 other people, all of whom make far less than
> he does, most, like secretaries, far less. Yet he pays a lower rate
> than they do.
>
> HIs objection is that he and other rich people; pay a lower rate than
> do lower earning people do.
>
> More below.
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:46:08 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >--s- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Abe Kohen
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:nvq55714lrud3nemc...@4ax.com...
The original quote:
>Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett's tax rate last year was well below
>the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
Probably it came with sufficient context and what readers don't know
is that Buffet doesn't have a private office. He has a desk in the
same office/room with 20 other people, all of whom make far less than
he does, most, like secretaries, far less. Yet he pays a lower rate
than they do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He takes a modest salary. His wealth is mostly unrealized capital gains
on Berkshire stock. His RATE may be lower than his secretaries, but his
AMOUNT is HIGHER. Clearly HIS capital gains should be taxed as ordinary
income. Then HE can pay a large amount in TAXES.
In a lot of investment houses/ hedge funds it is customary for the boss
to sit with all his underlings in an open space.
Abe
Abe Kohen
Pure nonsense. You can pay MORE than required. It is NOT a deductible
donation.
Enough of your foolishness.
Abe
Abe Kohen
"JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f494ba9e-e7fa-4498...@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
I am replying so Steve will see this.
Steve: This makes a lot of sense and this is why I started this
thread.
Jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once is more than enough for mm's uneducated posts. Please!
Abe
Steve Goldfarb
>I am replying so Steve will see this.
>Steve: This makes a lot of sense and this is why I started this
>thread.
I don't respond to Meir, but I'll respond to you.
It's certainly true that given the choice of being rich or poor, it's
better to be rich. There are many advantages to having a lot of money. No
matter what we do, people like Buffett, Gates, and Soros are going to have
way more money than any of us do - way more than they can possibly spend.
Is that fair? Well, sure, why not? Provided they earned it honestly.
I think of it like this - we're all out to dinner. Everybody orders what
they want, then it's time to split up the check. What's the fairest way to
do that? One way is just separate checks - you had the steak, you pay for
the steak. I had the salad, I pay for the salad. Problem is we've got a
bunch of people at the table with various income levels - some can't even
afford the salad. We could say oh well, no money no eatee. But we don't -
we say allright, those of us who can afford to pay will chip in more, so
that those with nothing can eat.
But how do we divide it? One way to do it is to take the poor people's
tab, divide it up by the number of paying people at the table, and
everyone pays his own check plus a surcharge. That's probably the fairest,
and it allows people to manage their own expenses - the guy who orders the
salad pays less than the guy who orders the steak.
But that's hard to do in society - it's hard to figure out the exact value
we each get. So, instead, we just split the check - so now the
steak-eaters and salad-eaters are paying the same. What happens when you
do that? Well, first of all everyone orders steak. Why not, you're going
to be paying for it anyway, right?
So now, where originally we had say 2 people who couldn't afford even the
salad, now the total check price is higher (everyone ordered steak) so we
have, say, 6 people who can't afford to pay. So what do we do? We split up
6 checks and tack it on rather than 4 - but there were 2 people who could
have afforded the check but can't afford the check plus the surcharge, so
now what?
So now we say "let's be progressive!" and for the first time, rather than
looking at what each of us consumed, we look at how much money each of us
has in our wallets. And someone has the bright idea to say instead of
dividing the check by how much each of us ate, let's divide it by how much
money each of us brought. And everyone says yes, that's so much fairer.
But is it really?
What if Joe and Bob are both at the table - Joe works two jobs, and
therefore earns almost twice as much as Bob, who spends his evenings
watching sports and drinking Budweiser. Is it fair to say that Joe should
contribute twice as much for dinner as Bob does? It doesn't SEEM fair.
There's no easy answer to this, and I'm not saying I'm absolutely opposed
to progressive taxation - but in my view, when I earn money it's my
property. Mine. It doesn't belong to the government who may choose to let
me keep some of it. So if I don't want the government to take my money, I
have to accept that it can't take Warren Buffett's either, even though in
my opinion he's got plenty to spare. Why? Because it's his - the
government shouldn't be allowed to take our property just because they
think they can use it better than we're using it.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>He takes a modest salary. His wealth is mostly unrealized capital gains
>on Berkshire stock. His RATE may be lower than his secretaries, but his
>AMOUNT is HIGHER. Clearly HIS capital gains should be taxed as ordinary
>income. Then HE can pay a large amount in TAXES.
>In a lot of investment houses/ hedge funds it is customary for the boss
>to sit with all his underlings in an open space.
Right. He pays almost $7 million per year in taxes, which is a good chunk
of change I suppose.
Also, I would support changing the rules for how hedge fund earnings get
taxed - IMHO the way they do it doesn't seem right, since the fund manager
isn't really risking any of the capital, so his profits should IMO all be
taxed as ordinary income not as a capital gain.
--s
--
Abe Kohen
Without taking a side on whether a fund manager (with the exception of
Buffet) should be cap gains or ord income, the fund manager has certain
risk. If s/he underperforms there will be withdrawals, hence assets
under mgmt (AUM) go down and his 2 (in 2 and 20) is on a smaller base
perhaps going to zero. There may also be a high water mark he has to
subsequentally clear.
Best,
Abe
Haifa, Israel
sheldonlg
There is another path that is extremely fair, but will never happen.
You do away with the income tax altogether. Instead you have a massive
sales tax, combined with a fixed dollar amount that every adult gets and
a different dollar amount that every child gets. That way everyone is
taxed upon what he GETS from society (steak or salad), but you still
have people with very little able to come to dinner.
The numbers are huge. It would mean somewhere between a 50% and a 75%
sales tax in order to provide enough money back so that people who
didn't work would not go hungry. The benefit, though, is that every
extra dollar you earn is yours. How about that for positive incentive to
earn more?
It could be a sales tax, a VAT, or a combination. There would also have
to be taxes on imports to make their products not highly favored. So,
if you went abroad and bought something, you would have to pay the tax
on coming back to the US.
One final tax would be on earnings from investments. The reason for
that is that you could consider money in the bank as buying "security".
The tax, though, would have to be much smaller.
A VAT would probably be better than a sales tax because it is much
easier to police. You would also have to police more thoroughly the
"having a plumber come in and paying him off the books so as to avoid a
tax on his services.
Your thoughts?
--
Shelly
Steve Goldfarb
>Without taking a side on whether a fund manager (with the exception of
>Buffet) should be cap gains or ord income, the fund manager has certain
>risk. If s/he underperforms there will be withdrawals, hence assets
>under mgmt (AUM) go down and his 2 (in 2 and 20) is on a smaller base
>perhaps going to zero. There may also be a high water mark he has to
>subsequentally clear.
That just makes his pay a "bonus," and bonuses are taxed as ordinary
income. When the value of my funds went below what I put in, did my fund
manager have to write me a check? No? Therefore, by definition it wasn't
his money at risk.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>There is another path that is extremely fair, but will never happen.
>You do away with the income tax altogether. Instead you have a massive
>sales tax, combined with a fixed dollar amount that every adult gets and
>a different dollar amount that every child gets. That way everyone is
>taxed upon what he GETS from society (steak or salad), but you still
>have people with very little able to come to dinner.
How does that help? The "steak" we're ordering from the Federal government
is primarily social security, medicare, and medicaid, with a big dose of
defense. None of those are things I buy in a store.
>The numbers are huge. It would mean somewhere between a 50% and a 75%
>sales tax in order to provide enough money back so that people who
>didn't work would not go hungry. The benefit, though, is that every
>extra dollar you earn is yours. How about that for positive incentive to
>earn more?
So every time I go to the store, it'd be like taking someone with me, and
I pay for both of our shopping carts? Yeah, that sounds fair. Not really.
>It could be a sales tax, a VAT, or a combination. There would also have
>to be taxes on imports to make their products not highly favored. So,
>if you went abroad and bought something, you would have to pay the tax
>on coming back to the US.
>One final tax would be on earnings from investments. The reason for
>that is that you could consider money in the bank as buying "security".
> The tax, though, would have to be much smaller.
>A VAT would probably be better than a sales tax because it is much
>easier to police. You would also have to police more thoroughly the
>"having a plumber come in and paying him off the books so as to avoid a
>tax on his services.
>Your thoughts?
I'm not sure how it's easier to police - you need to police it at every
step in the manufacturing and distribution process, rather than just at
the final sale, and I'm not sure how you avoid the problem of cash under
the table. But they manage in Europe, so there must be a way.
I have three problems with a VAT:
1) The rule of taxes is you get less of whatever it is you tax. So by
taxing consumption, you'll get less consumption. Since our economy runs on
consumption, this could be a problem.
2) It's a hidden tax, which means it's really, really easy for politicians
to increase it without any repercussions. I believe this happens all the
time in Europe.
3) It's regressive, having much, much more effect on poor people than ich
people. So to balance this, you need to have some kind of complex scheme
to give people tax credits or something, which means you haven't actually
simplified anything.
--s
--
Abe Kohen
No offense, but you are a small fry when you invest in a fund. The big
guys investing millions and billions have all kinds of clauses, some of
which require a fund manager to write a check or forgo fees until
reaching a high water mark, which means the big guys get professional
investment for free.
Abe
mm
This was a joke, btw.
>>
>>Dennis
Steve Goldfarb
>No offense, but you are a small fry when you invest in a fund. The big
>guys investing millions and billions have all kinds of clauses, some of
>which require a fund manager to write a check or forgo fees until
>reaching a high water mark, which means the big guys get professional
>investment for free.
No offense taken :-) all I'm saying is it's quacking like a bonus, and so
should be taxed like a bonus. Just my opinion, of course.
--s
--
sheldonlg
You missed the essence of my entire argument.
1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
2 - It is coupled with money given to everyone, REGARDLESS of income,
which would provide for a bare minimum living standard if they didn't
work to earn anything.
So, everyone can go to dinner. If they want steak, they need to have
earned money on their own to pay for it. Otherwise, they have enough
only for salad. What could be fairer?
--
Shelly
Steve Goldfarb
>You missed the essence of my entire argument.
>1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
>support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
I don't understand this point - how is consumption a marker for what you
get from society? I can sorta kinda see how income might be, although I
don't necessarily agree I can sorta see the point, but if I buy something
from you aren't I already paying you for what I bought? Why does society
as a whole deserve a cut of that?
>2 - It is coupled with money given to everyone, REGARDLESS of income,
>which would provide for a bare minimum living standard if they didn't
>work to earn anything.
So you're going to write a check every year to Warren Buffett?
>So, everyone can go to dinner. If they want steak, they need to have
>earned money on their own to pay for it. Otherwise, they have enough
>only for salad. What could be fairer?
Well, if you wrote me my check for $20,000 per year or whatever then I
guess I could afford a $5 salad, but now that salad costs $10 because you
need the extra $5 to pay for my annual stipend, and I can't afford $10, so
will you pay me more, or what?
--s
--
sheldonlg
> In<j30l0p$260$1...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>> You missed the essence of my entire argument.
>
>> 1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
>> support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
>
> I don't understand this point - how is consumption a marker for what you
> get from society? I can sorta kinda see how income might be, although I
> don't necessarily agree I can sorta see the point, but if I buy something
> from you aren't I already paying you for what I bought? Why does society
> as a whole deserve a cut of that?
The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
society that I am the last link in the chain.
Income is not what you get from society. It is the stuff by which you
can then get things from the society. Try eating a hundred dollar bill.
It is only when you spend that hundred dollar bill for goods or
services that you are actually getting something from society.
>
>> 2 - It is coupled with money given to everyone, REGARDLESS of income,
>> which would provide for a bare minimum living standard if they didn't
>> work to earn anything.
>
> So you're going to write a check every year to Warren Buffett?
Yes. To EVERY citizen regardless of income. That way no one has to
hide any income and you get it because you are a citizen. Someone like
Buffet could refuse to accept the check, but it would be there for him.
That is the only fair way.
>> So, everyone can go to dinner. If they want steak, they need to have
>> earned money on their own to pay for it. Otherwise, they have enough
>> only for salad. What could be fairer?
>
> Well, if you wrote me my check for $20,000 per year or whatever then I
> guess I could afford a $5 salad, but now that salad costs $10 because you
> need the extra $5 to pay for my annual stipend, and I can't afford $10, so
> will you pay me more, or what?
The numbers are such that you will be able at the very least to buy the
ingredients for the salad to have at home. You could also make certain
categories exempt such as produce and meat and dairy and other basic
food items not in a restaurant. I don't pretend to have all the
answers. What I outline here is an approach. When I first thought of
this and worked out the numbers, it was in the mid-1960s, and the
numbers came to about 50% for the tax on everything except food in the
grocery store. I don't know what they would be today.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
One more thing. My system would make it more expensive for illegal
aliens to live in the US because they would not get the money from the
government. That means less incentive to cross the border and so would
help alleviate the illegal immigrant problem.
--
Shelly
Steve Goldfarb
>The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
>fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
>shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
>It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
>society that I am the last link in the chain.
True, but isn't all of that already reflected in the price?
>Income is not what you get from society. It is the stuff by which you
>can then get things from the society. Try eating a hundred dollar bill.
> It is only when you spend that hundred dollar bill for goods or
>services that you are actually getting something from society.
I agree that actual value is only realized at the point of consumption -
the wealth of an apple is in the eating. But what am I getting when I buy
an option? Or a designer handbag?
>> So you're going to write a check every year to Warren Buffett?
>Yes. To EVERY citizen regardless of income. That way no one has to
>hide any income and you get it because you are a citizen. Someone like
>Buffet could refuse to accept the check, but it would be there for him.
> That is the only fair way.
So if I have 10 children I can get 11 checks, but if you have no children
you'd only get 1? NYC is much more expensive than, say, Ames, IA - should
New Yorkers get bigger checks?
>The numbers are such that you will be able at the very least to buy the
>ingredients for the salad to have at home. You could also make certain
>categories exempt such as produce and meat and dairy and other basic
>food items not in a restaurant. I don't pretend to have all the
>answers. What I outline here is an approach. When I first thought of
>this and worked out the numbers, it was in the mid-1960s, and the
>numbers came to about 50% for the tax on everything except food in the
>grocery store. I don't know what they would be today.
It's actually an interesting idea, I'll give you that. Not sure that it's
really practical, though, let alone economically a good idea. I'd need to
think on it further.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>One more thing. My system would make it more expensive for illegal
>aliens to live in the US because they would not get the money from the
>government. That means less incentive to cross the border and so would
>help alleviate the illegal immigrant problem.
Their children would, though, right? So isn't that even more incentive to
come here to have children?
--s
--
Abe Kohen
"sheldonlg" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:j311a0$saa$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 8/23/2011 2:37 PM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> In<j30l0p$260$1...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net>
>> writes:
>>
>>> You missed the essence of my entire argument.
>>
>>> 1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
>>> support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
>>
>> I don't understand this point - how is consumption a marker for what
>> you
>> get from society? I can sorta kinda see how income might be, although
>> I
>> don't necessarily agree I can sorta see the point, but if I buy
>> something
>> from you aren't I already paying you for what I bought? Why does
>> society
>> as a whole deserve a cut of that?
>
> The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
> fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
> shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
> It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
> society that I am the last link in the chain.
Next time I write a piece of software I want to see how many lines
"society" wrote. And I want to see welfare recipients going down the
mine shaft or fabricating parts, not lies.
GIGO!
sheldonlg
Not quite. First of all, if they came here and already had say, two
children, and then had one more that would give them money for one but
there are five in the family and that money wouldn't stretch. Also,
most who have children here try to hide from the authorities because of
their own status and so would be hesitant to file for their children to
get money.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
> In<j311a0$saa$1...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>> The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
>> fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
>> shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
>> It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
>> society that I am the last link in the chain.
>
> True, but isn't all of that already reflected in the price?
Yes, so? My point was that it is not just you and me. You are getting
something from society in general when you buy something from me. It
was in answer to your question that you snipped of "why society"?
>
>> Income is not what you get from society. It is the stuff by which you
>> can then get things from the society. Try eating a hundred dollar bill.
>> It is only when you spend that hundred dollar bill for goods or
>> services that you are actually getting something from society.
>
> I agree that actual value is only realized at the point of consumption -
> the wealth of an apple is in the eating. But what am I getting when I buy
> an option? Or a designer handbag?
An option? Nothing. That is a financial transaction and not a purchase
of goods or services. Designer handbag? Well, the designer handbag, of
course.
>
>>> So you're going to write a check every year to Warren Buffett?
>
>> Yes. To EVERY citizen regardless of income. That way no one has to
>> hide any income and you get it because you are a citizen. Someone like
>> Buffet could refuse to accept the check, but it would be there for him.
>> That is the only fair way.
>
> So if I have 10 children I can get 11 checks, but if you have no children
> you'd only get 1? NYC is much more expensive than, say, Ames, IA - should
> New Yorkers get bigger checks?
There could be adjustments. As I said, I am putting forth an idea, not
a complete, finalized, proposal. As for the number of children, lets
play with some numbers (just for argument sake, not actual estimates)
Each adult $3,000 so you and your wife get $6,000
First child $2,000
Second child $1,000
Third child $500
Fourth child and thereafter $250.
That would stem the "breed to get payments" aspect.
As for location, I hadn't thought of that. You could make it tied to
the cost of living based upon your legal residence.
>
>> The numbers are such that you will be able at the very least to buy the
>> ingredients for the salad to have at home. You could also make certain
>> categories exempt such as produce and meat and dairy and other basic
>> food items not in a restaurant. I don't pretend to have all the
>> answers. What I outline here is an approach. When I first thought of
>> this and worked out the numbers, it was in the mid-1960s, and the
>> numbers came to about 50% for the tax on everything except food in the
>> grocery store. I don't know what they would be today.
>
> It's actually an interesting idea, I'll give you that. Not sure that it's
> really practical, though, let alone economically a good idea. I'd need to
> think on it further.
Tell us the results of your pondering.
--
Shelly
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
> Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
> the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
> for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
> deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
> the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
>
>
> So it got us wondering: What do rich Jews think of Buffett’s analysis
> and his proposed solution?
>
> Full story:
>
> http://forward.com/articles/141555/
>
> Jay
Warren Buffet has sided with the democrats, often supported democrat
(leftwing) candidates as well.
But like many other leftwing wealthy (ie George Soros among many
others), he does not earn income. Rather he has capital gains on his
investments and such. In fact many wealthy leftwingers (progressives
rather than labor democrats) have their wealth tied up in trust funds
or tax free foundations.
Thus the income tax is really a tax against being successful. That
does punish many Jews. Even many academics are now making over
$100,000 thus in the top 10%. Do we want to punish being successful?
Or reward being a loser? Do we baby those who will not try? And how
much does that hold us back when we compete against China or India?
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
If we punish those who are successful and baby those who are the
losers, are we not then increasing the carbon footprint? After all
those who are successful tend to not consume but rather invest. While
those who are losers tend to consume plus they pay little in taxes.
The Romans did this. Very few were productive (ie the Senators) while
most citizens were on the rolls of the Roman welfare. Slaves did all
the work. Is this where we want to go?
And remember that the "wealthy or rich" tend to not earn income thus
no income taxes. Rather they live off of investments (ie Buffet or
Soros). Easy then to be a progressive democrat as nothing we do in
terms of income taxes truly effects them.
Do Jews really want to be punished for being successful? Do we want a
system that discourages you from being productive? That encourages a
lack of self discipline?
Susan S
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>:
>The original quote:
>>Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>>Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>>the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>>for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>>deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
>>the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
>
>Probably it came with sufficient context and what readers don't know
>is that Buffet doesn't have a private office. He has a desk in the
>same office/room with 20 other people, all of whom make far less than
>he does, most, like secretaries, far less. Yet he pays a lower rate
>than they do.
>
>HIs objection is that he and other rich people; pay a lower rate than
>do lower earning people do.
>
>More below.
>
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:46:08 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
><s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <bb5bd1f6-112f-4c0f...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com> Malcolm McLean <malcolm...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>On Aug 22, 9:32=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to write a
>>>> check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me, why won't the
>>>> government take more of my money." Put your money where your mouths are,
>>>> folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
>>>>
>>>I think airline fuel should be taxed. On the other hand, I'm not going
>>>to write a cheque to the government every time I fly.
>>
>>The difference is by calling for (more) taxes on airline fuel, you're
>>asking that other people be taxed. Buffett is explicitly asking that he
>>himself be taxed. He's flat-out saying "I, Warren Buffett, don't pay
>>enough taxes - you should tax me more."
>
>No. He's saying you should tax me and others who make a lot of money
>more. He's saying you should have an actual graduated income tax,
>where higher earning people pay a higher rate on the amount they earn
>more than lower earning people. And at the very least you shouldn't
>tax them less.
>
>>What Golub is saying, and I agree,
>>is if you truly feel that way, Warren, then write a check.
>
>That would get more money out of one person, not hundreds of
>thouseands, maybe millions of people. . Golub doesn't understand
>either, I guess.
>
>>OTOH, it seems
>>more like this is a ploy, and what Buffett is really saying is that other
>>people should be taxed more.
>
>Yes, other rich people and himself. What a ploy that is.
>
>Someone reply to this so STeve will see the mistake he made.
There are also some glaring loopholes in corporate tax law. Here are
some highlights.
Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid
no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from
the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last
year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout
from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1
trillion.
Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no
federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the
Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11
billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years
was just 1.1 percent.
Susan Silberstein
Abe Kohen
"Susan S" <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:891857h16ht7bg6ni...@4ax.com...
There are also some glaring loopholes in corporate tax law. Here are
some highlights.
Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid
no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from
the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last
year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout
from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1
trillion.
Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no
federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the
Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11
billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years
was just 1.1 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely correct about loopholes. But corporate taxes are a whole
separate bailiwicks from individual income tax.
Who is responsible for the coroprate tax complexity? Congress. Democrats
and Republicans. Lobbyists. Special deals.
Hope they do fix it by simplying the code. Fat chance, unfortunately.
Keeps tax lawyers and accountants employed.
Best,
Abe
Haifa, Israel
mm
<s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <j2vvon$4tu$1...@harrier.steinthal.us> "Abe Kohen" <abek...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>He takes a modest salary. His wealth is mostly unrealized capital gains
>>on Berkshire stock.
Let's not get off the topic. Wealth and unrealized capital gains have
nothing to do with his income or the income tax he pays. No one pays
income tax on unrealized capital gains and he's not suggesting anyone
should.
But what is a modest salary for the CEO of a diversified
multi-billion dollar company like Berkshire Hathaway is not so modest
for most people. And add to that his divident income from Cocal Cola
(which he owns 7% of) and Saloman, Inc. and everything else he owns,
he makes a lot of money. If he doesn't spend it, if he reinvests it,
it's still income, as it would be for anyone in the US.
> His RATE may be lower than his secretaries, but his
>>AMOUNT is HIGHER.
Well that makes it all right then, huh? So you'd be okay with
people paying 1% on a million dollar income ($10,000) since that's
more taxes than someone who pays 30% tax on $30,000 income ($9000),
sine "his AMOUNT is HIGHER". The rate doesn't matter, only the
amount, you feel?
>>Clearly HIS capital gains should be taxed as ordinary
>>income. Then HE can pay a large amount in TAXES.
There's no mention of capital gains in the article. But are you
saying everyone's unrealized capital gainst should be taxed?.
>
>>In a lot of investment houses/ hedge funds it is customary for the boss
>>to sit with all his underlings in an open space.
>
>Right. He pays almost $7 million per year in taxes, which is a good chunk
>of change I suppose.
Sure it's a lot of money, for you and me. Does it matter how much his
income was, and the rate he paid, or is all that matters the total
amount?
Are you really satisfied that he and people like him pay 17.4% income
tax, but you pay closer to 30%??
Meir
This last paragrapht is unrelated to the OPost.
Arthur Kamlet
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>He takes a modest salary. His wealth is mostly unrealized capital gains
>>>on Berkshire stock.
>
>Let's not get off the topic. Wealth and unrealized capital gains have
>nothing to do with his income or the income tax he pays. No one pays
>income tax on unrealized capital gains and he's not suggesting anyone
>should.
Buffet, as can be seen in Berkshire Hathaway's 10-K's filed with the SEC
and sent to all shareholders, also receives lots of stock options, known
as Incentive Stock Options (ISOs.)
For purposes of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the diference between
the fair market value on the date he chooses to exercise those ISOs
to acquire stock is taxable AMT income, and duly reported on his Form
6251 as such.
That allows his so-called unrecognized capital gain income to be taxed
for AMT purposes.
As Buffet tends to donate his shares rather than actually sell them, his
income might well be low enough so he actually pays AMT. If so, he
becomes entitled to a future AMT Credit based on his ISO exercise.
If Susan S is reading I am sure she understands and agrees with this.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Abe Kohen
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u12a57191cg0m8kpo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:27:31 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In <j2vvon$4tu$1...@harrier.steinthal.us> "Abe Kohen"
>><abek...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>He takes a modest salary. His wealth is mostly unrealized capital
>>>gains
>>>on Berkshire stock.
>
> Let's not get off the topic. Wealth and unrealized capital gains have
> nothing to do with his income or the income tax he pays. No one pays
> income tax on unrealized capital gains and he's not suggesting anyone
> should.
Just because you don't understand does not make it off topic. See Art
Kamlet's followup.
>
> But what is a modest salary for the CEO of a diversified
> multi-billion dollar company like Berkshire Hathaway is not so modest
> for most people. And add to that his divident income from Cocal Cola
> (which he owns 7% of)
Does he personally own KO, or does BRK own KO.
> and Saloman, Inc. and everything else he owns,
Salomon ??? The entity no longer exists. Wake up and smell the roses.
Again, does he own "everything else" or does Berkshire Hathaway own it?
> he makes a lot of money. If he doesn't spend it, if he reinvests it,
> it's still income, as it would be for anyone in the US.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
>
>> His RATE may be lower than his secretaries, but his
>>>AMOUNT is HIGHER.
>
> Well that makes it all right then, huh? So you'd be okay with
> people paying 1% on a million dollar income ($10,000) since that's
> more taxes than someone who pays 30% tax on $30,000 income ($9000),
> sine "his AMOUNT is HIGHER". The rate doesn't matter, only the
> amount, you feel?
No one pays 30% on 30K. Get real. Get educated first before blabbering.
>
>>>Clearly HIS capital gains should be taxed as ordinary
>>>income. Then HE can pay a large amount in TAXES.
>
> There's no mention of capital gains in the article. But are you
> saying everyone's unrealized capital gainst should be taxed?.
This is way out of your league. Read what I wrote, not what you want it
to mean. At some point he will realize the gains. At that point it is
taxed AT A MUCH LOWER RATE, you care about RATES, don't you?, THAN
ORDINARY INCOME. Less than his secretaries' rates. But Buffet doesn't
mention that? Why not? Because like Soros, he believes that he deserves
a break. (See Soros closing his hedge fund and operating a family
office. Don't worry if you don't understand. It's par for the course for
you.)
>>
>>>In a lot of investment houses/ hedge funds it is customary for the
>>>boss
>>>to sit with all his underlings in an open space.
>>
>>Right. He pays almost $7 million per year in taxes, which is a good
>>chunk
>>of change I suppose.
>
> Sure it's a lot of money, for you and me. Does it matter how much his
> income was, and the rate he paid, or is all that matters the total
> amount?
>
> Are you really satisfied that he and people like him pay 17.4% income
> tax, but you pay closer to 30%??
You have no clue what my pay is taxed at. And 17.4% of a large number is
not just $1000 more than 30% of 30K in your st*pid example.
>
> Meir
>
>
>
> This last paragrapht is unrelated to the OPost.
Only in midget minds is it unrelated.
>
>>Also, I would support changing the rules for how hedge fund earnings
>>get
>>taxed - IMHO the way they do it doesn't seem right, since the fund
>>manager
>>isn't really risking any of the capital, so his profits should IMO all
>>be
>>taxed as ordinary income not as a capital gain.
Steve knows what he's talking about. We might not agree, but he
understands. You need to go back and educate yourself first.
Abe
Susan S
Chanoch" <omeg...@gmail.com>:
>On Aug 22, 2:17 pm, JJ <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>> Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>> the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>> for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>> deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
>> the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> So it got us wondering: What do rich Jews think of Buffett’s analysis
>> and his proposed solution?
>>
>> Full story:
>>
>> http://forward.com/articles/141555/
>>
>> Jay
>
>Warren Buffet has sided with the democrats, often supported democrat
>(leftwing) candidates as well.
>
>But like many other leftwing wealthy (ie George Soros among many
>others), he does not earn income. Rather he has capital gains on his
>investments and such. In fact many wealthy leftwingers (progressives
>rather than labor democrats) have their wealth tied up in trust funds
>or tax free foundations.
>
Unlike rich conservatives? Where do they keep their money?
[snip]
Susan Silberstein
Yisroel Markov
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> said:
>The original quote:
>>Warren Buffett is one interesting character. Ranked second on the
>>Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, Buffett has boldly entered
>>the political fray by asking, nay demanding, that Congress raise taxes
>>for him and his mega-rich friends to help close the federal budget
>>deficit. At a mere 17.4%, Buffett’s tax rate last year was well below
>>the percentage paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
>
>Probably it came with sufficient context and what readers don't know
>is that Buffet doesn't have a private office. He has a desk in the
>same office/room with 20 other people, all of whom make far less than
>he does, most, like secretaries, far less. Yet he pays a lower rate
>than they do.
>
>HIs objection is that he and other rich people; pay a lower rate than
>do lower earning people do.
>
>More below.
>
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:46:08 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
><s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <bb5bd1f6-112f-4c0f...@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com> Malcolm McLean <malcolm...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>On Aug 22, 9:32=A0pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Basically, if Buffett thinks he's under-taxed, then he's free to write a
>>>> check. As are all of the other rich folk crying "woe is me, why won't the
>>>> government take more of my money." Put your money where your mouths are,
>>>> folks - make your checks out to "US Treasury."
>>>>
>>>I think airline fuel should be taxed. On the other hand, I'm not going
>>>to write a cheque to the government every time I fly.
>>
>>The difference is by calling for (more) taxes on airline fuel, you're
>>asking that other people be taxed. Buffett is explicitly asking that he
>>himself be taxed. He's flat-out saying "I, Warren Buffett, don't pay
>>enough taxes - you should tax me more."
>
>No. He's saying you should tax me and others who make a lot of money
>more. He's saying you should have an actual graduated income tax,
>where higher earning people pay a higher rate on the amount they earn
>more than lower earning people. And at the very least you shouldn't
>tax them less.
Are you unaware that the US federal income tax *is* graduated?
The deal with Buffett is that his income is mostly long-term capital
gains, which (unlike wages, salaries, or business income) is taxed at
preferential rates, currently capped at 15%. This is a deliberate
feature of US tax policy, designed to encourage investment over
consumption (and also to offset the fact that part of any long-term
capital gain is due to inflation rather than real appreciation). You
got a problem with that?
There are other tax preferences. My federal income tax rate in 2010
was only 1.27% thanks primarily to the child credits. Without them,
it'd still be under 6% although I'd guess that my household earns a
bit more than Buffett's secretary. Let her marry and her and her
husband's combined rate will drop; let them procreate and it will drop
still further. You got a problem with that?
>>What Golub is saying, and I agree,
>>is if you truly feel that way, Warren, then write a check.
Buffett prefers to spend his money for tax-deductible charitable
purposes, in reasonable belief that his private foundation will
achieve those purposes with much higher efficiency than any
governmental effort. I have to point out, again, that the Jewish ideal
is to encourage wealthy individuals to do such good works rather than
finance government activities.
>That would get more money out of one person, not hundreds of
>thouseands, maybe millions of people. . Golub doesn't understand
>either, I guess.
There's about a million millionaires in the USA, defined as people
whose net worth exceeds $1 million. The number of people who make a
million/year or more is much smaller.
"People and households earning $1 million or more annually made up
just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns
filed in 2009, and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10
million or more."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60717.html
>>OTOH, it seems
>>more like this is a ploy, and what Buffett is really saying is that other
>>people should be taxed more.
>
>Yes, other rich people and himself. What a ploy that is.
>
>Someone reply to this so STeve will see the mistake he made.
Steve made no mistake that I can see.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Yisroel Markov
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>On 8/23/2011 2:37 PM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> In<j30l0p$260$1...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>
>>> You missed the essence of my entire argument.
>>
>>> 1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
>>> support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
>>
>> I don't understand this point - how is consumption a marker for what you
>> get from society? I can sorta kinda see how income might be, although I
>> don't necessarily agree I can sorta see the point, but if I buy something
>> from you aren't I already paying you for what I bought? Why does society
>> as a whole deserve a cut of that?
>
>The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
>fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
>shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
>It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
>society that I am the last link in the chain.
>
>Income is not what you get from society. It is the stuff by which you
>can then get things from the society. Try eating a hundred dollar bill.
I don't think you understand money.
[snip]
>The numbers are such that you will be able at the very least to buy the
>ingredients for the salad to have at home. You could also make certain
>categories exempt such as produce and meat and dairy and other basic
>food items not in a restaurant. I don't pretend to have all the
>answers. What I outline here is an approach. When I first thought of
>this and worked out the numbers, it was in the mid-1960s, and the
>numbers came to about 50% for the tax on everything except food in the
>grocery store. I don't know what they would be today.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
They say that 23% would work.
sheldonlg
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:20:48 +0000 (UTC), sheldonlg
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 8/23/2011 2:37 PM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>>> In<j30l0p$260$1...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> You missed the essence of my entire argument.
>>>
>>>> 1 - It is taxing what you GET from society, not upon your ability to
>>>> support that society. That is fairer, IMO.
>>>
>>> I don't understand this point - how is consumption a marker for what you
>>> get from society? I can sorta kinda see how income might be, although I
>>> don't necessarily agree I can sorta see the point, but if I buy something
>>> from you aren't I already paying you for what I bought? Why does society
>>> as a whole deserve a cut of that?
>>
>> The society as a whole provided the mining/growing of materials, the
>> fabrication of parts, the assembly into units, the packaging, the
>> shipping, the record keeping all along the way, and finally the sales.
>> It isn't just you buying from me. You are buying a product of our
>> society that I am the last link in the chain.
>>
>> Income is not what you get from society. It is the stuff by which you
>> can then get things from the society. Try eating a hundred dollar bill.
>
> I don't think you understand money.
Are you trying to be funny? My point was clear. Income is money.
Until it is used for something, it is just paper. (OK, until it is used
for something it does mean security.). But to the point at hand is that
it is not something you are deriving from society. It is the goods and
services which it buys which represent what you are getting from
society. That was the point of "eating a hundred dollar bill".
>
> [snip]
>
>> The numbers are such that you will be able at the very least to buy the
>> ingredients for the salad to have at home. You could also make certain
>> categories exempt such as produce and meat and dairy and other basic
>> food items not in a restaurant. I don't pretend to have all the
>> answers. What I outline here is an approach. When I first thought of
>> this and worked out the numbers, it was in the mid-1960s, and the
>> numbers came to about 50% for the tax on everything except food in the
>> grocery store. I don't know what they would be today.
>
> http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
>
> They say that 23% would work.
I couldn't find the details about the prebate. Otherwise, it is close
to what I said.
--
Shelly
Steve Goldfarb
>>>What Golub is saying, and I agree,=20
>>>is if you truly feel that way, Warren, then write a check.=20
>Buffett prefers to spend his money for tax-deductible charitable
>purposes, in reasonable belief that his private foundation will
>achieve those purposes with much higher efficiency than any
>governmental effort. I have to point out, again, that the Jewish ideal
>is to encourage wealthy individuals to do such good works rather than
>finance government activities.
The above was my comment that you responded to. I agree with you that it's
preferable for the wealthy to decide for themselves where they want to put
their charity. But Buffett is being two-faced here, by asserting for
himself the right to give charity however he likes, while simultaneously
begging the government to stop him from doing so. As I said if he really
believes the government can spend money more effectively than he can, then
he's the worst sort of hypocrite for insisting on spending it how he
himself pleases, and instead he should be writing a nice big check to the
government. And if he doesn't believe the government can do it better,
then what's he talking about?
>Steve made no mistake that I can see.
Thanks :-) I'm sure I've made some, but maybe not here...
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>Are you trying to be funny? My point was clear. Income is money.
>Until it is used for something, it is just paper. (OK, until it is used
>for something it does mean security.). But to the point at hand is that
>it is not something you are deriving from society. It is the goods and
>services which it buys which represent what you are getting from
>society. That was the point of "eating a hundred dollar bill".
So if you give Joe and Sam each $1, and Joe uses his money to buy
something from the dollar menu, while Sam buys a pack of apple seeds which
he plants, and then nurtures into full-grown trees over the course of
years, and then harvests bushels of apples, who's derived more benefit
from society? Should they each pay 50 cents in taxes? (half of that
original $1)? I don't get how you're making the calculation. Or even how I
would go about figuring out how to answer that question.
--s
--